Optimizing Multifunctional Green Infrastructure As a Societal Co-Benefit Catalyst in New York City Policies for Coastal and Stormwater Management

Optimizing Multifunctional Green Infrastructure as a Societal Co-Benefit Catalyst in New York City Policies for Coastal and Stormwater Management

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning

Evelyn Ellis

May 2016

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 2 Table of Figures ...... 3 Abstract ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Methodology and research focus ...... 11 Part I: Green Infrastructure, Multifunctionality, and Related Concepts ...... 13 Green and gray infrastructure ...... 13 Environmental responsibility and climate awareness ...... 20 Related concepts and present discourse ...... 26 Ecosystems services ...... 27 Sustainability ...... 30 Panarchy ...... 33 Multifunctionality ...... 36 Assessing landscape functions ...... 40 Transformability ...... 44 Incorporating multifunctionality into GI policy ...... 48 Part II: New York City: Green Infrastructure for Coastal and Stormwater Management ...... 51 New York City Context ...... 51 Water challenges and management ...... 54 Combined sewer outflows and stormwater ...... 56 Coastal ecosystems and resiliency in NYC ...... 63 Evolution of blue-green infrastructure policy in NYC ...... 66 NYC Policy through the lens of multifunctionality ...... 74 Conclusion ...... 78 Bibliography ...... 84 Appendix ...... 95 Appendix II: Selected Definitions ...... 96

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Academic references to “green infrastructure." Method derived from the research of Freeman et al., (2014) ...... 19 Figure 2: Conceptual Discourse: Multifunctional Green Infrastructure. (term “spatiotemporal trajectory” borrowed from Selman, 2012.) Concept map: original by this paper’s author...... 27 Figure 3: The Daly Triangle, illustrating the underlying concerns that govern the drive toward sustainability (Wu, 2013) ...... 31 Figure 4: Panarchy “A classic representation of a panarchy: a nested set of adaptive cycles. Adapted from Gunderson and Holling (2002).” Source: (Garmestani & Benson, 2013) ...... 34 Figure 5 (Lovell & Taylor, 2013): Comparison of the concept of sustainable with that of multifunctional landscape approach. Sustainable is often represented by the overlapping of environmental, economic, and social pillars, whereas multifunctionality can be envisioned as the stacking of ecological, production, and cultural functions to achieve greater overall performance. 36 Figure 6: Multifunctional Landscape by Function ...... 41 Figure 7: Multifunctional Landscape Assessment Tool (MLAT) (Lovell & Taylor, 2013) ...... 43 Figure 8: Examples of transformative capacities ...... 46 Figure 9: Multifunctional opportunities ...... 47 Figure 10: Articles on multifunctional green infrastructure. Method derived from the research of Freeman et al. (2014)...... 50 Figure 11: Projected flooding for New York City (Kennedy, 2014) ...... 52 Figure 12 Urban water inputs (Felson, 2016) ...... 55 Figure 13: Urban Water Management Transitions Framework (Felson, 2016) ..... 59 Figure 14 “Description of parts and connections of physical systems linked to flood ecologies and infrastructure” (Neises, 2016) ...... 65 Figure 15: Multifunctional Dimensions in New York City Green Infrastructure Policy ...... 77 Figure 16: “Green Infastructure” in NYC (McPhearson et al, 2014) ...... 95

Abstract Green infrastructure is “an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions and provides associated benefits to human populations” (Benedict & McMahon, 2002). There has been a resurgence of the concept in recent decades, and in New York’s case, especially as it relates to coastal and stormwater management, while awareness of the interconnectedness of persistent social and economic problems to the built and natural environments has grown. “The concept of multifunctionality in GI planning means that multiple ecological, social, and also economic functions shall be explicitly considered instead of being a product of chance” (Hansen &

Pauleit, 2014).

This research, Optimizing Multifunctional Green Infrastructure as a Societal

Co-Benefit Catalyst in New York City Policies for Coastal and Stormwater Management, seeks answers to the questions: do the policies in New York City regarding green infrastructure incorporate the concept of multifunctionality? To what extent does the increasing prevalence of green infrastructure for coastal and stormwater management present a potential catalyst to tie climate urgency to issues of social and economic urgency, and is this catalyst potential reached?

By reviewing green infrastructure, multifunctionality, and their correlation, and then analyzing the city’s relevant GI policies, this paper finds

that while multifunctionality is increasingly present in NYC policy, policies do not take explicit advantage of climate urgency to expedite social solutions.

Introduction

Traditionally, twentieth century planning and resiliency strategies have favored the construction of hard, or “gray,” infrastructure as the frontline against the forces of nature that might interfere with our habitat (Crow, 2008).

Nationally, many wetlands have been drained for construction, and many walls and levees have been built to keep out the sea (Dahl, 2000; Kazmierczak &

Carter, 2010).

However, a growing understanding of the complexity of the relationship between the natural and built environment and an increasing awareness among the public of climate change (in particular, sea level rise and increasing storm intensity) over the last 15-20 years, have finally begun to transform the policy landscape around green infrastructure (Economides, 2014). Cities that have transformed their policy include New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and

San Diego (Economides, 2014).

This increasing awareness among citizens and policy-makers has progressed at all scales, from local to international, as disasters have struck with increasing frequency and intensity, particularly coastal storm surges (UNEP,

2010). Two storms that stand out in the early 21st century as catalysts for awareness in the United States are Hurricane Katrina, in New Orleans in 2005, and Superstorm Sandy, in New York in 2012.

Each of these shed a light not only on the limitations of existing and aging infrastructure in the face of future storms, but on the inadequacy of protective designs that are inflexible and inequitable. The response has been a demand for resiliency (City of New York, 2013). The increasingly popular term “resilient,” while often debated for its semantic accuracy, here describes a style and direction of planning that allows cities and communities to “bounce back” from so-called natural disasters (Folke et al., 2010; Keenan, 2016).

A metaphor for resiliency is the reed bending in the wind: flexible enough to withstand it, and return to its upstanding position with little harm. This imagery is especially poignant in reference to the built environment, because it directly links back to the natural environment as inspiration. Natural systems are adaptive, dynamic, and provide and allow for change in the face of shifting circumstances (Garmestani & Benson, 2013). These are the aspects of a habitat necessary to resilient urban growth in light of anticipated and unanticipated planetary shifts (National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

There has been a growing body of literature, scientific and social, that contributes to the awareness that green infrastructure is the most effective

upgrade and bolster to existing and aging gray infrastructure (Benedict &

McMahon, 2002; Economides, 2014; Freeman, Duguma, & Minang, 2015;

Kazmierczak & Carter, 2010; National Science and Technology Council, 2015). It ranges from science research papers and books on the subject, like Benedict &

McMahon’s 2002 Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century and thousands of subsequent articles including “green infrastructure” (see Figure 1) to, more recently, increasingly prevalent Federal research papers in support of green infrastructure strategies such as the most recent 2015 Ecosystem-Service

Assessment: Research Needs for Coastal Green Infrastructure (National Science and

Technology Council, 2015).

It is notable for its value in resilience and adaptation to climate change, but green infrastructure also has societal co-benefits (McMahon & Benedict,

2012). For example, the prevention of flooding can improve the health of the surrounding community (European Commission, 2012; Lane et al., 2013). At a time when American society brings twentieth century social, economic and built structures into the fast-paced stream of twenty-first century flow of information and progress, infrastructure projects are not efficient if they do not solve multiple issues simultaneously.

“One of the key attractions of GI is its multifunctionality, i.e. its ability to perform several functions and provide several benefits on the same spatial

area. These functions can be environmental, such as conserving biodiversity or adapting to climate change, social, such as providing water drainage or green space, and economic, such as supplying jobs and raising property prices”

(European Commission, 2012).

Therefore, policy dictating infrastructure and development should be analyzed for its potential to address various problems concurrently through flexibility and adaptability, as well as iterative processes (Garmestani & Benson,

2013). Because of limitations in capacity, space, and funding, especially in the urban context, it is necessary to expedite those infrastructure solutions that have positive impacts in the social arena and abandon infrastructure projects which may feed, rather than solve, social issues such as inequity (McPhearson,

Hamstead, & Kremer, 2014). For example, an unsightly levee which divides a neighborhood has destructive results for the community, while a multifunctional flood-resilient park space may serve a similar purpose while having, instead, positive externalities (Waggoner, 2016).

It is recommended that the design, money and energy being put into resiliency infrastructure projects achieve a high multifunctional standard in a limited time frame (European Commission, 2012). Multifunctionality is the ability

“to perform several functions and provide several benefits on the same spatial area. These functions can be environmental, such as conserving biodiversity or

adapting to climate change, social, such as providing water drainage or green space, and economic, such as supplying jobs and raising property prices”

(Miguez, Mascarenhas, & Magalhães, 2011). Programs that address the urgency of climate-related issues should also address the critical urgency of social issues.

“It is the multifunctionality of GI that sets it apart from the majority of its

‘grey’ counterparts, which tend to be designed to perform one function, such as transport or drainage without contributing to the broader environmental, social and economic context […] As such, GI has the potential to offer win-win, or ‘no regrets’ solutions by tackling several problems and unlocking the greatest number of benefits, within a financially viable framework” (European

Commission, 2012).

The concept of green infrastructure offers direction for that co-beneficial impetus (Freeman et al., 2015). Infrastructure that has a dialogue with the natural environment is more dynamic and responsive, and can be a basis for built environment infrastructure and policy that also has a more dynamic and responsive nature to social issues (McPhearson et al., 2014). For example, in

Brazil, projects which involve community inputs for flood resilience infrastructure have been based off a more iterative and experimental process for the implementation of these nature-based installments (Miguez et al., 2011).

Due to the urgent nature of preventing coastal disasters, it also can be engaged with as a catalyst for addressing other societal ills, such as increasing access to housing, in a more immediate manner. The pace of disaster prevention practices, though themselves sometimes considered to be too slow, tends to utilize public interest and funding to address imminent threats more quickly than infrastructure improvements with no imminent catastrophic consequences.

Applied to broader issues, can help alleviate some of the obstacles that exist in

America that prevent societal problems from being adequately addressed, such as calcified bureaucracy and lack of will for experimentation and iterative policy design (Fitzgerald & Lenhart, 2015).

This paper seeks to express that multifunctionality, a critical element to the contemporary understanding of green infrastructure, should be incorporated in urban policies in connection with climate-related urgency so as to expedite both the ecological and social co-benefits of green infrastructure at the quicker pace typically reserved for emergency response to physical and natural disasters. By linking the urgency associated with coastal storms and flooding, in the case of New York City, to the multifunctional potential of green infrastructure to address social equity and other social issues, integrative environmental and social policies can optimize and expedite the

multifunctionality of green infrastructure. This paper argues that this step is in line with the development of comprehensive, environmentally sensitive decision- making for city planning.

This paper will focus on green infrastructure for two interrelated purposes: stormwater management and coastal resilience. This is because for the area of focus, New York City, these are the main and imminent concerns that are being addressed through the implementation of green infrastructure strategies

(New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). The area of water management is also exemplary of the potential of green infrastructure to address challenges previously left to gray infrastructure, and of prime concern in many parts of the world, as three-quarters of world’s large cities are located in coastal zones (UNEP, 2010). As such, it also serves as a valuable example for how green infrastructure policy should be examined for its emphasis on multifunctionality and urgency to expedite multifunctional solutions in the urban context.

Methodology and research focus

This paper looks to use the multifunctional framework to analyze existing green infrastructure policies in New York City. First through a general overview of the evolution of policies over the last decade, before and after Hurricane

Sandy, and then through a more qualitative analysis of the prominence of multifunctionality in current standing policies on GI, it shows a trajectory that reflects that of the trends that have been discussed so far.

This paper will outline the progress (years 2000 – 2015) of the policy landscape toward green infrastructure for coastal resiliency at multiple levels

(local, regional, state, federal) that affect the coastal metropolis of New York.

