Revitalizing urban waterfronts: identifying indicators for human well-being

Ken P. Yocom; Leann Andrews; Nicole Faghin; Karen Dyson; Thomas Leschine; Jungho Nam; Ken P. Yocom; Leann Andrews; Nicole Faghin; Karen Dyson; Thomas Leschine; Jungho Nam

doi:10.3934/environsci.2016.3.456

AIMS Environmental Science

2016, Volume 3, Issue 3: 456-473. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.456

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Revitalizing urban waterfronts: identifying indicators for human well-being

1.
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
2.
Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
3.
Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
4.
School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
5.
Korea Maritime Institute, Mapo-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Received: 18 May 2016 Accepted: 01 August 2016 Published: 05 August 2016

Waterfront cities worldwide have begun the process of regenerating and developing their formerly industrial waterfronts into land uses that reflect a post-industrial economic vision of mixed urban uses supporting a diverse economy and wide range of infrastructure. These revitalization projects require distinct planning and management tactics to determine project-defined successes inclusive of economic, ecological, and human well-being perspectives. While empirically developed templates for economic and ecological measures exist, the multi-dimensionality and subjective nature of human well-being is more difficult to assess. Through an extensive review of indicator frameworks and expert interviews, our research proposes an organizational, yet adaptable, human well-being indicators framework for the management and development of urban waterfront revitalization projects. We analyze the framework through the lens of two waterfront projects in the Puget Sound region of the United States and identify several key factors necessary to developing project-specific human well-being indicator frameworks for urban waterfront revitalization projects. These factors include: initially specify goals and objectives of a given project, acknowledge contextual conditions including prospective land uses and projected users, identify the stage of development or management to use appropriate indicators for that stage, and develop and utilize data sources that are at a similar scale to the size of the project.
- urban waterfront revitalization,
- human well-being,
- indicators,
- framework,
- design and management
Citation: Ken P. Yocom, Leann Andrews, Nicole Faghin, Karen Dyson, Thomas Leschine, Jungho Nam. Revitalizing urban waterfronts: identifying indicators for human well-being[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(3): 456-473. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.456

Related Papers:

Abstract

Waterfront cities worldwide have begun the process of regenerating and developing their formerly industrial waterfronts into land uses that reflect a post-industrial economic vision of mixed urban uses supporting a diverse economy and wide range of infrastructure. These revitalization projects require distinct planning and management tactics to determine project-defined successes inclusive of economic, ecological, and human well-being perspectives. While empirically developed templates for economic and ecological measures exist, the multi-dimensionality and subjective nature of human well-being is more difficult to assess. Through an extensive review of indicator frameworks and expert interviews, our research proposes an organizational, yet adaptable, human well-being indicators framework for the management and development of urban waterfront revitalization projects. We analyze the framework through the lens of two waterfront projects in the Puget Sound region of the United States and identify several key factors necessary to developing project-specific human well-being indicator frameworks for urban waterfront revitalization projects. These factors include: initially specify goals and objectives of a given project, acknowledge contextual conditions including prospective land uses and projected users, identify the stage of development or management to use appropriate indicators for that stage, and develop and utilize data sources that are at a similar scale to the size of the project.

References

[1]	Neumann B, Vafeidis A, Zimmermann J, et al. (2015) Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding—A Global Assessment. PLoS ONE 10: e0118571.
[2]	Moser S, Ekstrom J (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. P Natl Acad Sci USA 107: 22026-22031.
[3]	Hoyle B (2000) Global and local change on the port-city waterfront. Geogr Rev 90: 395-417.
[4]	Mann RB (1988) Ten trends in the continuing renaissance of urban waterfronts. Landscape Urban Plan 16: 177-199. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(88)90042-4
[5]	Desfor G, Laidley J (2011) Fixity and Flow of Urban Waterfront Change, In: Desfor G, Laidley J, Stevens Q, Schubert D Editors, Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow, London and New York: Routledge, 1-13.
[6]	Chang TC, Huang S (2011) Reclaiming the city: Waterfront development in Singapore. Urban Stud 48: 2085-2100. doi: 10.1177/0042098010382677
[7]	Shubert D (2011) Waterfront Revitalizations: From a Local to a Regional Perspective in London,Barcelona, Rotterdam, and Hamburg, In: Desfor G, Laidley J, Stevens Q, Schubert D Editors, Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow, New York: Routledge, 74-100.
[8]	Cho MR (2010) The politics of urban nature restoration: the case of Cheonggyecheon restoration in Seoul, Korea. Int Devel Plan Rev 32: 146-165.
[9]	Vegara A (2001) New millennium Bilbao, In: Marshall R Editor, Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities, London: Spon Press, 86-94.
[10]	Desfor G, Laidley J, Stevens Q, et al. (2011) Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow, New York: Routledge Advances in Geography, Routledge.
[11]	Bunce S, Desfor G (2007) Political ecologies of urban waterfront transformations. Cities 24: 251-258. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2007.02.001
[12]	Carley M (2012) Preface, In: Smith H, Garcia Ferrari M.S. Authors, Waterfront regeneration: Experiences in city-building, London and New York: Routledge, xiv.
[13]	Sairnen R, Kumpulainen S (2006) Assessing social impacts in urban waterfront regeneration. EIA Review 26: 120-135.
[14]	Bruttomesso R (2001) Complexity on the urban waterfront, In: Marshall R Editor, Waterfronts in post-industrial cities, London and New York: Spon Press, 39-49.
[15]	Goodwin RF (2010) Redeveloping deteriorated urban waterfronts: The effectiveness of U.S. coastal management programs. Coast Manage 27: 239-269.
[16]	Desfor G, Jorgensen J (2004) Flexible urban governance: The case of Copenhagen’s recent waterfront development. Eur Plan Stud 12: 479-496.
[17]	Tasan-Kok T (2010) Entrepreneurial governance: Challenges of large-scale property-led urban regeneration projects. J Econ Soc Geogr 100: 126-149.
[18]	Stren R, Polese M (2000) Understanding the new sociocultural dynamics of cities: Comparative urban policy in a global context, In: Deboyser K, Dewilde C, Dierckx D, Friedrichs J Editors, The social sustainability of cities: Diversity and the management of change, Toronto: Toronto University Press, 3-38.
[19]	Tasan-Kok T, Sungu-Eryilmaz Y (2011) Exploring innovative instruments for socially sustainable waterfront regeneration in Antwerp and Rotterdam, In: Desfor G, Laidley J, Stevens Q, Schubert D Editors, Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow, London and New York: Routledge, 257-273.
[20]	Godschalk DR, Anderson WR (2012) Sustaining Places: The Role of the Comprehensive Plan. Chicago: American Planning Association Planners Advisory Service Report #567.
[21]	Dovey K (2005) Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne’s Urban Waterfront. London and New York: Routledge.
[22]	Lindenmayer D, Likens G (2010) The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biol Conserv 143: 1317-1328.
[23]	Murray C (2010) Effective policy evaluation: Refining design processes for coastal ecosystem condition indicators. Coast Manage 38: 681-687.
[24]	Ricklin A, et al. (2012) Healthy planning: An evaluation of comprehensive and sustainability plans addressing public health. Chicago: American Planning Association.
[25]	Michalos A (1997) Combining Social, Economic, and Environmental Indicators to Measure Sustainable Human Well-Being. Soc Indic Res 40: 221-258.
[26]	Brown A (2003) Increasing the utility of urban environmental quality information. Landscape Urban Plan 65: 85-93.
[27]	Leidelmijer K, van Kamp I, Quality of the environment and quality of life: Towards a conceptual framework and conceptual framing (RIGO, RIVM). Report #6309500002, 2003. Available from: http://www.rivm.nl/Bibliotheek/Wetenschappelijk/Rapporten/2004/mei/Kwaliteit_van_de_leefomgeving_en_leefbaarheid_Naar_een_begrippenkader_en_conceptuele_inkadering&prev=search.
[28]	Pacion M (2003) Introduction on urban environmental quality and human wellbeing. Landscape Urban Plan 65: 1-3.
[29]	van Kamp I, Leidelmeijer K, Marsman G, et al. (2003) Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing: Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape Urban Plan 65: 5-18.
[30]	Barton H, Thompson S, Burgess S, et al. (2015) The Routledge Handbook of Planning for Health and Well-Being, London and New York: Routledge.
[31]	Dannenberg A, Frumkin H, Jackson RJ (2012) Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-being, and Sustainability, Washington D.C.: Island Press.
[32]	Coles R, Millman Z (2013) Landscape, well-being and environment. London and New York: Routledge.
[33]	Taylor L, Hochuli DF (2014) Creating better cities: How biodiversity and ecosystem functioning enhance urban residents’ wellbeing. Urban Ecosys 18: 747-762.
[34]	Butler CD, Oluoch-Kosura W (2006) Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecol Soc 11: 30.
[35]	Sowman L (2013) Towards a Landscape of Well-Being, In: Coles R, Millman Z Editors, Landscape, Well-Being and Environment, London and New York: Routledge, 53-71.
