SUSE 6
29 May – 1 June 2023
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
-On the unceded lands of the Turrbul and Yagara people-
SUSE6 Workshops
Workshops at SUSE6 are an opportunity to explore a topic in depth. We have two 1.5-hour workshop sessions built into the program, during which attendees can work through a topic with a small group. Workshops at past SUSE meetings have resulted in significant advances in our understanding of the urban stream syndrome and how it can be managed, and have led to a number of influential journal articles.
We have ten diverse and interesting workshops for attendees to undertake. Some workshops will target an output such as a collaborative journal article or report (e.g. position paper, options paper), while others may target knowledge and skills development among participants.
Attendees will be asked to select a workshop preference upon registration, and each workshop will be capped at 15 participants. Information on the variety of workshops on offer is available below.
We have ten diverse and interesting workshops for attendees to undertake. Some workshops will target an output such as a collaborative journal article or report (e.g. position paper, options paper), while others may target knowledge and skills development among participants.
Attendees will be asked to select a workshop preference upon registration, and each workshop will be capped at 15 participants. Information on the variety of workshops on offer is available below.
Workshop 1
Are current urban stormwater management guidelines suitable for managing
micropollutants?
Workshop Lead: Dr Claudette Kellar
Theme: Water pollution
The urbanisation of cities has increased the impervious proportion of catchments and increased the volume of stormwater and pollutants that reach waterways. Urban stormwater management guidelines typically provide objectives for flow related regulation, the quality of the incoming flows and advice around stormwater treatment measures. The types of pollutants that have been considered include total suspended solids, nutrients and litter and reduction targets have been set based on monitoring data and modelling. While there is a greater understanding of how these pollutants affect waterway values (i.e. birds, fish, frogs, macroinvertebrates, platypus, vegetation, amenity) there is currently no reduction targets for other pollutants including heavy metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and microplastics.
Currently there is a greater understanding of the sources of micropollutants into stormwater runoff and the concentrations that are likely to impact on ecological values of the waterways but this information has not been incorporated into stormwater guidelines.
This workshop aims to understand if the current stormwater guidelines are suitable for managing micropollutants including microplastics in stormwater runoff. Specifically, it addresses:
Expected outputs/outcomes:
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 2
Inspire Change through Effective Communication with Non-Scientific Audiences
Workshop Lead: Ms Stephanie Ambrosia
Theme: Social science and community engagement
Do you wish to inspire stewardship for the river systems you care so much about? Would you like to learn how to craft a powerful message? This workshop will provide a few simple tools from the field of heritage interpretation that can be of great benefit to those in the scientific community who wish to inspire others to appreciate and care for our urban streams.
If you're wondering "what is heritage interpretation?" then you might like to know that heritage interpreters connect all sorts of audiences to important natural, cultural, and historical resources at parks, nature centers, historical sites, aquariums, zoos, and anywhere that people come to learn about the world around them. Interpretation Australia, the peak body for heritage interpretation in Australia, believes that "interpretation enriches our lives through engaging emotions, enhancing experiences and deepening the understanding of places, people, events and objects from the past and present. Interpretation communicates ideas, information and knowledge in a way which helps people to make sense of their environment."
Who should attend: Scientific professionals who want to gain communication techniques for engaging with audiences (beyond policy makers) to inspire action or behaviour change. This workshop would benefit individuals who present to audiences at partner organisations, philanthropic donors, children, volunteers, the general public, or even to audiences at science museums and similar places.
Purpose of workshop: Participants will craft a thematic message to communicate scientific ideas. They will also learn a few presentation development and delivery techniques.
Presenter: Stephanie Ambrosia is a natural resource interpreter and interpretive trainer who facilitates meaningful experiences in nature for a variety of site visitors. She has been an educator for 13 years. Currently she works in state government managing visitor services at an urban fish hatchery.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Participants will craft a thematic message to communicate scientific ideas; they will also learn a few presentation development and delivery techniques. This will be a supportive peer-learning environment so participants should expect to share their work with others.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 3
Restoring Wood in Urban Streams – From overcoming misperceptions to best practices
for project/program success
Workshop Lead: Dr Robert Hawley
Theme: Stream restoration
There is a growing consensus that in-stream wood provides many ecological and societal services. However, restoring in-stream wood is not as simple as adding logs in streams that presently lack wood. Without adequate planning and stakeholder engagement, individual efforts that attempt to restore in-stream wood can be counterproductive to the broader goal of restoring more natural wood abundances in streams. For example, poorly anchored wood in a restoration reach could float downstream resulting in both real and perceived problems with stakeholders. Particularly in urban streams, mobilized wood is often caught by culverts and bridges, which can create flooding and erosion risks to urban infrastructure and adjacent properties, as well as maintenance burdens to infrastructure staff and property owners. Large log jams in recreational rivers can create safety risks to boaters and even deaths. Similar to other urban stream restoration efforts, programs aimed at restoring in-stream wood must engage communities to find optimal wood-restoration strategies for their streams and communities.
