Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

DOI 10.1007/s11252-011-0174-7

Rediscovering the value of urban rivers

Mark Everard & Helen L. Moggridge

Published online: 19 April 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Rivers commonly serve as defining, founding features of human settlements, yet
urbanisation has degraded them, often to the extent that they no longer provide the services
to society from which the settlements developed. Urban river restoration has expanded in
recent years and part of this can be attributed to the increased recognition of the
interconnected benefits that restored ecosystems can provide to society. This paper reviews
the impact of urbanisation on rivers and the ecosystem services that they provide, and
explores the ecosystem approach to restoration. Techniques and tools for the practical
application of the ecosystem services approach in conservation are considered, with
reference to case studies. There is a need to internalise ecosystem service insights into
pragmatic, transparent and readily-used and understood planning tools, based on the
capacities of a range of ecosystem services in river corridors. This is necessary if we are to
avoid the continued erosion of critical resources such as rivers, rediscovering their multiple
values to society, and to accelerate the translation of these sustainability concepts into
applied tools.

Keywords Urban rivers . Ecosystem services . Mayes Brook . Societal benefits . Lost rivers .
River restoration

M. Everard (*)
Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Frenchay Campus,
Bristol BS16 1QY, UK
e-mail: mark@pundamilia.co.uk

H. L. Moggridge
Catchment Science Centre, Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Winter Street,
Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
e-mail: h.l.moggridge@sheffield.ac.uk

Present Address:
M. Everard
2 Hollow Street, Great Somerford, Wiltshire SN15 5JD, UK
294 Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

Introduction

Many urban centres have developed around rivers due to the resources that they provide
including food, water, power, flat land for development and transport (Grimm et al. 2008).
Consequently, many of the world’s rivers are impacted by urbanisation; 50% of the global
population live in urban centres and this is predicted to increase (UNFPA 2007). Urban
development has rarely been sympathetic with its environment and has often overlooked
the value of functional aquatic ecosystems (Baron et al. 2002). Consequently, urbanisation
is considered to be one of the most dramatic alterations of ecosystems (Pickett et al. 2001).
This occurs through a combination of factors, including an increase in impervious surfaces,
channel modification (including culverting), a disconnection of rivers and floodplains, a
high water demand and increase in contaminants. These factors have degraded many urban
rivers to the extent that some cease to provide the very resources or services for which the
settlement developed (Groffman et al. 2003; Grimm et al. 2008). As freshwater ecosystems
continue to be degraded and destroyed worldwide, human society is losing the wealth of
ecosystem services that healthy freshwater ecosystems provide (Daily 1997).
There is an increasing recognition of the need to restore and sustainably manage freshwater
ecosystems (Gleick 2000; Findlay and Taylor 2006). River restoration is a rapidly-expanding
field that has grown in response to increasing awareness of the scope and scale of human-
induced ecosystem changes (Clifford 2007). In Europe, a number of legislative drivers, such
as the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), have
provided further impetus for this. Institutions responsible for environmental management
such as the European Environment Agency, are placing increasing emphasis on river and
floodplain restoration and rehabilitation (Adams and Perrow 1999).
Part of the growing trend towards sustainable ecosystem management can be attributed
to the increased recognition of the benefits, or services, that society derives from functional
ecosystems. Ecosystems provide a number of direct (e.g. food, water, fuel) and indirect (e.g.
soil formation, flood regulation) services that underpin human wellbeing (see Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005 for a comprehensive assessment). The ‘ecosystem services’
framework is being increasingly adopted in conservation and ecosystem management to
demonstrate the wider benefits of functional ecosystems and justify ecosystem restoration
(Eigenbrod et al. 2009). Furthermore, with debate over reference conditions for river
restoration and rehabilitation (Dufour and Piegay 2009), the goals of restoration are becoming
increasingly focused towards societal benefits (Findlay and Taylor 2006; Dufour and Piegay
2009; Paetzold et al. 2010). However, implementation of this framework is still in its infancy
and there is no widely-endorsed methodology (Eden and Tunstall 2006; Egoh et al. 2007).
This paper considers the impact of urbanisation on rivers and reviews the application of
the ecosystem services framework for assessing and restoring urban rivers. A variety of
techniques for ecosystem service evaluation are considered, with reference to practitioner
experience, in order to provide an overview of the application of this framework. The paper
appraises academic and grey literature to identify management opportunities and research
needs from both a scientific and practitioner perspective.

Rivers and urbanisation: Poisoning the well

The negative impact of urbanisation on river systems is wide-ranging and multi-faceted.

Eden and Tunstall (2006, pg.662) summarise the traditional European approach to urban
river management as “…bury them, turn them into canals, line them with concrete and
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314 295

build upon the (now protected) floodplains”. Klein (1979) demonstrates a direct
relationship between the extent of urbanisation in a catchment and river quality, a trend
which has been confirmed by many subsequent studies (see Paul and Meyer 2001 and
Gurnell et al. 2007).
A key alteration to catchments from urbanisation is an increase in impervious surfaces
which, coupled with urban drainage systems, alters the hydrological regime. Surface runoff
increases as infiltration declines, causing a decrease in the lag time between precipitation
events and peak discharge. This results in a ‘flashier’ flow regime (Gurnell et al. 2007)
which can increase the risk of flooding (Everard et al. 2009) and drought (Paul and Meyer
2001), as groundwater recharge is often diminished (Lerner 1990). In addition to changes in
the quantity of water, changes in water quality have also been attributed to urbanisation
(House et al. 1993); Paul and Meyer (2001) summarise this as an increase in oxygen
demand, conductivity, suspended solids, ammonium, hydrocarbons, nutrients, metals and a
change in the temperature regime.
Land use and hydrological changes associated with urbanisation also impact the
sediment regime and morphology of rivers (Gurnell et al. 2007; Taylor and Owens 2009).
This was most notably characterised by Wolman (1967): in the construction phase of urban
development, there is often an increase in sediment load and associated channel
aggradation, which is followed by a decrease in sediment load, from a decline in hillslope
erosion from impervious surfaces in the catchment, which causes scour and bank erosion in
the river channel. The relative dominance of different sediment sources changes in urban
catchments, with anthropogenic sources such as mining, road-deposited sediments,
industrial point sources and wastewater dominating, with the result that contaminants
occur in high concentration in urban river sediments (Taylor and Owens 2009).
The altered hydrological and sediment regime may cause channel enlargement (Gurnell
et al. 2007), although geomorphological response to urbanisation is variable (Chin 2006).
Channel morphology is also frequently altered by physical modifications for navigation
and/or flood protection, including channel straightening and reinforcement, changing the
abundance and distribution of physical habitat within channels (Booker and Dunbar 2004;
Gurnell et al. 2007). Urban rivers are also frequently culverted and diverted to enable
development, decreasing catchment drainage density (Paul and Meyer 2001). Urban
headwater streams are particularly vulnerable to burial (Elmore and Kaushal 2008). For
example, there is an entire network of rivers culverted under central London (Barton 1992),
many of which were once noted for their rich fisheries (Walton 1653).
The hydrological, physical and chemical characteristics of urban rivers have a notable impact
on channel ecology (see Paul and Meyer 2001, for a comprehensive review). Stream ecological
function is heavily impacted by urbanisation (Meyer et al. 2005; Walsh et al. 2005; Chadwick
et al. 2006)—the ‘Urban Stream Syndrome’ (Walsh et al. 2005)—which has been shown to
decrease biotic richness with increased dominance of pollution-tolerant species. Declines in the
abundance and diversity of fish (Wang et al. 2000; Roy et al. 2006), invertebrates (Beavan
et al. 2001; Chadwick et al. 2006) and macrophytes (Suren 2000) have also been observed,
although this remains an important area for further study (Paul and Meyer 2001).
As urban centres have expanded in size and number, negative impacts on freshwater
ecosystems have become more severe and widespread. The ecosystem impacts of
urbanisation also extend further than the immediate urban area; the demands of cities for
energy, water, food and other resources burden the surrounding areas, resulting in further
ecosystem exploitation (Folke et al. 1997).
In many cases, ecosystems have been degraded to the extent that they can no longer
provide essential services supporting human well-being. This is well exemplified in the
296 Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

River Don, Sheffield UK (see Maltby et al. 2010): mineral resources in the region attracted
human settlement and a major metal industry developed during the eighteenth century. The
industry and associated urban population expansion caused major changes to the river. The
course of the Don was altered, impoundments were constructed and mine water (and
associated contaminants) and water used for cooling was discharged into the river. These
changes caused the Don to become one of the most polluted rivers in Europe. The once rich
fisheries in the Don system collapsed. Furthermore, local resources such as woodland, coal
and iron ore, which had enabled industry to become established, were overexploited,
causing a marked decline in the industry. Fitzhugh and Richter (2004) also describe five
case studies of urbanisation and industrialisation in the US where water resources have been
exploited to the extent that ecosystem services are threatened. Indeed, there are many cases
throughout history where ecosystems have been exploited to the extent that essential services
have ceased and civilisations have collapsed (Diamond 2004). These examples illustrate the
importance of taking a holistic ecosystems perspective to resource management.
In recognition of the need to reverse at least some of this precipitous decline, urban
rivers are becoming an important focus for restoration, and this is likely to expand further
as urbanisation continues and demands for a sustainable but enhanced quality of life
increase (Clifford 2007). Urban waterway restoration has received considerable investment;
UK examples of major urban regeneration projects centred around urban rivers include:
Salford Quays on the Manchester Ship Canal, the Leeds waterfront on the River Aire, the
River Mersey in Liverpool (see Nolan and Guthrie 1998), areas of Manchester focused on
transformation of the formerly ‘Dark River Irwell’, Glasgow’s waterfront with the rivers
Clyde and Kelvin, in Kent along the River Medway, and in Northumberland fronting
restored stretches of the Rivers Tyne and Wear.
Much of the impetus for this restoration effort has been the recognition of the range of
public benefits that river restoration provides (Petts et al. 2001). For example, restoration of
the formerly ‘lost’ River Quaggy in its course through Chinbrook Meadows park in south
London (reviewed by Everard 2009a), which entailed breaking the river out of a narrow
concrete channel and recreating a functional floodplain as part of an attractive parkland
landscape, had the effect of decreasing local flooding and achieving an additional integrated
set of biodiversity, leisure, amenity and educational benefits, contributing to the
regeneration of the area. Similarly, outside of the UK, restoration of the urban river
Cheong Gye Cheon in Seoul, South Korea has delivered considerable biodiversity, amenity,
microclimate, tourism and other benefits (Nam-Choon 2005). We recognise these benefits
today as ecosystem services, which may be a useful framework for planning both
restoration and the avoidance or minimisation of damage in future urban development.

Taking an ecosystem perspective

Sustainable development recognises that social and economic progress should be simultaneous
and integrated with supporting ecosystems (World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987). However, applying this principle in practice is challenging due in part
to a lack of scientifically-robust and pragmatic tools (Johnston et al. 2007).
One such pragmatic approach is that of ‘ecosystem services’, which describes the
multiple benefits that society derives from ecosystems (Daily 1997). These were grouped
by the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) into four categories:
‘provisioning services’ (extractable resources), ‘regulatory services’ (processes that regulate
the natural environment), ‘cultural services’ (culturally-valued benefits) and ‘supporting
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314 297

services’ (processes essential to maintenance of the integrity, resilience and functioning of

ecosystems). Ecosystem services collectively underpin human wellbeing, including health,
economic activities and enjoyment of life, exposing the complexity and diversity of
interactions between society and natural systems. This suite of services must be considered
as a contiguous system, such that the realisation of a target benefit is not achieved at cost to
other benefits and their beneficiaries.
The ecosystem services framework recognises and potentially provides a means to
quantify benefits to society, allowing ecosystems to be incorporated into planning and other
decision-making processes (Egoh et al. 2007). It can also enable assessment of the impacts
of marginal changes, such as management or development interventions. This is a
particularly useful approach in urban ecosystems, such as urban rivers. In the built
environment, anthropocentric ecosystem services are particularly valued (Niemelä et al. 2010).
There is a critical need to consider social science in conservation and management (Eden and
Tunstall 2006), particularly as these ecosystems often have numerous and extreme pressures
and constraints (Eden and Tunstall 2006). Ecosystem services could be a valuable tool to
connect these ecological and societal values within a decision-making framework to support
increasing interest in urban river restoration.
Evaluations of ecosystem services in urban environments exist in the scientific literature
(e.g. Tratalos et al. 2007; Tzoulas et al. 2007; Jim and Chen 2009; Niemelä et al. 2010) but
there is no widely-accepted methodology for applying the ecosystem services approach
(Egoh et al. 2007). However, environmental managers, policy-makers and practitioners
increasingly recognise the value of the ecosystem services approach and are beginning to
adopt this in practice. Thus, there are many examples of practical application in the grey
literature, which provide a useful insight in the application of ecosystem services in
restoration.
One approach to this has been the monetisation of services (e.g. Hitzhusen 2007). Whilst
the value of this approach is still contested (Spangenberg and Settele 2010), practitioners
have found monetisation to be a useful means to factor ecosystems centrally into decision-
making processes. In the UK, the government Department for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Defra) published guidelines on ecosystem valuation (Defra 2007) and this
has been used by the UK Environment Agency to evaluate ecosystem restoration schemes
on the River Tamar (Everard 2009b), Alborough Flats (Everard 2009b), River Glaven
(Everard 2010), upper Bristol Avon (Everard and Jevons 2010), Wareham Harbour (Eftec
2007), the Mayes Brook in east London (Everard et al. in press) and a set of development
options in the East of England (Glaves et al. 2009).
Everard et al. (in press) demonstrate the value of the ecosystem service approach for
urban river restoration in a study on Mayesbrook Park, East London. This project, which
aims to restore an urban river reach and surrounding parkland, offers an opportunity to
create an ecological and community focal point within a broader environmental
regeneration project in a deprived part of London. The study was based on a set of stated
assumptions and economic techniques linking each service to actual or surrogate markets.
Unlike related studies on rural systems, this urban brook and parkland restoration was
found to result in no uplift in provisioning services. However, ecosystem enhancements can
make significant contributions to regulatory services (the regulation of air and water quality,
microclimate and flood risk), cultural services (recreation and tourism, social cohesion and
educational opportunities) and supporting services (particularly nutrient cycling and
provision of habitat for wildlife). The overall lifetime benefit-to-cost ratio derived for
restoration was approximately 7:1, not only justifying planned investment but contributing
significantly to regional regeneration and the health and wellbeing of local people. This
298 Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

represents an influential way to communicate the benefits of ‘environmental improvements’

through publicly-understood benefits (Loomis et al. 2000), potentially creating opportuni-
ties for mutually-beneficial linkages between organisations with remits connected through
common ecosystem-mediated ‘markets’. The outcomes of the study including values
derived for ecosystem services are summarised in Table 1, to demonstrate the range of
ecosystem services that urban river restoration can deliver.
In order to support operational decision-making, full quantification and monetisation of
ecosystem services is not always necessary. Defra (2007) propose a simple weighting
scheme for ecosystem service evaluation, based on the views of stakeholders or experts,
which can prove useful in streamlining decision-making. This was applied in a study by
Eftec (2007) on a coastal defence scheme in the UK: the final management decision did not
rest on monetary values but on the strength of support of stakeholders for a clearly favoured
option for managed realignment of a coastal defence scheme that was nearing the end of its
life. In their ecosystem service case studies in the East of England, Glaves et al. (2009) also
abandoned monetised studies in favour of a weighted approach to identify favoured options
for development in five sites across the region, recognising that reliance on readily-
monetised values alone would have perpetuated the exclusion of current externalities in
decision-making. Such an approach was also applied to an evaluation of the likely
outcomes of the proposed Pancheshwar Dam on the Kali River defining the India/Nepal
border (Everard and Kataria 2010); a non-quantified but weighted approach was used to
derive conclusions that have proved politically influential.
An ecosystem service evaluation of eThekwini, on the coast of KwaZulu-Natal in South
Africa (Diederichs et al. 2002), demonstrates how practical tools can be developed to apply
the ecosystem services framework to routine management decisions such as urban
development planning. The study was commissioned by the municipality of eThekwini,
which recognised that the capacity of ecosystem services in river corridors converging on
the city of Durban was likely to limit further urban, social and economic development. The
evaluation presented the ecosystem services graphically for each of the tributary rivers,
using a red/orange/green ‘traffic light’ coding representing the state of a range of ecosystem
services in relation to their carrying capacity. Outputs from this study were structured as a
practical, graphic guide with direct applicability to day-to-day planning, supporting the
decisions of planning staff on a fully transparent and readily-understood basis. This has
been used routinely since publication in 2002 and been instrumental in informing a wide
range of decisions, both routine and controversial.
In addition to direct ecosystem service assessment, a range of other environmental
management tools is available to practitioners which take an ecosystem approach and apply
aspects of ecosystem services. Examples applied in urban contexts within the UK include:
‘green infrastructure’ (www.greeninfrastructure.co.uk), sustainable drainage systems or
SuDS (as reviewed in the Woods et al. 2007 design manual), ‘green lungs’ and ‘wildlife
corridors’, the National Community Forests Partnership (www.communityforest.org.uk),
Eco Cities (www.ecocitiesproject.org.uk), various climate change initiatives under the
Nottingham Declaration (www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/nottingham) and Natural Economy
Northwest (www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk). All of these tools and initiatives are
founded on placing ecosystems and their capacities and services centrally into planning and
development. At present, their innovation and implementation is fragmented, addressing
different, entirely valid and important aspects of the wider relationship between urban
development and ecosystems. Yet all can be contextualised within the breadth of
connections between ecosystems, social needs and economic opportunity captured within
the concept of ecosystem services. The principal targets of these initiatives, taken from the
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314
Table 1 Evaluation of the ecosystem services derived from the restoration of an urban stream in
Mayesbrook Park, east London, UK. Ecosystem services are categorised according to the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005). See Everard et al. (in press) for further details of methodology
Ecosystem service type
Provisioning services
Fresh water
Food (e.g. crops, fruit, fish, etc.)
Fibre and fuel (e.g. timber, wool, etc.)
Genetic resources (used for crop/stock
breeding and biotechnology)
Biochemicals, natural medicines,
pharmaceuticals
Ornamental resources (e.g. shells,
flowers, etc.)
Regulatory services
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation (local temperature/
precipitation, greenhouse gas
sequestration, etc.)
Water regulation (timing and scale of
run-off, flooding, etc.)
299
Ecosystem services at the restored Mayesbrook Park,east London
There is no uplift to provisioning services at Mayesbrook Park,
although some suggested management options (reuse of
trimmings for ‘fibre and fuel’) could yield provisioning service
benefits.
There is no current abstraction from the Mayes Brook catchment,
so no benefit from improved water quality and resource
availability.
There is no food production on site or any river-dependent
farming downstream in this urban area, so no economic benefit.
No current fibre and fuel benefits arise and none are planned
under the proposed restoration. However, there is potential for
hay harvesting and beneficial use of vegetation prunings on site.
Although restoration of more natural river and floodplain habitat
can protect or restore biodiversity and associated genetic
resources, increasing resilience of biodiversity, there are no
markets of informal uses of this genetic resource.
This mirrors the observations for genetic resources above.
We can expect local people to enjoy flowers on the restored and
accessible floodplain, but this is included as a cultural rather
than a provisioning value.
Gross annual regulatory service benefits at Mayesbrook Park are
approximately £28,000 comprising regulation of climate, flood
and erosion. There will also be ‘likely significant positive
benefits’ for the regulation of air quality and microclimate.
These benefits relate substantially to public health and risk
management, showing the potential role of Mayesbrook Park in
enhancing the wellbeing of the neighbourhood.
Literature associating increased vegetation diversity and density
with improvements in air quality (particulate fallout, adsorption
of metals and metabolism of nitrous oxides, ozone and other
pollutant gases) allied with the high urban population densities
around the park and published work on the costs of the health
impact of man-made particulate air pollution in the UK lead the
report’s authors to conclude that there is a ‘Likely significant
positive benefit’ for this ecosystem service. However, substantial
uncertainties about its quantification lead to no monetary value
being assigned.
Combined carbon sequestration in trees and forest soil, in
reedbeds and wetland habitat, in floodplain soils and due to a
changed mowing regime lead the authors (based on values
transferred from related published studies) to ascribe an annual
value of £13,087.
The restored urban green space was also believed to help alleviate
urban heat stress based on other published studies, but
substantial uncertainties in quantification led the authors to
ascribe no monetary value but instead to record that there was a
‘likelihood of significantly positive benefits’ for microclimate
regulation.
Flood modelling at Mayesbrook Park allied with projected
changes in run-off after planned management (based on values
300 Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

Table 1 (continued)

Ecosystem service type Ecosystem services at the restored Mayesbrook Park,east London

transferred from the literature) and an assessment of properties

at risk adjacent to the Park led to a projected annual benefit
value of £10,000.
Natural hazard regulation (i.e. storm The authors could not find any studies helpful in quantifying this
protection) effect, so it is therefore not assessed in this study.
Pest regulation Restoration of habitat can restore stocks of natural crop pest
predators in lowlands, but uncertainties in quantification meant
that a neutral value is assigned.
Disease regulation Improved river and riparian habitat can eliminate waterborne
pathogenic microbes, but there is a contrary perceived risk of
spreading other diseases particularly under climate change
forecasts. Given the uncertainties, this service was not valued.
Erosion regulation Following restoration, the floodplain can be expected to settle silt,
and dredging and other channel and bank management costs
will be averted from cut-off former channel. Collectively, this
will save costs valued at £5,000 per annum.
Water purification and waste treatment This service was not valued as, although improved river and
floodplain habitat as well as reedbed creation in the abandoned
brook course (flood relief channel) would undoubtedly
contribute to the physico-chemical purification of water and
waste substances, this might double-count the (also unvalued)
provisioning service benefit of ‘fresh water’.
Pollination Although restoration of habitat, particularly restored floodplain,
can restore stocks of natural pollinators, there is currently no
local market for this service.
This service was not valued at Mayesbrook Park but, with
hindsight, could have added to the value of park restoration.
Cultural services Gross annual cultural service benefits at Mayesbrook Park are
approximately £820,000 comprising recreation and tourism, and
educational value, with an additional net uplift in terms of
regional regeneration (‘social relations’) with a lifetime
(100 year) benefit of £7,822,500
Cultural heritage There is little of historic significance on site, so this service is not
valued.
Recreation and tourism Based on visitor surveys to Mayesbrook Park, and using transferred
values for both increases in visitor numbers in a local restored
river/parkland as well as per-visitor values from another study, a
value was calculated for increased park use. To this was added the
value of employment creation. This yielded a total annual benefit
of £815,169. Additional health benefits from access to and use of
green spaces were not independently valued.
Aesthetic value These benefits were not valued to avoid double-counting with
others services.
Spiritual and religious value These values are not known, but are not considered significant.
Inspiration of art, folklore, architecture, etc. Schools use the park for artistic projects, but no value was
assigned due to uncertainties.
Social relations (e.g. fishing, grazing or Direct park use and the value of volunteer work within the park
cropping communities) was not valued to avoid double-counting with ‘recreation and
tourism’. However, various literature sources were used to
extrapolate increased value of property in the locality of the
park accounting for 596 houses, this produce a gross (lifetime)
uplift of £7,822,500.
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314 301

Table 1 (continued)

Ecosystem service type Ecosystem services at the restored Mayesbrook Park,east London

Addendum service to MA set: Education Improved educational opportunities were considered to result in
and research an annual value uplift of £5,000.
Supporting services Gross annual supporting service benefits at Mayesbrook Park are
approximately £31,000 comprising nutrient cycling and habitat
for wildlife
Soil formation Soil accretion will be enhanced by improved and diversified
habitat, but this is not valued to avoid double-counting with
carbon sequestration and erosion regulation.
Primary production Primary production will be enhanced by improved and diversified
habitat, but this is not valued in order to avoid double-counting
with other services.
Nutrient cycling Enhanced habitat will contribute to nutrient spiralling and
transformation which, based on the area of habitat recreat3d and
using literature sources, was valued at £20,573 per annum.
Water recycling Habitat restoration/creation can be expected to enhance water
recycling, but this is not valued to avoid double-counting with
benefits valued under ‘water regulation’ and ‘climate regulation’
(microclimate) services.
Photosynthesis (production of Photosynthetic oxygen generation will be enhanced by improved
atmospheric oxygen) and diversified habitat, but this was not valued to avoid double-
counting with other services.
Provision of habitat One of the major purposes of restoration of this urban watercourse
and park is the improvement of habitat for wildlife, which was
valued at £10,000 per annum.

listed references and web sites (accessed 15th December 2010) noted above, are included in
the second column of Table 2. The third column of Table 2 contains our analysis of
potential co-benefits for other ecosystem services that may be realised through sensitive
implementation of these initiatives. This assessment reveals that there are many overlaps
between these various tools and initiatives, all of which may make broader contributions to
ecosystem service protection or enhancement beyond their particular focal outcomes. In this
regard, the MEA formulation of ecosystem services, to which there is now wide global
consensus and associated monetisation and other tools, may act as a useful linking
framework for all these diverse approaches which can be helpful in broadening the scope of
their planned benefits. They may thereby drive forward the sustainability agenda on a
context-specific basis, as well as helping communicate the benefits of this approach through
the societal benefits that it is likely to provide.
Everard (in press) reviews the various applications of ecosystem services to practical
environmental assessment and management situations, deriving a number of ‘lessons
learned’. These are summarised as: (1) different insights are likely to arise from taking an
integrated view across all ecosystem services as compared to narrow discipline-specific
perspectives; (2) ecosystem restoration maximises value across all ecosystem services
(again unlike narrow technological, discipline-specific management); (3) it is important to
recognise all stakeholders (potential ecosystem service beneficiaries) in evaluation and
decision-making processes; (4) ecosystem services provide an intuitive language to help
communicate key issues and engage people; (5) formerly fragmented management
interventions (e.g. flood risk or fishery enhancement schemes) can be optimised as
‘building blocks’ for rebuilding sustainability if contextualised in a catchment context; (6)
Table 2 Ecosystem services mapping to the primary purpose and potential additional benefits of various tools and initiatives addressing the relationship between urban
development and supportive ecosystems
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Provisioning services
Fresh water
Food (e.g. crops, fruit, fish, etc.)
Fibre and fuel (e.g. timber, wool, etc.)
Genetic resources (used for crop/stock
breeding and biotechnology)
Biochemicals, natural medicines,
pharmaceuticals
Primary purpose of tools and initiatives addressing the
relationship between urban development and supportive
ecosystems
SuDS can contribute to recharge of water resources (Woods
et al. 2007)
Natural Economy Northeast was a £3million, 3 year
partnership programme in the north east of England to
reposition the natural environment within sustainable futures.
It had multiple partners and objectives addressing various
ecosystem services, significantly including protection and
enhancement of water yield (http://www.
naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
England’s Community Forests can “…be linked to local
food…“ and “…promote local food growing” (http://www.
communityforest.org.uk/aboutenglandsforests.htm)
As expanded under the ‘fresh water’ provisioning service, Natural cropping of food
Economy Northeast had multiple objectives including produce
from the land (http://www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
England’s Community Forests can “…be linked to local food It is feasible for some SuDS systems to develop woody or
and fuel“ (http://www.communityforest.org.uk/
aboutenglandsforests.htm)
302
Ancillary potential benefit of tools and initiatives
Green Infrastructure, river restoration and ‘daylighting’ and a
range of other initiatives could make additional contributions
to protection or enhancement of fresh water production
Enhanced biodiversity and natural areas through Green
Infrastructure, Natural Economy Northeast and related
initiatives may potentially enhance opportunities for informal
reedy vegetation that may be cropped during periodic
management to produce mulch, biofuels or other fibre and
fuel benefits
The potential for enhanced biodiversity through Green
Infrastructure, Natural Economy Northeast and related
initiatives to genetic resources has yet to be explored
The potential for enhanced biodiversity through Green
Infrastructure, Natural Economy Northeast and related
initiatives to biochemicals and natural medicines has yet to
be explored
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314
Table 2 (continued)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Ornamental resources (e.g. shells, flowers, etc.)
Regulatory services
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation (local temperature/
precipitation, greenhouse gas
sequestration, etc.)
Water regulation (timing and scale of
run-off, flooding, etc.)
Primary purpose of tools and initiatives addressing the Ancillary potential benefit of tools and initiatives
relationship between urban development and supportive
ecosystems
Enhanced biodiversity through Green Infrastructure, Natural
Economy Northeast and related initiatives may enable
informal cropping of ornamental resources
Green infrastructure including trees and open spaces contribute Green areas protected or created by SuDS, Natural Economy
to “…filtering polluted air” (http://www.greeninfrastructure. Northeast and related initiatives may contributed to improved
co.uk/improve.html) urban air quality
Green infrastructure including trees and open spaces contribute Larger SuDS systems located in urban areas may contribute to
improved microclimate (and health impacts) by “…shading management of heat islands and other microclimate benefits
out harmful solar radiation” (http://www.greeninfrastructure.
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314
co.uk/improve.html)
England’s Community Forests can have a mitigating effect by
“…preparing for climate change“ (http://www.
communityforest.org.uk/aboutenglandsforests.htm)
The Ecocities Initiative is an English initiative concerned with
the design and management of cities to minimise
contributions to and mitigate the effects of climate change
(http://www.ecocitiesproject.org.uk/ecocities/index.aspx)
Natural Economy Northeast was a £3million, 3 year
partnership programme in the north east of England to
reposition the natural environment within sustainable futures.
It had multiple partners and objectives addressing various
ecosystem services, significantly including mitigation and
adaptation to climate change (http://www.
naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
By signing the Nottingham Declaration (on climate change),
UK councils and their partners “…pledge to systematically
address the causes of climate change and to prepare their
community for its impacts” (http://www.energysavingtrust.
org.uk/nottingham/Nottingham-Declaration/The-Declaration/
About-the-Declaration)
SuDS contribute to the source control of water run-off and Adaptation of the built environment to be resilient to climate
infiltration (Woods et al. 2007) change includes adapting to changing rainfall and water
303
Table 2 (continued)
304

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Primary purpose of tools and initiatives addressing the Ancillary potential benefit of tools and initiatives
relationship between urban development and supportive
ecosystems

England’s Community Forests can “…minimise flood risk, fluxes, which may make a marginal improvement to water
storm water flows…“ (http://www.communityforest.org.uk/ regulation
aboutenglandsforests.htm)
‘Daylighting’ of urban rivers can make a contribution to flood
risk management forming part of a wider set of socio-
economic benefits (Wild et al., 2010)
As expanded under the ‘fresh water’ provisioning service,
Natural Economy Northeast had multiple objectives
including management of flooding (http://www.
naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
Newsletters of the River Restoration Centre (http://www.therrc.
co.uk/rrc_newsletters.php) record the significance of river
restoration for floodwater storage and conveyance
Natural hazard regulation (i.e. storm Where scrub and taller vegetation grows on SuDS systems,
protection) other Green Infrastructure and related initiatives they may
conceivably help dissipate storm energy
Pest regulation Vegetation growth on SuDS systems, other Green
Infrastructure and related initiatives could harbour both pest
predators and pests, depending on management regime
Disease regulation Vegetation growth on SuDS systems, other Green
Infrastructure and related initiatives could regulation
microbial other diseases or else host their vectors, depending
on management regime
Erosion regulation
Water purification and waste treatment SuDS systems integrated at critical points into urban and rural
landscapes can purify water flows through landscapes
Pollination Vegetation on SuDS systems, other Green Infrastructure and
related initiatives may harbour natural pollinating species
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314
Table 2 (continued)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Primary purpose of tools and initiatives addressing the Ancillary potential benefit of tools and initiatives
relationship between urban development and supportive
ecosystems

Noise attenuation (an addendum service) Larger SuDS systems developing woody or reedy vegetation,
as well as other Green Infrastructure, may help attenuate
noise in urban settings, from road and rail routes, etc.
Cultural services
Cultural heritage Newsletters of the River Restoration Centre (http://www.therrc.
co.uk/rrc_newsletters.php) highlight the role of restored
rivers in traditional and values landscapes
Recreation and tourism Green infrastructure including trees and open spaces contribute Urban river ‘daylighting’ and restoration, such as the Cheong
improved microclimate (and health impacts) by “…providing Gye Cheon urban river restoration in Seoul, the capital city of
an attractive, calming setting for recreation” (http://www. South Korea (Nam-Choon 2005), have resulted in creation of
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

greeninfrastructure.co.uk/improve.html) an important visitor attraction

SuDS can form focal points and potentially amenity areas
around infrastructure (Woods et al. 2007), some even
providing sports fields and other recreational areas that are
allowed to flood priodically
England’s Community Forests can provide “…new opportunities
for leisure, recreation, and cultural activities“ (http://www.
communityforest.org.uk/aboutenglandsforests.htm)
As expanded under the ‘fresh water’ provisioning service,
Natural Economy Northeast had multiple objectives
including ‘natural tourism’ and leisure opportunities (http://
www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
Newsletters of the River Restoration Centre (http://www.therrc.co.
uk/rrc_newsletters.php) highlight the role of river restoration in
enhanced recreational angling and regional tourism
Aesthetic value Green infrastructure including trees can “…reinforce local Strategically-placed and well-managed SuDS systems can add
distinctiveness and improve neighbourhoods…” which can to the attractiveness of urban environments
“…help to build a stronger sense of 'ownership' and civic
pride” (http://www.greeninfrastructure.co.uk/sustain.html)
England’s Community Forests can have a role in “… Mitigation and adaptation measures put in place under the
Delivering long-term and sustainable landscape“ (http:// Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change may make
www.communityforest.org.uk/aboutenglandsforests.htm) various contributions to other ecosystem services, an
Natural Economy Northeast was a £3million, 3 year example of which is the ‘greening’ of urban areas with its
partnership programme in the north east of England to associated aesthetic and other benefits
305
Table 2 (continued)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Spiritual and religious value
Inspiration of art, folklore, architecture, etc.
Social relations (e.g. fishing, grazing or
cropping communities)
306
Primary purpose of tools and initiatives addressing the Ancillary potential benefit of tools and initiatives
relationship between urban development and supportive
ecosystems
reposition the natural environment within sustainable futures.
It had multiple partners and objectives addressing various
ecosystem services, significantly including landscape
protection and enhancement (http://www.
naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
Green infrastructure including trees around towns can be a “…
cost efficient way of underpinning the local and regional
economy” through employment in resource management, “…
creating a stimulating working environment…” and “…
improving the health of the workforce and attracting inward
investment” (http://www.greeninfrastructure.co.uk/support.html)
England’s Community Forests can constitute “…
comprehensive package of urban, economic and social
regeneration” including “….revitalising derelict land“ (http://
www.communityforest.org.uk/aboutenglandsforests.htm)
‘Daylighting’ of urban rivers appears to have a net overall positive
contribution across multiple indices of socio-economic wellbeing
although “…drawing conclusions about the causal relationships
between river restoration and impacts on socioeconomic com-
ponents remains challenging” (Westling et al., 2009)
As expanded under the ‘fresh water’ provisioning service,
Natural Economy Northeast had multiple objectives
including building communities and regional regeneration
(http://www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
Newsletters of the River Restoration Centre (http://www.therrc.
co.uk/rrc_newsletters.php) highlight the value of public
participation in river restoration, and its overall contribution
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314
Table 2 (continued)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Primary purpose of tools and initiatives addressing the Ancillary potential benefit of tools and initiatives
relationship between urban development and supportive
ecosystems

