Priority river metrics for residents of an urbanized arid watershed

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 133, Issue , 2015, Pages 37-52

  Weber, Matthew A ^a   Ringold, Paul L ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Depth interviews; Final ecosystem services; Focus groups; Qualitative research; River monitoring; Urban ecosystem services

Indexed keywords

DATA STREAMS; ECOSYSTEMS; WATERSHEDS;

DEPTH INTERVIEWS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; FOCUS GROUPS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RIVER MONITORING; URBAN ECOSYSTEM;

RIVERS;

ARID REGION; ASSESSMENT METHOD; DATA SET; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FISH; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; URBAN AREA; URBANIZATION; WATERSHED; WILD POPULATION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84907709230     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anacostia Watershed Society. (n.d.). 2011 State of the Anacostia River. Retrieved from http://www.anacostiaws.org/programs/publicaffairs/state-of-the-river.
2. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Title 18: Environmental quality 2010, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, (Chapter 11: Department of environmental quality, Article 1: Water quality standards). Effective April 13, 2010. Retrieved from: 〈http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/upload/az_wqs_1.pdf〉.
3. Asakawa S., Yoshida K., Yabe K. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 68:167-182.
4. Bark R.H., Osgood D.E., Colby B.G., Katz G., Stromberg J. Habitat preservation and restoration: Do homebuyers have preferences for quality habitat?. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:1465-1475.
5. Barmil S., Daniel T.C., Hetherington J.D. Human values and perceptions of water in arid landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 1999, 44:99-109.
6. Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Silva C.L., Brookshire D., McKee M. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows with test of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 58:73-90.
7. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:616-626.
8. Boyd J.W., Krupnick A.J. Using ecological production theory to define and select environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 2013, 42:1-32.
9. Colby B.G., Wishart S. Quantifying the influence of desert riparian areas on residential property values. The Appraisal Journal 2002, LXX(3):304-308.
10. Creswell J., Miller D. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice 2000, 39(3):124-130.
11. Fern E.F. Advanced focus group research 2001, 255. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
12. Freeman A.M. The measurement of environmental and resource values 2003, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. 2nd ed.
13. Gartin M., Crona B., Wutich A., Westerhoff P. Urban ethnohydrology: Cultural knowledge of water quality and water management in a Desert City. Ecology and Society 2010, 15(4):36.
14. Glaser B., Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory 1967, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY.
15. Gobster P.H., Westphal L.M. The human dimensions of urban greenways: Planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 68:147-165.
16. Hetherington J., Daniel T.C., Brown T.C. Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environment perception research. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1993, 13:283-291.
17. Hughes R.M. Stream indicator and design workshop. Report no. EPA/600/R-93/138 1993, Environmental Protection Agency.
18. Hughes R.M., Peck D.V. Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: The art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 2008, 27(4):837-859.
19. Evaluation guidelines for ecological indicators. EPA/620/R-99/005 2000, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. L.E. Jackson, J.C. Kurtz, W.S. Fisher (Eds.).
20. Janis I.L. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes 1972, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
21. Kaplowitz M.D. Statistical analysis of sensitive topics in group and individual interviews. Quality & Quantity 2000, 34:419-431.
22. Kondolf G.M., Yang C.-N. Planning river restoration projects: Social and cultural dimensions. River restoration: Managing the uncertainty in restoring physical habitat 2008, 160. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, England, (Chapter 4). S. Darby, D. Sear (Eds.).
23. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology 2013, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
24. Ladle R.J., Gillson L. The (im)balance of nature: A public perception time-lag?. Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18:229-242.
25. Larson E.K., Perrings C. The value of water-related amenities in an arid city: The case of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 109(1):45-55.
26. Logan M.F. The lessening stream: An environmental history of the Santa Cruz River 2002, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
27. 2012 river report card 2013, Milwaukie Riverkeeper, Milwaukie Riverkeeper, Retrieved from 〈http://www.mkeriverkeeper.org/content/2012-river-report-card〉.
28. Morgan D.L., Krueger R.A. The focus group kit (6 volumes) 1998, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
29. Naiman R.J., Décamps H., Pollock M. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications 1993, 3:209-212.
30. Ecological indicators for the nation 2000, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
31. Norman L., Tallent-Halsell N., Labiosa W., Weber M., McCoy A., Hirschboeck K., et al. Developing an ecosystem services online decision support tool to assess the impacts of climate change and urban growth in the Santa Cruz watershed; where we live, work, and play. Sustainability 2010, 2:2044-2069.
32. Patton M.Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods 2002, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 3rd ed.
33. Ringold P.L., Boyd J., Landers D., Weber M.A. Report from the workshop on indicators of final ecosystem services for streams. EPA/600/R-09/137 2009, 56. (Meeting date: July 13 to 16, 2009). Retrieved from 〈http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index.html〉.
34. Ringold P.L., Boyd J., Landers D., Weber M.A. What data should we collect? A framework for identifying indicators of ecosystem contributions to human well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2013, 11:98-105.
35. Rubin H.J., Rubin I.S. Qualitative interviewing 2005, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 2nd ed.
36. Schiller A., Hunsaker C.T., Kane M.A., Wolfe A.K., Dale V.H., Suter G.W., et al. Communicating ecological indicators to decision-makers and the public. Conservation Ecology 2001, 5(1):19.
37. Seager R., Ting M., Held I., Kushnir Y., Lu J., Vecchi G., et al. Model projections on an inminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 2007, 316:1181-1184.
38. Smith J.W., Moore R.L. Perceptions of community benefits from two wild and scenic rivers. Environmental Management 2011, 47:814-827.
39. A living river: Charting the health of the upper Santa Cruz river: 2010 water year 2011, Sonoran Institute, Sonoran Institute, Retrieved from 〈http://sonoraninstitute.org/where-we-work/southwest/santa-cruz-river/311-charting-the-health-of-the-upper-santa-cruz-river.html〉.
40. Stirling G., Wilsey B. Empirical relationships between species richness, evenness, and proportional diversity. The American Naturalist 2001, 158(3):286-299.
41. Stoddard J.L., Larsen D.P., Hawkins C.P., Johnson R.K., Norris R.H. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: The concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 2006, 16:1267-1276.
42. Turner D.S., Richter H.E. Wet/dry mapping: Using citizen scientists to monitor the extent of perennial surface flow in dryland regions. Environmental Management 2011, 47:497-505.
43. United Nations Environment Program Global biodiversity assessment 1995, 1152. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. V.H. Heywood (Ed.).
44. United States Census 2010 Census urban and rural classification and urban area criteria 2010, Retrieved from: (https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html).
45. United States Census State and county quick facts 2010, Retrieved from: (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html).
46. Webb R.H., Leake S.A., Turner R.M. The ribbon of green: Change in riparian vegetation in the southwestern United States 2007, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
47. Weber M., Stewart S. Public valuation of river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restoration Ecology 2009, 17(6):762-771.
48. Weber M., Mozumder P., Berrens R.P. Accounting for unobserved time-varying quality in recreation demand: An application to a Sonoran desert wilderness. Water Resources Research 2012, 48(5):W05515.
49. White M.S. Effluent-dominated waterways in the southwestern United States: Advancing water policy through ecological analysis 2011, 244. Arizona State University, Arizona, (Ph.D. dissertation).
50. Wutich A., Lant T., White D.D., Larson K.L., Gartin M. Comparing focus group and individual responses on sensitive topics: A study of water decision makers in a Desert City?. Field Methods 2010, 22(1):88-110.