Are Urban Stream Restoration Plans Worth Implementing?

Auri Sarvilinna, Virpi Lehtoranta, Turo Hjerppe
Author Information
  1. Auri Sarvilinna: Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), P. O. Box 140, Helsinki, 00251, Finland. Auri.sarvilinna@gmail.com.
  2. Virpi Lehtoranta: Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), P. O. Box 140, Helsinki, 00251, Finland.
  3. Turo Hjerppe: Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), P. O. Box 140, Helsinki, 00251, Finland.

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.

Keywords

References

  1. J Environ Manage. 2006 Jun;79(4):399-408 [PMID: 16303238]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Jun 16;112(24):7348-55 [PMID: 26082539]
  3. Science. 2005 Apr 29;308(5722):636-7 [PMID: 15860611]
  4. Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1932-49 [PMID: 21939035]
  5. Science. 2004 May 28;304(5675):1251-2 [PMID: 15166349]
  6. Nature. 2010 Sep 30;467(7315):555-61 [PMID: 20882010]
  7. Ecol Appl. 2011 Sep;21(6):1989-2006 [PMID: 21939039]
  8. Water Sci Technol. 2003;48(7):149-56 [PMID: 14653645]
  9. Science. 2008 Feb 8;319(5864):756-60 [PMID: 18258902]
  10. J Environ Manage. 2013 Dec 15;131:256-69 [PMID: 24184528]
  11. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012 Oct 26;9(11):3866-82 [PMID: 23202821]
  12. J Environ Manage. 2012 Nov 30;111:18-23 [PMID: 22813855]
  13. Conserv Biol. 2013 Dec;27(6):1286-93 [PMID: 24112105]

MeSH Term

City Planning
Conservation of Natural Resources
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Ecosystem
Environmental Policy
Finland
Humans
Rivers
Uncertainty
Urbanization