This workshop will synthesize the benefits of in-stream wood, common stakeholder perceptions, risks of in-stream wood restoration in urban areas, and best practices to overcoming those risks. The workshop will cover both equipment-placed wood and hand-placed wood techniques, along with other components of successful wood-restoration programs (e.g., riparian reforestation). For example, wood burial, ramping, placement in jams and other anchoring strategies all tend to reduce floating risks. Additionally, forested riparian zones and reaches with existing in-stream wood appear to increase the probability of trapping wood loads from upstream, reducing downstream transport risks. Across hydroclimatic and societal settings, this workshop aims to synthesize the experiences and goals of participants along with support from the scientific literature into a journal article that could serve as a launching point for stream managers, community groups, and others interested in restoring in-stream wood in urban streams.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Journal article
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 4
Setting urban streamflow targets: Quantification and application
Workshop Lead: Dr Geoff Vietz
Theme: Catchment stressors
Excess stormwater runoff is recognised as the dominant driver of waterway degradation in urban catchments. This has been widely acknowledged, yet we don't have robust targets for streamflow reductions to reduce this impact. Analogous to environmental flows for rural streams, there is an urgent need for flow targets that can be linked to waterway values and for which explicit flow criteria can be assigned. There is a strong body of academic evidence for these flow targets, and some applications throughout cities and suburbs in Australia, yet we still fall short in terms of consistency and robustness of this approach. This workshop will delve into current approaches for defining streamflow targets in urban settings and how they are linked to waterway values, will seek to identify opportunities and gaps, and will attempt to advance the way in which we define streamflow targets for urban developments. The workshop will cater to academics, practitioners/consultants and where necessary delve into legislative aspects. A workshop goal will be a post-conference summary paper including a way forward.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Outline of approaches to defining streamflow targets and the development of a paper progressing the field and application of these targets.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 5
Tools and principles for protecting headwater streams in urbanizing areas
Workshop Lead: Dr Belinda Hatt
Theme: Urban water management
Headwater streams are collectively diverse ecosystems and important sources of water and other resources to the downstream river network, however, they are rapidly being lost due through urban development. When urbanization occurs, headwater streams are commonly converted to engineered pipe and channel networks or, at best, enlarged constructed waterways capable of conveying the larger volumes of surface runoff generated by urban areas. This has negative consequences for both headwater streams and the downstream river network.
Objective: The aim of this workshop is to draw on the multiple perspectives and experiences of SUSE6 participants to (i) identify a range of tools that could be used to protect headwater streams from urban development, and (ii) develop a set a principles for deciding what tools to apply, where and when. This would give consideration to structural (i.e. engineering) and non-structural (e.g. policy and planning) tools, as well as influential factors such as scale, rainfall, soil type, and urban density.
Structure: The workshop will consist of a mix of technical presentations, small-group sessions and whole-of-group discussions.
