PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS A Project Paper Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Professional Studies in Agricultural and Life Sciences Field of Natural Resources by Deborah Carlin August 2022 © 2022 Deborah Carlin ABSTRACT Nature-based solutions, an umbrella term for ecosystem services, green infrastructure, and ecosystem-based adaptation (Pauleit et al., 2017), are effective means for mitigating the cross-cutting global challenges that society currently faces, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and water insecurity (Brill et al., 2021). This capstone project reports on my work with the Pacific Institute – a global leader in water research – and their efforts to bring nature-based solutions to the forefront of business investment opportunities. This project also highlights three key nature-based solutions that should be considered for implementation within urban and coastal areas – alternative lawns, living shorelines, and green infrastructure. These nature-based solutions offer a plethora of benefits that contribute to ecological functioning, human health and safety, and economic efficiency; their position within densely populated areas creates opportunities for governments, organizations, and individuals to participate in their implementation, sparking a shift in societal thinking towards a more resilient and biodiverse future. i BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Deborah Carlin grew up in Hampton Bays, NY and received a BS/BA in Environmental Science and Studio Art from Muhlenberg College. Her time as an Environmental Educator and Program Manager in New York City introduced her to various urban ecosystems, where she witnessed the impact that these ecosystems have on urban socio-economic and ecological functioning. These experiences, along with a passion for addressing climate change and resiliency, led her to focus her studies at Cornell on urban ecology, climate adaptation, and nature-based solutions. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I have endless gratitude for my advisor Dr. Stephen Morreale, who guided me through this program with patience, humor, and enthusiasm. Thank you for all you have taught me and supported me with over the past two years. Thank you to the Pacific Institute and Dr. Gregg Brill, for offering me a summer internship where I could expand my knowledge of nature-based solutions and form a capstone project that had real-world applicability. Thank you to all of the professors I had the pleasure to work with in this program, with particular note to Dr. Linda Shi, Dr. Rebecca Schnieder, and Professor Josh Cerra, whose courses were integral to my learning at Cornell. Lastly, thank you to my family, my partner, and the 2022 Natural Resources MPS cohort for their never-ending support throughout this endeavor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………….………...………….i BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………………..…….....ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………..…………………..………………...……….iii PREFACE………………………………………………..………………………...……...……....v SECTION 1 - PACIFIC INSTITUTE OUTPUTS New Pathways for Forecasting the Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions: A Methodological Overview……………………………………………………..………………………………...….1 SECTION 2 - FACT SHEETS Alternative Lawns………………………..…………………………...………………………….35 Living Shorelines…………..……………………………………………...……………..………40 Green Infrastructure for Urban Stormwater Management………………..……..…………….....45 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………..……………………………50 REFERENCES……………………………………………..…………………………………… 51 iv PREFACE Nature-based solutions (NBS) have the potential to mitigate many of today’s global challenges, including climate change, water insecurity, and biodiversity loss (Brill et al., 2021). NBS are considered an umbrella term for ecosystem services, green infrastructure, and ecosystem-based adaptation (Pauleit et al., 2017), and therefore inherently include concepts of restoration, conservation, and eco-engineering. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2016) describes NBS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” In short, an NBS project can harness the benefits that naturally arise from ecological processes to mutually aid both humans and the environment. As someone with many interdisciplinary interests, I am drawn to the utilization of NBS for solving current global issues. NBS projects not only incorporate ecological concepts, but also design and landscape architecture; policy and planning; social equity and justice; and economic growth. Table 1 outlines some of the projects I have worked on throughout my masters program and how they align with the interdisciplinary nature of NBS. I am particularly concerned with implementing NBS in highly populated areas, including urban, semi-urban, and coastal locations, as it is these locations where humans are often most removed from nature and exposed to minimal biodiversity and high resource consumption. v Relation to Interdisciplinary Topics Title Course General Topic Social Design Policy Ecology Economy Equity CRP 5545: Urban Pathways To Understanding Adaptations to Climate NBS Living Shoreline Implementation* • • • Change Eco-Districts: Case Study Analysis Urban of Bo01 (Malmö, Sweden) and SW CRP 5840: Green Cities Ecosystems & • • • Ecodistrict (Washington, DC) Resiliency Florida Mangrove Conservation in EAS 5620: Marine NBS; the Face of Sea-Level Rise Ecosystem Sustainability Conservation • • • The Future Of Lawns: LA 6070: Dimensions in From Monocultures To Productive Urban Ecology and NBS • • • • Ecosystems* Sustainable Practice Avian Ecological Design Strategy: LA 6940: Building With Restoration Cornell Campus’s A-Lot Birds • • NTRES 6240: Sustainable Urban Green Infrastructure for Urban Water Resource Ecosystems & Stormwater Management* • • • Management Resiliency; NBS Analyzing Equitable Access to PLSCS 5200: GIS NBS; Equity Park Space in NYC • Table 1: Masters projects and the interdisciplinary fields of NBS that they address *Fact sheets for these projects are included in this capstone My capstone project is based on two summer internships, where I was able to gain professional experiences applicable to real-life projects. I worked with Cornell University’s City and Regional Planning Department and the Pacific Institute, a global leader in water research, on projects that promote equitable climate adaptation and NBS benefit accounting, respectively. With Cornell’s City and Regional Planning Department, I am on a flood policy research team led by Dr. Linda Shi and Professor Rebecca Brenner, as well as Kate Boicourt of the Environmental Defense Fund. My work on this team revolved around analyzing current policies and programs dealing with flood mitigation and planning in NYC, particularly looking at the accessibility of these programs and their funds for renters, low-income communities, and the unique housing vi typologies of NYC. The goal of this work was to identify and report on gaps in accessibility and make the case for program reforms that address the specific needs of NYC housing types and communities. Ensuring equitable access to flood mitigation strategies – whether they are related to NBS, buyouts, or infrastructure retrofits – is essential to ensuring transitions to equitable climate adaptation. Although I did not incorporate specific research from this internship into my final capstone report, this internship broadened my knowledge on flood policy and mitigation, adding another interdisciplinary field that I am cultivating expertise in. The majority of this capstone report is based on my internship with the Pacific Institute and their Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds project. This is an ongoing, multi-organizational project that aims to raise awareness and applicability of NBS for investors by identifying NBS benefits, forecasting NBS benefit accrual, accounting for benefits through indicator and calculation methods, and performing benefit valuation (CEO Water Mandate, 2022). A significant portion of my internship focused on benefit forecasting. The report in Section 1 is a full methodological write up for the processes behind benefit forecasting; this will be integrated into the second version of the “Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Guide” (Brill et al., 2021), which will be published in 2023. In addition to writing this report, I utilized my knowledge in ecology to contribute to the actual forecasting work, which involves assigning a rank (i.e. High, Medium, Low, Tradeoff) to the estimated magnitude of benefit accrual for particular NBS project types. Again, this scoring process is described in the report in Section 1. Note that this methodology has not yet been published and is proprietary information of the Pacific Institute. In addition to forecasting, I contributed to a 25-page report, “Stakeholder Engagement Guide for Nature-Based Solutions,” which educates investors and practitioners on methods for vii effectively engaging with stakeholders, particularly with Indigenous Peoples and local communities. In my contributions to this work, I drew from academic literature as well as the knowledge I gained regarding equitable and just engagement throughout my masters program. The Stakeholder Engagement Guide is scheduled to be published in late 2022. In Section 2, I turn towards nature-based solutions that are highly applicable to urban, semi-urban, and coastal areas. I have created three professionally designed fact sheets based on my previous projects (see Table 1), which focus on alternative lawns, living shorelines, and urban green infrastructure. These fact sheets aim to educate multiple audiences (including the public sector, NGOs, and property owners) about the many benefits of these nature-based solutions, methods for designing and implementing them, and barriers that prevent them from being more widespread. viii SECTION 1: PACIFIC INSTITUTE OUTPUTS New Pathways for Forecasting the Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions A Methodological Overview The ideas and procedures documented in this report (Section 1) are proprietary information of the Pacific Institute and used with their permission. Table of Contents Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………………………....3 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………4 1.1 Project Context – Benefit Accounting Of Nature-Based Solutions For Watersheds………………4 1.2 Project Stage 2: Forecasting Benefits……………………………………………………………...6 1.3 Comparative Analysis Of Benefit Forecasting Efforts…………………………………………….. 8 2. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………13 2.1 Review Of Benefit Identification Methods……………………………………………………… 13 2.2 Benefit Forecasting Methods…………………………………………………………………… 18 2.3 Outputs……………………………………………………………………………………………25 3. Next Steps & Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….. 27 4. References………………………………………………………………………………………………29 5. Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………...31 Figures Figure 1: Parameters, and their relationships, used to identify NBS benefit accrual (Brill et al., 2021)…...6 Figure 2: Forecasting Benefits of “Green Interventions” by Forest Trends (2017)…………………………9 Figure 3: Forecasted Co-Benefits for “Treatment Wetlands For Combined Sewer Overflow” by SNAPP (Cross et al., 2021, p. 145)……………………………………………………………………..11 Figure 4: Functional Stacked Domains of Ecosystem Processes (Brill et al., 2021)………………………..16 Figure 5: Example benefit forecasting output graph, showing the potential benefit accrued over time between a specific activity-benefit linkage……………………………………………………26 Tables Table 1: Comparisons of Forest Trends, Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP) and Pacific Institute forecasting methodologies.………………………………………………………….12 Table 2: Habitat-intervention combinations (Brill et al., 2021)…………………………………….……...14 Table 3: Identified NBS activity categories and subcategories (Brill et al., 2021)...……………………….15 Table 4: Identified primary NBS benefits categorized across five themes (Brill et al., 2021)……………..18 Table 5: Forecast Scoring Ranks Reflecting Percentage of Potential Benefit Achieved…………………...20 2 Boxes Box 1: Temporal benefit accrual scenarios that display the influence of habitat-intervention types on forecasting results…………………………………………………………………………………………22 Box 2: Spatial Benefit accrual scenarios that display the influence of habitat-intervention types on forecasting results…………………………………………………………………………………………23 Box 3: Combined temporal and spatial benefit accrual scenarios that display the influence of habitat-intervention types on forecasting results…………………………………………………………25 Appendices Appendix 1: Linkages between activities & habitat-intervention types. R: Restoration, M: Management, P: Protection, C: Created (adapted from Brill et al., 2021)…………………………….31 Appendix 2: Portion of the Forest Restoration method flows spreadsheet, showing linkages across activities, processes, and benefits (Brill et al., 2021)……….…………………………….32 Appendix 3: Forecasting scenarios for Forest and Wetland habitats across all applicable Interventions………………………………………………………………………………………………33 Appendix 4: Portion of forecasting spreadsheet where scores are allocated…………..……………….. 34 Acronyms NBS Nature-Based Solutions 3 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Context – Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Nature-based solutions (NBS) have the potential to mitigate many of the unprecedented global challenges caused by human impacts, including climate change, water insecurity, and biodiversity loss (Brill et al., 2021). Although there are varying definitions for NBS, a widely recognized and adopted definition is offered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2016), which describes NBS as, “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” In short, an NBS project can harness the benefits that naturally arise from ecological processes to address challenges faced by humanity and the environment. NBS often have the potential to be just as effective – if not more so – than their gray infrastructure counterparts, while also providing ecological, social, and economic benefits that would not accrue from gray infrastructure alone. Despite the efficacy and benefits of NBS, research shows that a number of barriers prevent widespread adoption or implementation, such as: ● Uncertainty or lack of awareness regarding implementation and effectiveness ● Inadequate financial resources to invest in these solutions ● Path dependency of organizational decision making ● Inadequate regulations, policies, and programs ● Limited time and resources for project execution ● Institutional fragmentation (Sarabi et al., 2019). 4 Often, these barriers present stronger roadblocks in the public sector than in the private sector, namely because the public sector may face policy constraints, have other socio-economic priorities, or lack necessary human and financial resources (Shiao et al., 2020). This puts the private sector in a prime position to scale NBS implementation. Not only do private sector decision makers have the resources and capabilities to overcome these roadblocks, but they have much to gain from investing in NBS, including meeting their own sustainability targets while positively impacting the communities they work with; accessing cost-effective solutions; supporting long-term business continuity; and decreasing climate change-related risk (Brill et al., 2021). The private sector, however, is still very often faced with the aforementioned barrier of uncertainty or lack of awareness. While educational opportunities that describe and explain NBS can certainly be increased, Shiao et al. (2020) determined that there is a lack of a standardized methodology for identifying, estimating, or monitoring NBS benefits. Such a methodology provides higher certainty as to what the outcomes of an NBS project might be, and how a project’s benefits make them more advantageous than comparable gray infrastructure projects. Therefore, such a methodology is an essential element to building the business case for investment in NBS. To address this gap, a multi-stakeholder project team, formed by Pacific Institute, the CEO Water Mandate, The Nature Conservancy, Danone, and LimnoTech, have initiated the Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds project. The purpose of this project is to support businesses and other audiences in making informed decisions regarding NBS benefit accrual – or the generation, use, and value of a benefit (CEO Water Mandate, 2022). To date, this project team has published two reports – “Benefit Accounting of 5 Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Landscape Assessment” (Shiao et al., 2020) and “Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds Guide” (Brill et al., 2021) – along with a web-based, interactive tool, the NBS Benefits Explorer (Pacific Institute, 2021). Through the Guide and the Tool, the project team presented a newly developed method for determining NBS benefit accrual by identifying and categorizing the habitats in which NBS projects may occur, intervention types, activities that may be included within each intervention; physical/chemical/biological processes that are influenced by activities; and resulting benefits/trade-offs (Figure 1). A robust series of indicator and calculation methods also allow users of the Guide and Tool to estimate or quantify NBS benefits post-implementation. By 2023, this project team will develop a complete pre-feasibility package for investors and practitioners that can be used to identify, forecast, account for, and value NBS benefits within the very first stages of NBS planning. Figure 1: Parameters, and their relationships, used to identify NBS benefit accrual (Brill et al., 2021) 1.2 Project Stage 2: Forecasting Benefits Stage 2 of this project continues the work developed by Brill et al. (2021). This stage of work comprises several components; for the purposes of this report, a methodological overview of the NBS benefit forecasting component will be provided. “Forecasting” predicts the 6 magnitude of potential benefit accrual over multiple temporal and spatial scales, increasing transparency on what investors and practitioners can expect from an NBS project. These forecasts will ultimately be integrated into the NBS Benefits Explorer tool. An expert advisory group (EAG) was established to build robustness and academic credibility to this project. The EAG meets periodically with the project team to receive updates on the project and provide feedback; this feedback is then integrated into project methods and outputs in a timely manner. The institutions and organizations involved with the benefit forecasting EAG are: Stanford University, Forest Trends, Utrecht University, The Nature Conservancy, Ecometrics LLC, Australian National University, Ecometrix Solutions Group, US Army Corps of Engineers, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Conservation International, World Resources Institute, University of Alabama, and ICLEI. Members of the EAG are leading global experts within academia and industry on implementing NBS and NBS investing. Members may support large corporations in their NBS decision-making and investing, or lead their own organization’s NBS investment portfolios. Objectives: The forecasting component of this project has several objectives: 1. Bolster benefit identification outputs and provide clarity on when/where benefits accrue ● One of the key purposes of this work is to provide a clearer roadmap for benefit accrual. The Guide and Tool explicitly focus on identifying benefits/trade-offs as a result of linking specific habitats, interventions, activities, and processes. The new forecasting method clarifies and improves upon this work, by indicating at what degree or magnitude benefits will accrue over different spatial and temporal scales. This expands the exercise from “what benefit will I accrue?” to 7 “how much of that benefit will I accrue, when will it accrue, and where will it be experienced?” 2. Support the business case for investments in NBS ● Having approximate predictions for the magnitude of benefit accrual, across both temporal and spatial scales, ultimately aims to reduce uncertainty and increase understanding of when and where investors/practitioners can expect to see accrued benefits from projects. This enhanced understanding is crucial for mainstreaming and upscaling NBS projects, which may require much longer-term planning than gray infrastructure. The forecasting models will help to demystify what types of benefits can be expected and the length of time it may take to achieve those benefits. 3. Improve on past forecasting efforts ● Other organizations have initiated preliminary benefit forecasting techniques (see analysis below). This project will expand upon past work to provide more detailed benefit forecasts, ultimately adding to the growing body of evidence that supports the implementation of NBS. 1.3 Comparative Analysis of Benefit Forecasting Efforts Past Forecasting Work: In the past few years, other organizations that have recognized the importance of benefit forecasting have made some attempts to predict NBS benefits. In 2017, Forest Trends developed a series of relationships between a variety of “green interventions” (such as wetland conservation, forest restoration, and riparian buffers) and benefits/trade-offs (such as 8 groundwater recharge and erosion control) (Figure 2). Each relationship, or linkage, between green intervention and benefit/trade-off was given a color-coded rating: high positive impact (dark green), low positive impact (light green), negative impact (red), neutral impact (gray), and unknown impact (white). For example, the green intervention of wetland restoration was stated to have low positive (light green) impact on the benefit of filtration of contaminants. Some areas have a range of impacts – grassland restoration impact on overall water yield may be negative (red), neutral (gray), or low positive (light green). Figure 2: Forecasting Benefits of “Green Interventions” by Forest Trends (2017) One advantage to this mode of forecasting is that Forest Trends does not just identify benefits, but rather they assign each benefit a certain level of accrued magnitude, which can aid practitioners in determining which interventions will experience the highest or lowest potential 9 benefit. Also, the inclusion of negative impacts incorporates the concept of trade-offs into forecasting – that certain interventions or actions may end up having drawbacks that could lower the collective benefit potential of the project. This chart, however, leaves room for clarifications, namely: ● At what point in time will a benefit reach a certain level of magnitude? ● At what spatial scale are these benefits being experienced? ● Within the benefits that have gradations – how do practitioners determine which actions will push them towards the higher positive impact? Another forecasting example can be seen in the 2021 report, “Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater Treatment,” published by the Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP) (Cross et al., 2021). This report describes advantages, disadvantages, co-benefits (i.e. benefits) technical details, case studies and more, for specialized wastewater treatment options involving NBS, such as slow-rate soil infiltration systems, surface aerated ponds, and horizontal-flow treatment wetlands. To forecast the potential co-benefits of each wastewater treatment option, expert working groups classified a series of 13 co-benefits as either having high, medium, or low positive impact when compared to all other types of NBS. Figure 3 shows the forecasted co-benefits for Treatment Wetlands for Combined Sewer Overflow, noting that water reuse and storm peak mitigation will have high positive impacts, biodiversity (fauna) and biomass production will have medium positive impacts, and biodiversity (flora), carbon sequestration, aesthetic value, and recreation will have low positive impacts. 10 Figure 3: Forecasted Co-Benefits for “Treatment Wetlands For Combined Sewer Overflow” by SNAPP (Cross et al., 2021, p. 145) This classification provides a way to improve transparency with stakeholders regarding exactly which co-benefits will result from certain projects, and to what magnitude that co-benefit will be experienced. However, similar to the Forest Trends example, there is no clarity on when benefits will occur or how widespread they will be. Unlike Forest Trends, this report does not include trade-offs or negative impacts. Comparing Current and Past Work: In the comparison table below (Table 1), it is clear that Pacific Institute’s current project will bring expanded functionality and clarity to existing benefit forecasting efforts. Similar to Forest Trends and SNAPP, the current project identifies the type of NBS that will be undertaken: Forest Trends identified “green interventions” and SNAPP identified specific wastewater treatment options; the current project identifies distinct habitat-intervention categories. This project also goes a step further by identifying specific activities that may be performed within each habitat-intervention category. All three projects also identify specific benefits (or co-benefits) of an NBS project, such as increasing biodiversity or preventing erosion. However, unlike the examples provided, the 11 current project goes beyond linking benefits to NBS project types; rather, the project team has linked benefits to the specific activities that may take place within an NBS project, allowing for greater accuracy and specificity within the benefit forecast. All three projects forecast a magnitude of potential benefit: the Forest Trends forecasts range from high impact to negative impact, which incorporates trade-offs, while the SNAPP forecasts range from high to low positive impact. As will be discussed in Section 2.2, this work provides a potential percentage of benefit achieved, which is then converted into a ranking score that ranges from high (positive) benefit through trade-offs. This scoring method is used across varying temporal and spatial scales for each activity-benefit linkage, which the past examples do not account for. Forest Trends SNAPP Pacific Institute Identifies baseline habitat-intervention type/project type • • • Identifies potential benefits • • • Identifies specific activities and links to specific benefits • Forecasts potential level of benefit accrual • • • Forecasts potential level of benefit accrual over time • Forecasts potential level of benefit accrual over space • Table 1: Comparisons of Forest Trends, Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP) and Pacific Institute forecasting methodologies 12 2. Methodology The following section outlines work that was carried out during previous and current project phases to identify benefit accrual and forecasting parameters, including habitat-intervention categories, activity-benefit linkages and associated ecosystem processes, and temporal/spatial scales. Means for allocating forecasting scores, as well as the outputs of the scoring processes, are also described. 2.1 Review of Benefit Identification Methods Habitat-Interventions: At its foundation, an NBS project comprises two key considerations – the habitat type, or project site where investments will be made, and the interventions those investments are going towards. During Stage 1, the project team adapted a classification scheme based on the Nature-Based Solutions Evidence Platform (University of Oxford, 2019) and the IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme (IUCN, 2012) to identify nine habitat types that are mutually exclusive of one another and collectively represent a broad range of NBS habitat types. Those habitats are: agriculture, estuaries and deltas, forests, grasslands, lakes, mangroves, rivers and floodplains, urban greenspaces, and wetlands (Brill et al., 2021). An intervention is defined as “Actions... involving management, restoration or protection of biodiversity, ecosystems, or ecosystem services, or involving the creation or management of artificial ecosystems” (University of Oxford, 2019). Based on this definition, the project team identified four intervention categories: restoration, management, protection, and creation. Although in practice these interventions are often not mutually exclusive (a protected area is likely to also be managed), they are considered separately for the purposes of this work (Brill et 13 al., 2021). The project team allocated the restoration, management and protection intervention types to each habitat type, while the creation intervention type was assigned to five habitat types. This categorization resulted in 33 unique NBS habitat-intervention combinations (Table 2). Table 2: Habitat-intervention combinations (Brill et al., 2021) Activities, Ecosystem Processes, and Benefits/Trade-offs: The project team defined activities as, “human actions that improve landscape functions and processes which result in benefits and/or trade-offs” (Brill et al., 2021, pg. 96). Activities that may occur within a specific habitat-intervention, such as removing invasive plant species, will have an impact on ecosystem processes, ultimately leading to certain benefits (or trade-offs). Activities were identified based on academic literature and the project team’s expertise on NBS. The list of activities can be viewed in Table 3, and the activities that are relevant to each habitat-intervention category are reflected in Appendix 1. 14 Activity Categories Sub-Categories/Examples Harvest and store rainwater Build retention/detention ponds, rain gardens, swales, diversion channels; rainwater harvesting Construct treatment systems Construct treatment wetlands Build retention/detention ponds, infiltration ponds; dig wells; remove hard surfaces; undertake Recharge aquifers artificial recharge Reestablish hydrologic Re-wet historical wetlands; undertake flood-plain inundation, channel reconnection; install bioswales connection and permeable surfaces Remove hard surfaces Remove roads, pavements, canals Remove hard Remove berms, seawalls, weirs, dams structures/barriers Increase organic matter, carbon content; enhance earthworm populations, microbial activity; Restore/improve soil health increase plant diversity; improve soil chemistry/pH Restore/improve/stabilize Fix erosion; add natural structures; stabilize slopes, sand dunes; provide substrate for marine substrates ecosystems Remove sediment to improve flow/local hydrology; improve exchange or connectivity between Dredge substrate surface water and groundwater; remove contaminated sediments; drain wetlands Plant/restore/maintain Plant trees and buffer zones; undertake successional planting; restore habitats (restore agricultural native vegetation lands to natural areas) Manage/repopulate native Reintroduce or increase number of indigenous animals to influence ecosystem functioning fauna Remove invasive species Remove foreign flora and fauna (including reducing evapotranspiration by alien vegetation) Undertake brush control Reduce fuel load; cut tall grass/weeds to allow seedlings to get enough light Undertake fire management Restore natural fire regime Avoid/limit habitat conversion Implement conservation easements; purchase land for conservation Reduce/avoid resource Implement legal and financial transactions/mechanisms abstraction Install barriers Install fences, wire, grids to reduce livestock/animal impacts; reduce unwanted herbivory, foot traffic Introduce grazing Undertake silvopasture, rotational grazing management systems Implement terraced/contour Follow natural gradients of landscape/no leveling of slopes planting Plant vegetation buffers Plant cover crops, grass strips, hedge rows, riparian buffers, trees in croplands Undertake mulching Distribute animal manure, biochar, organic matter; build compost pits; undertake conservation tillage and fertilizing Table 3: Identified NBS activity categories and subcategories (Brill et al., 2021) 15 The project team then identified the ecosystem processes that would occur as a result of these activities, such as erosion control, water infiltration and retention, detritus production, carbon uptake, etc. Each ecosystem process was categorized into one of four natural domains (Figure 4); these categories, along with a 5th – social/cultural – were placed into functional stacked domains, or a hierarchy of processes, which displays the complex and intertwining relationships between ecosystem processes (Figure 4). Each stacked layer depends on the preceding ones – such as hydrology depending on geomorphology/topography, and social/cultural depending on all other processes. This aids in tracing the impact that one activity will have on ecosystem processes, and also displays how elements of an ecosystem depend on each other (Brill et al., 2021). Figure 4: Functional Stacked Domains of Ecosystem Processes (Brill et al., 2021) 16 Lastly, the project team identified the benefits that result from specific habitat-intervention linkages, and narrowed those benefits to five key themes that are aligned with the functional stacked domains – water quality; water quantity; carbon; biodiversity and environment; and socio-economic (Table 4). The project team prioritized benefits that were a) generally recognized by the scientific community, 2) observable, and 3) linked to processes that could ultimately be traced back to actions. To link all of the aforementioned components (habitats, interventions, activities, processes, and benefits/trade-offs), the project team created visual method flows that not only identify which ecological processes and benefits may occur under a habitat-intervention type, but also show the intertwining connections between all of these elements. An example of the method flows for forest restoration, with the accompanying restoration activities, can be seen in Appendix 2. More information about the methods described in Section 2.1 can be found in Brill et al. (2021). 