Ambio

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 578–587 | Cite as

Riparian rehabilitation planning in an urban–rural gradient: Integrating social needs and ecological conditions

Report
  • 283 Downloads

Abstract

In the present context of global change and search for sustainability, we detected a gap between restoration and society: local communities are usually only considered as threats or disturbances when planning for restoration. To bridge this gap, we propose a landscape design framework for planning riparian rehabilitation in an urban–rural gradient. A spatial multi-criteria analysis was used to assess the priority of riversides by considering two rehabilitation objectives simultaneously—socio-environmental and ecological—and two sets of criteria were designed according to these objectives. The assessment made it possible to identify 17 priority sites for riparian rehabilitation that were associated with different conditions along the gradient. The double goal setting enabled a dual consideration of citizens, both as beneficiaries and potential impacts to rehabilitation, and the criteria selected incorporated the multi-dimensional nature of the environment. This approach can potentially be adapted and implemented in any other anthropic–natural interface throughout the world.

Keywords

Argentina GIS Matanza-Riachuelo watershed Priority sites Restoration beneficiaries Spatial multi-criteria analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Agency for Science and Technology of Argentina (PICT-2009-0125 and PME grants to GZ and PFDT scholarship granted to BGJ at the National University of Lomas de Zamora). The authors would also like to thank the Maimónides University for financial and logistic support. The authors gratefully thank Valter Amaral, Pedro Laterra, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which helped to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. ACUMAR. 2010. Plan integral de saneamiento ambiental de la cuenca Matanza-Riachuelo. Actualización. Buenos Aires: ACUMAR.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc’h, C. Ovalle, and R. Pontanier. 1993. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and semi-arid lands. I. A view from the South. Restoration Ecology 1: 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bay, R.F., and A.A. Sher. 2008. Success of active revegetation after Tamarix removal in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern United States: A quantitative assessment of past restoration projects. Restoration Ecology 16: 113–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00359.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brabec, E., S. Schulte, and P.L. Richards. 2002. Impervious surfaces and water quality: A review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. Journal of Planning Literature 16: 499–514. doi: 10.1177/088541202400903563.Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, A.D. 1996. Underlying principles of restoration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 3–9. doi: 10.1139/f95-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan, B.A., and N.D. Crossman. 2008. Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 88: 1175–1189. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant, M.M. 2006. Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitan scales. Landscape and Urban Planning 76: 23–44. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cochero, J., A. Cortelezzi, A.S. Tarda, and N. Gómez. 2016. An index to evaluate the fluvial habitat degradation in lowland urban streams. Ecological Indicators 71: 134–144. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diefenderfer, H.L., K.L. Sobocinski, R.M. Thom, C.W. May, A.B. Borde, S.L. Southard, J. Vavrinec, and N.K. Sather. 2009. Multiscale analysis of restoration priorities for marine shoreline planning. Environmental Management 44: 712–731. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9298-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dirección General de Estadística y Censos. 2014. Cartografía del Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2010. ELEC. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from http://www.estadisticaciudad.gob.ar/eyc/?page_id=827.
  11. Dirección Provincial de Estadística. 2014. Cartografía digital del Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2010 de la provincia de Buenos Aires. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from http://www.estadistica.ec.gba.gov.ar/dpe/Estadistica/censo2010/cartografia.html.
  12. Ghersa, C.M., E. de la Fuente, S. Suárez, and R.J.C. León. 2002. Woody species invasion in the Rolling Pampa grasslands, Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 88: 271–278. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00209-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giles-Corti, B., and R.J. Donovan. 2002. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science and Medicine 54: 1793–1812. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00150-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gkaraveli, A., J.E.G. Good, and J.H. Williams. 2004. Determining priority areas for native woodland expansion and restoration in Snowdonia National Park, Wales. Biological Conservation 115: 395–402. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00155-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory, K.J. 2006. The human role in changing river channels. Geomorphology 79: 172–191. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Groffman, P.M., D.J. Bain, L.E. Band, K.T. Belt, G.S. Brush, J.M. Grove, R.V. Pouyat, I.C. Yesilonis, et al. 2003. Down by the riverside: Urban riparian ecology. Frontiers on Ecology and Environment 1: 315–321. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0315:DBTRUR]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guida Johnson, B., A. Faggi, A. Voigt, J. Schnellinger, and J. Breuste. 2015. Environmental perception among residents of a polluted watershed in Buenos Aires. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 141: A5014002. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hahs, A.K., and M.J. McDonnell. 2006. Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne’s urban–rural gradient. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 435–448. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hajkowicz, S., and K. Collins. 2007. A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resources Management 21: 1553–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang, I.B., J. Keisler, and I. Linkov. 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment 409: 3578–3594. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ignatieva, M., G.H. Stewart, and C. Meurk. 2011. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 7: 17–25. doi: 10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. INDEC. 2010. Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas. Buenos Aires: INDEC.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, B., T. Pagella, F. Sinclair, B. Orellana, A. Henshawd, B. Reynolds, N. Mcintyre, H. Wheater, et al. 2013. Polyscape: A GIS mapping framework providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 112: 74–88. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lafflitto, C.M., G.A. Zuleta, D. Schell, and B. Guida Johnson. 2011. Land use at the watershed scale: Restrictive factors or opportunities for environmental rehabilitation? Case study in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In 4th world conference on ecological restoration, Mérida.Google Scholar
  25. Leggieri, L.R. 2010. Invasión de Gleditsia triacanthos en los corredores de los sistemas fluviales de la Pampa Ondulada y su efecto sobre la distribución de Myocastor coypus. Ecologia Austral 20: 201–208.Google Scholar
  26. Llewellyn, D.W., G.P. Shaffer, N. Craig, L. Creasman, D. Pashley, M. Swan, and C. Brownt. 1996. A decision-support system for prioritizing restoration sites on the Mississippi River alluvial plain. Conservation Biology 10: 1446–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lowe, W.H., and G.E. Likens. 2005. Moving headwater streams to the head of the class. BioScience 55: 196–197. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0196:MHSTTH]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meixler, M.S., and M.B. Bain. 2010. Landscape scale assessment of stream channel and riparian habitat restoration needs. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 6: 235–245. doi: 10.1007/s11355-010-0103-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, J., D. Chanasyk, T. Curtis, T. Entz, and W. Willms. 2010. Influence of streambank fencing with a cattle crossing on riparian health and water quality of the Lower Little Bow River in Southern Alberta, Canada. Agricultural Water Management 97: 247–258. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, J.R., and R.J. Hobbs. 2007. Habitat restoration—Do we know what we’re doing? Restoration Ecology 15: 382–390. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00234.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nápoli, A.M. 2009. Una política de estado para el Riachuelo. In Informe ambiental anual 2009, ed. M.E. Di Paola, F. Sangalli, and S. Caorsi, 175–233. Buenos Aires: Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.Google Scholar
  32. Nogués, S., and N. Arroyo. 2016. Alternative approach to prioritization of brownfield reclamation attending to urban development potentialities: Case study in a depressed industrial district in northern Spain. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 142: 5015002. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orsi, F., and D. Geneletti. 2010. Identifying priority areas for forest landscape restoration in Chiapas (Mexico): An operational approach combining ecological and socioeconomic criteria. Landscape and Urban Planning 94: 20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orsi, F., D. Geneletti, and A.C. Newton. 2011. Towards a common set of criteria and indicators to identify forest restoration priorities: An expert panel-based approach. Ecological Indicators 11: 337–347. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Özgüner, H., Ş. Eraslan, and S. Yilmaz. 2012. Public perception of landscape restoration along a degraded urban streamside. Land Degradation and Development 23: 24–33. doi: 10.1002/ldr.1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer, M., J.D. Allan, J. Meyer, and E.S. Bernhardt. 2007. River restoration in the twenty-first century: Data and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restoration Ecology 15: 472–481. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00243.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peacock, B.C., D. Hikuroa, T. Kipa, and K. Brian. 2012. Watershed-scale prioritization of habitat restoration sites for non-point source pollution management. Ecological Engineering 42: 174–182. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pereyra, F.X. 2004. Geología urbana del área metropolitana bonaerense y su influencia en la problemática ambiental. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina 59: 394–410.Google Scholar