Session 1:
Session 2:
Expected outputs/outcomes: The intended outcome of the workshops is a peer-reviewed journal paper, because this facilitates deeper thinking beyond the workshop and provides credibility, both of which would give greater confidence to waterway managers and policy makers. We would seek to publish the paper in an open-source journal so that it is readily available to practitioners as well as researchers. Other communications (e.g. fact sheet) will also be developed to make the findings more accessible for practitioners
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 6
Integrating nature-based solutions for urban water quality benefits in the developing
world
Workshop Lead: Dr Suman Jumani and Dr Kyle McKay
Theme: Nature-based solutions
The importance of nature-based solutions (NbS) to accelerate sustainability and deliver multiple co-benefits has been well recognized. However, their implementation in developing countries deserves particular attention to meet the challenges and requirements of these regions. For instance, most developing regions contend with impaired water quality, which have implications for public health, food security, and poverty. Limited financial resources, capacity, and transparency in governance often results in ineffective municipal systems that may not operate as intended (such as inefficient/rudimentary solid waste or wastewater management systems). Furthermore, several developing regions also support large urban populations, some of whom rely on natural and semi-natural systems for sustenance, recreation, and cultural practices. Finally, new water infrastructure developments are largely concentrated in countries with emerging economies. The overlap of infrastructure proliferation with high human densities in regions of impaired water quality can result in misalignment of developmental, economic, and socio-ecological goals. For these reasons, conventional approaches of NbS planning and implementation that work in developed countries may not be readily applicable to developing regions. Examining alternative paradigms and identifying compatible NbS could potentially provide ‘win-win’ solutions to address water-quality issues whilst meeting social-ecological goals. This workshop aims to examine the unique challenges and mechanisms of integrating NbS with urban water infrastructure to address water quality issues in the developing world. Specifically, we will –
Expected outputs/outcomes: A review or opinion paper. Based on the workshop discussions, this paper may take the form of a comparative analysis of NbS to address urban water quality issues in developed and developing countries, or a call to action.
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 7
Macro trash in Urban Watersheds
Workshop Lead: Prof. M. Eugenia Marti Roca
Theme: Urban water management
What most people in cities care about is macro-trash. It is a proxy for so many things, including environmental justice, the housing crisis, the value of urban waterways, consumerism... (and the list goes on). People studying urban streams have historically resisted looking seriously at macro-trash, but are recognizing more and more that understanding the sources, travel dynamics, persistence, and cultural issues are deeply important to the management of urban streams in our cities . We believe that a more thoughtful, integrated and robust approach to litter and trash dynamics in cities is warranted, and that sharing experiences and perspectives on how to deal and approach this topic among cities world wide can help provide better management strategies based on integrative knowledge.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Submit a manuscript to Freshwaters Science, SUSE special edition
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 8
Better Urban Bioassessment
Workshop Lead: Mr. Mateo Scoggins
Theme: Urban water management
Many bioassessment programs are driven by state and federal regulations and methods. For example, in the United States, assessment may be used to comply with MS4 permits and/or state-level requirements (305b, etc). Additional monitoring may be occurring by tribes, watershed groups, and non-profit organizations, but these are often uncoordinated and use different approaches. Collaboration and knowledge sharing among these groups within cities offer opportunities for resource sharing and developing standardized methods, which may ultimately better inform policy and management decisions. Comparison among cities may offer additional opportunities for knowledge sharing, including assessing temporal trends, climate effects, changing baselines, and establishing realistic restoration goals. These opportunities highlight the value of collaborating regionally. This workshop will dive into what ways bioassessment programs might evaluate their methods and analysis approach to handle the complexities inherent in urban stream monitoring programs. We will also discuss ways to develop regional networks that facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.
Expected outputs/outcomes: We hope to put together a manuscript for publication in a special edition (SUSE-focused) of Freshwater Science.
________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 9
Equitable, realistic, meaningful urban restoration goals
Workshop Lead: Dr. Seth Wenger
Theme: Urban planning and policy
Can municipal governments make equitable provisioning of ecosystem services the core mission of their environmental programs, while meeting other regulatory requirements? For most municipalities, the default management objective is typically “pre-development condition”, even though this is essentially unattainable in urban streams. This means that managers are focused on improving ecological condition– whether or not there is potential to meaningfully improve that condition– at the expense of services that might be of greater value to the surrounding community. It also means that addressing environmental justice issues is always secondary or tertiary to the primary objectives of urban stream management agencies. We propose that municipalities in many parts of the world could, if they chose, reframe their environmental mission around equitable provisioning of ecosystem services, as long as they met federal and state regulatory requirements. This would make equity central to the mission and would mean integrating communities into the stream management process in a genuine and inclusive way. With this workshop we seek to (1) explore the potential benefits and costs of such a shift, and (2) identify barriers that would need to be overcome to achieve such a shift.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Submit a manuscript to a Freshwater Science associated with a SUSE special edition.
Are current urban stormwater management guidelines suitable for managing
micropollutants?