17 Theme Benefits Reduced/avoided surface runoff and associated erosion Improved/maintained surface water storage Water Quantity Increased/maintained groundwater recharge and storage Improved/maintained flow regime Improved/maintained flood protection and mitigation (inland and coastal) Improved/maintained surface water quality Water Quality Improved/maintained groundwater quality Improved/maintained carbon sequestration Carbon Reduced carbon emissions Improved/increased terrestrial habitat availability and quality Improved/maintained aquatic habitat availability and quality Improved/maintained terrestrial habitat connectivity Biodiversity and Improved/maintained aquatic habitat connectivity Environment Improved/maintained support for local pollinators Improved/maintained natural pest control Increased/maintained abundance and diversity of native plant species Increased/maintained abundance and diversity of native animal species Improved/maintained climate adaptation and mitigation Improved/maintained livelihood opportunities Improved/maintained human health Improved/maintained agriculture/agricultural output Expanded/maintained religious/spiritual settings Socio-economics Enhanced/maintained microclimate regulation Improved/maintained opportunities for education/scientific study Increased/maintained food security Improved/maintained recreation/tourism opportunities Increased/maintained property/land value Table 4: Identified NBS benefits categorized across five themes (Brill et al., 2021) 2.2 Benefit Forecasting Methods Recognizing that NBS benefit identification is only one piece of the puzzle for making the business case for NBS, the project team sought to predict at what magnitude benefits will occur, 18 as well as how benefits may accrue at specific temporal and spatial scales throughout the lifetime of an NBS project. These forecasting components are highly dependent on the habitat type, intervention type, and activities performed. Caveats: Given that this forecasting work is intended for the pre-feasibility stage, it must be stressed that these forecasts are estimates, not guarantees. Actual benefit accruals are dependent on site-specific conditions and processes, the size of the NBS project site/municipality/watershed, implementation methods for activities, etc. For example, the project team has considered whole categories of habitats; in reality, there are many different sub-habitat types that fall under forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc. Additionally, the benefits accrued at a project site that is 5 hectares will look vastly different from a project site that is 200 hectares. A third example can be seen in that rain gardens, bioswales, retention ponds, and rain barrels will all produce differing results when it comes to the activity of storing rainwater. To account for these nuances, each forecast will come with a score gradient, showing the potential range of scores that can accrue (see Section 2.3). Investors and practitioners should pursue more precise means of forecasting benefits as they move past the pre-feasibility phase of a project. Allocating Scoring Ranks: Each activity-benefit linkage is scored nine times – across the three spatial and three temporal scales. Scores are based on expert knowledge of different habitats and are verified using academic literature when necessary. As shown in Table 3, the project team developed a scoring rubric in order to assign ranks for benefit accrual based on the percentage of potential benefit achieved. These potential benefits should be compared to the benefits experienced in 19 pristine or near-natural habitats. For example, a High ranking means that the benefit accrued is between 85% -100% of what can be achieved in a near-natural example. The ranks include Trade-off, Low, Medium, and High, as well as intermediary ranks between each step, such as Trade-off-Low, Low-Medium, and Medium-High. Ranks from Low to High indicate levels of positive benefits, while Trade-off and Trade-off-Low indicate potential negative benefits. In some cases, the maximum potential benefit that can be achieved within a near-natural state will always be Low, and not increase with time. For example, education benefits in an agricultural setting are likely to be scored lower than in an urban green space due to the overall nature of these habitat types. While Low may be the maximum benefit potential of one activity-benefit linkage for a certain habitat-intervention, the same activity in a different habitat-intervention may have a maximum High benefit potential. Percentage of Potential Benefit Scoring Rank Achieved High 85 - 100% Medium - High 61 - 84% Medium 35 - 60% Low - Medium 20 - 39% Low 0 - 19% Trade-off - Low -10 - 19% Trade-off < -10% Table 5: Forecast Scoring Ranks Reflecting Percentage of Potential Benefit Achieved 20 To ensure that experts involved in scoring were operating off the same baseline habitat conditions, a scenario was created for each habitat-intervention category that identifies the type, size, hydrology, and state of the habitat, as well as the position of the NBS project in the watershed. Almost all scenarios dealt with property scales of 100 ha for consistency, and a variety of global regions were used to enhance applicability. Example scenarios for Forests and Wetlands can be viewed in Appendix 3. Temporal Scales: The forecasts consider benefit accrual over three time periods of an NBS project: the first one to four years, the next five to nine years, and 10+ years. As one can imagine, the magnitude of benefit accrual during the first few years of a project is likely to look very different than at the 10-year mark; both the initial level of accrual and the rate at which benefits accrue over time are identified through this project’s forecasting methods. By estimating these aspects of potential benefit accrual, investors and practitioners will have greater clarity of when certain benefits are expected to peak, thus aiding with long-term planning. This also makes building the business case for investing in NBS more precise. Temporal benefit accrual is dependent on the habitat-intervention type and activity-benefit linkages. The scenarios in Box 1 outline how temporal accrual may be impacted by different intervention types. 21 Temporal Benefit Accruals (considered within the project site boundaries) Simplified Scenario 1: Forest Restoration Simplified Scenario 2: Forest Management Activity: Plant/restore native vegetation Activity: Plant/maintain native vegetation Benefit: Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species Benefit: Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species Benefit Accrual Across Temporal Scales: Benefit Accrual Across Temporal Scales: Temporal Scale Temporal Scale 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs Benefit Benefit Medium High High High High High Level Level Reasoning: In the first 1-4 years of a forest restoration project, Reasoning: Assuming that a forest being managed already accrual will not be at its maximum potential given that contains peak biodiversity, the maximum benefit potential will planted vegetation requires time to establish, grow, mature, likely be maintained throughout the lifetime of the project. and proliferate. Particularly in a restoration project, certain areas may need to be completely re-planted. Benefits will increase over time as growth increases, and maximum benefit potential may be reached by the 5-9 year time scale. Box 1: Temporal benefit accrual scenarios that display the influence of habitat-intervention types on forecasting results Spatial Scales: The benefit forecasts also consider three spatial scales – the project site itself, the municipal/city scale, and the watershed scale. In considering these spatial scales, the forecasts are going beyond predicting benefit accrual and instead predicting benefit flows, or how a benefit generated at one point can flow outwards to larger scales. For example, water that is filtered in a treatment wetland will benefit spatial scales beyond the immediate property area as that water flows out of the site. When comparing the three spatial scales, there will almost always be a higher benefit potential at the project site than within the larger scales, despite the type of intervention or activity. This is because in most cases, benefits flow outwards from the project site, rather than being produced at broader scales. 