Assessing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Wetland Mitigation in the Chicago Region

BenDor, Todd K.; Brozović, Nicholas; Pallathucheril, Varkki George

doi:10.1080/01944360708977977

Cited by 34 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This arguably creates a large subsidy for industry and land developers who are able to buy credits in a wetland bank for far less money than they receive when their product is sold in the marketplace. While private interests gain considerably in this arrangement, the public largely pays this subsidy in the form of lost ecosystem goods and services (de Groot et al 2010;Mitsch and Gosselink 2000), and there are often unanticipated social costs associated with the redistribution of wetlands through the use of compensation (BenDor et al 2008;BenDor et al 2007). …”

Section: Wetlands Are Economically Undervaluedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The coordination required for watershed management can help clarify jurisdictional issues and uncertainties (ELI 2009), and improve interagency communication (Olsen and Christie 2000). While BenDor et al (2007) found tension between local authorities as watershed-based management proponents, such tension was not necessarily disadvantageous, as it provided an avenue to help local and extra-local stakeholders more clearly articulate goals for restoration projects. Ehrenfeld (2000, p. 2) acknowledged such tension as an important component of projects because it ''sets expectations, drives the detailed plans for actions, and determines the kind and extent of post-project monitoring''.…”

Section: Watershed-based Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented (Burgin 2010;ELI 2009;Hough and Robertson 2009;Murphy et al 2009a). While many studies have shown that compensatory laws and policies have not been effective in maintaining wetland area and function (for example, Spieles 2005;Cole and Shafer 2002;NRC 2001;Malakoff 1998;Roberts 1993;Zedler 1996), and often have unintended social impacts (see BenDor et al 2008;BenDor et al 2007;Ruhl and Salzman 2006), few explicate why these laws and policies have failed, or suggest alternative approaches to regulating and managing wetland impacts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

Clare

Krogman

Foote

et al. 2011

Wetlands Ecol Manage

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many jurisdictions in North America use a ''mitigation sequence'' to protect wetlands: First, avoid impacts; second, minimize unavoidable impacts; and third, compensate for irreducible impacts through the use of wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, or protection. Despite the continued reliance on this sequence in wetland decision-making, there is broad agreement among scholars, scientists, policymakers, regulators, and the regulated community that the first and most important step in the mitigation sequence, avoidance, is ignored more often than it is implemented. This paper draws on literature published between 1989 and 2010, as well as 33 semi-structured, key-informant interviews carried out in 2009 and 2010 with actors intimately involved with wetland policy in Alberta, Canada, to address key reasons why ''avoidance'' as a policy directive is seldom effective. Five key factors emerged from the literature, and were supported by interview data, as being central to the failure of decision-makers to prioritize wetland avoidance and minimization above compensation in the mitigation sequence: (1) a lack of agreement on what constitutes avoidance; (2) current approaches to landuse planning do not identify high-priority wetlands in advance of development; (3) wetlands are economically undervalued; (4) there is a ''techno-arrogance'' associated with wetland creation and restoration that results in increased wetland loss, and; (5) compensation requirements are inadequately enforced. Largely untested but proactive ways to re-institute avoidance as a workable option in wetland management include: watershed-based planning; comprehensive economic and social valuation of wetlands; and long-term citizen-based monitoring schemes.

show abstract

Section: Wetlands Are Economically Undervaluedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Watershed-based Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

Clare

Krogman

Foote

et al. 2011

Wetlands Ecol Manage

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The few available data sets tracking wetland transactions have primarily focused on mitigation banking in Florida (Ruhl and Salzman 2006;Brody and Highfield 2005;King and Herbert 1997) and Chicago (Robertson 2006). To date, only data presented in BenDor, Brozovic, and Pallathucheril (2007) compare multiple mitigation alternatives (such as on-and off-site mitigation) and contain enough spatial resolution to enable the demographic analysis that is necessary to compare populations impacted by wetland development and mitigation. King and Herbert 's (1997) analysis of wetland mitigation banking in Florida was the first empirical attempt to address and quantify wetland relocation.…”

Section: Preliminary Evidence Of Wetland Redistributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there are numerous studies considering economic aspects of wetland mitigation (e.g., Fernandez and Karp 1998;Fernandez 1999;Woodward and Wui 2001;Lupi, Kaplowitz, and Hoehn 2002), only a few recent papers have looked specifically at the spatial effects of compensatory mitigation on wetland redistribution and potential resulting social disparities (Ruhl and Salzman 2006;BenDor, Brozovic, and Pallathucheril 2007). We argue that preliminary evidence suggests that further research could usefully extend understanding of the spatial and watershed-level effects of compensatory wetland mitigation on social and environmental equity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Impacts of Wetland Mitigation Policies in the United States

BenDor¹,

Brozović

Pallathucheril

2008

Journal of Planning Literature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern over the threat to wetlands from urban development has increased with rising levels of suburbanization.This article provides an extensive overview of the literature on the history and structure of U.S. wetland conservation policy. The authors focus on regulations that permit wetland destruction in return for mitigation of wetland damage and highlight concerns that current wetland mitigation policies may lead to the redistribution of wetland benefits among specific population groups. Researchers and planners have yet to construct systems that enable them to answer a very basic question: Does wetland mitigation contribute to social disparity and inequity? The authors outline a data collection framework for use in determining if and how social disparities may occur during mitigation. They also discuss the use of spatial and temporal preference measures as a tool for addressing these considerations. Finally, they discuss how recent Supreme Court limitations on federal jurisdiction over wetlands may alter the roles and responsibilities of planners, arguing that these new roles may provide the opportunity for planners to fully incorporate social considerations into mitigation decisions.During the past three decades, wetland regulation has been elevated into the forefront of U.S. natural resource conservation policy. During this time, the complexity associated with regulating development on wetlands has grown enormously, with federal court cases first constructing, and subsequently limiting, the foundation of federal authority over wetland regulation. Recent legal actions have led to a shift in control and responsibility from federal to state and local governments over planning, implementing, and enforcing wetland protections.These changes in the wetland regulatory framework have occurred in the wake of improving ecological theory and research tools (McCorvie and

show abstract

Stream mitigation banking

Lave

2018

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compensatory mitigation (also known as offsetting) is the practice of allowing harm to one ecosystem as long as a comparable ecosystem elsewhere is restored. This common practice is intended to balance the competing demands of economic development and environmental protection. Here, I explore compensatory mitigation through a focus on one particular type: stream mitigation banking in the United States under the Clean Water Act, a market‐based form of environmental management. I explain the motivations for compensating for rather than preventing environmental damage more broadly, the practice of stream mitigation banking, and what we know about its environmental and social impacts. I conclude by calling out the stakes in offsetting more generally, and in stream mitigation banking in particular, arguing that neither market‐based environmental management nor offsetting more generally may be serving us well. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Value of Water Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness

show abstract

Assessing the Socioeconomic Impacts of Wetland Mitigation in the Chicago Region

Cited by 34 publications

References 19 publications

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

Where is the avoidance in the implementation of wetland law and policy?

The Social Impacts of Wetland Mitigation Policies in the United States

Stream mitigation banking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About