Matching Items (25)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

157162-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Tempe experienced rapid growth in population and area from 1949 to 1975, stretching its resources thin and changing the character of the city. City boosters encouraged growth through the 1950s to safeguard Tempe’s borders against its larger neighbor, Phoenix. New residents moved to Tempe as it grew, expecting suburban amenities

Tempe experienced rapid growth in population and area from 1949 to 1975, stretching its resources thin and changing the character of the city. City boosters encouraged growth through the 1950s to safeguard Tempe’s borders against its larger neighbor, Phoenix. New residents moved to Tempe as it grew, expecting suburban amenities that the former agricultural supply town struggled to pay for and provide. After initially balking at taking responsibility for development of a park system, Tempe established a Parks and Recreation Department in 1958 and used parks as a main component in an evolving strategy for responding to rapid suburban growth. Through the 1960s and 1970s, Tempe pursued an ambitious goal of siting one park in each square mile of the city, planning for neighborhood parks to be paired with elementary schools and placed at the center of each Tempe neighborhood. The highly-publicized plan created a framework, based on the familiarity of public park spaces, that helped both long-time residents and recent transplants understand the new city form and participate in a changing community identity. As growth accelerated and subdivisions surged southward into the productive agricultural area that had driven Tempe’s economy for decades, the School-Park Policy faltered as a planning and community-building tool. Residents and city leaders struggled to reconcile the loss of agricultural land with the carefully maintained cultural narrative that connected Tempe to its frontier past, ultimately broadening the role of parks to address the needs of a changing city.
ContributorsSweeney, Jennifer (Author) / Thompson, Victoria (Thesis advisor) / Gray, Susan (Committee member) / MacFadyen, Joshua (Committee member) / Smith, Jared (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
149135-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Restoration of riverine ecosystems is often stated as a management objective for regulated rivers, and floods are one of the most effective tools for accomplishing restoration. The National Re- search Council (NRC 1992) argued that ecological restoration means re- turning "an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior

Restoration of riverine ecosystems is often stated as a management objective for regulated rivers, and floods are one of the most effective tools for accomplishing restoration. The National Re- search Council (NRC 1992) argued that ecological restoration means re- turning "an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance" and that "restoring altered, damaged, O f destroyed lakes, rivers, and wetlands is a high-priority task." Effective restoration must be based on a clear definition of the value of riverine resources to society; on scientific studies that document ecosystem status and provide an understanding of ecosystem processes and resource interactions; on scientific studies that predict, mea- sure, and monitor the effectiveness of restoration techniques; and on engineering and economic studies that evaluate societal costs and benefits of restoration.

In the case of some large rivers, restoration is not a self-evident goal. Indeed, restoration may be impossible; a more feasible goal may be rehabilitation of some ecosystem components and processes in parts of the river (Gore and Shields 1995, Kondolfand Wilcock 1996, Stanford et al. 1996). In other cases, the appropriate decision may be to do nothing. The decision to manipulate ecosystem processes and components involves not only a scientific judgment that a restored or rehabilitated condition is achievable, but also a value judgment that this condition is more desirable than the status quo. These judgments involve prioritizing different river resources, and they should be based on extensive and continuing public debate.

In this article, we examine the appropriate role of science in determining whether or not to restore or rehabilitate the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon by summarizing studies carried out by numerous agencies, universities, and consulting firms since 1983. This reach of the Colorado extends 425 km between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead reservoir (Figure 1). Efforts to manipulate ecosystem processes and components in the Grand Canyon have received widespread public attention, such as the 1996 controlled flood released from Glen Canyon Dam and the proposal to drain Lake Powell reservoir.

ContributorsSchmidt, John C. (Author) / Webb, Robert H. (Author) / Valdez, Richard A. (Author) / Marzolf, G. Richard (Author) / Stevens, Lawrence E. (Author)
Created1998-09
ContributorsWegner, Dave (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2017-08-04
ContributorsYeatts, Mike (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2018-09-08
ContributorsWegner, Dave (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2017-08-04
ContributorsWalters, Carl (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2018-08-18
ContributorsStevens, Larry (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2017-02-06
ContributorsPotochnik, Andre (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2017-12-04
ContributorsGarrett, Dave (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2018-08-09
ContributorsSchmidt, Jack (Interviewee) / Hirt, Paul (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor) / Sweeney, Jennifer (Transcriber, Interviewer, Editor)
Created2018-06-11