22 It should be assumed that there will be higher certainty of benefit accrual at the property scale, given that it is easier to identify inputs/outputs and that there are more opportunities to measure data. Additionally, the spatial scale categories assigned in this methodology are quite generalized; actual benefit flows will be reliant on the size of the physical municipality or watershed in question, and therefore forecasted results will vary. Similar to the temporal example, the scenarios in Box 2 outline how spatial benefit accrual/benefit flows may be impacted by different intervention types. Spatial Benefit Accruals (considered within 1-4 years of a project) Simplified Scenario 1: Forest Restoration Simplified Scenario 2: Forest Management Activity: Plant/restore native vegetation Activity: Plant/maintain native vegetation Benefit: Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species Benefit: Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species Benefit Accrual Across Spatial Scales: Benefit Accrual Across Spatial Scales: Spatial Scale Spatial Scale Property Municipality Watershed Property Municipality Watershed Benefit Benefit Medium Low - Med. Low High Medium Low - Med. Level Level Reasoning: In most cases, benefit accrual will decrease as the Reasoning: Similar to Scenario 1, larger spatial scales will have spatial scale increases. Therefore, if the property scale has a lower potential benefits than the property site. Because baseline medium level benefit (see Box 1), then other managed forest sites may begin with high levels of biodiversity, considered spatial scales would not exceed medium, and are there is more opportunity for varying seeds to disperse and likely to be less than medium. For this particular establish at larger spatial scales, therefore improving activity-benefit linkage, seed dispersal and plant biodiversity in those areas more quickly. establishment is limited by varying factors, including the dispersal agent and ability for the seed to find suitable habitat outside of the property site (Bakker et al. 1996). The likelihood of successful dispersal, establishment, growth, and subsequent increases in plant biodiversity, decreases at larger spatial scales. Box 2: Spatial benefit accrual scenarios that display the influence of habitat-intervention types on forecasting results 23 Combined Temporal & Spatial Scales: As shown in the temporal and spatial scenarios (Boxes 1 & 2), it is difficult to isolate these two scales from each other – temporal and spatial accruals must be forecasted simultaneously and collaboratively in order to have the most accurate snapshot of potential benefit accrual. The scenarios in Box 3 exemplify how each temporal scale is scored within each spatial scale, resulting in nine scores for each activity-benefit linkage. Overall, each habitat-intervention category has approximately 1,500 scoring data points, totaling in about 50,000 data points across the 33 habitat-intervention categories. A sample of what this scoring process looks like for forest management can be found in Appendix 4. 24 Temporal and Spatial Benefit Accruals Scenario 1: Forest Restoration Activity: Plant/restore native vegetation Benefit: Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species Total Benefit Accrual: Temporal and Spatial Scales Property Municipality Watershed 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs Benefit Low - Low - Low - Med. High High Med. Med. Low Level Med. Med. Med. Reasoning: As explained in Boxes 1 and 2, benefit accrual increases as the temporal scale increases, and decreases as the spatial scale increases. Scenario 2: Forest Management Activity: Plant/maintain native vegetation Benefit: Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species Total Benefit Accrual: Temporal and Spatial Scales Property Municipality Watershed 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs Benefit Low - Low - Low - High High High Med. Med. Med. Level Med. Med. Med. Reasoning: As explained in Boxes 1 and 2, benefit accrual increases as the temporal scale increases, and decreases as the spatial scale increases. Box 3: Combined temporal and spatial benefit accrual scenarios that display the influence of habitat-intervention types on forecasting results 2.3 Outputs Benefit forecasts will be aggregated into graphs – each activity-benefit linkage will have one graph per spatial scale (three graphs in total), which shows the potential benefit accrued over time (Figure 5). The trend line will display the upward, downward, or stable trend in 25 benefit accrual. The points on the graph represent the scores allocated by the project team; these points serve as the median of the shaded/gradated area, which depicts the potential range for benefit accrual across different NBS contexts, including varying methods for implementing activities and varying sub-habitat types (ex. Boreal forest vs tropical forest). Users of the tool may be interested to see how the benefit accrual of their NBS project compares to that of a near-natural ecosystem. To accommodate this, the final graphs will include a separate curve/line that will represent the expected maximum benefit accural at each temporal and spatial scale for near-natural/pristine environments Figure 5: Example benefit forecasting output graph, showing the potential benefit accrued over time between a specific activity-benefit linkage. This graph displays the link between Planting/restoring/maintaining native vegetation (activity) and carbon sequestration (benefit) for a forest restoration project. The darker blue points and line show the projected forecast score (indicating the potential benefit accrual), while the shaded blue area shows the score range that an actual project may fall between, given varying habitat and activity implementation parameters. 26 3. Next Steps & Conclusion The current stage of this work is intended to provide higher accuracy of pre-feasibility benefit accrual forecasting by incorporating temporal and spatial scales, as well as ranking scores, to previously established methods for benefit identification by Brill et al. (2021). Doing so bolsters the business case for NBS projects, which often require long-term planning and a clear understanding of benefit outputs in order to justify their use over gray infrastructure. This forecasting work provides investors and practitioners with a clearer picture of the benefit accrual timeline, which can demystify the NBS design and implementation processes. The final outputs of this work, which will be represented by a number of graphs showing a gradient range of potential benefit accrual, will be integrated into the NBS Benefits Explorer tool and will be freely and fully accessible to businesses and other interested users. The next steps for the forecasting component of this project revolve around validating data points and building certainty. Once the NBS Benefits Explorer tool has been updated with the forecasting outputs, expert reviewers who implement and/or research NBS, ecological processes, landscape management, and other relevant areas of study will input empirical data based on real-world project parameters into the Tool; this will support data verification and validation. Their feedback, along with feedback from the EAG and other stakeholders, will be incorporated into the forecasting work, which will involve either adjusting the median scores on the forecasting graphs or adjusting the surrounding gradient (see Figure 5). Additionally, the project team will annually review gray and academic literature to ensure forecasts are up-to-date with current research to retain their accuracy. 27 Beyond the forecasting phase of this project, the project team is working with leading experts to perform NBS benefit valuation. The result of this work will include social return on investment estimates, paired with the forecasting graphs in the NBS Benefits Explorer tool, to further support the business case for NBS. This work contributes leading edge thinking to the realm of NBS practice and research, ultimately adding to the growing body of evidence that supports the implementation of NBS. These forecasting efforts are not an exact science, but a starting point that will allow others to refine and improve on the science and practice of ecosystem restoration, management and protection. The project team is well placed to continue to drive progress and thought leadership in this space. This work will also be presented at multiple large-scale engagement opportunities, such as Stockholm World Water Week and the National Adaptation Forum, allowing for broader input and engagement with leading organizations. It is the hope of the project team that this work will aid NBS investors and practitioners in their efforts to strategically determine which areas are in need of restoration, management or protection; meet immediate challenges; and collectively decide on projects with local community partners who are most impacted. By focusing current investments on priority watersheds in need of restoration, future practitioners will be able to put their efforts towards managing and protecting near-natural landscapes. 28 4. References Bakker, J.P., P. Poschlod, R.J. Strykstra, R.M. Bekker & K. Thompson. 1996. Seed banks and seed dispersal: important topics in restoration ecology. Acta botanica neerlandica, 45(4), 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.1996.tb00806.x Brill, Gregg, Tien Shiao, Cora Kammeyer, Sarah Diringer, Kari Vigerstol, Naabia Ofosu-Amaah, Michael Matosich, Carla Müller-Zantop, Wendy Larson and Tim Dekker. 