School of Sustainability Graduate Culminating Experiences

Cities are restoring rivers to recapture the social, ecological, and economic benefits of rehabilitated rivers. But, traditional urban planning and flood management tools may not address the complex relationships between humans, the built environment, and natural elements in the social-ecological systems of which rivers are an important part. They also may not acknowledge and address the factors that led to channelization. The field of regenerative design and development—an eco-centric approach that aims to dismantle the underlying processes and viewpoints behind the most pressing environmental problems—offers tools to plan more effective and inclusive river restoration projects. To explore these issues and the potential of regenerative design and development, we reviewed 15 urban river restoration plans, followed by a comparative case study of the Los Angeles River, CA and the Kinnickinnic River, WI. We conducted a content analysis of plans and popular press articles, and interviewed key actors. Results indicate many participants exhibit regenerative thinking and participate in regenerative processes, but they are unable to fully implement regenerative projects due to several constraints at institutional, social, economic, physical levels. Study recommendations emphasize rooting restoration in the unique aspects of place, reframing projects as part of nested social-ecological systems, working from potential, addressing broader socioeconomic challenges, and leveraging strategic nodes. Changes to planning education and practice are needed to empower planners to think and act regeneratively.

The planet is going through a mass extinction event brought on by human influence: biodiversity elimination, habitat destruction, climate change, and many other cascading effects. The toll on nature is already unconscionable, yet this is already effecting human populations as well, and will only exponentially increase in the coming years. It won’t just be our children experiencing this crisis, it is us, now. It is already happening. Arguably a primary reason for these environmental issues falls to environmental externalities in our economic systems.

The only way to fundamentally address this is through a systemic introduction of labeling or reporting the environmental costs of products and services. Externalities are the hidden costs, or the costs not calculated in the production or use of a good or service. Through a lack of transparency, intentional obfuscation, and willful or pure ignorance, we as a species profoundly lack knowledge on how the products and services we consume affect the world around us. In fact, of 1000 global primary production sectors, none generate the profit needed to cover their cost in natural capital (TruCost, 2013).

The only way we can even have a chance to mitigate our impact is to be provided that data before we spend our money. As such, products and services must report their impacts on the environment through a standardized metric or grade on a label or report that is easy to understand and will capture information on biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution and waste. The only way for this to effectively take hold and maintain transparency is through governmental legislation and the associated infrastructure to provide a method for businesses to make such a calculation.

This paper describes the effort to design such policy, provide it to legislators and pass it. Most ideally, this would be integrated into a larger systemic bill designed to economically shape the country in a sustainable way. As such, this initiative is being proposed as an amendment to be added to House Resolution 109, the “Green New Deal.” Assimilating this as a specific initiative within the GND, which is currently more or less a framework of mission statements, provides a more solid groundwork for a successful legislative effort. The underlying concept is to enable the consumer with needed and usable information. There is no true guarantee of a “happy ending,” but at its core, it will help to hold businesses accountable and ultimately empower the common consumer to make informed choices, from whence the fate of our planet can at least be decided honestly.

How we divide space in ever growing urban areas in an equitable, efficient and aesthetic fashion is one of the big questions of our time. In Lüneburg, Germany, citizens think more alternative forms of housing will be an important element of a sustainable future (Lüneburg 2030, 2018). Tiny Houses, dwellings that downsize an entire household to its minimum, are currently gaining attention in the country, but legal barriers make their implementation difficult. It has to be decided if legislations should be changed to allow these structures in the housing mix of Lüneburg. It is a difficult task to sift through the glamorization of Tiny Houses past the ideological utopia to see their value for the individual (Ansons, 2015). Therefore, it is of interest to fully understand what Tiny Houses offer for affordable housing stakeholders. Twenty-five evaluations of criticism and praise of the Tiny House Movement are collected by applying Q method, a tool to gather subjective viewpoints (Barry & Proops, 1999). Results indicate, four salient perceptions on that matter. Each viewpoint identifies different opportunities and risks when evaluating Tiny Houses for Lüneburg. This research demonstrates the potential of Tiny Houses to trigger participation by bringing people with diverse backgrounds together.