The morphology of streams restored for market and nonmarket purposes: Insights from a mixed natural-social science approach

Water Resources Research

Volumn 51, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 5603-5622

  Doyle, Martin W ^a   Singh, Jai ^b   Lave, Rebecca ^c   Robertson, Morgan M ^d  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Cbec Eco Engineering Inc ^*  (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

geomorphology; restoration; sociohydrology

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; GEOMORPHOLOGY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; PERSONNEL;

HEADWATER STREAM; NONMARKET; POLICY DOCUMENTS; SOCIOHYDROLOGY; STREAM RESTORATION;

RESTORATION;

FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; NATURE-SOCIETY RELATIONS; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIVER MANAGEMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT;

EID: 84939425666     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: 19447973     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/2015WR017030     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Alexander, R. B., R. A. Smith, and, G. E. Schwarz, (2000), Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico, Nature, 403, 758-761, doi: 10.1038/35001562.
2. Ardon, M., J. L. Morse, M. W. Doyle, and, E. S. Bernhardt, (2010), The water quality consequences of restoring wetland hydrology to a large agricultural watershed in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, Ecosystems, 13, 1060-1078, doi: 10.1007/s10021-010-9374-x.
3. Beechie, T. J., D. A. Sear, J. D. Olden, G. R. Pess, J. M. Buffington, H. Moir, P. Roni, and, M. M. Pollock, (2010), Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems, BioScience, 60, 209-222, doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.7.
4. BenDor, T., J. Sholtes, and, M. W. Doyle, (2009), Landscape characteristics of stream and wetland mitigation banking, Ecol. Appl., 19, 2078-2092.
5. Bond, N. R., and, P. S. Lake, (2003), Local habitat restoration in streams: Constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota, Ecol. Manage. Restor., 4, 193-198, doi: 10.1046/j.1442-8903.2003.00156.x.
6. Boyd, J., D. Burtraw, A. Krupnick, V. McConnell, R. G. Newell, K. Palmer, J. N. Sanchirico, and, M. Walls, (2003), Trading cases, Environ. Sci. Technol., 37, 217-233, doi: 10.1021/es032462t.
7. Burawoy, M., (1991), The extended case method, in Ethnography Unbound, edited by M. Buraway et al., pp. 271-287, Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley.
8. Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise-Frederick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, R. E. Smith, and, J. Spooner, (2002), Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 38, 641-651, doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb00986.x.
9. Doyle, M. W., R. Lave, M. M. Robertson, and, J. Ferguson, (2013), River federalism, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 103, 290-298, doi: 10.1080/00045608.2013.754686.
10. Florsheim, J. L., J. F. Mount, and, A. Chin, (2008), Bank erosion as a desirable attribute of rivers, BioScience, 58, 519-529.
11. Harrelson, C. C., C. L. Rawlins, and, J. P. Potyondy, (1994), Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245, U.S. For. Serv., Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exper. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.
12. Hey, R. D., (1979), Determinate hydraulic geometry of river channels, ASCE J. Hydraul. Div., 104, 869-885.
13. Lake, P. S., N. Bond, and, P. Reich, (2007), Linking ecological theory with stream restoration, Freshwater Biol., 52, 597-615, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01709.x.
14. Lave, R., (2009), The controversy over Natural Channel Design: Substantive explanations and potential avenues for resolution. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 45, 1519-1532, doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00385.x.
15. Lave, R., (2012), Fields and Streams: Stream Restoration, Neoliberalism and the Future of Environmental Science, Univ. of Georgia Press, Athens, Ga.
16. Lave, R., (2014), Neoliberal confluences: The turbulent evolution of stream mitigation banking in the U.S., in Political Power and Social Theory, vol. 27, edited by, D. J. Hess, pp. 59-88, Emerald Group Publ. Ltd, Bengley, U. K.
17. McCabe, D. J., and, N. J. Gotelli, (2000), Effects of disturbance frequency, intensity, and area on assemblages of stream macroinvertebrates, Oecologia, 124, 270-279, doi: 10.1007/s004420000369.
18. National Research Council (2001), Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act, Washington, D. C.
19. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (2012), Annual report, Dep. of Environ. and Nat. Resour., Raleigh, N. C.
20. Odgaard, A. J., (1987), Streambank erosion along two rivers in Iowa, Water Resour. Res., 23, 1225-1236, doi: 10.1029/WR023i007p01225.
21. Rhoads, B. L., D. Wilson, M. Urban, and, E. E. Herricks, (1999), Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: Emergence of the concept of stream naturalization, Environ. Manage., 24, 297-308.
22. Schoenberger, E., (1991), The corporate interview as a research method in economic geography, Prof. Geogr., 43, 180-189.
23. Scott, J., (1998), Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn.
24. Shabman, L., K. Stephenson, and, P. Scodari, (1998), Wetland credit sales as a strategy for achieving no-net-loss: The limitations of regulatory conditions, Wetlands, 18, 471-481.
25. Shields, F. D., R. R. Copeland, P. C. Klingeman, M. W. Doyle, and, A. Simon, (2003), Design for stream restoration, J. Hydraul. Eng., 129, 575-584.
26. Simon, A., M. W. Doyle, M. Kondolf, F. D. Shields, B. Rhoads, and, M. McPhillips, (2007), Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated natural channel design methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 43, 1-15, doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00091.x.
27. Stephenson, K., and, L. Shabman, (2011), Rhetoric and reality of water quality trading and the potential for market-like reform, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 47, 15-28, doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00492.x.
28. Urban, M. A., (2005), Values and ethical beliefs regarding agricultural drainage in central Illinois, USA, Soc. Nat. Resour., 18, 647-665.
29. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (2003), Stream Mitigation Guidelines for the State of North Carolina, U.S. Army Corps of Eng. Wilmington Dist., Wilmington, N. C.
30. Valentine, G., (1997), Tell me about...: Using interviews as a research methodology, in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project, edited by, R. Flowerdew, and, D. Martin, pp. 110-126, Addison-Wesley, Essex.
31. Violin, C. R., P. Cada, E. B. Sudduth, B. A. Hassett, D. L. Penrose, and, E. S. Bernhardt, (2011), Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems, Ecol. Appl., 21, 1932-1949, doi: 10.1890/10-1551.1.
32. Wade, R. J., B. Rhoads, J. Rodriguez, M. Daniels, D. Wilson, E. E. Herricks, F. Bombardelli, M. Garcia, and, J. S. Schwartz, (2002), Integrating science and technology to support stream naturalization near Chicago, Illinois, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 38, 931-944.
33. Womble, P., and, M. W. Doyle, (2012), The geography of trading ecosystem services: A case study of wetland and stream compensatory mitigation markets, Harvard Environ. Law Rev., 36, 229-296.