It will provide a basis of context that shows that while awareness and policy concerning green infrastructure have been increasing steadily over the last

15 years, in particular in response to the 2012 storm (see Figure 1), these policies have been insufficient in highlighting the social and economic co-benefits of these practices and inadequate in utilizing the urgency associated with disaster prevention as a catalyst to push for more rapid implementation.

The multifunctional framework will be used as a reference to analyze existing green infrastructure policies in New York City. The paper first reviews the evolution of policies over the last decade, before and after Hurricane Sandy.

Then, through a more qualitative analysis of the prominence of multifunctionality in existing GI policies, it exposes a trend toward the more integrative policy.

In order to contextualize the hypothesis and findings in existing policies, the paper will also include a generalized literature review regarding the 12

importance of green infrastructure and its societal co-benefits and the changing paradigm of values as related to these objectives.

The increasing prevalence of green infrastructure and multifunctionality are demonstrated by quantifying the number of academic articles that reference them, in a framework influenced by Freeman et al. (2014). Then, through logic and examples, the paper argues that disaster prevention urgency is a potential opportunity to expedite the social co-benefits of multifunctional GI. GI policies will be assessed for their multifunctionality, for four categories as laid out by

Selman (2009). Finally, policy findings will be presented and assessed relative to their ideal capacity as societal progress stimulants. This framework will be based off of that of several researchers such as Freeman et al. (2015), Hansen and

Pauleit (2014), Lovell and Taylor (2013), and McPhearson et al. (2014).

Part I: Green Infrastructure, Multifunctionality, and Related Concepts

Green and gray infrastructure

Green infrastructure “is the network of natural and semi-natural areas, features and green spaces in rural and urban, terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine areas. It is a broad concept, and includes natural features, such as parks, forest reserves, hedgerows, restored and intact wetlands and marine areas, as 13

well as man-made features, such as ecoducts and cycle paths. The aims of GI are to promote ecosystem health and resilience, contribute to biodiversity conservation and enhance ecosystem services […] such as water regulation, that benefit the environment and humans” (European Commission, 2012).

Green infrastructure’s relationship to the natural environment may be in reference to its function to preserve or restore a natural environment, to imitate nature’s functions, to work synchronistically with natural functions, to mitigate human environmental impact, or to any combination of these (Haihong Zhao et al., 2014).

Urban areas have always, to a greater or lesser extent, relied on natural ecosystems and plants for needed services such as air quality, water provision, and protection from heat, wind, and flooding (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,

2005). Plants and natural systems, however, were not always recognized for their value in providing these services (Tuan, 2013).

A long human history of battling and trying to control nature, combined with modern industry and technology, resulted in a twentieth century paradigm that favored “gray” or hard infrastructure (McMahon & Benedict, 2012; Tuan,

2013). Gray infrastructure is what is typically thought of as built infrastructure: it refers to “man-made, constructed assets and can be specified via the usage of categories [such as] transportation… commercial… utilities and distribution of

services… [and] social infrastructure [e.g. coastal defenses and flood control]”

(Davis, 2010).

“It is the multifunctionality of GI that sets it apart from the majority of its

‘grey’ counterparts, which tend to be designed to perform one function, such as transport or drainage without contributing to the broader environmental, social and economic context… As such, GI has the potential to offer win-win, or ‘no regrets’ solutions by tackling several problems and unlocking the greatest number of benefits, within a financially viable framework” (European

Commission, 2012).

Almost all issues of resource provision, transportation, and other societal needs have typically been addressed by these hard structures, facilities, and installations when possible (McMahon & Benedict, 2012). The single most widely used material in the world is concrete (Crow, 2008). Hard infrastructure has been considered a sign of progress, and the current configuration and flow of society is dependent on the existence of these structures (Crow, 2008).

However, despite the many advances to societal health, progress and comfort made possible by hard infrastructure, there are also a number of well- documented problems and limitations associated with its production, use, and even its very existence (Benedict & McMahon, 2002). These concerns do not imply that gray infrastructure is not necessary in many cases, nor could green

infrastructure ever completely replace traditional infrastructure (Benedict &

McMahon, 2002). Nevertheless, the consequences and externalities of hard infrastructure extend beyond their intended outcomes, and in some cases cause more problems than they solve.

In other cases, current practices might be complemented by green infrastructure practices to minimize the negative externalities. For example, a hard (concrete or other) surface coastline can degrade over time, and can be highly vulnerable to wave destruction, in addition to reducing the available habitat for biodiversity (National Science and Technology Council, 2015). An example of a compatible green infrastructure type that can replace or augment coastal protection is a salt marsh, which changes with an evolving landscape, and protects the coastline through wave attenuation, soil and sediment stabilization, and water flow and flood regulation through greater water uptake, while providing a biodiverse habitat (National Science and Technology Council,

2015).

Problems caused or exacerbated by gray infrastructure include:

• The presence of hard infrastructure limits biodiversity and the

movement of wildlife (Davis, 2010).

• It can disrupt ecosystems to the point of completely changing their

function (Davis, 2010).

• The increase in impermeable surfaces contributes enormously to

stormwater runoff, and in turn to water pollution and flooding

(National Research Council, 2008).

• Lack of plants contributes to landslides and structural instability

(Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

• The construction and production of man-made materials

contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, with five percent of the

annual anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide globally

originating from concrete production alone (Crow, 2008).

• Gray infrastructure is expensive to construct and maintain

(National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

• Most hard infrastructure has a limited lifespan of and is static in its

application (does not evolve with the landscape); “cannot adjust

naturally to environmental shifts imposed by climate change or

inherently dynamic coastal systems, whereas some types of green

infrastructure demonstrate adaptability under changing conditions

(National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

• Hard infrastructure can fail to efficiently address certain coastal

hazards (National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

• It has limited aesthetic applications and impedes access certain

economic and recreational opportunities (National Science and

Technology Council, 2015).

Some of these complications may be mitigated completely or in part by integration with, or replacement by, greener infrastructure (Benedict &

McMahon, 2002). An example of a green infrastructure installation is a bioswale.

A bioswale is a patch of vegetated area designed to capture and retain stormwater, and can mitigate the need to divert stormwater through hard infrastructure and prevent flooding and pollution (National Research Council,

2008).

Green infrastructure has the capacity to address the original concern that requires infrastructure through more natural systems that replace gray infrastructure. Moreover, green infrastructure has the potential to provide solutions for existing and future societal concerns not traditionally related to the idea of infrastructure (McMahon & Benedict, 2012). This idea will be further discussed in this paper as part of the discussion on the concept of multifunctionality.

There still exists a lingering prejudice against green infrastructure as being inefficient or too unconventional a means for infrastructure service provision. A

2005 article published by The National Institute of Environmental Health

Sciences on outdated stormwater infrastructure dismisses green infrastructure techniques for reducing stormwater as being called for only by

“environmentalists” and despite being “low-tech and cost-effective,” are “not enough to fully control the CSO problem” (Tibbetts, 2005).

However, the trend toward exploring and analyzing the benefits of green infrastructure has been increasing steadily over the past several decades. This may be linked to increasing environmental awareness, or the possibility to valuate ecosystems services, or the trend toward “sustainability.”

Academic Articles Mentioning "Green Infrastructure"

Years 2012-2016 11,800 Number of Academic Articles Mentioning Years 2002-2012 8,890 "Green Infrastructure" according to Google 424 Years 1992-2002 Scholar (search 3/31/16) 0 5000 10000 15000

Figure 1: Academic references to “green infrastructure." Method derived from the research of Freeman et al., (2014)

After an exploration of development the idea of green infrastructure in general and related concepts, this paper will be focusing on green infrastructure for stormwater management and flood resilience in urban areas. Sometimes referred to as blue-green infrastructure, it typically refers to natural barriers or ecosystems that serve to restrain the impact of coastal and storm waters on human habitats (Kazmierczak & Carter, 2010).

Environmental responsibility and climate awareness

While the “garden city” movement from the early twentieth century promoted the clean air, recreation possibilities, and other goods that greenery could bring to human habitats, it came out of a tradition that rejected the city as

“evil” and did not use an ecological basis for understanding the interconnectedness of nature in a man-made or managed landscape, but rather touted the greenery as a moral counterbalance to the foul living conditions associated with inner-city living at the time (Glaeser, 2011). This aesthetic and moral longing was based in nineteenth-century puritanism (Gandy, 2003).

Over the last several decades, a trend has emerged in using ecology as an analogy for what the city should or could be. The famous landscape architect Ian

McHarg “longs for a city that emulates ‘an ecosystem in dynamic equilibrium, stable and complex’…[with] the ‘rules’ of urban design… to be found in nature,

since ecological science provides ‘not only an explanation, but also a command’”

(McHarg, 1970; Gandy, 2003). Such visions have had a fairly long-standing place in the imagination of the public and the drawing boards of landscape designers, however have not always had an opportunity to be realized at the urban scale, due to the unaccommodating policy environment which has prevented such ideas from becoming reality (Fitzgerald & Lenhart, 2015).

The ecological sciences have regarded cities as a source of environmental problems until recently (Lovell & Taylor, 2013). Landscape ecology only emerged as a concept in the 1980s, with the European tradition evolving as more anthropogenic-centric and holistic, while the North American tradition becoming more analytical, based on biological processes (Freeman et al., 2015). These differences would become more apparent over time, with the eventual incorporation of multifunctionality to come sooner in the European context

(Freeman et al., 2015).

Green infrastructure developed within this conceptual context, and that of an overall increase in environmental and climate awareness and responsibility

(McMahon & Benedict, 2012). This has been in process since the environmental movements and laws of the 1970s, influenced by the growing international recognition of climate change since the 1990s and, most recently, the recurring threats to urban habitats due to the increasing frequency of abnormal weather

patterns, since the turn of the millennium. Concurrent with this raising public awareness of the importance of the preservation of the natural environment, the social and natural science communities have been studying the inevasible degree to which human-built environments depend on the successful functioning of natural systems (Freeman et al., 2015).

At the same time, infrastructure in the United States has been on a steep decline, with much of the transportation, flood control, and other critical infrastructure assets deteriorating over time for lack of capital investment and priority (Dannin, 2011). This has also coincided with a decrease in public goods and redistributive policies, resulting in a widening chasm of social equity that endangers social stability and converges with environmental and climate justice issues, increasing the amount and degree to which populations are vulnerable to coastal flooding and other potentially dangerous environmental repercussions

(Asbjørn Wahl, 2015; Bulkeley, Carmin, Castán Broto, Edwards, & Fuller, 2013;

Dannin, 2011; Fitzgerald, 2010; National Science and Technology Council, 2015;

Ostrom, 1990).

Due to often contested issues such as privatization, disinvestment, and maintenance failures, much hard infrastructure in the United States no longer functions as it should, sometimes even endangering surrounding communities

(Dannin, 2011). Often referred to as “crumbling,” America’s current state of

infrastructure is considered on the whole to be worse than it was fifty years ago

(Dannin, 2011).

As the climate science has become more widely understood, along with the effects of human activities on the planet, especially those that produce greenhouse gases, it has become quite clear that there is an incentive to both mitigate and adapt to these changes (Biesbroek, Swart, & van der Knaap, 2009).

The changes necessary to modes of production, consumption, and transportation, however, have been delayed. There has been a false narrative of economic development depending on excessive production and consumption, which is difficult to change (d’Almeida & Santos, 2016; Vidal, 2016). This narrative has had consequences at all scales from global production to local consumption patterns, and has resulted in slower-than-necessary adaptations to renewable energy sources and human settlement patterns that result in vulnerable populations .

United States has only recently been able to officially recognize international agreements on climate change and pledge to make any kind of positive actions, for example the failure of the U.S. to confirm the Kyoto Protocol.

However, there is hope in this regard, as 2015 is the first year on record where global greenhouse emissions have stalled in the absence of an economic downturn. This is significant because it proves that economic growth is still

possible while decreasing greenhouse emissions (Vidal, 2016). This may further allow governments at all scales to realign their priorities in favor of the environment without appearing to dampen prospects for prosperity. This shift in investment priorities in not insignificant and may turn out to be pivotal in the shift toward investing in green infrastructure for the future; 2015 has been mentioned as “remarkable year and it may very well become known as the year when sustainable investing became sustainable”(d’Almeida & Santos, 2016).

The resurgence of the concept of green infrastructure is new in that it aligns with the recent environmental trends and climate awareness that have brought it to the forefront of policy and public opinion. It is a holistic concept that can combine the benefits of conservation and nature with the infrastructure needs for urban societies (Freeman et al., 2015). A nebulous concept, it has evolved in different strains, each often reflecting the priorities of the entity defining it (Otte, Simmering, & Wolters, 2007). Each discipline or stakeholder with an interest in GI uses that definition which most closely supports its purposes; “GI relies on the theories and practices of numerous scientific and land planning professions, such as conservation biology, landscape ecology, urban and regional planning, geographic analysis, information systems and economists” (European Commission, 2012, p. 1).

Therefore, many definitions of green infrastructure refer only to the natural and parkland of an area, without specifically incorporating designed environments or multifunctional externalities. As recently as 2012, entire books on green infrastructure dissociated conservation and recreational natural

“infrastructure” from the capacity and opportunity of this natural infrastructure to address other infrastructural needs, like “storm water systems,” with nature- based strategies (McMahon & Benedict, 2012). This reflects another line of green infrastructure conceptualization that has often referred to it as exclusively parks and other green amenities for public health and recreation. 1 This, however, does not reflect a general consensus on the meaning of green infrastructure – and can be problematic when policy references to “green infrastructure” do not distinguish whether the GI is multifunctional or simply is a planted area.

Green infrastructure as a concept evolved not only in a broader shift towards environmental stewardship, but out of other work in landscape architecture, engineering, and other fields (Lovell & Johnston, 2009). There are a number of trends and concepts in planning, social and natural sciences that have contributed to the more comprehensive meaning it has today. Some of these are

1 Even in New York City, which will be the focus of this paper, “green infrastructure” has typically and historically referred to parks, until its recent integration with the proposed, more progressive, new meaning. See Appendix, Figure 16. 25

outlined briefly in the following paragraphs, as an overview of their influence as well as to set up their relationship to multifunctionality in green infrastructure.

These concepts, ecosystems services and sustainability, are significant to the understanding of green infrastructure in its current context.

Related concepts and present discourse

In order to better understand the conceptual development of multifunctionality and green infrastructure, before relating them to specific policies, a number of related concepts are presented to expose the ambiguity, similarities and dissimilarities in meaning and use among comparable and, in certain contexts, interchangeable ideas. In the current era that necessitates resilient landscapes for unforeseen environmental futures, the author Selman, in discussing “landscapes,” argues that “current discourses therefore emphasize social contest, physical flux and spatiotemporal trajectory” (Selman, 2012, p. 28).

These three concepts can apply equally well to multifunctional GI.

Conceptual Discourse: Multifunctional Green Infrastructure

Ecosystem Spatiotemporal Governance Services Trajectory

Adaptive Ecological capacity and Functions management Resilience

Service "Panarchy" valuation and incentives

Productive Economic Sustainability Functions development

Participation and engagement

Socio-Cultural Transformability Functions Democratic design

Figure 2: Conceptual Discourse: Multifunctional Green Infrastructure. (term “spatiotemporal trajectory” borrowed from Selman, 2012.) Concept map: original by this paper’s author.

Ecosystems services

Our current understanding of green infrastructure evolved out of a

number of other critical frameworks, such as ecosystems services. Ecosystems

services is broadly defined by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) as

“benefits humans obtain from ecosystems” (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,

2005, p. 5). Types of ecosystems services include ‘‘provisioning services’’ (e.g., food, water, fiber), ‘‘regulating services’’ (e.g., purification of air and water, regulation of climate, floods, diseases, hazard, and noise), ‘‘cultural services’’

(e.g., recreational, spiritual, religious and other nonmaterial benefits), and (4)

‘‘supporting services’’ (e.g., soil formation, primary production, and nutrient cycling)” (Wu, 2013).

Those ecosystems services whose benefits that are quantifiable allow cost- benefit calculation and therefore integration into planning on a cost comparison basis, (National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

Similar to GI, the study of ecosystems services has a growing body of evidence and tools for its valuation and role in built and natural environmental policy (Lovell & Taylor, 2013; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Wu,

2013). Because of this growing body of literature and toolkits, there has been an increase in the viability of using the assessed value of ecosystems services in the long term to calculate the necessity and cost of their function, especially relative to the cost of either the absence of the relevant ecosystem or of the hard infrastructure alternative for providing this level of service to a community or region (National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

A classic example, closely related to this paper’s discussion of the stormwater and coastal green infrastructure in New York City, is the drinking water provision infrastructure for the same area. In the early 1900s, New York

City took on the challenge of providing quality drinking water for the future by carefully conducting a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the necessary investments for providing drinking water either through the construction of local filtration plants or the conservation of the Catskill watershed, to the northeast of the city

(McPhearson et al., 2014). At the time, both were costly initiatives, but because of the critical nature of the service at stake (drinking water) and the clear long-term cost savings of conserving the land in the watershed to preserve its natural filtration function rather than constructing and maintaining filtration plants, the authorities decided to conserve the watershed (McPhearson et al., 2014).

This successful use of the concept of ecosystems services for the promotion of green infrastructure pre-dates many others that would come decades later. It also is an example of the multifunctionality of green infrastructure because this piece of green infrastructure has multiple social and ecological purposes, ranging from drinking water to environmental conservation.

It is only recently that the Federal government has had efforts to advance the integration of ecosystems services into its decision-making (National Science and Technology Council, 2015). These have included the 2011 Report to the

President Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the

Economy; the 2014 Priority Agenda: Enhancing the Climate Resilience of America’s

Natural Resources; and the 2015 Executive Order (E.O.) 13690: “Establishing a

Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input” which, despite being focused on science- based information and research needs, include conceptual progress toward ecosystem services integration (National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

Integrating ecosystems services into the design and funding of natural and built infrastructure is another way, and scale, of framing multifunctionality in green infrastructure.

Sustainability

“Sustainability” is a widely discussed and debated topic in the twenty- first century. Semantic discussions of its definitions and arguments about its relationships to other concepts (such as “resilience” and “development”) are common in academic settings (Selman, 2012). A commonly cited definition is that of the Brundlandt commission in 1987: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations General Assembly, 1987). In addition to its general nature, this definition is often cited because of the significance of this moment

and proclamation in international history, which was around the beginning of the time that this concept took off and began resonating in the collective understanding that ties environmental goals together with those of human development (Wu, 2013).

Figure 3: The Daly Triangle, illustrating the underlying concerns that govern the drive toward sustainability (Wu, 2013)

Wu, in his research, says that “sustainability is inherently context- dependent, and the context is multifaceted—cultural, social, political, and, most ubiquitously, spatial” and summarizes and categorizes five types of

sustainability in the context of landscapes: the Brundtland definition, the triple bottom line, weak versus strong sustainability, human well-being, and ecosystem services (Freeman et al., 2015; Wu, 2013).

For the purpose of this paper, sustainability is being presented as a general but important paradigm shift that greatly influences twenty-first century policies related to the built and natural environments. From the re-categorization of the United Nations’ “Millennium Development Goals” as “Sustainable

Development Goals” to the “corporate social responsibility” movement, the presence and impact of this concept in policy planning has grown exponentially since the year 2000 (Wu, 2013).

Sustainability serves as a baseline standard or ideal which appears at all scales – from community to international – and normalizes planning for what is sometimes called the “triple bottom line” in public and private planning spheres

(Freeman et al., 2015).

The three overlapping goals of sustainability often exist at an intangible scale, in international agreements or compacts among cities (McPhearson et al.,

2014). However, it is these three intangible goals that further a multifaceted planning strategy that can become tangible at the local scale (McPhearson et al.,

2014). These manifest in the simultaneous co-benefits of multifunctionality, which

will be described further for its unique significance to the evolution of the concept of green infrastructure, and for its potential in that realm.

Panarchy

Another conceptual framework for the resiliency of social-ecological systems is that of “panarchy.” Panarchy is a meta concept that refers to those systems and hierarchies that function simultaneously at larger, steadier, long- term scales and smaller, changing, shorter scales, resulting in a dynamic of adaptability that allows for experimentation and ultimately resilience (Resilience

Alliance, n.d.). This has been applied to the social-ecological framework as a tool for understanding the complex relationship between the many scales that operate and interact in the natural and human environments (Ibid.).

This asserts that panarchy is a useful concept for the evaluation of the governance of multifunctional green infrastructure, in that it identifies the iterative and transformative processes that allow for experimentation and flexibility in structure and governance, which ultimately promote sustainability by having more resilience and adaptive capacity (see Appendix II: Selected

Definitions).

Figure 4: Panarchy “A classic representation of a panarchy: a nested set of adaptive cycles. Adapted from Gunderson and Holling (2002).” Source: (Garmestani & Benson, 2013)

This multidimensional conceptual framework applies to the idea of multifunctional green infrastructure in its ability to address the multiple scales at which the impacts of MGI can be observed as well as implemented. A single site serves as both the experimental “small and fast” scale, relative to overarching city policy, as well as “large and slow” scale, when considering the faceted biological and social interactions within the site itself.

Benson et al. also recommend the incorporation of “reflexive law,” or laws that are responsive to societal and democratic needs rather than normative structures, is crucial to the development of policies that will allow for sufficient ecological and social resilience in the future. They elaborate:

“Most natural resource management organizational hierarchies are currently built around assumptions of stability in ecological systems, which can be managed for “sustained-yield” (Craig 2010). Although this approach has worked to some extent, a more rapidly changing environment warrants a reformed organizational arrangement to better mimic and respond to ecosystem dynamics. To shift to resilience-based governance, we should integrate resilience science, i.e., panarchy, adaptive management, and adaptive governance, with reflexive law and we offer suggestions for manifesting this transition” (Garmestani &

Benson, 2013).

Multifunctionality

Figure 5 (Lovell & Taylor, 2013): Comparison of the concept of sustainable with that of multifunctional landscape approach. Sustainable is often represented by the overlapping of environmental, economic, and social pillars, whereas multifunctionality can be envisioned as the stacking of ecological, production, and cultural functions to achieve greater overall performance.

As with sustainability, multifunctionality is context-dependent. The term multifunctionality can be defined in a number of ways, and suffers a lack of absolute identity similar to expressions like “green infrastructure” and other popular terms for twenty-first century comprehensive social and environmental planning (e.g. “sustainability,” “resiliency,” “adaptability”) (Freeman et al.,

2015). These are some of the many existent concepts that overlap with multifunctionality.

It is important to note that the very ambiguity of these terms is a reflection of current trends toward more holistic planning solutions that combine environmental concerns with economic and social development. This idea has been referred to as constructive ambiguity, “meaning that people can agree on

these approaches in principle while disagreeing on many key details that remain subject to negotiation” (Sayer et al., 2013).

Green infrastructure “planning represents more of a synthesis of different planning approaches than a completely new approach. Rather, the defining characteristic of GI planning is that it is a melting pot for innovative planning approaches in the field of nature conservation and green space planning”

(Hansen & Pauleit, 2014, p. 516). In this way, multifunctional green infrastructure can be seen as framework for implementing a variety of conceptual tools related to broader human and natural systems (resilience, sustainability, ecosystems services, etc.) at a local to regional spatial level that is governed in a way that maximizes the public good that can be gained in various functionalities within the same physical space.

For the purposes of this paper and analysis, multifunctional green infrastructure can be generally defined by combining the definitions of

“multifunctional landscape” and “green infrastructure” given in an article on the topic by researchers Lovell & Taylor (2013):

Multifunctional green infrastructure: a strategically planned and managed

network of natural lands, working landscapes, and open spaces that

provide a range of beneficial functions across production, ecological, and

cultural dimensions, considering the needs and preferences of the owners

and users

This is also sometimes known, in international NGOs and research organizations, as the “landscape approach” or the “integrated landscape approach,” bringing the focus to the landscape scale “to holistically balance multiple goals related to both environmental and non-environmental processes, for example, livelihoods and sustainable resource management” (Freeman et al.,

2015). However, the integrated landscape approach is largely defined by multifunctionality, and those temporal and participatory aspects of integrated approaches sometimes distinguished from multifunctionality can also be considered, as in this paper’s functioning definition, a part of multifunctionality itself (Freeman et al., 2015).

Green infrastructure, especially in urban areas, often does not live up to its maximum multifunctional potential, due to shortcomings in some criteria or other; for example, perhaps its planning did not take into consideration the needs and preferences of users, or perhaps it fails to serve a cultural or aesthetic function it could have easily done with better design (Sinnett, Smith, & Burgess,

2015). For example, in some cases, even a small reduction in impermeable

surfaces can decrease runoff tremendously, at no extra financial cost or societal disservice (European Commission, 2012).

Not all green infrastructure can serve all functions, however, planning that is conscious of all of its potential functions, particularly as relevant to its users, is at times egregiously lacking (Sinnett et al., 2015). As observed by the place in time that current green infrastructure policy exists, it is clear that these considerations are not without precedent, tools, or public appeal, and therefore planning with them should be encouraged before infrastructure projects are undertaken.

Selman (2009) explains that multifunctionality is distinguished by four primary characteristics: that it is interactive as opposed to merely co-locative; that it is synergistic and beneficial; that it integrates the landscape as a system rather than purely scenic; and that it combines the rural and urban into an entire land use matrix.

Another way of understanding multifunctionality is as one of several strategies that together can build urban resilience capacity. Ahern (2011) lists these as: multifunctionality; redundancy and modularization; (bio and social) diversity; multi-scale networks and connectivity; and adaptive planning and design. Within the scope of this paper, the term “multifunctionality” at some level includes and refers to the other four strategies as integral parts of what

constitutes successful multifunctionality itself. Similarly, the “five characterizing concepts for an integrated landscape approach” are listed by Freeman et al. as multifunctionality, transdisciplinarity, participation, complexity, and sustainability (2015).

Assessing landscape functions

“While the multifunctional landscape approach framework has been increasingly applied to agroecosystems, few examples exist for planning urban ecosystems” (Lovell & Taylor, 2013). Three of the key benefits of using this framework in urban settings are: an embedded framework for evaluating the success of landscape plans (Lovell & Johnston, 2009); an emphasis on land owners and users as primary stakeholders (Otte et al., 2007); and “the incorporation of cultural functions that contribute to learning and public enjoyment of the environment” (Carey et al., 2003).

Lovell and Taylor (2013) propose that the multifunctional landscape framework for the sustainable planning of green infrastructure be applied to urban green spaces, and provide a number of guidelines and explanations that are valuable to the discussion of multifunctionality in the context of green infrastructure policy. The following is an example list of functions, adapted from

Lovell and Taylor, 2013:

Multifunctional Landscape by Function Cultural Ecological Production

represent the social realm represent the related to the economic of sustainability environmental realm of realm of sustainability sustainability recreation, visual quality, climate regulation, typically have some cultural heritage, carbon sequestration, market value through education, and other water infiltration, their agricultural benefits directly biodiversity products including food, experienced by humans conservation, nutrient animal feed, fiber, cycling, and other biofuel, and medicinal benefits for resources environmental health Figure 6: Multifunctional Landscape by Function

Lovell and Taylor propose that “strong multifunctional green infrastructure requires a multi-scale approach” that “should be expanded to include unplanned open space in both the public and private realms, [consider] a wide variety of ecosystem services beyond storm water management, and [draw] on input from diverse stakeholder groups” (ibid, p. 1453, 1452). Key aspects of this approach include enhancing landscape heterogeneity, designing sites specifically to support ecosystems services, incorporating and linking “urban patches, even those as small as individual residential yards,” and engaging private landowners (ibid.).

The authors propose the use of design assistance tools such as their

Multifunctional Landscape Assessment Tool (MLAT). This tool quantifies the cultural, ecological and production functions of a potential site use, allowing for comparison of a plan’s utility across multiple dimensions at the site-specific spatial scale. The following is an example of how this tool can be applied to a neighborhood park (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Multifunctional Landscape Assessment Tool (MLAT) (Lovell & Taylor, 2013)

However, a site-scale tool can be both too specific and too general, by measuring for only certain indicators, focusing on a single patch rather than its connectedness to the GI network of spaces, and through its omission of the 43

elements of time, dynamism, and process participation. Because of this, these kinds of tools can only make up part of the guideline for integrating multifunctionality effectively.

Transformability

In addition to the aforementioned social, ecological, and economic, another powerful dimension to the concept of multifunctionality is that of transformability. This has been described as the ‘‘capacity to cross thresholds into new development trajectories’’ (Folke et al., 2010; Lovell & Taylor, 2013).

Transformability integrates the dimension of time into the framework of interrelated functions; as cities develop, it is not always evident what will be needed in the future. Thus, incorporating transformability means designing a space with inherent resources and organizational structures that allow for the functions of the landscape to evolve over time (Garmestani & Benson, 2013). In an ecological sense, this could refer to the resilient properties of natural system to evolve along with evolving threats (such as wetlands adapting to climate changes) (Dickinson, Male, & Zaidi, 2015).

In a sociological sense, transformability can be the requisite liberation for people whose livelihoods are not optimized in the current socio-economic situation (Garmestani & Benson, 2013). It allows for creating landscapes that are

beyond resilient (keeping things as they are in the face of disasters; see Appendix

II: Selected Definitions) but are actually transformative, in that they can utilize their current and future functions to improve the situation of the community and change the existing trajectory of development. “Instead of viewing disturbances

(e.g. flooding, climate change, economic crises) as tests of the resilience of a system, they could actually be considered as opportunities to realign resources and organizational structures by drawing from the innovation and knowledge concentrated in the impacted area” (Lovell & Taylor, 2013). This allows for dynamism, uncertainty and growth.

Transformability is distinct from adaptive capacity (see Appendix II:

Selected Definitions) in that adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to adapt over time to changing, possibly unanticipated, ecological conditions, while transformability refers to the potential for positive change and improvement inherent in these possible future scenarios.

These temporal dimensions (transformability and adaptive capacity) exist within the cultural, ecological, and productive functions of green infrastructure, but are important to analyze in their own right for the ways in which they overlap and provide potential insights into site development beyond those usually associated with immediate or anticipated ecosystem service benefits.

While the nature of multifunctional green infrastructure would be to touch on capacities that reach across all of these dimensions, these are some of the transformative capacities of optimized green infrastructure:

Transformative Capacities (Examples) Socio-cultural Ecological Production Support human Blurring the urban-rural New functions for urban diversity, by engaging dichotomy [a]; ecosystems such as community members Inclusion of private and agriculture [a]; from a variety of cultural interstitial spaces (patch- Energy production and ethnic backgrounds mosaic); through integrated [a]; Dynamic ecosystems; renewable energy Equitable distribution of Strengthen resilience by sources [d]; resources [d]; supporting the retention Tangible sustainability Self-organization and and transmission of [a]; creating constructive ecological knowledge positive feedback loops among community [c]; members [b]; Serve as a platform for Increased resilience to improving residents’ meet evolving challenges own capacity to by integrating transform and improve complexity and under conditions of biodiversity into the uncertainty and change system [d]; within their own Combining adaptive communities [c]; capacity and mitigation [c];

[a] (Lovell & Taylor, 2013) [b] (Barthel, Folke, & Colding, 2010) [c] (Krasny & Tidball, 2012) [d] (Folke et al., 2010) Figure 8: Examples of transformative capacities

Because green infrastructure is being implemented, typically, to serve an ecological or production purpose, many of the multifunctional opportunities lie within the realm of social and cultural inclusion and transformability.

Opportunities span functional borders, although their relation to some dimensional categories is clearer in some cases than in others. A typical opportunity to look out for is engaging citizens through community participation

– this is typically a requisite for multifunctional green infrastructure, if it is to be understood as serving the good of the land users and owners (McPhearson et al.,

2014). However, with this and all opportunities for multifunctional optimization, context is highly relevant, and not all goals can be met at all times.

Multifunctional Opportunities • Community • Meeting intended • Gardening and plant participation in goals of green resources; planning process; infrastructure • Stormwater retention; • Community intervention, such as: • Adaptive strategy to participation in green Prevent coastal address unknown infrastructure erosion; future conditions; management; • Providing flexible • Beauty and development options, accessibility; including for interstitial spaces Figure 9: Multifunctional opportunities

Incorporating multifunctionality into GI policy

“Despite growing evidence that society will benefit from ecosystem

services and biodiversity provided by multifunctional green

infrastructure, many cities struggle to find the resources and coordination

capacity to implement comprehensive agendas across the city” (Lovell &

Taylor, 2013).

While the multifunctional framework has been fairly widely used in

European agricultural policies, it has been more difficult to implement in the

American context, partially due to a gap between the claim of environmental scientific soundness and the limitations of applying traditional analytic science to the multi-scale solutions required (Beatley, 2012; Fitzgerald, 2010; Freeman et al.,

2015; Otte et al., 2007; Selman, 2009). In the same vein, a lack of experimentalism with regard to urban planning policies has limited the extent to which green infrastructure ideas can be implemented in contexts where the feasibility is highly reliant on previously proven methods with hard financial statistics

(Fitzgerald, 2010).

According to studies such as that of Hansen and Pauleit (2014), while the academic literature on green infrastructure is quite vast, there are relatively few studies of multifunctionality in its applied context, contrasting to the frequent

references to the topic. There appears to be a gap between the existing scientific literature and the conscious placement of multifunctionality in green infrastructure policy – those policies that have multifunctional integration have not always done so explicitly (ibid.). Additionally, green infrastructure is not always multifunctional in the integrated sense referred to in this paper, because as discussed in the previous section on green infrastructure, GI sometimes refers only to the placement of parks and green spaces, or very often refers only to ecological capacities while ignoring social, productive, or transformative abilities.

While the academic literature on multifunctional green infrastructure has proliferated exponentially since the seminal work of Benedict & McMahon in

2002 (see below chart), there has been little operationalized policy analysis through the applied multifunctionality framework (Benedict & McMahon, 2002;

Hansen & Pauleit, 2014).

Articles on"Multifunctionality" and "Green Infrastructure" by Year, 2000–2015

500 400 300 Google Scholar Hits for "Multifunctionality" 200 and "Green 100 Infrastructure" 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 10: Articles on multifunctional green infrastructure. Method derived from the research of Freeman et al. (2014).

There still exist many opportunities to better incorporate these concepts into green infrastructure policy (Sinnett et al., 2015). While “‘multifunctionality’ has become a popular term in landscape design and planning, it has been particularly influential in Europe, where it resonates strongly with the protective and creative measures being promoted through the European Landscape

Convention (Selman, 2009).

Especially considering that in the current day, the urgency of climate change provides an opportunity for GI policy to be prioritized in light of public concern for dangerous climate impacts (OECD, 2012). These policies can be infrastructure, and those green infrastructure projects are prime to be integrated into a multifunctionality framework. By applying the pressure on authorities to deal with imminent safety concerns to multifunctional green infrastructure

policies, the sense of urgency can be utilized to promote socially transformative functions at the pace otherwise reserved for reactive emergency measures

(Zenghelis & Stern, 2015).

Part II: New York City: Green Infrastructure for Coastal and Stormwater Management

New York City Context

New York City is the most populous metropolis on the East Coast of the

United States. The metropolitan region has 22.2 million people (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2010). Within the municipal boundaries of the city of over 8 million residents, 400,000 live directly within the 100-year flood zone (City of New York,

2013). This number could quadruple if mid-century flood zone projections prove true, as illustrated by the map in Figure 11 (Kennedy, 2014).

While those who reside in flood zones are typically considered most vulnerable, all residents are susceptible to the negative impacts of floods, storms and sea level rise, in the form of compromised infrastructure and transportation, impediments to energy and food access, and contaminated water bodies (New

York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2010).

Figure 11: Projected flooding for New York City (Kennedy, 2014)

As with any issue of vulnerability and public access, the degree to which an individual or a community is impacted is exacerbated by issues of inequality.

Inequality itself is one of the top issues facing New York City today – the New

York Metropolitan Area has the second highest rate of income disparity in the country (Berube & Holmes, 2016). Some of the other most significant major issues facing the city today – housing affordability, economic growth, failing infrastructure – reflect on these issues of climate vulnerability and inequality and are compounded by the ever-increasing demands on resources due to a swelling population and extensive consumption (City of New York, 2016).

With these deeply interrelated and growing concerns becoming more problematic with the passage of time, the city should be optimizing the social, ecological, and productive potential benefit of every policy related to the built or natural environment. Green infrastructure policies, already incorporating the needs of both humans and their environment, are positioned ideally to begin confronting this challenge.

However, green infrastructure in the New York City context is propelled by the urgent climate-based impetus of sea level rise (Rosenzweig & Solecki,

2014). This puts stormwater and coastal green infrastructure in a special position: that of public infrastructure and investment that is critical to safety and security, time-sensitive, and widely accepted as necessary (Fitzgerald, 2010). These factors may allow the implementation of green infrastructure to move forward at a pace that has otherwise been difficult to achieve in the last 50 years. While very few major infrastructure projects have been completed in NYC since the 1970s, current plans, such as the “Big U,” reflect a focus on resiliency made possible by public reaction, and the federal funding possibilities, that resulted from

Hurricane Sandy in 2012 (Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014).

In the New York City context, the term “green infrastructure” is used as a description for “an array of practices that use or mimic natural systems to manage urban stormwater runoff.” (New York City Department of

Environmental Protection, n.d.) The New York City Green Infrastructure Plan of

2010 and its subsequent annual updates are explicitly about its use in stormwater management, not other potential services like food provision or carbon sequestration (New York City Department of Environmental Protection, 2010).

This focus on stormwater services is reflective of the priorities of New

York as a coastal city with an array of ongoing stormwater and coastal issues, from Combined Sewer Outflows (CSOs) to the increasing severity and frequency of coastal storms (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2011). Ageing sewer and water management structures and facilities have left the city in a position of urgent need for upgrades, and, in a moment when green infrastructure has been gaining traction as a strategy, an opportunity to refocus these critical infrastructure systems on a more creative and dynamic relationship with people and nature.

Water challenges and management

The central problem that green infrastructure is being used to address, and the focus of this paper, is the management of excess water (New York City

Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). The problem is multidimensional: the water comes in from all sides and needs to be dealt with both in times of normal weather patterns and extreme storms.

The following chart shows the three types of water input that affect the coastal urban area: riparian watersheds (upstream freshwater), urban stormwater, and coastal storms and sea level rise. As riparian inflows are governed on more of a regional level, only the challenges presented by urban stormwater and coastal storms and sea level rise will be discussed within the scope of this paper.

Figure 12 Urban water inputs (Felson, 2016)

New York City has approximately 40 square kilometers of natural parkland, of which 6.7 square kilometers are freshwater wetlands and 6 square kilometers are salt marsh (McPhearson et al. 2014).

Combined sewer outflows and stormwater

First, it is important to understand stormwater management in the context of urban disaster mitigation policy.

Stormwater is the rainwater that flows over the land during or after a storm event. As an area becomes more urbanized, the increase in impervious coverage (paved streets, parking lots, rooftops, etc.) leads to an increase in the amount of water that flows over the land (instead of being absorbed into the earth) (Lubell & Edelenbos, 2013). It runs into water bodies such as rivers and oceans after collecting anything from sediment to trash along the way; or it often goes directly into sewer systems or Combined Sewer Outflows (CSOs) (Tibbetts,

2005). Either way, this kind of water excess causes a number of environmental, health, and development issues (Kazmierczak & Carter, 2010).

The most obvious of these is that it increases the possibility and intensity of flooding; flooding can cause enormous amounts of damage and alone can constitute a disaster, when there is a cost to human life, activities or infrastructure (Fritsch & Benson, 2013). Impervious surfaces obstruct the natural

path of the course of water, which can lead to flooding. In many cases, floods could be avoided if it were not for stormwater runoff, such as those caused by small rain events (Clements, St. Juliana, Stratus Consulting, Davis, & Natural

Resources Defense Council, 2013).

Excessive stormwater is also responsible for the contamination of streams, rivers, and coastal water; water pollution is very difficult to remediate once it has happened (Natural Resources Defense Council, n.d.). In addition to contaminants that may be brought overland to the water, very serious pollution can occur as a result of CSOs. In the case of CSOs, with traditional gray infrastructure water management, excessive rainwater drains directly into the sewer system and then has to be treated along with all of the blackwater

(wastewater) in wastewater treatment plants (Tibbetts, 2005). However, when there is a storm and there is an excess of water in the system, it cannot all be treated by the wastewater plants and simply overflows into the waterways. This is a serious public health concern, as untreated wastewater can spread disease ruin otherwise clean water for human use (Tibbetts, 2005).

Another effect of wastewater and pollution in the waterways is that it destroys natural habitats (Natural Resources Defense Council, n.d.). Fertilizer runoff causes buildups of nitrogen along the coastline that severely disturb the ecosystems in those environments while blackwater and contaminants can

directly kill off integral species and change the balance of these natural systems

(Natural Resources Defense Council, 2011). This, as is finally being recognized lately, not only affects the natural environment but the human one as well, dependent on river and coastal habitats for a number of ecosystem services, including but not limited to the mitigation of storm impacts (UNEP, 2010).

The natural environment is not the only one at risk to stormwater damage.

The built environment and infrastructure are also highly vulnerable to water damage. Famously in 2012, during Hurricane Sandy, the failure of the New York

City subways and electric grid below 14th street were caused by storm flooding.

Infrastructure damage may be most visible in a disaster scenario, but the regular flooding of built infrastructure wears away over the years at the materials and can lead to other severe consequences, such as bridge and tunnel failures, road sinkholes, or damage to building foundations (Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

2015).

The practices of stormwater management seek to reduce, control, and prevent stormwater runoff through a variety of strategies (Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, 2015). They attempt to attempt to improve water quality and either reduce or control flooding and erosion. They can be categorized as remediation strategies and prevention strategies; each of these takes an approach

focused on corrective or precautionary strategies, respectively (National

Research Council, 2008).

Figure 13: Urban Water Management Transitions Framework (Felson, 2016)

Traditionally, stormwater management has been seen as an engineering problem, to be addressed with hard infrastructure. Before cities became aware of the necessity for remediating the problems caused by increased urbanization, there was little done to address these issues. While New York has had a gravity- based sewer system in place since the mid-1800s, it also has been using the same pipes and system since around that time.

Improvements to overall structure of stormwater management in the U.S. can be seen as beginning after the Clean Water Act of 1972.

However, in this era hard or “gray” infrastructure practices were mostly being used to deal with these issues. Typical strategies of gray infrastructure include diversion and drainage, concrete filtration structures, sewers, filtration systems and infiltration trenches, and catch basins (National Research Council,

2008). These gray infrastructure strategies have come into question in more recent times for their lack of environmental sensitivity and efficacy in averting stormwater problems (National Science and Technology Council, 2015).

Conventional urban stormwater management, with its emphasis on engineered flood control measures such as dams, dikes and levees, and detention facilities, has in many areas helped to mitigate some of the worst flood damage

(Verkerk & Buuren, 2013). The pace of flood-producing urbanization has vastly outstripped it. Furthermore, by quickly channeling stormwater away from certain areas via paved channels, stormwater pipes, and stream bank stabilization techniques (e.g., riprap, cutbacks, plantings, and bulkheads) rather than providing for retention or infiltration, conventional stormwater management can simply transfer hydrologic impacts downstream (NYCDEP,

2014). At times, downstream areas experience greater habitat loss, increased

channel widening and erosion, and worse flooding due to the reduced storage and facilitated runoff upstream (Natural Resources Defense Council, n.d.)

In essence, stormwater management has never quite caught up to the needs of urban populations. With more awareness and policy in place to push forward with better practices, there are still substantial financial and political obstacles to meeting stormwater needs on a regular basis, and that does not even account for exceptional storms and their increasing frequency. Seventy-five percent of New York City is covered by impervious surfaces (New York City

Department of Environmental Protection, 2010), with half of the land area served by CSOs and the other half served by local sewers or draining directly into the waterways (City of New York, 2008).

Before even addressing the issue of increasing storm frequency and intensity, this insufficient infrastructure has not ever been able to truly accommodate even moderate rainfall. “In dry weather an average of 1.3 billion gallons of sanitary sewage per day are channeled through more than 7,000 miles of sewers and treated at 14 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). In wet weather, however, as little as one tenth of an inch of rain can overwhelm the combined sewer system, causing raw sewage from more than 400 outfalls to be

dumped into virtually every waterway in the city” (Natural Resources Defense

Council, 2011).

Because of the uncertainty for predictions as the climate shifts toward more extreme weather, it is unlikely that even with the most comprehensive modeling, a stormwater management system that met quality standards would be able to anticipate all water management needs in an unpredictable event

(National Research Council, 2008). This lack of certainty for water management needs is another reason that green infrastructure is invaluable for its dynamic potential to evolve with the landscape, transform, and maintain resilience in the face of unforeseen natural circumstances.

In order to see significant improvement in practices, it is now known that management strategies which are preventative rather than remedial are most effective. In order to prevent rainwater from going overflowing CSOs and draining into waterways, the water should not flow overland (National Research

Council, 2008). Once the water goes into a drainage or sewer system, cleaning and processing it is an exceptionally intensive and expensive process. However, if stormwater is stopped at the source (where it hits the earth) before it becomes runoff, natural processes can take place that limit the amount of water in excess.

This in turn limits the amount of wastewater that must be processed, and the

amount of contaminants streaming directly into water bodies (National Research

Council, 2008).

By mimicking or allowing natural processes, water does not have to run over impervious surfaces into grey infrastructure pipe systems. These strategies can be broadly referred to as Low Impact Development (LID) or green infrastructure (US EPA, n.d.).

LID strategies can also be more economical than traditional diversion.

Maintenance costs are typically much lower, as many LID strategies are to some degree self-sustaining. Additionally, because these strategies are employed at the source, their maintenance is parceled and manageable by local entities, rather than relying on a larger infrastructure framework or extensive municipal or regional cooperation to keep them in operation (US EPA, n.d.).

Coastal ecosystems and resiliency in NYC

While there are many planning, strategy, and legal documents and plans across city agencies that reference green infrastructure, some of the most explicit in favor of wetland protection and construction as a climate-related risk reduction strategy have been released in the last five years. These include, at the

New York City level, the New York City Green Infrastructure Plan (2011); Vision

2020 Comprehensive Waterfront Plan (2011); and the New York City Wetlands

Strategy (2012). After Hurricane Sandy, the sense of urgency increased, as did the energy and effort invested into researching strategies to protect the city coastlines. Post-Sandy reports include the New York Panel on Climate Change

(2013); A Stronger, More Resilient New York (SIRR) report (2013); Urban

Waterfront Adaptive Strategies (2013); and the Coastal Green Infrastructure

Research Plan for New York City (2015).

The opportunities for restoring wetlands evolved before and after Sandy.

The 2012 New York City Wetlands Strategy was released in May (before

Hurricane Sandy), and listed functions of wetlands as including stormwater retention and coastal wave protection, as well as having educational and aesthetic opportunities. As of May 2012, there was no dedicated funding mechanism for wetland restoration projects in New York City. Federal funds had come through in the past as a function of the Water Resources Development Act

(WRDA), but not since 2007 (Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning &

Sustainability, 2012). Hurricane Sandy changed both the attitude toward and the funding possibilities for wetland restoration, as a coastal mitigation project

(Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014).

Figure 14 “Description of parts and connections of physical systems linked to flood ecologies and infrastructure” (Neises, 2016)

In New York City’s 2015 plan for Coastal Green Infrastructure (CGI), it was noted that “more frequent implementation of CGI in NYC and the State may ultimately require changes to regulatory processes that can streamline CGI permitting. Research by the Georgetown Climate Center (2013) showed that most standard USACE permitting favors a “hard” engineering approach to shorelines”

(Haihong Zhao et al., 2014).

Evolution of blue-green infrastructure policy in NYC

Effective water management combined with environmental stewardship, fueled by disaster mitigation, can also reshape the city’s valuation of its relationship to the water itself, and be a central element of the direction the city will take in the 21st century (Lubell & Edelenbos, 2013).

In particular, in New York City, there has been a representative policy evolution in policies since before superstorm Sandy hit in 2012. In light of that storm, it is interesting to examine how existing plans for green infrastructure for stormwater (or “Low Impact Development”) have changed and been adapted and implemented both before and after Sandy hit.

New York City began to address stormwater concerns in a “sustainable” way in 2008. While CSO reduction has been a goal at the federal level since the

Clean Water Act of 1972, and a requirement for all municipalities in 1994 through the EPA’s CSO control policy, improvements and alternatives were long considered to be more extensive gray infrastructure: more pipes, rerouted pipes, water containment basins, and treatment plants (Tibbetts, 2005).

After pleading guilty in federal court to criminal violations of the federal

Water Pollution Control Act and Toxic Substances Control Act in 2001, the NYC

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) agreed to devise and implement an environmental, health and safety compliance program (New York City

Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). This program was subsequently incorporated into Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC2030, which was released in 2007

(PlaNYC 2007), and the Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability was charged with implementing PlaNYC 2030.

In New York City, the Department of Environmental Protection

(NYCDEP) is responsible for the city’s water, sewer and wastewater systems. The shift of attention toward LID can be seen in the 2007 “PlaNYC 2030,” released under Mayor Bloomberg with initiatives covering a broad range of city issues from housing to sustainability. In it, green infrastructure is highlighted as a tool for long-term urban sustainability. Capturing water to reduce sewer overflows is one of its main tenets. The DEP had already had experience with the Staten

Island Bluebelt – a large-scale system of stormwater Best Management Practices

(BMPs) for one third of Staten Island’s land area. The Bluebelt program was initiated in the nineties and preserves wetland areas as natural drainage corridors. The wetland systems are then able to “perform their functions of conveying, storing, and filtering stormwater” (NYCDEP, 2014).

PlaNYC sought to expand the Bluebelt program within Staten Island and to initiate similar pilots in other boroughs, including enhanced tree pits and bioswales (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2011). Other kinds of green infrastructure for stormwater included in the plan and thereafter implemented or

expanded include: green roofs, blue roofs, rain gardens, permeable paving, subsurface detention, cisterns and rain barrels. A key feature of the plan was that it “recognized the overlap between water quality initiatives and the city’s parks and open space initiatives,” such as the one million tree planting program and

Greenstreets (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2011).

In 2007, the same year as the release of the first PlaNYC, local advocates were involved in further promoting the incorporation of sustainable and green infrastructure solutions for stormwater concerns. Several members of SWIM

(Stormwater Infrastructure Matters Coalition) testified during the time leading up to the 2008 release of the Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan. Citizen advocates viewed their influence on the plan as a great success. The first priority on their platform is to “affect change through policy.” SWIM

“advocates for the cooperative effort of public and private agencies

to establish means of capturing stormwater on land through green

infrastructure, indicating that widespread on-land stormwater

management can make it possible for New York City waters to

meet the Clean Water Act standards for safe swimming and fishing,

while meeting local sustainability goals that include creating more

green open space. Its mission is to affect [sic] change through

policy, implementation and outreach, education, and monitoring.

SWIM advocates sustainable stormwater management methods

such as urban forestry, wetland management, green roofs,

permeable pavement, rainwater harvesting, rain gardens,

community gardens, composting and soil remediation, and

shellfish restoration (oysters, for example, also act as water filters)”

(Brzozowski, 2013).

The involvement of SWIM and other advocates of sustainable green infrastructure policies was instrumental in the development and incorporation of these strategies into the local law. The legislation drafted by this group became

Local Law 5, which was subsequently adopted by the BMP Task Force and incorporated into the 2008 Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan and the green infrastructure plans that followed (Waterfront Alliance, 2014).

The Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability, with the interagency BMP Task Force, issued the complementary Sustainable Stormwater

Management Plan in 2008. The plan outlined ten major goal areas for implementing sustainable stormwater BMPs. They were:

1. Capture the benefits of ongoing PlaNYC green initiatives

2. Continue implementation of ongoing source control efforts

3. Establish new design guidelines for public projects

4. Change sewer regulations and codes to adopt performance standards for

new development

5. Improve public notification of combined sewer overflows

6. Complete ongoing demonstration projects and other analysis

7. Continue planning for the implementation of promising source control

strategies

8. Plan for the maintenance of source controls

9. Broaden funding options for cost-effective source controls

10. Complete water and wastewater rate study and reassess pricing for

stormwater services (City of New York, 2008)

As of 2010, the official progress report for the Sustainable Stormwater

Management Plan presented the achievement status of milestones set for each of these goal areas. Of the 61 initiatives set as milestones to have reached by that time, 34 were reported as achieved (NYCDEP, 2010).

Additional reports and mandates that incorporated and expanded upon these suggestions were made over the following few years, including the NYC

Green Infrastructure Plan. In 2011, there was a modification proposed at the state level to allow for state-decreed gray infrastructure requirements to be eliminated and replaced with green infrastructure projects that achieve comparable CSO

volume reductions and reduce costs by $1.4 billion (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2011). This was passed in March 2012 and announced as a “groundbreaking agreement” between the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection to reduce combined sewer overflows using green infrastructure in New York City. With this agreement, much of the savings on gray infrastructure would be reinvested to meet new green infrastructure (New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2011).

After Hurricane Sandy hit New York and the Northeast in October 2012, a lot of attention was suddenly brought to the issues of coastal flooding and stormwater management. Some called for multi-billion dollar floodgates in New

York harbor to divert future surges. However, New York politicians voiced concern about this option and reacted to the storm and the future of storm BMPs.

At a press conference immediately following the storm, Governor Andrew

Cuomo (D-NY) that we needed a “fundamental rethinking of our built environment” and supported the idea of a sea wall. Mayor Bloomberg, however, in keeping with the Greater, Greener New York mentality, said the sea wall did not merit the $6 billion price tag. He promoted green infrastructure alternatives, and endorsed President Barack Obama for re-election because of his views on climate change (Walton, 2012).

Certainly, one of the benefits of green infrastructure for both disaster mitigation and ordinary weather water management is that this type of infrastructure is useful all of the time, not only during extreme events. When considering disaster mitigation planning, this is a factor that often gets ignored when large-scale projects are mentioned (Lubell & Edelenbos, 2013). However, this aspect of everyday flood aversion could be the turning point in stormwater management, as funds can be allocated to projects that serve a dual purpose combatting storm surges and mitigating rainfall to prevent continual stormwater-related issues.

Around the two-year anniversary of storm, Frances Beinecke, then president of NRDC, notes “dozens of sound recommendations in Governor

Cuomo's 2100 Commission Report and New York City's Special Initiative for

Rebuilding and Resilience Report must still be completed.” She also notes “New

York State has taken steps to fund green infrastructure projects. Yet officials could do so much more– from using State Revolving Funds for large-scale green projects in flood zones to strengthening storm water management standards”

(Beinecke, 2014).

She draws attention to a number of areas to diffuse the threat of climate change. Among them, she underlines the significance of using natural barriers to

protect our coasts, mentioning projects such as the Rebuild by Design initiative off of Staten Island and the oyster reefs in New York Harbor. She also explicitly calls for expanding the region’s green infrastructure, mentioning the flood- reduction benefits of green roofs, roadside plantings, porous pavement, and sidewalk gardens (Beinecke, 2014).

In New York City, policy has evolved over the last ten years to reflect a new appreciation for this means of stormwater runoff prevention. In the years approaching Hurricane Irene (2011) and Superstorm Sandy (2012), many initiatives were set in motion by Mayor Bloomberg’s office.

After Sandy, there has been more attention on the issue as a whole. With a new Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, it remains to be seen how much priority these plans will receive amidst many other issues competing for attention. But while stormwater management was previously seen mainly as an environmental and infrastructure issue, it is now in the spotlight as a means of disaster mitigation and a complementary process to other green infrastructure projects that have both environmental and social benefits (Rosenzweig & Solecki, 2014).

It is precisely because it is an integrated issue that has both quotidian consequences and disaster aversion potential that it should be a continued focus of the city’s government.

By 2013, the DCP published the “Urban Waterfront Adaptive Strategies” which highlights many aspects of green infrastructure as adaptive capacities for coastal protection. It is considered a lower-cost strategy than many others, with initial costs at $700,000 - $1,000,000 per acre for constructed wetlands, and significantly less for the restoration of degraded wetlands, plus maintenance costs (New York City Department of City Planning, 2013).

It was only in October of 2015 that federal regulations, which had long been tied to focusing on gray infrastructure strategies as well as “restoration” directives that limited the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to improve coastal green infrastructure capacity, were shifted (Dickinson et al., 2015). A memorandum was issued, “directing all Federal agencies to incorporate the value of natural, or ‘green,’ infrastructure and ecosystem services into Federal planning and decision making. The memorandum directs agencies to develop and institutionalize policies that promote consideration of ecosystem services, where appropriate and practicable, in planning, investment, and regulatory contexts” (Dickinson et al., 2015).

NYC Policy through the lens of multifunctionality

With their historic 2012 agreement, NYC DEP and NYS DEC have begun a comprehensive effort to reduce excessive CSOs. Substantial programs have been put in place that cover city-owned property, such as buildings, parks and streets, but NYCDEP could have done more to deal with stormwater run-off on privately owned property. Grants have been made to a few organizations, and NYCDEP has made presentations to civic groups, community boards and elected officials, but New York’s powerful and influential real estate industry has not contributed much to the discussion (New York City Department of Environmental

Protection, 2016).

This is an area where a multifunctional approach might have produced better results. By involving private owners and developers more, ideas about how to get the private sector more involved might have been floated. And by making projects truly multifunctional – that is, by recognizing and welcoming other purposes than just CSO reduction – more people may become involved and end up supporting the entire GI Plan.

Multifunctionality, as has been explained in this paper, is a highly functional lens through which to view these policies, as it incorporates the systems thinking necessary to evaluate green infrastructure policies not only for

their environmental impact, but for the degree to which they are maximizing their potential to tackle multiple problems at once.

In order to understand whether current policies reflect the present discourse on multifunctionality and related concepts, a number of the recent major policies related to GI were qualitatively analyzed and discussed throughout the second part of this study. The following table illustrates some of the highlights of this research, by highlighting elements of multifunctional

“ecosystem services” (ecological, social, and productive) with a “spatiotemporal” perspective on adaptive governance (Freeman et al., 2015; Hansen & Pauleit,

2014; Selman, 2009, 2012). This is portrayed through the framework of the four primary characteristics of multifunctionality as described by Selman (2009): that it is interactive as opposed to merely co-locative; that it is synergistic and beneficial; that it integrates the landscape as a system rather than purely scenic; and that it combines the rural and urban into an entire land use matrix.

Multifunctional Dimensions in New York City Green Infrastructure Policy

Policy

A Stronger, More Urban Coastal Green New York City Vision 2020: Resilient Waterfront Infrastructure Green Comprehensive New York City New York Adaptive Research Plan Infrastructure Waterfront Plan Wetlands (SIRR) Strategies for New York Plan 2011 (2011) Strategy (2012) (2013) (2013) City (2015)

Climate; Ecological Water quality Multiple biodiversity Climate Multiple Multiple

Storm surge Waterfront Storm surge Productive Flood prevention Econ. Dev. Not prioritized protection use protection Function

Health concerns Aesthetic; Community Aesthetic, Socio-cultural (CSOs) recreational Recreational building adaptive Absent

One-direction Some Top-down; Some Mostly top- Mainly top-

Interactive participation participation federal influence participation down down

Synergistic and Multiple Adaptive For ecological Beneficial Many programs Yes Limited synergy programs management only

Landscape as Some patches functional more than Built Wetlands; system Yes others Integrated Coast environment swales Transformative Characteristics Transformative Rural/urban or interstitial Limited private Network integration property grants No City limits City limits No connections

Figure 15: Multifunctional Dimensions in New York City Green Infrastructure Policy

By combining the lens of multifunctionality with the angle of climate-

related urgency, major green infrastructure policy plans can be analyzed for their

co-benefit potential. While there are over two dozen existing citywide policies

related to green infrastructure, this paper has sought to gain insight into the

degree of multifunctionality present in these policies by analyzing some of the key policies concerning this area.

The sample analyzed was selected based on the following criteria: scale

(city-wide), degree of relevance to stormwater and coastal infrastructure, year, notoriety, relationship to other citywide policies.

Conclusion

Limitations One of the limitations of the multifunctionality approach itself is that there is not always a win-win solution for various ecological and social functions. This is sometimes overlooked, but rather than assuming a possible perfect outcome, planners using this framework “should frame realistic objectives while recognizing [both synergies and] trade-offs to be able to achieve multifunctionality within landscapes” (Freeman et al., 2015).

Policy is not the only factor for the success of the integrated urban landscape. While conducive policy is critical, there are other actions by the public and private sectors that can set into motion or set back the kinds of multifunctional infrastructure that would be optimal for the city. However, in a city like New York, which is rich in both human and natural resources, as well as

capital, well-designed policies and incentive schemes should ideally be able to make the city one of the leaders in this area in the world. This is the direction that the Bloomberg administration was aiming for, and it is yet to be seen if it will be a priority with the DeBlasio’s administration.

Looking at policies within the political boundaries of a city can be misleading: not only does it not take into account the broader mechanisms at work in creating the green infrastructure landscapes, but neither do the policies themselves. While urban sustainability is requisite for that of the greater landscape as a whole, it does not act alone in the greater mosaic of green infrastructure along the coastlines. Better regional cooperation, especially in the

New York – New Jersey metropolitan area, is absolutely required, not only for the maintenance of the coasts and water management, for the social and economic development of the region. While there are many initiatives in this arena, it remains a challenge as intermunicipal and interstate governance issues still prevent some projects from being realized or maximizing their multifunctional potential.

Another area not covered thoroughly is the impact of community groups.

While this paper only mentions them to the extent to which they play an explicit role in policy, their engagement is critical, especially those that represent the interests of groups not typically present in infrastructure decision-making policy.

This paper does not go into all of the potential positive outcomes of these groups, but is interested more in how those outcomes can be made possible or expedited by supportive government policy.

Discussion and review In overviewing the past and present recognition of the multi-functional capacities of green infrastructure to address critical issues, a literature review of the major trends in this regard is articulated throughout the introduction.

By applying a multifunctionality framework to the conceptualization of green infrastructure, and narrowing the focus to the coastal and stormwater green infrastructure of NYC, the paper seeks to highlight the multifunctional potential of green infrastructure projects related to coastal climate change conditions. Then, through a qualitative analysis of the existing body of policy related to green stormwater and coastal infrastructure in NYC, the paper further seeks to demonstrate that despite the growing incorporation of multifunctional intentions in policy and understanding of the urgency for coastal green infrastructure, the unique position of coastal green infrastructure can leverage climate change urgency as a catalyst to expedite other social, cultural, and ecological co-benefits.

The city has many upcoming opportunities in its other expanding policies

– such as OneNYC, PlaNYC, and other citywide policies – that are meant to

address issues of equity and other concerns. It would be recommended to include more of the potential for the multifunctionality of necessary green infrastructure incorporated into city development projects – such as those that are in areas where there will be new affordable housing according to the recently passed zoning laws. For example, if in the parts of the city slated for more affordable housing, which will reshape areas such as East New York (Davidson,

2016), there might be some inclusion in policy to have the existing and future residents participate in the development and maintenance of green- infrastructure based climate mitigation projects, while helping to prevent displacement. This has already been demonstrated by the Jonathan Rose affordable housing properties in the Bronx, Via Verde (Urban Land Institute,

2014).

By incorporating more flexibility and experimentalism in these policies, that would also allow for projects to be deployed on a more local level and in a more iterative manner while maintaining the broader vision of the city’s goals. In this sense, policies that promoted neighborhood-level solutions and provided incentive and funding mechanisms to assist them might allow for more creative and proliferate solutions that can build off of local knowledge, and not wait for the city bring its solutions from the top. For example, in the Greenstreets program, which has expanded to include stormwater greenstreets and grants for

private property owners, those areas where locals are involved in the positioning and maintenance of the swales are more likely to have content local stakeholders and well-maintained swales (NYCDEP, 2016).

Multifunctionality has been increasingly recognized over the past 15 years, especially in scientific and academic settings, although there are still barriers to its implementation and prioritization, especially when it comes to coastal green infrastructure.

While policies exist and have evolved, there is still room for more of the city’s sustainability goals to be realized more tangibly by incorporating more of a multifunctionality framework into its plans for green infrastructure. This will assist in ensuring that as future projects are created or restorations are performed, that the interconnectivity of the land with the people on it will be explored from a community perspective at multiple scales, allowing these projects to serve as catalysts for solutions for a wider range of the city’s concerns.

Questions that remain include: if there are so many initiatives, groups, stakeholders, instances of progress in policy, what are the remaining barriers to ensuring multifunctional outcomes for green infrastructure investments?

Green infrastructure has evolved into multifunctional green infrastructure in theory, and in some instances, applied policy. The future of all infrastructure

depends on incorporating multifunctional green infrastructure, in order to be flexible and resilient to unforeseen climate and societal changes. Without doing so, and taking advantage of the climate impetus to expedite the process, the densifying and urbanizing world will not be able to keep up with the ecological, social and economic demands placed on it.

Bibliography

Ahern, J. F. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new

urban world. University of Massachusetts - Amherst. Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/larp_grad_research/8/

Asbjørn Wahl. (2015, December). Connecting Anti-Austerity and Climate Justice

Policies. Rosa Luxembourg Stiftung NYC. Retrieved from

http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/connecting-anti-austerity-and-climate-justice-

policies/?utm_source=Rosalux+NYC+Website&utm_campaign=afa7947ef3

Newsletter_Sept_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2e3a388d71

-afa7947ef3-95552977&mc_cid=afa7947ef3&mc_eid=3b61de6a3f

Barthel, S., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (2010). Social–ecological memory in urban

gardens—Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services.

Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 255–265.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001

Beatley, T. (2012). Green Cities of Europe: Global Lessons on Green Urbanism. Island

Press.

Beinecke, F. (2014, October 28). Superstorm Sandy Two Years Later: New York Is

Becoming More Resilient But More Is Needed. Retrieved December 9,

2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frances-beinecke/superstorm-

sandy-two-year_b_6064992.html

Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green infrastructure: Smart

conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 12–17.

Berube, A., & Holmes, N. (2016, January 14). City and metropolitan inequality on

the rise, driven by declining incomes. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2016/01/14-income-inequality-

cities-update-berube-holmes

Biesbroek, G. R., Swart, R. J., & van der Knaap, W. G. M. (2009). The mitigation–

adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat

International, 33(3), 230–237. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.10.001

Brzozowski, C. (2013, April 4). After Hurricane Sandy. Forester Network.

Retrieved from http://foresternetwork.com/daily/water/stormwater-

management/after-hurricane-sandy/

Bulkeley, H., Carmin, J., Castán Broto, V., Edwards, G. A. S., & Fuller, S. (2013).

Climate justice and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses. Global

Environmental Change, 23(5), 914–925.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.010

Carey, P. D., Short, C., Morris, C., Hunt, J., Priscott, A., Davis, M., … Firbank, L.

G. (2003). The multi-disciplinary evaluation of a national agri-

environment scheme. Journal of Environmental Management, 69(1), 71–91.

City of New York. (2008). Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan (PlaNYC).

Retrieved from http://s-

media.nyc.gov/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/nyc_sustainable_stormwater_ma

nagement_plan_final.pdf

City of New York. (2013). Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) (A

Stronger, More Resilient New York). Retrieved from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/html/report/report.shtml

City of New York. (2016). One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City. Mayor

Bill de Blasio.

Clements, J., St. Juliana, A., Stratus Consulting, Davis, P., & Natural Resources

Defense Council. (2013). The Green Edge: How Commercial Property

Investment in Green Infrastructure Creates Value (No. r:13-11-C). Natural 85

Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from

http://www.nrdc.org/water/files/commercial-value-green-infrastructure-

report.pdf

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (2015). Re-Engineering Resilient Communities

Using Blue-Green Infrastructure (Phase 2 Application).

Connolly, J. J., Svendsen, E. S., Fisher, D. R., & Campbell, L. K. (2013). Organizing

urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance

in New York City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 76–84.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.07.001

Crow, J. M. (2008, March). The Concrete Conundrum. Chemistry World, 62.

Dahl, T. E. (2000). Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States

1986 to 1997 (p. 82). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service. d’Almeida, A. C., & Santos, S. (2016, February 1). Green Is the New Green: New

Paths for Sustainable Investing. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andre-correa-dalmeida/sdgs-and-cop21-

paris-were_b_9128154.html

Dannin, E. (2011). Crumbling Infrastructure, Crumbling Democracy: Infrastructure

Privatization Contracts and Their Effects on State and Local Governance (SSRN

Scholarly Paper No. ID 1776350). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research

Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1776350

Davidson, J. (2016, March 22). De Blasio’s Affordable-Housing Plan Is His

Obamacare: Imperfect But Monumental. New York Magazine, Daily

Intelligencer. Retrieved from

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/de-blasios-zoning-plan-for-

new-housing-passed.html

Davis, M. (2010). Theme 6: Grey Infrastructure Mitigation (Green Infrastructure In-

Depth Case Analysis No. 4.1). Institute for European Environmental

Policy. Retrieved from

http://www.ieep.eu/assets/904/GI_Case_Analysis_6_-

_Grey_Infrastructure_Mitigation.pdf

Dickinson, T., Male, T., & Zaidi, A. (2015, October 7). Incorporating Natural

Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services in Federal Decision-Making.

Retrieved March 10, 2016, from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/07/incorporating-natural-

infrastructure-and-ecosystem-services-federal-decision-making

Economides, C. (2014). Green Infrastructure: Sustainable Solutions in 11 Cities

across the United States. Columbia University Water Center. Retrieved

from

http://water.columbia.edu/files/2014/04/Green_Infrastructure_FINAL.pdf

European Commission. (2012). The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure (In-

Depth Report).

Felson, A. (2016, February). Ecology + Infrastructure: Ecology-Driven Design,

Understanding Risk in Natural and Constructed Ecosystems. Presented at the

Resilience by Design University, Columbia University, New York.

Fitzgerald, J. (2010). Emerald Cities: Urban Sustainability and Economic Development.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Fitzgerald, J., & Lenhart, J. (2015). Eco-districts: Can they accelerate urban climate

planning? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,

0263774X15614666. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614666

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockstrom, J. ;

(2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and

transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4). Retrieved from

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42598

Freeman, O. E., Duguma, L. A., & Minang, P. A. (2015). Operationalizing the

integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecology and Society, 20(1).

Fritsch, O., & Benson, D. (2013). Integrating the Principles of Integrated Water

Resources Management? River Basin Planning in England and Wales.

International Journal of Water Governance, 1(3), 265–284.

http://doi.org/10.7564/13-IJWG7

Gandy, M. (2003). Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. MIT

Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=R38TXjcG-

xsC&lpg=PP11&ots=bSFLYY7V2j&dq=last%20major%20infrastructure%20

project%20in%20new%20york%20city&lr&pg=PP11#v=onepage&q=last%2

0major%20infrastructure%20project%20in%20new%20york%20city&f=fals

Garmestani, A. S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A Framework for Resilience-based

Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 18(1).

http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05180-180109

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer,

Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. Penguin Publishing Group.