  39. Pieterse, N.M., A.W.M. Verkroost, M. Wassen, H.O. Venterink, and C. Kwakernaak. 2002. A decision support system for restoration planning of stream valley ecosystems. Landscape Ecology 17: 69–81. doi: 10.1023/A:1015233811203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Purcell, A.H., J.D. Corbin, and K.E. Hans. 2007. Urban riparian restoration: An outdoor classroom for college and high school students collaborating in conservation. Madroño 54: 258–267. doi: 10.3120/0024-9637(2007)54[258:URRAOC]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reyes Päcke, S., and I.M. Figueroa Aldunce. 2010. Distribución, superficie y accesibilidad de las áreas verdes en Santiago de Chile. EURE 36: 89–110. doi: 10.4067/S0250-71612010000300004.Google Scholar
  42. Rohde, S., M. Schütz, F. Kienast, and P. Englmaier. 2005. River widening: An approach to restoring riparian habitats and plant species. River Research and Applications 21: 1075–1094. doi: 10.1002/rra.870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rohde, S., M. Hostmann, A. Peter, and K.C. Ewald. 2006. Room for rivers: An integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 50–70. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosso, J.J., and A. Fernández Cirelli. 2013. Effects of land use on environmental conditions and macrophytes in prairie lotic ecosystems. Limnologica 43: 18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2012.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russell, G.D., C.P. Hawkins, and M.P. O’Neill. 1997. The role of GIS in selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and land use. Restoration Ecology 5: 56–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.1997.00056.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, et al. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5459.1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. SER. 2004. The SER international primer on ecological restoration. Washington, DC: SER.Google Scholar
  48. Strager, M.P., J.T. Anderson, J.D. Osbourne, and R. Fortney. 2011. A three-tiered framework to select, prioritize, and evaluate potential wetland and stream mitigation banking sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management 19: 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11273-010-9194-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thom, R.M., E. Haas, N.R. Evans, and G.D. Williams. 2011. Lower Columbia River and estuary habitat restoration prioritization framework. Ecological Restoration 29: 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18–30. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Viglizzo, E.F., F. Lértora, A.J. Pordomingo, J.N. Bernardos, Z.E. Roberto, and H. Del Valle. 2001. Ecological lessons and applications from one century of low external-input farming in the pampas of Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 83: 65–81. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00155-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Voigt, A., N. Kabisch, D. Wurster, D. Haase, and J. Breuste. 2014. Structural diversity: A multi-dimensional approach to assess recreational services in urban parks. Ambio 43: 480–491. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0508-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. White, D., and S. Fennessy. 2005. Modeling the suitability of wetland restoration potential at the watershed scale. Ecological Engineering 24: 359–377. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Woolsey, S., F. Capelli, T. Gonser, E. Hoehn, M. Hostmann, B. Junker, A. Paetzold, C. Roulier, et al. 2007. A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshwater Biology 52: 752–769. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01740.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuleta, G., A.E. Rovere, D. Pérez, P.I. Campanello, B. Guida Johnson, C. Escartín, A. Dalmasso, D. Renison, et al. 2015. Establishing the ecological restoration network in Argentina: From Rio 1992 to SIACRE2015. Restoration Ecology 23: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zuleta, G.A., B. Guida Johnson, C.M. Lafflitto, A.M. Faggi, A.A. DeMagistris, P. Tchilinguirian, M. Weissel, and A.G. Zarrilli. 2012. Rehabilitación de ambientes perdidos en megaciudades: el caso de la cuenca Matanza-Riachuelo. In Buenos Aires, la historia de su paisaje natural, ed. J. Athor, 445–459. Buenos Aires: Fundación de Historia Natural Félix de Azara.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas (IADIZA)Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Gobierno de Mendoza, CONICETMendozaArgentina
  2. 2.Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y NaturalesUniversidad Nacional de CuyoMendozaArgentina
  3. 3.Departamento de Ecología y Ciencias Ambientales, CEBBADUniversidad MaimónidesBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations