Deculverting: Reviewing the evidence on the 'daylighting' and restoration of culverted rivers

Water and Environment Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 412-421

  Wild, T C ^a   Bernet, J F ^a   Westling, E L ^a   Lerner, D N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Culvert; Daylighting; Deculverting; Heavily modified water bodies; River restoration; Urban water

Indexed keywords

DECULVERTING; ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS; ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS; FLOOD RISKS; FURTHER DEVELOPMENT; GOOD PRACTICES; HEAVILY MODIFIED WATER BODY; LOCAL COMMUNITY; RIVER RESTORATION; UNITED KINGDOM; URBAN WATERS;

BRIDGES; RESTORATION;

DAYLIGHTING;

CULVERT; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; GLOBALIZATION; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; LITERATURE REVIEW; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; BUILDING; CONSTRUCTION WORK; COST; DECULVERTING; ECOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; ECOSYSTEM REGENERATION; EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FLOODING; GOVERNMENT; HABITAT; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME VARIABLE; PLAY; POND; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECREATION; RIVER; SOCIAL ASPECT; SUNLIGHT; UNITED KINGDOM; URBAN AREA; WETLAND;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84860414808     PISSN: 17476585     EISSN: 17476593     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-6593.2010.00236.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Amisah, S. and Cowx, I.G. (2000) Response of the Fish Populations of the River Don in South Yorkshire to Water Quality and Habitat Improvements. Environ. Pollut., 108, 191-199.
2. Bates, K., Barnard, B., Heiner, B., Klavas, J.P. and Powers, P.D. (2003) Design of Road Culvert for Fish Passage. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
3. Benjamin, T.S., Green, A.M. and Deshais, K. (2003) The Neponset River Restoration (Daylighting) Project. American Society of Landscape Architects 2003, Washington.
4. Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad-Shah, J., Galat, D., Gloss, S., Goodwin, P., Hart, D., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Katz, S., Kondolf, G.M., Lake, P. S., Lave, R., Meyer, J.L., O'donnell, T.K., Pagano, L., Powell, B. and Sudduth, E. (2005) Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science, 308, 636-637.
5. Buchholz, T. and Younos, T. (2007) Urban Stream Daylighting: Case Study Evaluations. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg, VA.
6. CIWEM. (2007) Policy Position Statement on Deculverting of Watercourses. Chartered Institution of Water & Environmental Management, London.
7. Dobson, M. and Frid, C. (1998) Ecology of Aquatic Ecosystems. Longman, Harlow.
8. Eden, S. and Tunstall, S. (2006) Ecological Versus Social Restoration? Environ. Plann. C: Govt. Policy, 24, 661-680.
9. Environment Agency. (1999) Policy Regarding Culverts - Policy Statement. The Environment Agency, Bristol.
10. Findlay, S.J. and Taylor, M.P. (2006) Why Rehabilitate Urban River Systems? Area, 38, 312-325.
11. Gerson, S., Wardani, J. and Niaz, S. (2005) Blackberry Creek Daylighting Project, Berkeley: Ten-Year Post-Project Appraisal. Water Resources Center Archives, University of California, Berkeley.
12. Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C. and Fry, G. (2007) The Shared Landscape: What Does Aesthetics Have to Do With Ecology? Landsc. Ecol., 22, 959-972.
13. Harrison, S.S.C., Pretty, J.L., Shepherd, D., Hildrew, A.G. and Smith, C., et al. (2004) The Effect of Instream Rehabilitation Structures on Macroinvertebrates in Lowland Rivers. J. Appl. Ecol., 41, 1140-1154.
14. Hitzhusen, F.J. (ed). (2007) Economic Valuation of River Systems. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
15. Holl, K.D. and Howarth, R.B. (2000) Paying for Restoration. Restor. Ecol., 8, 260-267.
16. Hoobyar, P. (2002) Daylighting and Restoring Streams in Rural Community City Centers: Case Studies. National Park Service, Seattle.
17. Iversen, T.M. and Andersen, S.P. (1997) Danish Experiences on River Restoration I: Trends and Statistics, River Restoration 1996, Plenary Lectures. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.
18. Jackson, S.D. (2003) Ecological Considerations in the Design of River and Stream Crossings. In Irwin, C.L., Garrett, P. and McDermott, K.P. (eds). International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, pp. 20-29. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
19. Jähnig, S.C., Brunzel, S., Gacek, S., Lorenz, A.W. and Hering, D. (2009) Effects of Re-braiding Measures on Hydromorphology, Floodplain Vegetation, Ground Beetles and Benthic Invertebrates in Mountain Rivers. J. Appl. Ecol., 46, 406-416.
20. Jencks, R. and Leonardson, R. (2004) Daylighting Islais Creek: A Feasibility Study. Water Resources Center Archives, University of California, Berkeley.
21. Jones, S.W. (2001) Planning for Wildlife: Evaluating Creek Daylighting as a Means of Urban Conservation. Dalhousie University, Halifax.
22. Jünker, B. and Buchecker, M. (2008) Aesthetic Preferences Versus Ecological Objectives in River Restorations. Landsc. Urban Plann., 85, 141-154.
23. Kang, C.D. and Cervero, R. (2009) From Elevated Freeway to Urban Greenway: Land Value Impacts of the CGC Project in Seoul, Korea. Urban Studies, 46, 2771-2794.
24. Kummert, R. and Stumm, W. (1992) Gewässer als Ökosysteme. Grundlagen des Gewässerschutzes. Verlag der Fachvereine, Zürich.
25. Loomis, J.B., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K. and Covich, A. (2000) Measuring the Total Economic Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in an Impaired River Basin: Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey. Ecol. Econ., 33, 103-117.
26. Macdonald, J.I. and Davies, P.E. (2007) Improving the Upstream Passage of Two Galaxiid Fish Species Through a Pipe Culvert. Fish. Manage. Ecol., 14, 221-230.
27. Municipality of Aarhus. (undated) Pedestrian Precinct Improvement. Aarhus, Denmark.
28. Netusil, N.R. (2006) Economic Valuation of Riparian Corridors and Upland Wildlife Habitat in an Urban Watershed. J. Contem. Water Res. Educ., 134, 39-45.
29. Nolan, P.A. and Guthrie, N. (1998) River Rehabilitation in an Urban Environment: Examples from the Mersey Basin, North West England. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., 8, 685-700.
30. Palmer, M.A., Ambrose, R.F. and Poff, L.N. (1997) Ecological Theory and Community Restoration Ecology. Restor. Ecol., 5, 291-300.
31. Pinkham, R. (2000) Daylighting: New Life for Buried Streams. Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado.
32. Poplar-Jeffers, I.O., Petty, J.T., Anderson, J.T., Kite, S.J., Strager, M.P. and Fortney, R.H. (2008) Culvert Replacement and Stream Habitat Restoration: Implications from Brook Trout Management in an Appalachian Watershed. USA Restor. Ecol., 17, 1-10.
33. Pretty, J.L., Harrison, S.S.C., Shepherd, D.J., Smith, C., Hildrew, A.G. and Hey, R.D. (2003) River Rehabilitation and Fish Populations: Assessing the Benefit of Instream Structures. J. Appl. Ecol., 40, 251-265.
34. Purcell, A. (2004) A Long-Term Post-Project Evaluation of an Urban Stream Restoration Project (Baxter Creek, El Cerrito, California). University of California, Water Resources Center Archives, Berkeley.
35. Rocha, J. (2005) Specifications for New Materials and Techniques. Specifications 8.1: Instream Improvement and River Engineering. Urban River Basin Enhancement Methods. Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisboa, Portugal.
36. RRC. (2002) Manual of River Restoration Techniques. River Restoration Centre, Cranfield.
37. SEPA. (2000) Watercourses in the Community. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling.
38. SEPA. (2006) Position Statement to Support the Implementation of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005: Culverting of Watercourses. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling.
39. SEPA. (undated) Culverting: an Agenda for Action. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling.
40. Shin, J.H. and Lee, I.K. (2006) Cheong Gye Cheon restoration in Seoul, Korea. Civil Eng. (Proc. of ICE), 159, 162-170.
41. Smith, B.R. (2007a) Assessing the Feasibility of Creek Daylighting in San Francisco, Part I: A Synthesis of Lessons Learned from Existing Urban Daylighting Projects. University of California, Water Resources Center, Berkeley.
42. Smith, B.R. (2007b) Assessing the Feasibility of Creek Daylighting in San Francisco, Part II: A Preliminary Analysis of Yosemite Creek. Water Resources Center Archives, University of California, Berkeley.
43. Streiner, C.F. and Loomis, J.B. (1995) Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method. Rivers, 5, 267-278.
44. Tunstall, S.M., Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Tapsell, S.M. and Eden, S.E. (2000) River Restoration: Public Attitudes and Expectations. J. Ch. Inst. Water Environ. Manage., 14, 363-370.
45. Wild, T.C., Mckissock, G., D'arcy, B.J., Shaffer, P. and Elliott, C. (2003) An Evaluation of SUDS Guidance in Scotland. Second National Conference on Sustainable Drainage. Coventry University, Conventry, UK.
46. Woolsey, S., Weber, C., Gonser, T., Hoehn, E., Hostmann, M., Jünker, B., Roulier, C., Schweizer, S., Tiegs, S., Tockner, K., Peter, A., Capelli, F., Hunzinger, L., Moosmann, L., Paetzold, A. and Rohde, S. (2005) Handbook for Evaluating Rehabilitation Projects in Rivers and Streams. EAWAG/WSL, Zurich.