LA River Part II: Restoration vs. Social Enhancement

Today, ecosystem care is a response. When we’ve trashed something enough that people start to feel the effects, it’s time for a ‘fix’. When it’s time for a fix, it is usually up to money – and whether it’s there or not – to decide which direction a project moves. Usually, when projects won’t turn quick profit the money won’t show up. The LA River group is likely led by business groups and advised by scientists; to find the money and think long-term, respectively.

The LA River project is one that I’ve written up as being rather groundbreaking. Its goals are listed below, and are predominantly social and economic. It is only groundbreaking because the publicity it will get – and following movements it will spark could be great. But I’m afraid that it may not be as landscape focused as it should be. Landscape restoration (which is what ‘restoration’ should be) takes into account the natural systems that surround a system, as well as the ecosystem at hand. That’s called connectivity, and should be a part of the initial planning phase for any restoration project no matter its size.

LA’s river project looks more like an ‘enhancement’, and much of the riverbank may turn out like this project in San Antonio:

Fair enough. It cannot be denied that the river is highly urbanized. Can we hope that the project will be designed to allow for the river to maintain itself naturally, through natural steam flow and tributaries? Probably not. What I do like is the community awareness and pride aspect. I just hope it encompasses some eco-based pride, and not just prime picnic space.

Are the project leaders seeing, but not particularly focusing on the greater story of the ecosystem? One needs to remember that Los Angeles rests on what was in fact a wetland and river system. All of which was eventually paved over, even the rivers. Where do rivers run? How will the ocean react? One of the first things that should be planned and assessed is the river enhancement’s effect on the ocean. To name but a few we should be seeing increased sedimentation, perhaps less water, and more organic matter. All of which would be okay (with an adjustment period), but the effects would have to be accounted for very early on in the process.

As it stands the publicized goals of the project are largely social, and mildly natural:

• …create economic development opportunities to enhance and improve River-adjacent communities by providing open space, housing, retail spaces such as restaurants and cafes, educational facilities, and places for other public institutions.
• Improve the environment, enhance water quality, improve water resources, and improve the ecological functioning of the River.
• Provide public access to the River.
• Provide significant recreation space and open space, new trails, and improve natural habitats to support wildlife.
• Preserve and enhance the flood control features of the River.
• Foster a growth in community awareness of the Los Angeles River, and pride in the Los Angeles River.

On restoration background, this is a good story showing that by restoring one element, others will naturally follow suit:
…”Part of the reason the Picayune Strand (Florida Everglades) is succeeding is because its objectives and strategies were sound. The project’s core initiative, to restore water flow, was right on the money. Restoring the flow of water impeded by canals brought back the flora, and now the fauna follows.

Though we have yet to see its real development, the LA River project stinks of visual enhancement. Like filling a lake with a certain species to ‘enhance’ the fishing experience, I fear ‘open green space’, (read: grass) so that people can walk and enjoy the scenery whilst shopping. It does have its charms, but serves a human purpose first. It’s no secret that they’re calling it revitalization, and if it weren’t so community oriented I’d bitch even louder. Oh, the horror!

re Revitalization : What do you think should be most vital to the LA project? Any comments regarding if city planning, in general, is natural systems focused at all?

On Surviving Greenwash Through Participation

I’m not 100 percent sure, but I think that the age of Greenwash – a word which has been around since 1986 (I’ll have you know) – is coming to an end. What is pulling Green back from the depths of hell is the advent of actual participation. Organizations too, are finding that it can increase profit retention and create work opportunities.

It’s like when the people you least expect start to talk about certain “investment opportunities” at work, daily. Or when your grandmother calls you to tell you that, “Gold looks like a good buy right now”. The same way parents can ruin a buzz-word, or signal its decline, reverting to greenwash-speak is no longer the way to go.

In which case, I no longer accept your “that’s just greenwashing”, (or similar) rebuttals or arguments. Technology has finally reached a usable point, and especially where technology is needing to be replaced (see in cities later in the post), green tech is the next big buy. One corporate example is the emergence of energy-based server systems (which Q9 Networks out of Toronto offers), rather than a square-footage based price models. Saving money makes it easier – and hardly a tough decision – to choose the energy efficient service.

Peter Wolchack, Editor at BC’s Backbone Magazine, says that this time (acknowledging that there are failures in the past) there is a greater sense of urgency, coupled with a greater emphasis on practical solutions. Mr. Zwick, at Schulich School of Business stresses that successful green products and services are ones that will be mainstream and cost-effective, “…because at the bottom line, there are still only a [handful] of consumers who will pay a premium for environmentally sound products.” In other words, the initiatives which work are those that deliver a benefit without requiring us to dramatically change our lifestyle.

When corporations are finding it finally profitable and marketable to be green (as it begins now), and cities join the initiative and practically force citizens to use the greener services, we all become green through participation.

**And I mean more effective participation than facebook applications and applications on blogs (which are neat nonetheless). Sometimes is takes a personal effort. Again, are we that lethargic?

In Cities: Just some examples from more than a dozen which have proposals to remove highways from downtowns.