2021. Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds: Guide United Nations CEO Water Mandate and Pacific Institute. Oakland, California. www.ceowatermandate.org/nbs/guide CEO Water Mandate. 2022. “Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds.” CEO Water Mandate. 2022. https://ceowatermandate.org/nbs/. Cross, Katharine, Katharina Tondera, Anacleto Rizzo, Lisa Andrews, Bernhard Pucher, Darja Istenič, Nathan Karres, and Robert McDonald, eds. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater Treatment: A Series of Factsheets and Case Studies. IWA Publishing. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781789062267. Forest Trends. 2017. “Qualitative Assessment of the Range of Hydrological Impacts by Green Interventions.” International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2012. Habitats Classification Scheme (Version 3.1). Cambridge: IUCN Global Species Programme Red List Unit. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/habitat-classification-scheme 29 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Resolution 69 on Defining Nature-based Solutions (WCC-2016-Res-069). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and Other Decisions. 6-10 September 2016. World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai‘i, USA. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_069_EN.p df Pacific Institute. 2021. “NBS Benefits Explorer.” NBS Benefits Explorer. 2021. https://nbsbenefitsexplorer.net/. Sarabi, Shahryar Ershad, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries and Laura Wendling. 2019. Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review. Resources 8(3), 121; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030121. Shiao, Tien, Cora Kammeyer, Gregg Brill, Laura Feinstein, Michael Matosich, Kari Vigerstol and Carla Müller-Zantop. 2020. Business Case for Nature-Based Solutions: Landscape Assessment. United Nations Global Compact CEO Water Mandate and Pacific Institute. Oakland, California. www.ceowatermandate.org/nbs/landscape University of Oxford. 2019. Nature-Based Solutions Initiative. Oxford: University of Oxford Department of Zoology. https://www.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/ 30 5. Appendices Appendix 1: Linkages between activities & habitat-intervention types. R: Restoration, M: Management, P: Protection, C: Created. (adapted from Brill et al., 2021) Habitats and Interventions (Restoration, Management, Protection, Creation) Rivers and Agricultural Estuaries Forests Grasslands Lakes and ponds Mangroves floodplains Urban Wetlands Activity Categories R M P C R M P R M P C R M P R M P C R M P C R M P R M P C R M P C Store rainwater • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Construct treatment systems • • Recharge aquifers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Reestablish hydrologic connection • • • • • • • • • • Remove hard surfaces • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Remove hard structures/barriers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Restore/improve soil health • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Restore/improve/stabilize substrates • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dredge substrate • • • • • • • • • • • • • Plant/restore/maintain native vegetation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Repopulate native fauna • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Remove invasive species • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Brush control • • • • • • • • • • Fire management • • • • • • • • • • Avoided habitat conversion • • • • • • • • • • • Reduce/avoid resource abstraction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Install barriers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Introduce grazing management systems • • • Implement terraced/contour planting • • • Plant vegetation buffers • • • Mulching and fertilizing • • • • • 31 Appendix 2: Portion of the Forest Restoration method flows spreadsheet, showing linkages across activities, processes, and benefits (Labels: First letter corresponds to Domain, second letter corresponds to Activity, Process, or Benefit) (Brill et al., 2021) Habitat-Intervention: Forest Restoration Domain Linkages between Benefits/Benefit Labels Linkages between benefits andActivities/Activity Labels Processes/Process Labels activities and processes Water, Carbon, Biodiversity, Complementary processes (or other benefits) Land Form / Geomorphology LP1, LP2, HP1, HP2, HP3, HP4, CP1, CP3, Remove hard surfaces LA1 Soil trapping and retention LP1 Improved flood protection LB1 LP2, HP2, HP1, HP3, HP4 BP1, BP4 Restore/improve/ LA2 LP1, LP2, HP1, HP2, HP3, HP4 Erosion control LP2 LB2 stabilize substrates Fire management LA3 CP2, CP4, CP5, BP2, BP3, BP4, BP8 Reduced runoff and associated erosion LB3 LP1, LP2, HP1, HP4, CP3, BP1, BP6 Grazing management LA4 LP2, BP1, BP7 LB4 Hydraulics and LP1, HP1, HP2, HP3, HP4, BP1, LB1, HB2, HB3, Upland Flow Interception HP1 Improved flood protection HB1 Hydrology SB1 Flood water storage HP2 Reduced runoff and associated erosion HB2 HP3, HP4, CP3, BP1 Regulation of local hydrology/water Improved surface water HP3 HB3 LP2, HP1, HP2, HP3, HP4, SB1 flow quantity/storage Increased groundwater recharge and Water infiltration and retention HP4 HB4 HP1, HP3, HP4, CP3, BP6, HB2, SB1 storage Improved flow regime HB5 HP1, HP3, HP4, HB3, HB4, SB1 Soil and Water Restore/improve soil health CA1 HP4, CP1, CP3, CP4, CP5, BP6 Contaminant Absorption/Adsorption CP1 Carbon sequestration CB1 LP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, BP1, BP4, BP6, BB2 Chemistry Improved/protected surface water LP1, LP2, HP1, HP3, HP4, CP1, CP2, CP4, BP1, Detritus production CP2 CB2 quality BP2, BP3, BB5, LB3, HB2, BB2 Improve soil aeration CP3 Nutrient uptake CP4 Carbon uptake CP5 Plan/restore/maintain native LP1, LP2, HP1, HP3, HP4, CP1, CP2, CP3, Biology / Ecology BA1 Growth of Biomass BP1 Support for local pollinators BB1 BP1, BP3, BP5, BB2 vegetation CP4, CP5, BP1, BP2, BP3, BP4, BP5, BP8 LP1, LP2, HP1, HP3, HP4, CP1, CP2, CP3, Increased abundance and diversity of Remove invasive BA2 Detritus production BP2 BB2 BP1, BP5, CB2, BB1, BB5, SB1 CP4, CP5, BP1, BP2, BP3, BP4, BP5, BP8 native species Repopulate native fauna BA3 BP1, BP4, BP5, BP6 Nutrient uptake BP3 Microclimate regulation BB3 BP1, BP4, BP5, BB2, SB1 Brush control BA4 CP2, CP5, BP2, BP4, BP5, BP8 Carbon uptake BP4 Carbon sequestration BB4 CP5, BP1, BP4, BB2 Maintained/increased habitat Avoided habitat conversion BA5 BP1, BP5, BP4, BP2, BP3, BP6 Habitat provision BP5 BB5 BP1, BP5, CB2, BB1, BB2 availability and quality Improve soil microbial communities BP6 Production of GHG (methane) BP7 Contribute to natural fire regime BP8 HP2, HP3, HP4, CP5, BP1, BP4, LB1, HB1, HB3, Social/Cultural Climate change adaptation/mitigation SB1 HB4, HB5, CB1, BB1, BB2, BB4 Improved recreation/tourism SB2 HP3, BP1, BP5, HB1, HB5, CB2, BB1, BB2, SB7 opportunities SB3 Expanded religious/spiritual settings SB4 HP3, BP5, HB3, CB2, BB2, SB2 SB5 Opportunities for education/scientific HP3, CP1, CP2, CP4, BP1, BP2, BP3, BP5, BP7, SB6 study CB1, BB1, BB2, SB1, SB2, SB7 Economic opportunities SB7 HP3, BP1, BP5, SB2, SB4, SB6 SB8 Human health benefits SB9 HP2, LP1, CP1, BP1, BP5, HB1, CB2, BB1, SB2, SB4 32 Appendix 3: Forecasting scenarios for Forest and Wetland habitats across all applicable interventions. Restoration Management Protection Creation Type: Temperate forest (North America) Type: Tropical rainforest (Southeast Asia) Type: Boreal forest (Europe) Size: 100 ha Size: 100 ha Size: 100 ha 1000 mm of rainfall annually. 2500 mm of rainfall annually. 