No abstract

Stream restoration has become a multibillion dollar business with mixed results as to its efficacy. This case study utilizes pre‐ and post‐monitoring data from restoration projects on an urban stream to assess how well stream conditions, publicly stated project goals, and project implementation align. Our research confirms previous studies showing little communication among academic researchers and restoration practitioners as well as provides further evidence that restoration efforts tend to focus on small‐scale, specific sites without considering broader land use patterns. This study advances our understanding of restoration by documenting that although improving ecological conditions is a stated goal for restoration projects, the implemented measures are not always focused on those issues that are the most ecologically salient. What these projects have accomplished is to protect the built environment and promote positive public perception. We argue that these disconnects among publicized goals for restoration, the implemented features, and actual stream conditions may create a false image of what an ecologically stable stream looks like and therefore perpetuate a false sense of optimism about the feasibility of restoring urban streams.

System dynamics, Complex systems, Collaborative modeling, Public participation, Interdisciplinary,

As freshwater resources become more scarce and water management becomes more contentious, new planning approaches are essential to maintain ecologic, economic, and social stability. One technique involves cooperative modeling in which scientists and stakeholders work together to develop a computer simulation model to assist in planning efforts. In the Middle Rio Grande region of New Mexico, where water management is hotly debated, a stakeholder team used a system dynamics approach to create a computer simulation model to facilitate producing a regional plan. While the model itself continues to be valuable, the process for creating the model was also valuable in helping stakeholders jointly develop understanding of and approaches to addressing complex issues. In this paper, the authors document results from post‐project interviews designed to identify strengths and weaknesses of cooperative modeling; to determine if and how the model facilitated the planning process; and to solicit advice for others considering model aided planning. Modeling team members revealed that cooperative modeling did facilitate water planning. Interviewees suggested that other groups try to reach consensus on a guiding vision or philosophy for their project and recognize that cooperative modeling is time intensive. The authors also note that using cooperative modeling as a tool to build bridges between science and the public requires consistent communication about both the process and the product.