A Review of Urban Water Body Challenges and Approaches: (2) Mitigating Effects of Future Urbanization

Abstract

Previously we examined how degraded urban streams can be rehabilitated, with emphasis on identifying solutions that match the scale of the problems (). Our findings showed that rehabilitation techniques are challenging but that some environmental benefits can nearly always be obtained regardless of existing conditions. Although rehabilitation is useful in many present‐day situations, biologists need to consider the future and think about ways of preventing or reducing future environmental damage. We need to reduce future damage because urban areas are likely to expand greatly over the next century; if historical patterns continue, the number and length of streams experiencing urban stream syndrome will increase, with resulting high repair costs. However, there are several ways of avoiding or mitigating damage that are not only cost effective but provide benefits to humans and urban ecosystems.

Coho salmon spawner mortality in western US urban watersheds: bioinfiltration prevents lethal storm water impacts

“…Whereas bioretention may work well for small‐footprint sites that receive modest inputs of storm water, they are but one of many evolving non‐point source pollution control and prevention methods that are currently under development (Hughes et al . ). For the urban watersheds of the future, the coexistence of humans and wild coho will likely hinge on the success of these innovations.…”

Is environmental legislation conserving tropical stream faunas? A large‐scale assessment of local, riparian and catchment‐scale influences on Amazonian fish

“…Moreover, there is a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of reach‐scale interventions (e.g. channel re‐configuration or the addition of boulders and logs) or point‐source pollution treatment for restoring aquatic biodiversity in Europe and the United States (Hughes et al., ; Palmer et al., ). Most aspects of instream habitat are difficult and costly to manage directly, and it would be nearly impossible to monitor effectively across very large spatial scales such as the Amazon Basin (Castello et al., ).…”

Urban Aquatic Ecosystems: the good, the bad and the ugly

“…Success of such schemes has been mixed (Cockerill and Anderson, 2014), as increased habitat heterogeneity does not necessarily promote biodiversity (Palmer et al, 2010), especially when wider pressures such as hydrological alteration and water pollution prevail (Hughes et al, 2014a). This reflects a wider lack of knowledge of process-based river restoration (Palmer et al, 2014), which is exacerbated by a profound lack of post-project monitoring.…”

“…This reflects a wider lack of knowledge of process-based river restoration (Palmer et al, 2014), which is exacerbated by a profound lack of post-project monitoring. Although others have highlighted the need to focus on restoring physical and ecosystem processes rather than specific habitats, and stress the need to address catchment-scale issues, such as storm water management and water quality improvement, before rehabilitating physical habitat (Francis, 2014;Hughes et al 2014a;Lake et al 2007).…”