[36]	King MF, Reno VF, Novo E (2014) The Concept, Dimensions, and Methods of Assessment of Human Well-Being within a Socioecological Context: A Literature Review. Soc Indic Res 116: 681-698.
[37]	Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Washington D.C.: Island Press, 29.
[38]	Haworth J, Hart G (2007) Well-being: Individual, community and social perspectives. Palgrave: Macmillan.
[39]	Villmagna A, Giesecke C (2014) Adapting human well-being frameworks for ecosystem service assessments across diverse landscapes. Ecol Soc 19: 11.
[40]	Petrosillo I, Costanza R, Aretano R, et al. (2013) The use of subjective indicators to assess how the natural and social capital of support residents’ quality of life in a small volcanic island. EcolIndic 24: 609-620.
[41]	Hagerty M, Cummins R, Ferriss A, et al. (2001) Quality of life indexes for national policy: review and agenda for research. Soc Indic Res 55: 1-96.
[42]	Oswald AJ, Wu S (2010) Objective confirmation of subjective measures of human well-being: Evidence from the USA. Science 327: 576-579.
[43]	Alcamo J, et al. (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment (Synthesis Report). Washington D.C. - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
[44]	Biedenweg K, Hanein A, Nelson K, et al. (2014) Developing human wellbeing indicators in the Puget Sound: Focusing on the watershed scale. Coast Manage 42: 374-390.
[45]	Biedenweg K, Hanein A, Developing human wellbeing indicators for the Hood Canal Watershed. Tacoma, WA-Puget Sound Institute, 2013. Available from: http://www.eopugetsound.org/articles/report-developing-human-wellbeing-indicators-hood-canal-watershed
[46]	Day A, Prins M (2013) Developing Human Well Being Indicators for Canada’s Pacific Marine Ecosystems. Nanaimo, BC – Uuma Consulting Ltd.
[47]	Donatuto J, Grossman EE, Konovsky J, et al. (2014) Indigenous community health and climate change: Integrating biophysical and social science indicators. Coast Manage 42: 355-373.
[48]	Gilmour D, Blackwood D, Banks L, et al. (2007) A sustainability enhancement framework for the Dundee Central Waterfront Development, In: Horner M, Hardcastle C, Price A, Bebbington J Editors, International conference on whole life urban sustainability and its assessment (proceedings), Glasgow, Scotland.
[49]	Jackson R, Watson T, Tsiu A, et al. (2014) Urban river parkways: An essential tool for public health. Los Angeles, CA–Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of California Los Angeles. Available from: https://ehs.ph.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/Urban%20River%20Parkways%20Full%20Report_1.pdf.
[50]	Lloyd MG, Peel D, Duck R (2013) Towards a social-ecological resilience framework for coastal planning. Land Use Policy 30: 925-933. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.012
[51]	Poe MR, Norman KC, Levin PS (2014) Cultural dimensions of socioecological systems: Key connections and guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments. Conserv Lett 7: 166-175.
[52]	Vanclay F (2002) Conceptualizing social impacts. EIA Review 22, 183-221.
[53]	Webler T, Lord F (2010) Planning for the human dimensions of oil spills and spill response. Environ Manage 45: 723-738.
[54]	Stewardship Centre, Green Shores Coastal Development Rating System, Version 1.0. Stewardship Centre for British Columbia, 2010. Available from: http://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/PDF_docs/greenshores/GreenShoresCDRS.pdf .
[55]	Committee on health impact assessment; National research council, Improving health in the United States: The role of the Health Impact Assessment. Washington D.C., 2011. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13229/improving-health-in-the-united-states-the-role-of-health.
[56]	Maynard A, What’s new for LEED for neighborhood development. United States Green Building Council, 2014. Available from: http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-neighborhood-development-v2009-current-version.
[57]	SEED evaluator: Version 3.0. Design Corps, 2014. Available from: https://seednetwork.org/evaluator/workbooks/The%20SEED%20Network%20%7C%20The%20SEED%20Evaluator.pdf.
[58]	SITES v2 rating system and scorecard. Sustainable SITES Initiative, 2014. Available from: http://www.sustainablesites.org/rating-system.
[59]	Walk Score Methodology. Walk Score. Available from: https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml.
[60]	Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/about/index.htm.
[61]	Communities Count: Social & Health Indicators Across King County. Communities Count, 2014. Available from: http://www.communitiescount.org.
[62]	Happiness Initiative & Gross National Happiness Index. Happiness Alliance, 2014. Available from: http://www.happycounts.org/about.html.
[63]	Health Indicators Warehouse. National Center for Health Statistics, 2014. Available from: http://www.healthindicators.gov/.
[64]	Tacoma Planning Commission, Thea Foss Waterway Design and Development Plan, 2006. Available from: http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Planning/Shoreline/PlanDocs/TheaFossPlan.pdf.
[65]	Port of Bellingham, the Waterfront District–Sub Area Plan, 2013. Available from: http://www.portofbellingham.com/DocumentCenter/View/2796.
[66]	Noll HH (2002) Social indicators and quality of life research: Background, achievements, and current trends, In: Genov N Editor, Advances in sociological knowledge over half a century, Paris: International Social Science Council.
[67]	Lipsky RS, Ryan CM (2011) Nearshore restoration in Puget Sound: Understanding stakeholder values and potential coalitions. Coast Manage 39: 577-597.
[68]	Smith H, Garcia Ferrari MS (2012) Waterfront regeneration: Experiences in city-building. London and New York: Routledge.
[69]	Welzel C, Inglehart R (2010) Agency, Values, and Well-Being: A Human Development Model. Soc Indic Res 97: 43-63.

Reader Comments

your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)