Greening Development to Protect Watersheds:<i>Does New Urbanism Make a Difference?</i>

Berke, Philip; MacDonald, Joe; White, Nancy Marie; Holmes, Michael W.; Line, Dan; Oury, Kat; Ryznar, Rhonda

doi:10.1080/01944360308976327

Cited by 72 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This type of innovation can be accomplished by increasing development density in residential areas or using more a scientific design that reduces the impact of runoff to surrounding waterways. Other solutions may include encouraging redevelopment of brownfields or limiting total area of impervious surface construction to reduce the collective negative effects of impervious surfaces at the concentrated urban watersheds (Berke et al, 2003).…”

Section: Results Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping and analyzing change of impervious surface for two decades using multi-temporal Landsat imagery in Missouri

Zhou

Nigh

et al. 2012

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Results Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping and analyzing change of impervious surface for two decades using multi-temporal Landsat imagery in Missouri

Zhou

Nigh

et al. 2012

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The researchers found that New Urbanist developments were more likely to protect and restore sensitive areas, reduce impervious cover, and incorporate stormwater best management practices. Subsequent to the publication of the Berke et al (2003) findings, other studies have sought to evaluate whether the promise of New Urbanist design for reducing flood losses is being realized in practice. Berke et al (2009a) conducted a national study of New Urbanist developments in the US to determine how many of the projects contain 100-year floodplain portions within their boundaries.…”

Section: What We Know About the Environmental Performance Of New Urbamentioning

confidence: 96%

“…We have shown that designers of New Urbanist developments in the US are not generally taking advantage of these opportunities, and are instead frequently choosing to locate built structures inside floodplain portions of development project sites. In general, while New Urbanist design may be making positive contributions related to increased levels of pedestrian travel and neighborhood interaction (Brown et al 2008;Joh et al 2008;Lund 2003;Song and Knapp 2003), watershed protection (Berke et al 2003), and reduced land consumption (Gordon and Vipond 2005), among other things, it appears that New Urbanism's potential is not materializing within the context of natural hazard mitigation, particularly with respect to locating built structures outside the preconstruction floodplain boundary.…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendations For Improved Floodplain Manamentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Recent research efforts have subjected this acclaim to scrutiny, seeking to determine whether the environmental performance of New Urbanist developments is actually higher in practice than that of conventional developments. Berke et al (2003) used a sample of 50 matched pairs of New Urbanist and conventional developments in the South Atlantic Coast region of the US to evaluate whether there were any differences across the two development types with respect to the incorporation of watershed protection techniques. The researchers found that New Urbanist developments were more likely to protect and restore sensitive areas, reduce impervious cover, and incorporate stormwater best management practices.…”

Section: What We Know About the Environmental Performance Of New Urbamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New Urbanist developments in flood-prone areas: safe development, or safe development paradox?

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Government policies intended to reduce flood losses can increase the potential for catastrophe by stimulating development inside the floodplain, a phenomenon referred to as the ''safe development paradox.'' New Urbanist design has the potential to both exacerbate and alleviate flood risks. Because they are built at relatively high densities, New Urbanist developments can exacerbate risk by placing more people and property in harm's way. Conversely, New Urbanist design features theoretically better enable designers of New Urbanist developments to avoid floodplain portions of project sites than designers of conventional subdivisions. Using a sample of New Urbanist developments in the US that contain floodplain portions within their boundaries, this paper focuses on whether and why these developments locate built structures inside the floodplain. The authors find that roughly 30% of the developments locate structures inside the floodplain, and that the odds of locating structures inside the floodplain increase with the proportion of the project site located inside the floodplain and decrease with the presence of government policies that prohibit residential development in the floodplain. The authors also identify confusion among government planners regarding the distinction between pre and postconstruction floodplain boundaries. A subset of New Urbanist developments is found to have built structures located outside the postconstruction floodplain boundary, but inside the preconstruction floodplain boundary. This finding is cited as an example of the ''safe development paradox'' in action. The authors recommend changes in New Urbanist design codes and local government floodplain management to increasingly direct new development away from the floodplain.

show abstract

“…Several of the studies we analysed are more general and consider watershed health [43] or the urban water balance [48,56], while others focus specifically on stormwater runoff [45,55,61], potable water supply [34,57], flooding [32], or household consumption patterns [50].…”

Section: Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This article reviews studies published in English language planning journals since 2001 that focus on the environmental impacts of sprawl. We organise our analysis of the reviewed literature around: (1) the conceptualisation or measurement of sprawl; (2) a comparison of research methods employed and findings with respect to four categories of environmental impacts-air, energy, land, and water; and (3) an exploration of emergent and cross-cutting themes. We hypothesise that the trend towards breaking down silos observable in other areas of planning scholarship is also reflected in the recent sprawl literature and structure our review to test this proposition. International in scope, our work demonstrates how focusing on outcomes can facilitate balanced comparisons across geographic contexts with varying rates of urbanisation and affluence. We find that the sprawl research published in planning journals over the past decade frequently engages with broader themes of resilience and justice, increasingly considers multiple environmental outcomes, and suggests a convergence in the way sprawl is studied that transcends national boundaries as well as the developing-developed country dichotomy.

show abstract

Greening Development to Protect Watersheds:Does New Urbanism Make a Difference?

Cited by 72 publications

References 6 publications

Mapping and analyzing change of impervious surface for two decades using multi-temporal Landsat imagery in Missouri

Mapping and analyzing change of impervious surface for two decades using multi-temporal Landsat imagery in Missouri

New Urbanist developments in flood-prone areas: safe development, or safe development paradox?

The Environmental Impacts of Sprawl: Emergent Themes from the Past Decade of Planning Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About