Workshop Lead: Dr Claudette Kellar
Theme: Water pollution
The urbanisation of cities has increased the impervious proportion of catchments and increased the volume of stormwater and pollutants that reach waterways. Urban stormwater management guidelines typically provide objectives for flow related regulation, the quality of the incoming flows and advice around stormwater treatment measures. The types of pollutants that have been considered include total suspended solids, nutrients and litter and reduction targets have been set based on monitoring data and modelling. While there is a greater understanding of how these pollutants affect waterway values (i.e. birds, fish, frogs, macroinvertebrates, platypus, vegetation, amenity) there is currently no reduction targets for other pollutants including heavy metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and microplastics.
Currently there is a greater understanding of the sources of micropollutants into stormwater runoff and the concentrations that are likely to impact on ecological values of the waterways but this information has not been incorporated into stormwater guidelines.
This workshop aims to understand if the current stormwater guidelines are suitable for managing micropollutants including microplastics in stormwater runoff. Specifically, it addresses:
- What are the current micropollutants in urban stormwater?
- What concentrations of these micropollutants are likely to impact the values of the waterways?
- How do we prioritise what micropollutants to focus on?
- What are the current source control options for managing micropollutants in stormwater runoff and how effective are they?
- What are the current knowledge gaps?
- What does stormwater management look like in the future?
- What guidelines around micropollutants need to be incorporated into stormwater best management practices?
Expected outputs/outcomes:
- A paper addressing the current targets of stormwater urban runoff reductions and its suitability for addressing other micropollutants including microplastics.
- A greater understanding of micropollutants in urban stormwater and its effect on ecological values.
- Determine innovative solutions to manage micropollutants in urban runoff.
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 2
Inspire Change through Effective Communication with Non-Scientific Audiences
Workshop Lead: Ms Stephanie Ambrosia
Theme: Social science and community engagement
Do you wish to inspire stewardship for the river systems you care so much about? Would you like to learn how to craft a powerful message? This workshop will provide a few simple tools from the field of heritage interpretation that can be of great benefit to those in the scientific community who wish to inspire others to appreciate and care for our urban streams.
If you're wondering "what is heritage interpretation?" then you might like to know that heritage interpreters connect all sorts of audiences to important natural, cultural, and historical resources at parks, nature centers, historical sites, aquariums, zoos, and anywhere that people come to learn about the world around them. Interpretation Australia, the peak body for heritage interpretation in Australia, believes that "interpretation enriches our lives through engaging emotions, enhancing experiences and deepening the understanding of places, people, events and objects from the past and present. Interpretation communicates ideas, information and knowledge in a way which helps people to make sense of their environment."
Who should attend: Scientific professionals who want to gain communication techniques for engaging with audiences (beyond policy makers) to inspire action or behaviour change. This workshop would benefit individuals who present to audiences at partner organisations, philanthropic donors, children, volunteers, the general public, or even to audiences at science museums and similar places.
Purpose of workshop: Participants will craft a thematic message to communicate scientific ideas. They will also learn a few presentation development and delivery techniques.
Presenter: Stephanie Ambrosia is a natural resource interpreter and interpretive trainer who facilitates meaningful experiences in nature for a variety of site visitors. She has been an educator for 13 years. Currently she works in state government managing visitor services at an urban fish hatchery.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Participants will craft a thematic message to communicate scientific ideas; they will also learn a few presentation development and delivery techniques. This will be a supportive peer-learning environment so participants should expect to share their work with others.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 3
Restoring Wood in Urban Streams – From overcoming misperceptions to best practices
for project/program success
Workshop Lead: Dr Robert Hawley
Theme: Stream restoration
There is a growing consensus that in-stream wood provides many ecological and societal services. However, restoring in-stream wood is not as simple as adding logs in streams that presently lack wood. Without adequate planning and stakeholder engagement, individual efforts that attempt to restore in-stream wood can be counterproductive to the broader goal of restoring more natural wood abundances in streams. For example, poorly anchored wood in a restoration reach could float downstream resulting in both real and perceived problems with stakeholders. Particularly in urban streams, mobilized wood is often caught by culverts and bridges, which can create flooding and erosion risks to urban infrastructure and adjacent properties, as well as maintenance burdens to infrastructure staff and property owners. Large log jams in recreational rivers can create safety risks to boaters and even deaths. Similar to other urban stream restoration efforts, programs aimed at restoring in-stream wood must engage communities to find optimal wood-restoration strategies for their streams and communities.
This workshop will synthesize the benefits of in-stream wood, common stakeholder perceptions, risks of in-stream wood restoration in urban areas, and best practices to overcoming those risks. The workshop will cover both equipment-placed wood and hand-placed wood techniques, along with other components of successful wood-restoration programs (e.g., riparian reforestation). For example, wood burial, ramping, placement in jams and other anchoring strategies all tend to reduce floating risks. Additionally, forested riparian zones and reaches with existing in-stream wood appear to increase the probability of trapping wood loads from upstream, reducing downstream transport risks. Across hydroclimatic and societal settings, this workshop aims to synthesize the experiences and goals of participants along with support from the scientific literature into a journal article that could serve as a launching point for stream managers, community groups, and others interested in restoring in-stream wood in urban streams.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Journal article
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 4
Setting urban streamflow targets: Quantification and application
Workshop Lead: Dr Geoff Vietz
Theme: Catchment stressors
Excess stormwater runoff is recognised as the dominant driver of waterway degradation in urban catchments. This has been widely acknowledged, yet we don't have robust targets for streamflow reductions to reduce this impact. Analogous to environmental flows for rural streams, there is an urgent need for flow targets that can be linked to waterway values and for which explicit flow criteria can be assigned. There is a strong body of academic evidence for these flow targets, and some applications throughout cities and suburbs in Australia, yet we still fall short in terms of consistency and robustness of this approach. This workshop will delve into current approaches for defining streamflow targets in urban settings and how they are linked to waterway values, will seek to identify opportunities and gaps, and will attempt to advance the way in which we define streamflow targets for urban developments. The workshop will cater to academics, practitioners/consultants and where necessary delve into legislative aspects. A workshop goal will be a post-conference summary paper including a way forward.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Outline of approaches to defining streamflow targets and the development of a paper progressing the field and application of these targets.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 5
Tools and principles for protecting headwater streams in urbanizing areas
Workshop Lead: Dr Belinda Hatt
Theme: Urban water management
Headwater streams are collectively diverse ecosystems and important sources of water and other resources to the downstream river network, however, they are rapidly being lost due through urban development. When urbanization occurs, headwater streams are commonly converted to engineered pipe and channel networks or, at best, enlarged constructed waterways capable of conveying the larger volumes of surface runoff generated by urban areas. This has negative consequences for both headwater streams and the downstream river network.
Objective: The aim of this workshop is to draw on the multiple perspectives and experiences of SUSE6 participants to (i) identify a range of tools that could be used to protect headwater streams from urban development, and (ii) develop a set a principles for deciding what tools to apply, where and when. This would give consideration to structural (i.e. engineering) and non-structural (e.g. policy and planning) tools, as well as influential factors such as scale, rainfall, soil type, and urban density.
Structure: The workshop will consist of a mix of technical presentations, small-group sessions and whole-of-group discussions.
Session 1:
- Introduction: welcome & workshop objectives
- Background information: values of headwater streams, impact of urbanization
- Preliminary outline of paper
- Break-out session: What are the various tools currently being applied globally? Each group develops a list
- Whole-of-group session: Small groups report back to create a long list of potential tools
Session 2:
- Break-out session: Small groups evaluate the benefits, barriers and suitability of tools
- Whole-of-group session: Small groups report back to create a collective evaluation
- Break-out session: Identification of draft key principles for the protection of headwater streams in urbanizing areas
- Wrap-up and outline opportunities for involvement in journal paper
Expected outputs/outcomes: The intended outcome of the workshops is a peer-reviewed journal paper, because this facilitates deeper thinking beyond the workshop and provides credibility, both of which would give greater confidence to waterway managers and policy makers. We would seek to publish the paper in an open-source journal so that it is readily available to practitioners as well as researchers. Other communications (e.g. fact sheet) will also be developed to make the findings more accessible for practitioners
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 6
Integrating nature-based solutions for urban water quality benefits in the developing
world
Workshop Lead: Dr Suman Jumani and Dr Kyle McKay
Theme: Nature-based solutions
The importance of nature-based solutions (NbS) to accelerate sustainability and deliver multiple co-benefits has been well recognized. However, their implementation in developing countries deserves particular attention to meet the challenges and requirements of these regions. For instance, most developing regions contend with impaired water quality, which have implications for public health, food security, and poverty. Limited financial resources, capacity, and transparency in governance often results in ineffective municipal systems that may not operate as intended (such as inefficient/rudimentary solid waste or wastewater management systems). Furthermore, several developing regions also support large urban populations, some of whom rely on natural and semi-natural systems for sustenance, recreation, and cultural practices. Finally, new water infrastructure developments are largely concentrated in countries with emerging economies. The overlap of infrastructure proliferation with high human densities in regions of impaired water quality can result in misalignment of developmental, economic, and socio-ecological goals. For these reasons, conventional approaches of NbS planning and implementation that work in developed countries may not be readily applicable to developing regions. Examining alternative paradigms and identifying compatible NbS could potentially provide ‘win-win’ solutions to address water-quality issues whilst meeting social-ecological goals. This workshop aims to examine the unique challenges and mechanisms of integrating NbS with urban water infrastructure to address water quality issues in the developing world. Specifically, we will –
- Reflect on current practices and identify the challenges and opportunities to the implementation of NbS for urban water quality improvements.
