Stakeholders support marine eco-engineering, but what are the perceived benefits and who should pay?

被引:0
|
作者
Dodds, Kate C. [1 ]
Vozzo, Maria L. [2 ,4 ]
Mayer-Pinto, Mariana [3 ]
Dafforn, Katherine A. [1 ]
Bishop, Melanie J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Macquarie Univ, Sch Nat Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Sydney Inst Marine Sci, Mosman, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ New South Wales, Ctr Marine Sci & Innovat, Evolut & Ecol Res Ctr, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] CSIRO Environm, Brisbane, Australia
关键词
coastal development; ecological engineering; nature-based solution; seawalls; stakeholder support; urban greening; valuation; willingness to pay; ENVIRONMENTAL PARADIGM SCALE; COASTAL INFRASTRUCTURE; OCEAN SPRAWL; ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS; PUBLIC AWARENESS; SYDNEY HARBOR; BUILDING BLUE; BIODIVERSITY; URBANIZATION; CONSERVATION;
D O I
10.1002/pan3.10795
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Despite the ecological and socio-economic benefits of nature-based solutions (NbS), the application of ecological principles to the design of seawalls (termed 'seawall eco-engineering') to mitigate their impacts remains low. We investigated stakeholder perspectives of, support for and willingness to pay (WTP) for seawall eco-engineering in one of the most diverse and urbanised harbours in the world, Sydney Harbour, in Australia. Using a series of workshops and surveys targeting the general public, Local Government, built environment and natural environment professionals, we identified and ranked perceived risks and benefits of eco-engineering seawalls, the most common infrastructure in the Harbour. Additionally, WTP for seawall eco-engineering was investigated using an existing, large-scale eco-engineering project. Overall, workshop participants rated benefits of seawall eco-engineering to be almost double the risks. The key perceived benefits were increased habitat/biodiversity, improved water quality and enhanced environmental stewardship/awareness. Key perceived risks were potential damage to infrastructure and use of greenwashing to facilitate new development. Across all stakeholder groups, participants were very supportive of statements regarding the benefits of eco-engineered seawalls and the need for eco-engineering principles to be included in the design of new seawalls. Despite strong support for seawall eco-engineering, WTP was estimated at one third of the actual cost and was, in part, attributable to a lack of a shared evidence base from successful projects, and unclear guidance and policy around implementation. Synthesis and applications: Our results showed that establishing rigorous monitoring and evaluation programs that facilitate cost-benefit analyses are critical to enhancing WTP for and uptake of eco-engineering projects. Furthermore, more cost-effective technologies and shared funding models may overcome existing financial impediments. We also found integrative legislation may be key to increased implementation of such NbS, given that existing policies were viewed as unsupportive.Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
引用
收藏
页码:653 / 667
页数:15
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Decision support systems in eco-engineering: the case of the SDSS
    Mickovski, Slobodan B.
    van Beek, L. P. H.
    ECO- AND GROUND BIO-ENGINEERING: THE USE OF VEGETATION TO IMPROVE SLOPE STABILITY, 2007, 103 : 361 - +
  • [2] A decision support system for the evaluation of eco-engineering strategies for slope protection
    Mickovski, S. B.
    Van Beek, L. P. H.
    ECO- AND GROUND BIO-ENGINEERING: THE USE OF VEGETATION TO IMPROVE SLOPE STABILITY, 2007, 103 : 369 - +
  • [3] Reefcrete: Reducing the environmental footprint of concretes for eco-engineering marine structures
    Dennis, Harry D.
    Evans, Ally J.
    Banner, Alexander J.
    Moore, Pippa J.
    ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2018, 120 : 668 - 678
  • [4] A decision support system for the evaluation of eco-engineering strategies for slope protection
    Mickovski, S.
    Van Beek, L.
    GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2006, 24 (03) : 483 - 498
  • [5] HIGHER EDUCATION - WHO PAYS - WHO BENEFITS - WHO SHOULD PAY
    不详
    COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY, 1974, 49 (02): : 199 - 200
  • [6] Replicating natural topography on marine artificial structures - A novel approach to eco-engineering
    Evans, Ally J.
    Lawrence, Peter J.
    Natanzi, Atteyeh S.
    Moore, Pippa J.
    Davies, Andrew J.
    Crowe, Tasman P.
    McNally, Ciaran
    Thompson, Bryan
    Dozier, Amy E.
    Brooks, Paul R.
    ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2021, 160
  • [7] Facilitation of non-indigenous ascidian by marine eco-engineering interventions at an urban site
    Schaefer, Nina
    Sedano, Francisco
    Bishop, Melanie J.
    Dunn, Kate
    Haeusler, M. Hank
    Yu, K. Daniel
    Zavoleas, Yannis
    Dafforn, Katherine A.
    BIOFOULING, 2023, 39 (01) : 80 - 93
  • [8] Design catalogue for eco-engineering of coastal artificial structures: a multifunctional approach for stakeholders and end-users
    O'Shaughnessy, Kathryn A.
    Hawkins, Stephen J.
    Evans, Ally J.
    Hanley, Mick E.
    Lunt, Paul
    Thompson, Richard C.
    Francis, Robert A.
    Hoggart, Simon P. G.
    Moore, Pippa J.
    Iglesias, Gregorio
    Simmonds, David
    Ducker, James
    Firth, Louise B.
    URBAN ECOSYSTEMS, 2020, 23 (02) : 431 - 443
  • [9] Design catalogue for eco-engineering of coastal artificial structures: a multifunctional approach for stakeholders and end-users
    Kathryn A. O’Shaughnessy
    Stephen J. Hawkins
    Ally J. Evans
    Mick E. Hanley
    Paul Lunt
    Richard C. Thompson
    Robert A. Francis
    Simon P. G. Hoggart
    Pippa J. Moore
    Gregorio Iglesias
    David Simmonds
    James Ducker
    Louise B. Firth
    Urban Ecosystems, 2020, 23 : 431 - 443
  • [10] Who should pay (for the arts and culture)? Who should Decide? And what difference should it make?
    Schuster, JM
    UNSETTLING SENSATION: ARTS-POLICY LESSONS FROM THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM OF ART CONTROVERSY, 2001, : 72 - 89