to urban regeneration such as in the River Skerne at

Darlington
Health benefits (an addendum service Green infrastructure including trees and open spaces can have SuDS systems can constitute an element of Green
amalgamating outcomes from other cultural “…a positive effect on the incidence of asthma, skin cancer Infrastructure with its associated health benefits
services) and many stress related illnesses” (http://www.
greeninfrastructure.co.uk/improve.html)
Science education, research and teaching England’s Community Forests can have a role in “…supporting SuDS systems, restored rivers and other elements of Green
associated with biodiversity and education” (http://www.communityforest.org.uk/ Infrastructure can be used as educational resources for a
environmental management (an addendum aboutenglandsforests.htm) variety of purposes
services)
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

Supporting services
Soil formation Soil-forming processes can occur in SuDS
Generic approaches such as Green Infrastructure and its
inclusion in Natural Economy Northwest may inherently
enhance multiple supporting services and overall resilience
Primary production Where SuDS are used in place of traditional ‘hard engineering’
solutions, they may contribute to this service
Generic approaches such as Green Infrastructure and its
inclusion in Natural Economy Northwest may inherently
enhance multiple supporting services and overall resilience
Nutrient cycling Nutrient transformation and cycling processes may take place
in SuDS
Generic approaches such as Green Infrastructure and its
inclusion in Natural Economy Northwest may inherently
enhance multiple supporting services and overall resilience
Water recycling Newsletters of the River Restoration Centre (http://www.therrc. Where SuDS develop complex vegetation, they may be
co.uk/rrc_newsletters.php) highlight the value of river effective in both moistening of the air column and the
restoration for retention and recycling of water in the recapture of aerial moisture
landscape Generic approaches such as Green Infrastructure and its
inclusion in Natural Economy Northwest may inherently
enhance multiple supporting services and overall resilience
Photosynthesis (production of atmospheric Where SuDS are used in place of traditional ‘hard engineering’
oxygen) solutions, they may contribute to this service
307
Table 2 (continued)
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Provision of habitat
308
Primary purpose of tools and initiatives addressing the Ancillary potential benefit of tools and initiatives
relationship between urban development and supportive
ecosystems
Generic approaches such as Green Infrastructure and its
inclusion in Natural Economy Northwest may inherently
enhance multiple supporting services and overall resilience
Where basic water treatment services permit, SuDS can also be Urban river ‘daylighting’ and restoration, such as the Cheong
designed to provide some habitat for aquatic wildlife (Woods Gye Cheon urban river restoration in Seoul, the capital city of
et al. 2007) South Korea (Nam-Choon 2005), has allowed various taxa to
England’s Community Forests can have a role in “…enhancing recolonise the river
biodiversity“ (http://www.communityforest.org.uk/
aboutenglandsforests.htm)
As expanded under the ‘fresh water’ provisioning service, Generic approaches such as Green Infrastructure and its
Natural Economy Northeast had multiple objectives inclusion in Natural Economy Northwest may inherently
including protecting and restoring wetlands and biodiversity enhance multiple supporting services and overall resilience
(http://www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk/)
Various newsletters of the River Restoration Centre (http://
www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_newsletters.php) highlight the design
contribution of river restoration to providing habitat for
biodiversity
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314 309

markets have a key role to play in realising the benefits of ecosystem services; and (7) the
mainstreaming of systemic perspectives into decision-making is essential to support
sustainable outcomes.
Further considerations about the practical application of the ecosystem services framework
are addressed in the academic literature. Thorp et al. (2010) recognise that ecosystem services
arising from river restoration are challenging to assess as: a) there can be a spatial disconnect
between where restoration occurs and where the ecosystem services are delivered (e.g.
downstream benefit of restoration schemes); b) there is a non-linear relationship between the
extent of restoration and the ecosystem services delivered, which varies with river type, and;
c) the ecosystem services delivered from restoration can change over time. There is also
debate over the principle and practice of assigning monetary values to the environment (e.g.
Spangenberg and Settele 2010), particularly as the criteria used to assess different services
varies hugely (Maltby et al. 2010) and there is a risk of transforming nature into a human-
centred product (Niemelä et al. 2010). To meet these challenges, there is a need to better
understand the relationship between hydrogeomorphic structure, ecosystem properties and
ecosystems services (Thorp et al. 2010), particularly in urban areas (Niemelä et al. 2010) and
to develop indicators of service provision (Maltby et al. 2010).

Discussion

Historic patterns of development of urban centres have tended to degrade the very
ecosystem resources responsible for their founding, development and distinctive character.
Well-planned urban river restoration can recover some of the multiple ecosystem services
that have been lost or deteriorated. Case studies reveal that this can provide demonstrable
benefits to human wellbeing including health, economic value, quality of life and
contributing towards regional regeneration. In addition, planning river management or
urban developments that impinge upon rivers cognisant of potential impacts on ecosystem
services can help avert or minimise, and potentially determine appropriate mitigation for,
damage to important and socially-beneficial river functions. This is particularly so given the
growing consensus about the value of ecosystem services for addressing a range of
sustainability challenges ranging from land use planning to agriculture and forestry, carbon
and microclimate management, and the management of fisheries, watersheds, biodiversity
and tourism (OECD 2010). Given the trajectory of current resource-degrading practices and
their implications for human wellbeing, as demonstrated by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005), it is important that the societal benefits of ecosystems are not only
restored in existing urban infrastructure but also factored centrally into future development
planning.
Currently, information on the ecosystem services in urban regions is lacking and there is
a need to improve the knowledge base for land-use planning (Niemelä et al. 2010). Many
knowledge gaps remain in terms of how all services are ‘produced’, the spatial and
temporal scales at which benefits are derived by people, changes in service production over
time, and feedbacks between ecosystem service use and production. We also need to better
understand synergies and antagonisms between both the production and use of different
service benefits, for example, in the impacts of different forms of recreation on biodiversity.
Whilst many of these factors are being explored in UK National Ecosystem Assessment
(http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/), various biophysical, social and economic questions will
remain to be addressed. Some of these will be specific to urban rivers, but many more will
be generic to society’s use and wider interdependency with supportive ecosystems.
310 Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