• An ageing expressway in Oklahoma – an elevated 4.5-mile stretch of Interstate 40 – will be demolished in 2012. This will be followed by an old-fashioned boulevard and a mile-long park taking its place.
• Buffalo wants to get rid of its Skyway, an elevated highway that blocks access to Lake Erie.
• Nashville wants to replace 8 miles of interstate – parts of I-65, I-40 and I-24 – with parks and neighborhood streets.
• Washington has considered demolishing the Whitehurst Freeway, an elevated road that runs along the Potomac River in the tony Georgetown neighborhood. (the plan is on hold)
• Akron, Ohio, launched a $2 million study on tearing down its 2.2 mile Innerbelt that leads downtown from I-76/I-77.

Read the source article.

This is the greening of cities, and it is part of what I meant by practical, forced participation. Furthermore, there is no doubt that citizen participation will be encouraged and sought for the parks’ creation and handiwork; green technologies and services will be paramount in the marketing of contractors, and (therefore) the infrastructure work itself will be pushed to that end. To an environmentally beneficial extent, it has become about not being left behind: a sign of an uptrend taking its course.

So as you see your city’s infrastructure change, and your employer’s or you home life green-up, can you survive a greenwash? Can you make a practical effort to survive the fake?

Three Business Tips To Take From Ecology

There are relevant sources for business tactics and growth everywhere you look, most of which is classic and important blog material. But nothing can act as an analogy to anything, better than nature itself. As my courses have begun, and I am en route to restoration certification (I like to call it ‘Impact Solutions’ ), my blog-fodder nursery has grown substantially.

The latest business/ecology analogies that I am finding (and running back to my computer throughout my study hours to take note of) are as follows:

Products vs. Services – While products rake in the revenue through resource harvest, services offer long-term solutions.

Businesses that deal in products and commodities will probably rake in more revenue than businesses that provide services, but that’s not to say that the services aren’t important. The services are what protect the business and allow them long-term profitability, and much like nature’s services (hydrology and systems), though they cannot offer direct profit – they provide the land with what it needs to be productive.

*Note to industry: keep natures services active.

Stress Factors - Removing the stress factors is merely passive, while adding stabilizing factors is active.

When stress is encountered, one might want to initially only remove those stress factors, so that eventually your life and work can return to normal. But that is the passive approach – and if you don’t take an active approach to mitigating problems, that stress factor will never really go away.

In restoration management the first thing one would do is identify the stress factors which are meddling with a system, and assess the possibility of removing them. Secondly, you need to assess what active management you can take, that is – what other factors you can introduce to fix a damaged system.

Overall, the idea is to see what element you can introduce to an environment to allow for growth, instead of cutting out what may be damaging. Or, both cut and introduce.

Acceptance of Dynamic Systems - That there are always several answers and routes to a solution, and solutions shouldn’t be set in stone.

And finally – whether you react by adding an element to a system or deal in products or services – you should know and be willing to accept that solutions and processes are dynamic. Both restoration and business solutions are dynamic processes – so it’s always good to allow for input and change as projects mature.

I could quote ol’ Don Rumsfeld’s ‘unknown unknowns’ spiels, because the point is similar – but it’s all quite simple: get out there and ecologize, the answers are everywhere!

The Los Angeles River: Intro to a Case Study in Urban Revitalization

If there is one environmental movement that can gain near-unanimous support, it is the revitalization of visible, past human impact. Climate Change needs evidence beyond scientific fact in order to become a larger accepted issue – there is no doubt about that. But closer to home, something we at least recognize, are mistakes from past undertakings, which today, make sense to pull back in time in order to benefit the future.

This is an introduction to restoration and revitalization, which go beyond just making things ‘pretty’ again; they aim to restore the integrity of once functioning ecosystems.

Engineers look at the Los Angeles River and see an elegant work of design. It does what it was supposed to do beautifully: Keep flood water away from the city. But to many, it’s mostly an eyesore, and they want it to do more than just speed water out to sea. The City of Los Angeles is hoping to redesign some of the 32 miles of river channel that run through L.A. Over the next year, city engineers and consultants will be developing a master plan for the river. (source)

Creating more parks is the primary goal – for human use and enjoyment – and getting communities involved is integral to that goal. Second, is attempting to create functioning systems so that the area of impact can begin to live again, and even attract natural renewal and species diversification. It should come as no surprise that functioning ecosystems and biodiversity are very important to the health of a city. It was the water which flowed through the flood basin that gave the land its original appeal: fertile soils, functional systems and drinking water. But they were constantly meandering and variable steams. So when repeated floods in the 30’s killed as many as 50 people – between the 1950’s and 60’s the Federal Government deepened and reinforced the river with concrete to create the 32 miles of river as L.A. sees it today.

Unfortunately the vital (flood control) areas of the river may never see soil again, and I believe that they are instead choosing parts of the river closer to communities and existing parks to focus their efforts. I’ve read that up to 45 percent of communities (primarily Hispanic) near the River itself have no access, or are not within walking distance to parks of any kind. Many people generally have no way (and hence limited desire) to experience nature as we know it.

For me, this project represents a milestone in the area of restoration of natural systems. Restoration has seen some hard times, primarily due to lack of funding. I see this first hand in the forest industry where standards are designed to be met (and barely), and those rarely include restoration and revitalization of damaged ecosystems. But I now see a revitalization in the field of restoration – especially with increased funding of urban renewal – so seeing a city such as L.A. charge headfirst into such an endeavor is absolutely enlightening.

This massive project is more than just the revitalization of an old eyesore: it is an attempt to reintroduce the beauty of green space and riparian zones, something which many Angelenos are truly unaware of. I plan to follow and occasionally report on the undertaking as it progresses and evolves.