skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities: SITUATING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1];  [2]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [1];  [3];  [3]
  1. NRC Postdoctoral Research Associate, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati OH USA
  2. ORISE, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge TN USA
  3. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati OH USA
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1411250
Grant/Contract Number:
DW-8992433001
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Publisher's Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Water Resources Research
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 53; Journal Issue: 12; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2018-01-25 03:42:17; Journal ID: ISSN 0043-1397
Publisher:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Schifman, L. A., Herrmann, D. L., Shuster, W. D., Ossola, A., Garmestani, A., and Hopton, M. E.. Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities: SITUATING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1002/2017WR020926.
Schifman, L. A., Herrmann, D. L., Shuster, W. D., Ossola, A., Garmestani, A., & Hopton, M. E.. Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities: SITUATING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE. United States. doi:10.1002/2017WR020926.
Schifman, L. A., Herrmann, D. L., Shuster, W. D., Ossola, A., Garmestani, A., and Hopton, M. E.. 2017. "Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities: SITUATING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE". United States. doi:10.1002/2017WR020926.
@article{osti_1411250,
title = {Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities: SITUATING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE},
author = {Schifman, L. A. and Herrmann, D. L. and Shuster, W. D. and Ossola, A. and Garmestani, A. and Hopton, M. E.},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1002/2017WR020926},
journal = {Water Resources Research},
number = 12,
volume = 53,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month =
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
This content will become publicly available on December 4, 2018
Publisher's Accepted Manuscript

Save / Share:
  • Cities are concentrations of socio-political power and prime architects of land transformation, while also serving as consumption hubs of “hard” water and energy infrastructures (e.g. electrical power, stormwater management, zoning, water supply, and wastewater). These infrastructures extend well outside metropolitan boundaries and impact distal river ecosystems. We used a comprehensive model to quantify the roles of anthropogenic stressors on hydrologic alteration and biodiversity in US streams and isolated the impacts stemming from hard infrastructure developments in cities. Across the conterminous US, cities’ hard infrastructures have significantly altered at least 7% of streams, which influence habitats for over 60% of Northmore » America’s fish, mussel, and crayfish species. Additionally, city infrastructures have contributed to local extinctions in 260 species and currently influence 970 indigenous species, 27% of which are in jeopardy. We find that ecosystem impacts do not scale with city size but are instead proportionate to infrastructure decisions. For example, Atlanta’s impacts by hard infrastructures extend across four major river basins, 12,500 stream km, and contribute to 100 local extinctions of aquatic species. In contrast, Las Vegas, a similar size city, impacts < 1000 stream km, leading to only 7 local extinctions. So, cities have local policy choices that can reduce future impacts to regional aquatic ecosystems as cities grow. Furthermore, by coordinating policy and communication between hard infrastructure sectors, local city governments and utilities can directly improve environmental quality in a significant fraction of the nation’s streams and aquatic biota reaching far beyond their city boundaries.« less
  • Demographic change and economic decline produce modified urban land use pattern and densities. Compared to the beginning of the 90s after the German reunification, nowadays massive housing and commercial vacancies followed by demolition and perforation come to pass in many cities of the former GDR. In consequence, a considerable surplus of urban brownfields has been created. Furthermore, the decline in the urban fabric affects social infrastructure and urban greenery of local neighbourhoods. Here, urban planning enters into 'uncharted territory' since it needs to assess the socio-environmental impact of shrinkage. In order to carry out such an evaluation quantitatively, a multi-criteriamore » assessment scheme (MCA) was developed and applied. Firstly, we identified infrastructure and land use changes related to vacancy and demolition. Secondly, demolition scenarios for the coming 20 years were applied in order to give an idea for a long-term monitoring approach at the local district level. A multi-criteria indicator matrix quantifies the socio-environmental impact on both urban greenery and residents. Using it, we set demolition scenarios against urban 'quality of life' targets. Empirical evidence comes from Leipzig, in eastern Germany, a representative case study for urban shrinkage processes. The results show that shrinkage implies socio-environmental changes of residential livelihoods, however, does not simply increase or decrease the overall urban quality of life. The integrated assessment of all indicators identifies environmental and social opportunities, as well as the challenges a shrinking city is faced with.« less
  • The construction of new infrastructure is hotly contested. This paper presents a comparative study on three environmental policy domains in the Netherlands that all deal with legitimising building and locating infrastructure facilities. Such infrastructure is usually declared essential to environmental policy and claimed to serve sustainability goals. They are considered to serve (proclaimed) public interests, while the adverse impact or risk that mainly concerns environmental values as well is concentrated at a smaller scale, for example in local communities. The social acceptance of environmental policy infrastructure is institutionally determined. The institutional capacity for learning in infrastructure decision-making processes in themore » following three domains is compared: 1.The implementation of wind power as a renewable energy innovation; 2.The policy on space-water adaptation, with its claim to implement a new style of management replacing the current practice of focusing on control and 'hard' infrastructure; 3.Waste policy with a focus on sound waste management and disposal, claiming a preference for waste minimization (the 'waste management hierarchy'). All three cases show a large variety of social acceptance issues, where the appraisal of the impact of siting the facilities is confronted with the desirability of the policies. In dealing with environmental conflict, the environmental capacity of the Netherlands appears to be low. The policies are frequently hotly contested within the process of infrastructure decision-making. Decision-making on infrastructure is often framed as if consensus about the objectives of environmental policies exists. These claims are not justified, and therefore stimulating the emergence of environmental conflicts that discourage social acceptance of the policies. Authorities are frequently involved in planning infrastructure that conflicts with their officially proclaimed policy objectives. In these circumstances, they are often confronted with local actors who support alternatives that are in fact better in tune with the new policy paradigm.« less
  • This article reviews city case studies to inform a framework for developing urban infrastructure design standards and policy instruments that together aim to pursue energy efficiency and greenhouse gas mitigation through city carbon budgets and water use efficiency and climate risk adaptation through city water budgets. Here, this article also proposes combining carbon and water budgeting at the city-scale for achieving successful coupled city carbon and water budget (CCCWB) programs. Under a CCCWB program, key actors including local governments, infrastructure designers/operators, and households would be assigned a GHG emissions and water 'budget' and be required by state or federal levelsmore » to keep within this budget through the use of flexibility mechanisms, incentive programs, and sanctions. Multiple incentives and cross-scale governance arrangements would be tied to energy-water systems integration, resource-efficient transportation and infrastructure development, and effective monitoring and management of energy use, emissions, climate risks to, and security of energy-water-transport-food and other critical systems. As a first step to promote strategies for CCCWB development, we systematically review approaches of and shortcomings to existing budget-based programs in the UK and US, and suggest improvements in three areas: measurement, modeling effectiveness of interventions for staying within a budget, and governance. To date, the majority of climate action or sustainability plans by cities, while mentioning climate impacts as a premise for the plan, do not address these impacts in the plan. They focus primarily on GHG mitigation while ignoring resource depletion challenges and energy-climate-water linkages, whereby water supplies can begin to limit energy production and energy shifts to mitigate climate change can limit water availability. Coupled carbon-water budget plans, programs, and policies - described in this study- may address these concerns as well as the emerging trends that will exacerbate these problems - e.g., including population growth, climatic changes, and emerging policy choices that are not coordinated. Cities and 'Budget-Based' Management of the Energy-Water-Climate Nexus: Case Studies to Inform Strategy for Integrated Performance- and Incentive-Based Design and Policy Instruments.« less