Drivers of revitalization in Great Lakes coastal communities

Nixon, Rebecca; Carlton, J. Stuart; Ma, Zhao

doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2022.03.008

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the economic benefits to cities and communities affected by GLRI investments in restoration (Ehrlich et al., 2018), revitalization in Areas of Concern (Angradi et al., 2019; Nixon et al., 2022), contaminated sediment remediation (Tuchman et al., 2018) and water quality improvements (Hartig et al., 2020) have been studied, a broad synthesis of GLRI's project‐level monitoring, and documented benefits has been lacking (Jurjonas et al., 2022). Our review of GLRI found several improvements over other similar restoration funding efforts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moving forward, we hope this baseline fosters dialogue and the eventual inclusion of human well‐being and equity criteria in GLRI's and other restoration programme's RFPs and monitoring. Especially, with the recent revitalization research that focussed on equity (Nixon et al., 2022; Williams & Hoffman, 2020)–and continued attention to the gentrification implications and the equitable distribution of urban greening, restoration and conservation (Gould & Lewis, 2012; Rigolon et al., 2019; Yocom et al., 2016)–it is reasonable to expect that consideration of equity in ecological restoration will only increase in future.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Broadly, the concern is to ensure that restoration efforts-and the accompanying federal spending-are fairly distributed among regions and communities according to socio-economic status, race and gender (Angradi et al, 2019;Armstrong, 2019;Breslow et al, 2016;Wells et al, 2021), without causing negative impacts like 'green gentrification' or displacement of low-income or renter communities (Gould & Lewis, 2012;Rigolon et al, 2019). For example, the Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R2) framework proposed by Williams and Hoffman (2020) and research by Nixon et al (2022) highlight the local links between restoration actions and the socio-economic and well-being changes that drive revitalization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization (R2R2R2) framework proposed by Williams and Hoffman (2020) and research by Nixon et al. (2022) highlight the local links between restoration actions and the socio‐economic and well‐being changes that drive revitalization. To avoid potential disparities, equitable conservation researchers call for participatory approaches to include historically marginalized and underserved populations in restoration planning processes (Holifield & Williams, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, researchers have explored the progress and success of the Areas of Concern (AOC) designation, tracked according to the removal of the Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs), which has led to the delisting of several AOCs (Hartig et al., 2020; Knauss et al., 2019). AOCs are primarily located in postindustrial waterways where contaminated soils and sediments pose public health and fish consumption risks and have also attracted studies on remediation effectiveness, revitalization, biodiversity and contaminant removal (Angradi et al., 2019; Nixon et al., 2022). Nonetheless, no study has yet explored the extent of socio‐ecological considerations in GLRI's ecosystem restoration planning and implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

Jurjonas,

May,

Cardinale

et al. 2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, ecosystem restoration has focussed on standard ecological indicators like water or habitat quality, species population abundance or vegetation cover to determine success. However, there is growing interest in how restoration might impact people and communities. For example, researchers have documented positive socio‐ecological links between restoration and human well‐being indicators like property value, natural hazard mitigation, recreation opportunity and happiness. Furthermore, public health benefits from restoration have been linked to public support for programmes. Drawing from this research, the United Nations declared 2021–2030 the ‘Decade of Ecosystem Restoration’ and set a goal to promote more socio‐ecological goals in ecosystem restoration. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of information on the extent to which restoration practitioners consider well‐being because many granting programmes only require ecological goals and monitoring. To explore how restoration practitioners design, implement and measure the success of their projects, we used the federally funded Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) as a case study. Since 2010, GLRI has awarded over $3.5 Billion to over 5300 projects across the midwestern United States, but it does not presently require human well‐being considerations. We performed an online survey targeting project managers with a sample of GLRI projects (N = 1574). We received 437 responses and found that almost half set a human well‐being goal, and more than 70% of those who did believe they reached it. In comparison, 90% of project managers believed they met their ecological goals. These documented perceptions of positive impacts for both people and nature suggest that restoration may already transcend traditional indicators and monitoring for socio‐ecological metrics could capture many ‘unseen’ benefits. Therefore, we recommend that ecosystem restoration programmes adopt a socio‐ecological lens to document the full extent of their restoration outcomes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract