IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i12p2244-d1549420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritizing Urban River Restoration Management Practices: A Cross-Evaluation Using the Criticality Index for Watershed Restoration (CIWR) and Opportunity Layers

Author

Listed:
  • Andressa Ferreira Lima

    (Instituto Alberto Luiz Coimbra de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Horácio Macedo, 2030, Rio de Janeiro 21941-914, Brazil)

  • Giulia Figueiredo Ferreira

    (Programa de Pós-Graduação em Arquitetura, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Pedro Calmon, 550, Sala 433, Rio de Janeiro 21941-596, Brazil)

  • Aline Pires Veról

    (Programa de Pós-Graduação em Arquitetura, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Pedro Calmon, 550, Sala 433, Rio de Janeiro 21941-596, Brazil)

  • Marcelo Gomes Miguez

    (Instituto Alberto Luiz Coimbra de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Horácio Macedo, 2030, Rio de Janeiro 21941-914, Brazil
    Programa de Engenharia Ambiental, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, Sala I-206, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil
    Programa de Engenharia Urbana, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, Sala I-206, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil)

Abstract

Urbanization exerts significant stress on urban river ecosystems, leading to their degradation and the loss of environmental functions. Several studies have focused on restoring these urban rivers to enhance environmental quality and contribute to overall city well-being. However, such restoration efforts encounter economic, environmental, and social challenges. This study proposes a methodological framework to aid public managers in prioritizing areas for urban river restoration. The approach integrates the concept of environmental services with urban development opportunities to address these dual demands. Central to this framework is the introduction of the criticality index for watershed restoration (CIWR), which categorizes watershed areas based on environmental quality indicators, using river restoration as a guiding principle. Additionally, legally protected environmental areas were considered as opportunity layers. This study used geographic information systems (GIS) to manage and overlay datasets for a case study in the João Mendes Watershed in Niterói, southeast Brazil, which illustrated the use of the CIWR. By intersecting this framework with the opportunity layers, priority locations were identified for potential river restoration management practices. The results indicated that the overall criticality condition of this watershed for river restoration is low. The study further discusses potential measures for river restoration in the identified priority areas, underscoring the importance of strategic planning in urban environmental management. The CIWR proved to be an easily applicable and replicable management decision tool for comparing watersheds and assessing deficient environmental services, with both numerical and spatial results. Its use, combined with the “opportunity” layer, enables public managers to define priority areas for river restoration practices based on clear and objective criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Andressa Ferreira Lima & Giulia Figueiredo Ferreira & Aline Pires Veról & Marcelo Gomes Miguez, 2024. "Prioritizing Urban River Restoration Management Practices: A Cross-Evaluation Using the Criticality Index for Watershed Restoration (CIWR) and Opportunity Layers," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-32, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:12:p:2244-:d:1549420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2244/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2244/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angelopoulos, N.V. & Cowx, I.G. & Buijse, A.D., 2017. "Integrated planning framework for successful river restoration projects: Upscaling lessons learnt from European case studies," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 12-22.
    2. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    3. Aline Pires Veról & Ianic Bigate Lourenço & João Paulo Rebechi Fraga & Bruna Peres Battemarco & Mylenna Linares Merlo & Paulo Canedo de Magalhães & Marcelo Gomes Miguez, 2020. "River Restoration Integrated with Sustainable Urban Water Management for Resilient Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-36, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Tamara S. Wilson & Benjamin M. Sleeter & Rachel R. Sleeter & Christopher E. Soulard, 2014. "Land-Use Threats and Protected Areas: A Scenario-Based, Landscape Level Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    4. Wang, Haoluan, 2017. "Land Conservation for Open Space: The Impact of Neighbors and the Natural Environment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258125, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    6. Shirley Saenz & Tomas Walschburger & Juan Carlos González & Jorge León & Bruce McKenney & Joseph Kiesecker, 2013. "A Framework for Implementing and Valuing Biodiversity Offsets in Colombia: A Landscape Scale Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-27, November.
    7. Iritie, Jean-Jacques, 2015. "Economic Growth, Biodiversity and Conservation Policies in Africa: an Overview," MPRA Paper 62005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Zhouqiao Ren & Wanxin Zhan & Qiaobing Yue & Jianhua He, 2020. "Prioritizing Agricultural Patches for Reforestation to Improve Connectivity of Habitat Conservation Areas: A Guide to Grain-to-Green Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Sari, Dwi Amalia & Margules, Chris & Lim, Han She & Widyatmaka, Febrio & Sayer, Jeffrey & Dale, Allan & Macgregor, Colin, 2021. "Evaluating policy coherence: A case study of peatland forests on the Kampar Peninsula landscape, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    10. Michael A. Wulder & Jeffrey A. Cardille & Joanne C. White & Bronwyn Rayfield, 2018. "Context and Opportunities for Expanding Protected Areas in Canada," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Robert F. Baldwin & Nakisha T. Fouch, 2018. "Understanding the Biodiversity Contributions of Small Protected Areas Presents Many Challenges," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, October.
    12. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling, 2022. "Conservation Planning for Action: End-User Engagement in the Development and Dual-Centric Weighting of a Spatial Decision Support System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    13. H. K. Millington & J. E. Lovell & C. A. K. Lovell, 2013. "Using Fieldwork, GIS and DEA to Guide Management of Urban Stream Health," CEPA Working Papers Series WP072013, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    14. Li, Shicheng & Zhang, Heng & Zhou, Xuewu & Yu, Haibin & Li, Wangjun, 2020. "Enhancing protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    15. Patricio Sarmiento-Mateos & Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui & Francisco D. Pineda & María F. Schmitz, 2019. "Designing Protected Areas for Social–Ecological Sustainability: Effectiveness of Management Guidelines for Preserving Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Taeyoung & Larson, Eric R. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2017. "Economies of scale in forestland acquisition costs for nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 73-82.
    17. Bi Goli Jean Jacques Iritie, 2015. "Economic Growth and Biodiversity: An Overview Conservation Policies in Africa," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 196-196, February.
    18. Di Pirro, E. & Sallustio, L. & Capotorti, G. & Marchetti, M. & Lasserre, B., 2021. "A scenario-based approach to tackle trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and land use pressure in Central Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 448(C).
    19. Brad H McRae & Sonia A Hall & Paul Beier & David M Theobald, 2012. "Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity? Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-12, December.
    20. McLane, Adam J. & Semeniuk, Christina & McDermid, Gregory J. & Marceau, Danielle J., 2011. "The role of agent-based models in wildlife ecology and management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(8), pages 1544-1556.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:12:p:2244-:d:1549420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.