One of the priorities identified by Everard (in press) for the internalisation of ecosystem
services into societal decision-making was the development of pragmatic tools relevant to
operational needs. There is a tendency otherwise for ecosystem services and the multiple
societal benefits that they provide to be marginalised as a ‘biodiversity-concern’, rather than
something that affects the wellbeing and activities of all sectors of society. Evaluation of the
practical applications of the ecosystems approach revealed that quantification and
monetisation of ecosystem services is a useful means to factor ecosystems centrally into
decision-making processes. Similarly, semi-quantitative scoring of likely ecosystem service
impacts from development decisions may be adequate for many operational decision-making
purposes.
There is a need for new tools to implement an ecosystem approach in operational
contexts. One such tool outlined previously in this paper is that presented by Diederichs
et al. (2002). Aside from being a robust tool in day-to-day use in eThekwini municipality,
this tool also demonstrates a ready means by which an ecosystems perspective can be
applied to shift policy thinking from narrow ‘silo’-based interests towards protecting or,
ideally, restoring the ecosystems that support multiple dimensions of public wellbeing.
Operational guidance similar in nature to the eThekwini Catchments tool is necessary to
bring ecosystems thinking into mainstream planning and environmental management practice,
its intuitive interface also serving to help communicate with multiple, non-technical
stakeholders.
However, akin to observations about the need to take an ecosystems approach,
ecosystem services can be applied to many existing tools to extend their contribution to
sustainable development. As shown in Table 2, there is potential to use the MEA
framework, which recognises a full spectrum of ecosystem services, to provide a broader
context for integration of approaches which focus more narrowly on particular ecosystem
services. There is potential to apply an ecosystem services evaluation approach (such as the
semi-quantitative scoring approach) to a wide range of pre-existing tools relevant to impacts
on ecosystems and the services that they provide. These include, as examples,
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA),
identification and screening of wider impacts of measures proposed for implementation of
the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and pre-screening of development planning
proposals. In much the same way that the eThekwini Catchments tool has stimulated
innovation by developers anticipating determination of applications on the basis of
published guidance, it is possible to envisage that this pre-screening would be undertaken
transparently by development proponents, stimulating innovative proposals likely to have
minimal impact, or ideally restorative outcomes, for urban rivers and other urban
ecosystems.
Tools development is a particular priority for spatial planning as, with good planning,
the negative impacts of urban development on ecosystem services can be diminished
(Whitford et al. 2001). Furthermore, as identified above, it may be possible to restore some
formerly degraded services through sensitive planning. Niemelä et al (2010, p.3239) note
that “One of the essential questions is how different planning options of urban regions, their
impacts and uncertainties can be addressed for future climatic and other scenarios….
Regarding ecosystem services of urban regions, it is important to invest not only in
studying ecosystem services, but also in studying uncertainties in planning and
implementation”.
Tools development, both in terms of new tools and interpretation of the many pre-
existing tools, remains a priority for bringing ecosystems thinking into the mainstream of
practice. This would achieve, often in a cost-neutral way, many beneficial outcomes for
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314 311

urban rivers and ecosystems and those who benefit from the multiple services that they
provide. The converse of this obviously applies; the rights and potential of stakeholders
would continue to be undermined if these ecosystems were allowed to continue to decline
in quality and function.
It is important to recognise the status and value of urban ecosystems and the services that
they provide, as well as those adversely impacted in the peri-urban region and along
extended supply chains (Everard 2009a). Restoration of severely-degraded urban river
ecosystems and their associated beneficial services remains a priority. However, so too does
averting harm in new developments and, where possible, planning developments that are
restorative to river and wider ecosystems for the recovery of biodiversity and ecosystem
functions beneficial to continuing human wellbeing. Taking an ecosystem approach to
planning can help identify and justify measures, which may often be cost-neutral
alternatives (such as where to place impermeable infrastructure and that which may
periodically flood without detriment such as sports fields), that are restorative rather than
which merely limit the extent of ecological degradation. Recognition of the range of
societal benefits that can arise from sympathetic, restorative development may not only ease
its passage through the planning system but may also attract the support, and potentially
co-funding, from service beneficiaries.

Concluding remarks

Safeguarding or, where possible, rehabilitating urban rivers is essential as a means to

protect social and economic interests. Benefits assessed across the wide range of ecosystem
services addressed in case studies provide evidence that protected, enhanced or restored
river ecosystems are not a matter of altruism, but deliver tangible and quantifiable value to a
range of societal interests. Awareness of this breadth of positive or negative potential
impacts promotes understanding, public engagement and the capacity to make informed
and sustainable decisions that extend beyond narrow ‘environmental’ issues, recognising
instead their implications for intimately connected health, environmental regulation,
biodiversity, amenity enhancement, value creation and a broad range of other policy
interests benefitting from enhanced ecosystem service capacity. The need for such ‘joining
up’, between societal sectors and progressive initiatives, recognising the need for
simultaneous ecological, economic and social progress, is urgent as we try to meet the
pressing sustainable development challenges in urban and other settings in a consistent and
integrated manner (Innes and Booher 1999).

Acknowledgements The author would like to thanks Bill Watts (Environment Agency) whose contribution
to the paper includes economic expertise but also reflections back on many new insights.

References

Adams WM, Perrow MR (1999) Scientific and institutional constraints on the restoration of European
floodplains. In: Marriott SB and Alexander J (eds) Floodplains: interdisciplinary approaches. Geological
Society, London, Special Publications 163: 89–97
Baron JS, Poff NL, Ammgermeier PL et al (2002) Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecol
Appl 12(5):1247–1260
Barton NJ (1992) The lost rivers of London: a study of their effects upon London and Londoners, and the
effects of London and Londoners on them. Historical Publications Ltd, London
312 Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