Haihong Zhao, Hugh Roberts, Jessica Ludy, Andrew Rella, Jon Miller, Philip

Orton, … Lauren Elachi. (2014). Coastal Green Infrastructure Research Plan

for New York City (Waterways). Mayor’s Office of Sustainability and the

Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency. Retrieved from

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/remediation_hudson_pdf/cginyc.pdf

Hansen, R., & Pauleit, S. (2014). From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem

Services? A Conceptual Framework for Multifunctionality in Green

Infrastructure Planning for Urban Areas. AMBIO, 43(4), 516–529.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2

Kazmierczak, A., & Carter, J. (2010). Adaptation to Climate Change Using Green and

Blue Infrastructure (Interreg IVC Green and Blue Space Adaptation for

Urban Areas and Eco Towns (GRaGBS)). University of Manchester.

Keenan, J. (2016, February). The Resilience of Resilience Thinking. Presented at the

Resilience by Design University, Columbia University, New York.

Kennedy, C. (2014, March 18). Future Flood Zones for New York City. Retrieved

March 22, 2016, from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-

images/future-flood-zones-new-york-city

Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2012). Civic ecology: a pathway for Earth

Stewardship in cities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(5), 267–

273. http://doi.org/10.1890/110230

Lane, K., Charles-Guzman, K., Wheeler, K., Abid, Z., Graber, N., & Matte, T.

(2013). Health Effects of Coastal Storms and Flooding in Urban Areas: A

Review and Vulnerability Assessment. Journal of Environmental and Public

Health, 2013, e913064. http://doi.org/10.1155/2013/913064

Lovell, S. T., & Johnston, D. M. (2009). Designing landscapes for performance

based on emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecology and Society,

14(1). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art44/

Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying Urban Ecosystem Services Through

Multifunctional Green Infrastructure in the United States. Landscape

Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463.

Lubell, M., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Integrated Water Resources Management: A

Comparative Laboratory for Water Governance. International Journal of

Water Governance, 1(3), 177–196. http://doi.org/10.7564/13-IJWG14

Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning & Sustainability. (2012). New York City

Wetlands Strategy (PlaNYC). Retrieved from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/nyc_wetlands_strat

egy.pdf

McMahon, E. T., & Benedict, M. A. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes

and Communities. Island Press. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=2xTJvYqzFNkC&lpg=PR5&dq=coastal

%20green%20infrastructure&lr&pg=PR5#v=onepage&q=coastal%20green

%20infrastructure&f=false

McPhearson, T., Hamstead, Z. A., & Kremer, P. (2014). Urban Ecosystem Services

for Resilience Planning and Management in New York City. Ambio, 43(4),

502–515. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0509-8

Miguez, M. G., Mascarenhas, F. C. B., & Magalhães, L. P. C. (2011).

Multifunctional landscapes for urban flood control: the case of Rio de

Janeiro. WIT Transactions on State of the Art in Science and Engineering, 50.

Retrieved from

http://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/9781845645601/97818456

45601002FU1.pdf

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being:

synthesis. Island Press. Retrieved from

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.html

National Research Council. (2008). Urban Stormwater Management in the United

States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.

National Science and Technology Council. (2015). Ecosystem-Service Assessment:

Research Needs for Coastal Green Infrastructure (Committee on Environment,

Natural Resources, and Sustainability).

Natural Resources Defense Council. (2011). New York, New York: A Case Study of

How Green Infrastructure is Helping Manage Urban Stormwater Challenges

(Rooftops to Rivers II: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and

Combined Sewer Overflows). Retrieved from

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/

Natural Resources Defense Council. (n.d.). Stormwater Strategies - Chapter 3.

Retrieved March 21, 2016, from

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/chap3.asp

Neises, E. (2016, February). Ecology + Infrastructure: Systems Thinking. Presented at

the Resilience by Design University, Columbia University, New York.

New York City Department of City Planning. (2013). Urban Waterfront Adaptive

Strategies. Retrieved from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/sustainable_communities/urban_water

front_print.pdf

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green

Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable Strategy for Clean Waterways.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. (2016). NYC Green

Infrastructure Plan: 2015 Annual Report.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. (n.d.). Types of Green

Infrastructure. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/combined_sewer_overflo

w_bmps.shtml

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2011). 2011 CSO

Order Modification. New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation. Retrieved from

ftp://ftp.dec.ny.gov/dow/WMAC/2012_May_Mtg/6.NYC-CSO.pdf

NYCDEP. (2014). The Staten Island Bluebelt: A Natural Solution to Stormwater

Management. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dep_projects/bluebelt.shtml

NYCDEP. (2016). Grant Program for Private Property Owners. Retrieved March

31, 2016, from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/nyc_green_infrastructure

_grant_program.shtml

OECD. (2012). Towards a Green Investment Policy Framework: The Case of Low-

Carbon, Climate-Resilient Infrastructure (OECD Staff consultation draft).

Bonn.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Otte, A., Simmering, D., & Wolters, V. (2007). Biodiversity at the landscape level:

recent concepts and perspectives for multifunctional land use. Landscape

Ecology, 22(5), 639–642. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9094-6

Resilience Alliance. (n.d.). Panarchy. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from

http://www.resalliance.org/panarchy

Rosenzweig, C., & Solecki, W. (2014). Hurricane Sandy and adaptation pathways

in New York: Lessons from a first-responder city. Global Environmental

Change, 28, 395–408. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.003

Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., … Buck,

L. E. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling

agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349–8356.

http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110

Selman, P. (2009). Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability :

Science, Practice, & Policy, 5(2). Retrieved from 92

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/docview/142863935

8/abstract/B01BDF354F6D4FECPQ/1

Selman, P. (2012). Landscapes as integrating frameworks for human,

environmental and policy processes. In T. Plieninger & C. Bieling (Eds.),

Resilience and the Cultural Landscape (pp. 27–48). Cambridge University

Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107778.004

Sinnett, D., Smith, N., & Burgess, S. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook on Green

Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation. Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Tibbetts, J. (2005). Combined Sewer Systems: Down, Dirty, and out of Date.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), A465–A467.

Tuan, Y. (2013). Landscapes of Fear (Third). University of Minnesota Press.

UNEP. (2010). Cities and Coastal Areas. Retrieved March 22, 2016, from

http://www.unep.org/urban_environment/issues/coastal_zones.asp

United Nations General Assembly. (1987). Report of the world commission on

environment and development: Our common future (United Nations General

Assembly, Development and International Co-operation: Environment).

Oslo, Norway.

Urban Land Institute. (2014, January 16). Via Verde. Retrieved May 6, 2016, from

http://casestudies.uli.org/via-verde/

US EPA, O. (n.d.). Low Impact Development (LID) “Barrier Busters” Fact Sheet

Series [Overviews & Factsheets]. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/bbfs.cfm

Verkerk, J., & Buuren, A. van. (2013). Integrated Water Resources Management

in the Netherlands. Historical Trends and Current Practices in the

Governance of Integration. International Journal of Water Governance, 1(3),

427–452. http://doi.org/10.7564/13-IJWG6 93

Vidal, J. (2016, March 16). Surge in renewable energy stalls world greenhouse gas

emissions. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/16/surge-in-

renewable-energy-stalls-world-greenhouse-gas-

emissions?CMP=share_btn_fb

Waggoner, D. (2016, February). Persistence. Presented at the Rebuild by Design

University, Columbia University, New York.

Walton, B. (2012, November 29). After Superstorm Sandy, Leaders Assess

Disaster Plans and Mull Climate Change Adaptation. Circle of Blue.

Retrieved from http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2012/world/after-

superstorm- sandy-leaders-assess-disaster-plans-and-mull-climate-

change-adaptation/

Waterfront Alliance. (2014, March 24). S.W.I.M. Lessons. Retrieved from

http://waterfrontalliance.org/2014/03/24/s-w-i-m-lessons/

Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human

well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 999–1023.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9

Zenghelis, D., & Stern, N. (2015, November 19). Climate change and cities: a

prime source of problems, yet key to a solution. The Guardian. Retrieved

from http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/17/cities-climate-

change-problems-solution

Appendix

Figure 16: “Green Infastructure” in NYC (McPhearson et al, 2014)

Appendix II: Selected Definitions

The following are selected definitions from Encyclopedia of Environmental Change, edited by John A. Matthews. Thousand Oaks,: SAGE Publications, Ltd., 2014. doi: 10.4135/9781446247501.n2848. Accessed at http://sk.sagepub.com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/reference/dictionaryenvirochan ge

Adaptive capacity (pp. 12-13) The potential or ability of an ecological or human-social system to adjust to environmental change. Adaptive capacity reflects genetic diversity (in species), biodiversity (in ecosystems) and knowledge, experience and organisation (in human-social systems). It is a feature of human-social systems that people are able to learn and make major adjustments to structures, processes and practices. This may involve both anticipatory (proactive) andreactive adaptation. Natural systems, in contrast, have limited adaptive capacity and may therefore exhibit lessresilience and greater vulnerability to change.

Landscape ecology (p. 620) The ecology and management of distinct areas of the Earth’s surface up to regional scale. There are different schools of landscape ecology, including (1) the spatial arrangements of landscape elements and the ecological and cultural mechanisms that result in ecological change at a landscape scale; (2) the study of the form, structure, function and evolution of the visual aspects of landscapes; (3) the attributes and spatial arrangements of attributes in landscapes; and (4) the landscape as a geo-ecosystem. Landscape ecology has both a strong theoretical basis and an applied aspect used in areas such as planning and natural resources management. European studies of regional geography and vegetation science led to the use of the term by Troll in AD 1939.

Panarchy (p. 807): The concept of a hierarchical dynamical system (panarchical organisation) with multiple interrelationships between elements used in relation to biological, ecological and social systems and environment-human interaction. Stability and sustainability is maintained by multiple

interactions amongst a nested set of adaptive cycles, while both incremental and abrupt changes can occur.

Resilience (p. 926) The ability of a system to recover to its original (equilibrium or stable) state following a perturbation or disturbance. Any environmental system, ecosystem or geo-ecosystem is resilient if it recovers quickly and completely after it is disturbed. Westman (1978) recognised four aspects of resilience: (1) elasticity (the rate of return to the original state), (2) amplitude (the zone from which recovery is possible), (3) hysteresis (the extent to which the recovery pathway differs from the pathway of disruption) and (4) malleability (the degree to which a new stable or equilibrium state differs from the original state). In the case of socio-ecological systems, resilience is also affected by the extent to which people are able to adapt to disturbance (see adaptation of people).

Sustainability (p. 1069) The use of the biophysical environment by humans in such a way that its productive functions remain indefinitely available. As expressed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, sustainable land management is the management and conservation of the natural resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainability in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, and it is both economically viable and socially acceptable. Destructive exploitation (the antithesis of sustainability) of any natural resource, particularly water and soil, will have implications for future generations as without water to drink and soil in which to grow crops the outlook for humanity is bleak. This concept of sustainability was further developed following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in AD 1992 and its action plan (Agenda 21) for global to local implementation.

Three basic components of sustainability may be recognised, although the concept is applicable beyond agricultural systems.

To attain sustainable development, it is necessary for national governments to rethink policies so that they may achieve the most fundamental goals of society, namely, people-centred, equitable and sustainable development, and ultimately democracy and peace. Education for sustainable development needs to involve all sectors of society and to include basic messages regarding the environment and development, giving attention to scientific accuracy, interdisciplinarity and a global perspective. It is highly desirable for the whole of Agenda 21 to be implemented to ensure that natural resources remain for our children.

Urban sustainability (pp. 1135-1136) The application of ecological principles in the design and functioning of urban areas to minimise environmental impact. In sustainable cities or ecocities, particular attention is given to the sustainability of environmental services (see ecological goods and ecological services), minimising energy use, food and water inputs, pollution and wasteoutputs, and maximising the use of renewable energy, urban agriculture and quality of life. In the face of continuingurbanisation and global environmental change, the key challenges include the complexity and interacting nature ofenvironmental problems in the urban context, the infrastructural legacy of past urban growth, and the limited response capability in both developed and developing countries with their varying social, economic and political structures.