- Discuss the efficacy of centralized vs decentralized paradigms of NbS development for developing regions.
- Discuss the intersection between the establishment of municipal services and the efficacy of NbS
Expected outputs/outcomes: A review or opinion paper. Based on the workshop discussions, this paper may take the form of a comparative analysis of NbS to address urban water quality issues in developed and developing countries, or a call to action.
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 7
Macro trash in Urban Watersheds
Workshop Lead: Prof. M. Eugenia Marti Roca
Theme: Urban water management
What most people in cities care about is macro-trash. It is a proxy for so many things, including environmental justice, the housing crisis, the value of urban waterways, consumerism... (and the list goes on). People studying urban streams have historically resisted looking seriously at macro-trash, but are recognizing more and more that understanding the sources, travel dynamics, persistence, and cultural issues are deeply important to the management of urban streams in our cities . We believe that a more thoughtful, integrated and robust approach to litter and trash dynamics in cities is warranted, and that sharing experiences and perspectives on how to deal and approach this topic among cities world wide can help provide better management strategies based on integrative knowledge.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Submit a manuscript to Freshwaters Science, SUSE special edition
____________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 8
Better Urban Bioassessment
Workshop Lead: Mr. Mateo Scoggins
Theme: Urban water management
Many bioassessment programs are driven by state and federal regulations and methods. For example, in the United States, assessment may be used to comply with MS4 permits and/or state-level requirements (305b, etc). Additional monitoring may be occurring by tribes, watershed groups, and non-profit organizations, but these are often uncoordinated and use different approaches. Collaboration and knowledge sharing among these groups within cities offer opportunities for resource sharing and developing standardized methods, which may ultimately better inform policy and management decisions. Comparison among cities may offer additional opportunities for knowledge sharing, including assessing temporal trends, climate effects, changing baselines, and establishing realistic restoration goals. These opportunities highlight the value of collaborating regionally. This workshop will dive into what ways bioassessment programs might evaluate their methods and analysis approach to handle the complexities inherent in urban stream monitoring programs. We will also discuss ways to develop regional networks that facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.
Expected outputs/outcomes: We hope to put together a manuscript for publication in a special edition (SUSE-focused) of Freshwater Science.
________________________________________________________________________________
Workshop 9
Equitable, realistic, meaningful urban restoration goals
Workshop Lead: Dr. Seth Wenger
Theme: Urban planning and policy
Can municipal governments make equitable provisioning of ecosystem services the core mission of their environmental programs, while meeting other regulatory requirements? For most municipalities, the default management objective is typically “pre-development condition”, even though this is essentially unattainable in urban streams. This means that managers are focused on improving ecological condition– whether or not there is potential to meaningfully improve that condition– at the expense of services that might be of greater value to the surrounding community. It also means that addressing environmental justice issues is always secondary or tertiary to the primary objectives of urban stream management agencies. We propose that municipalities in many parts of the world could, if they chose, reframe their environmental mission around equitable provisioning of ecosystem services, as long as they met federal and state regulatory requirements. This would make equity central to the mission and would mean integrating communities into the stream management process in a genuine and inclusive way. With this workshop we seek to (1) explore the potential benefits and costs of such a shift, and (2) identify barriers that would need to be overcome to achieve such a shift.
Expected outputs/outcomes: Submit a manuscript to a Freshwater Science associated with a SUSE special edition.
Proudly powered by Weebly