Beavan L, Sadler J, Pinder C (2001) The invertebrate fauna of a physically modified urban river.
Hydrobiologia 445(1–3):97–108
Booker DJ, Dunbar MJ (2004) Application of physical habitat simulation (phabsim) modelling to modified
urban river channels. River Res Appl 20(2):167–183. doi:10.1002/rra.742
Chadwick MA, Dobberfuhl DR, Benke AC, Huryn AD, Suberkropp K, Thiele JE (2006) Urbanization
affects stream ecosystem function by altering hydrology, chemistry, and biotic richness. Ecol Appl
16:1796–1807
Chin A (2006) Urban transformation of river landscapes in a global context. Geomorphology 79:460–487
Clifford NJ (2007) River restoration: paradigms, paradoxes and the urban dimension. Sustain Safe Water
Supplies 7(2):57–68
Daily G (1997) Nature's services: societal dependance on natural ecosystems. Island, Washington DC
Defra (2007) An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, London. Available online: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdf/natural-environ/
eco-valuing.pdf
Diamond J (2004) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking, London
Diederichs N, Markewicz T, Mander M, Martens A, Zama Ngubane S (2002) eThekwini catchments: a
strategic tool for management. eThekwini Municipality, South Africa
Dufour S, Piegay H (2009) From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural
references and focus on human benefits. River Res Appl 25(5):568–581. doi:10.1002/rra.1239
Eden S, Tunstall S (2006) Ecological versus social restoration? Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 24:661–
680
Eftec (2007) Policy Appraisal and the Environment: An Introduction to the Valuation of Ecosystem Services –
Wareham Managed Realignment Case Study. Report prepared for the Environment Agency by Economics
For The Environment Consultancy Ltd (Eftec), London
Egoh B, Rouget M, Reyers B (2007) Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review.
Ecol Econ 63(4):714–721
Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Heinemeyer A, Jackson SF, Parnell M, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ
(2009) Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region.
Proc R Soc B, Biol Sci 276(1669):2903–2911. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0528.PMCID:PMC2817206
Elmore AJ, Kaushal SS (2008) Disappearing headwaters: patterns of stream burial due to urbanization. Front
Ecol Environ 6:308–312
Everard M (2009a) The business of biodiversity. WIT, Ashurst
Everard M (2009b) Ecosystem services case studies. Science Report SCHO0409BPVM-E-E. Environment
Agency, Bristol. (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0409BPVM-E-E.pdf)
Everard M (2010) Ecosystem services assessment of sea trout restoration work on the River Glaven, North
Norfolk. Environment Agency Evidence report SCHO0110BRTZ-E-P. Environment Agency, Bristol.
(http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0110BRTZ-e-e.pdf)
Everard M (in press) Value creation from aquatic ecosystem management. Proceedings of the York rivers
conference, September 2010
Everard M, Jevons S (2010) Ecosystem services assessment of buffer zone installation on the upper Bristol
Avon, Wiltshire. Environment Agency Evidence report SCHO0210BRXW-e-e.pdf. Environment Agency,
Bristol. Available online: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0210BRXW-e-e.pdf
Everard M, Kataria G (2010) The proposed Pancheshwar Dam, India/Nepal: A preliminary ecosystem
services assessment of likely outcomes. An IES research report. Available online: http://www.ies-uk.org.
uk/resources/papers/pancheshwar_dam_report.pdf
Everard M, Bramley M, Tatem K, Appleby T, Watts W (2009) Flood management: from defence to
sustainability. Environ Liabil 2:35–49
Everard M, Shuker L, Gurnell A (in press) The Mayes Brook restoration in Mayesbrook Park, East London:
an ecosystem services assessment. Environment Agency Evidence report. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Findlay SJ, Taylor MP (2006) Why rehabilitate urban river systems? Area 38(3):312–325
Fitzhugh TW, Richter BD (2004) Quenching urban thirst: growing cities and their impacts on freshwater
ecosystems. Bioscience 54(8):741–754
Folke C, Jansson A, Larsson J, Costanza R (1997) Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio 26:167–172
Glaves P, Egan D, Harrison K, Robinson R (2009) Valuing ecosystem services in the East of England. East of
England Environment Forum, East of England Regional Assembly and Government Office, East
England
Gleick PH (2000) The changing water paradigm: a look at twenty-first century water resources development.
Water Int 25:127–138
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the
ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760
Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314 313

Groffman PM, Bain DJ, Band LE et al (2003) Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Front Ecol
Environ 1(6):315–321
Gurnell AM, Lee MT, Souch C (2007) Urban rivers: hydrology, geomorphology, ecology and opportunities
for change. Geog Compass 1(5):1118–1137
Hitzhusen FJ (2007) Economic valuation of river systems. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
House M, Ellise J, Herricks E, Huitved-Jacobsen T, Seager J (1993) Urban drainage—impacts on receiving
water quality. Water Sci Technol 27:117–158
Innes JE, Booher DE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating
collaborative planning. J Am Plann Assoc 65:412–424
Jim CY, Chen WY (2009) Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 26(4):187–194
Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robèrt K-H (2007) Commentaries: reclaiming the definition of
sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut R 14:60–66
Klein RD (1979) Urbanisation and stream quality impairment. Water Res Bull 15:948–963
Lerner DN (1990) Groundwater recharge in urban areas. Hydrological Processes and Water Management in
Urban Areas. Proceedings of the Duisberg Symposium, April 1988. IAHS Publication No. 198, 1990
Loomis J, Kent P, Strange E, Fausch K, 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
Maltby LL, Paetzold A, Warren PH (2010) Sustaining industrial activity and ecological quality: the potential
role of an ecosystem services approach. In: Batty LC, Hallberg KB (eds) Ecology of industrial pollution.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 327–344
Meyer JL, Paul MJ, Taulbee WK (2005) Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. J North Am
Benthol Soc 24(3):602–612
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems & human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington
DC
Nam-choon K (2005) Ecological restoration and revegetation works in Korea. Landscape Ecol Eng 1:77–83
Niemelä J, Saarela R-R, Söderman T, Kopperoinen L, Yli-Pelkonen V, Väre S, Kotze DJ (2010) Using the
ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case
study. Biodivers Conserv 19:3225–3243. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8
Nolan PA, 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
OECD (2010) Paying for biodiversity: Enhancing the Cost-Effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem
Services. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264090279-en
Paetzold A, Warren PH, Maltby LL (2010) A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem
services. Ecol Compl 7(3):273–281. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.11.003
Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365
Petts G, Heathcote J, Martin D (2001) Urban rivers: our inheritance and future. IWA, London
Pickett S, Cadenasso M, Grove J (2001) Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical,
and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:127–157
Roy AH, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ, Wenger SJ, Ensign WE, Meyer JL (2006) Importance of riparian
forests in urban catchments contingent on sediment and hydrologic regimes. Environ Manage 37:523–
539
Spangenberg JH, Settele J (2010) Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol
Complex 7(3):327–337
Suren AM (2000) Effects of urbanisation. In Collier KJ, Winterbourn MJ (eds) New Zealand Stream
Invertebrates: Ecology and Implications for Management. NZ Limnol Soc, Hamilton, pp. 260–288
Taylor KG, Owens PN (2009) Sediments in urban river basins: a review of sediment-contaminant dynamics
in an environmental system conditioned by human activities. J Soils Sediments 9(4):281–303
Thorp JH, Flotemersch JE, Delong MD (2010) Linking ecosystem services, rehabilitation and river
hydromorphology. Bioscience 60(1):67–74
Tratalos J, Fuller RA, Warren PH, Davies RG, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and
ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 83(4):308–317. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003
Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting
ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban
Plan 81(3):167–178
UNFPA (2007) State of the world population 2007: unleashing the potential of urban growth. United
Nations, New York
Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP (2005) The urban stream
syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J North Am Benthol Soc 24(3):706–723
Walton I (1653) The Compleat Angler. [Available in many impressions.]
314 Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:293–314

Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P, Bannerman R, Emmons E (2000) Watershed urbanisation and changes in fish
communities in south-eastern Wisconsin streams. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:1173–1189
Wild TC, Bernet JF, Westling EL, Lerner DN (2010) Deculverting: reviewing the evidence on the
‘daylighting’ and restoration of culverted rivers. Water and Environment Journal. doi:10.1111/j.1747-
6593.2010.00236.x
Whitford V, Ennos AR, Handley JF (2001) City form and natural process: indicators for the ecological
performance of urban areas and their implication to Merseyside, UK. LandscUrban Plan 57:91–103
Wolman MG (1967) A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban river channels. Geog Ann A 49:385–395
Woods B, Ballard R, Kellagher et al. (2007) The SUDS manual. CIRIA Report C697, Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, London
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press,
Oxford