750 mm of rainfall annually. Little to Surface runoff is minimized due to Higher rates of surface runoff Hydrology: no surface runoff outside of areas Hydrology: Hydrology: complex understory growth. Soil is during the rainy season/high which are slightly eroded. enriched with humus from leaf precipitation events litter. Forest Landscape is ecologically Landscape is ecologically Scenarios Forest stand and surrounding productive, with predominantlyproductive, with predominantly landscape is degraded. Some native flora/fauna and healthy native flora and fauna and State of evidence of forestry (single species State of State of soils. Area has recently been healthy/stable soils. Approximately Landscape: stand, felling) is evident. Restoration Landscape: Landscape: established as a national park and 20 ha of the landscape is managed and reforestation would enhance timber harvest has ceased. Forest for sustainable timber harvest (a habitat. is visited by a large number of reduced area from past decades). tourists and recreational groups. Position in Position in Position in Middle watershed Middle watershed Middle watershed Watershed: Watershed: Watershed: Urban wetland (based on local Type: Freshwater marsh (East Asia) Type: Freshwater marsh (North America) Type: Freshwater marsh (South America) Type: wetland ecology) Size: 100 ha Size: 100 ha Size: 100 ha Size: 25 ha Wetland is in an urban center which 900 mm of rainfall annually. Water receives 500 mm rainfall annually, has been diverted for the past 20 Hydrology: Hydrology: 700 mm of rainfall annually. Hydrology: 750 mm of rainfall annually. Hydrology: and is fed with rainwater and years to support irrigation of nearby occasional stormwater during high agricultural fields. rainfall periods Wetlands Wetland was constructed over anLandscape is stable and ecologically Landscape is ecologically area that previously contained a Scenarios productive, due in part toFreshwater marsh is degraded. Water productive, with predominantly wetland. The area was degraded and management activities; storage has decreased from native flora and fauna and State of has been fully restored throughState of State of surrounding pollutant sources have State of agricultural irrigation and water healthy/stable substrate and soils. creation activities (no gray Landscape: Landscape: been minimized. There is a Landscape: quality has suffered from agricultural Area has recently been established Landscape: infrastructure) for the purposes of waterfowl hunting season runoff as a protected park and harvest of mitigating urban runoff, enhancing contained to specific areas of the resources has ceased. habitat, and creating recreation wetland. opportunities. Within a large city green space. The Position in Position in Position in Position in Middle watershed Middle watershed Middle watershed wetland drains into a neighboring Watershed: Watershed: Watershed: Watershed: river system 33 Appendix 4: Portion of forecasting spreadsheet where scores are allocated. This table shows scoring for the benefit of “Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species” for the habitat-intervention of Forest Management. This is one out of 27 benefits that are scored under this habitat-intervention. Habitat-Intervention: Benefit Forest Management Improved abundance/diversity of native plant species (BB2) Property Municipal Watershed Activity Categories 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs 1-4 yrs 5-9 yrs 10+ yrs Store rainwater Construct treatment systems Recharge aquifers Medium Medium - High Medium - High Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low Low Reestablish hydrologic connection Remove hard surfaces Remove hard structures/barriers Restore/improve soil health Medium Medium - High Medium - High Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low Low Restore/improve/stabilize substrates Medium - High High High Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Dredge substrate Plant/restore/maintain native vegetation High High High Medium Medium Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Repopulate native fauna Tradeoff-Low Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low - Medium Low - Medium Remove invasive (or aggressive Low - Medium Medium - High High Low Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low - Medium Low - Medium indigenous) species Brush control Low - Medium Medium Medium - High Low Low Low Low Low Low Fire management Tradeoff-Low Medium - High Medium - High Low Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low - Medium Low - Medium Avoided habitat conversion Reduced/avoided resource abstraction Medium - High Medium - High Medium - High Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Install barriers Medium Medium Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low Low Introduce grazing management systems Medium Medium Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low - Medium Low Low Low Implement terraced/contour planting Plant vegetation buffers Mulching and fertilizing 34 SECTION 2: FACT SHEETS “Alternative Lawns” Fact Sheet: 35 ALTERNATIVE LAWNS Lawns make up 40 million acres of the contiguous US (almost 2% of the landscape) and they are the largest irrigated “crop” in the country.9 Traditional lawns are typically monoculture patches of non-native grass that offer minimal support to pollinator species and local wildlife. The care and maintenance that these lawns require often contribute to drought conditions, polluted runoff and waterbodies, and the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Transitioning to “alternative” lawns, or lawns that function as ecosystems, can have incredible environmental and socio-cultural benefits. These lawns focus on native vegetation and/or drought-resistant plants, and serve to decrease water consumption and the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. EXAMPLES & GOALS 1 & 2: Meadow Lawns focus on native grasses and flowering plants that support pollinators and wildlife Increase Native Plant & Wildlife Diversity Goals of Alternative Lawns Decrease Decrease Pesticides & Water Fertilizers Consumption 3: Low-Mow Lawns utilize low-lying groundcover 4: Xeriscaped Lawns focus on drought-resistant plants that require little maintenance and utilize rocks/substrate, rather than grass 1. https://www.pacifichorticulture.org/articles/meadows/ 2. https://www.gazettenet.com/environment-lawn-alternatives-28355749 3. https://www.southernliving.com/garden/easy-yard-no-mowing 4. https://letzdesign.com/landscaping-company-san-diego/water-wise-landscape-xeriscape/ BENEFITS The following diagram outlines the environmental, economic, and social benefits ofswitching to an alternative lawn, as well as the relationships between those benefits.3, 12, 13, 15 Decrease Mowing Maintenance Increase Plant Increase Overall Increase Habitat Increase Carbon Increase Personal Increase Personal Diversity Biodiversity Connectivity Sequestration Awareness Accountability Decrease Water Decrease Pesticides Decrease Decrease Increase Group- Increase Concern Usage and Herbicides Fertilizer Watershed Impacts Level Accountability for Other Issues NPK Save Money FAST FACTS BARRIERS A comparative study found that Lack of Education lawns with higher native species Lack of awareness and education is often a leading barrier for all diversity led to 30% more leaf nature-based solutions.1 4 If homeowners are not aware of the growth and 50% lower weed benefits of alternative lawns, they are likely to disregard making densities.15 such a drastic shift. Alternative lawn vegetation typically Perceived Cost and Upkeep sequesters more carbon than turf Cost and upkeep of alternative lawns are highly variable, depending grasses, and lawn mowing actually on the size of the lawn and the type of plants utilized. There will releases CO 2 into the air. 1 5 often be a degree of upfront cost and effort in order to make the transition, which may not be feasible for those who have limited Average households devote 30% of water usage to the outdoors; that time and finances. However, post-transition costs and upkeep may number increases to 60% in arid and remain similar to – or less than – that of a traditional lawn. 1 6 semi-arid areas.5 Societal Pressures A 2009 study determined that homeowners are more likely to prefer Americans use about 23 million tons of lawn fertilizer each year,6 which alternative lawns if their neighbors do, showing that momentum for decreases soil nutrients and the "alternative lawn revolution" can be fully determined by shifting 10 microbial diversity.3 societal norms. However, any shift in norms typically takes time to develop. Going against what society deems as acceptable can be Pesticides/herbicides kill pollinator difficult, uncomfortable, and sometimes not feasible. For example, species and the plants they rely on some housing developments have specific lawn standards or even and can infiltrate drinking water provide landscapers, thus eliminating homeowner agency over their supplies.12 lawn. IMPLEMENTATION METHODS NONPROFIT CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS Description: Certification programs can motivate homeowners, schools, and whole communities to pursue alternative lawns. Criteria may include using native plants, providing habitat, reducing pesticides, educating community members, etc. Case Studies: "Backyard Habitat Certification" – Portland Audubon "Wildlife Habitat Certification" – National Wildlife Federation Barriers Addressed in Case Studies: https://www.facebook.com/CityofPeoriaAz/photos/a.172628813837/108239378433838/?type=3 Education & Societal Pressures1, 11 Backyard Habitat Certification Participant GOVERNMENT REBATE PROGRAMS Description: Municipal governments may offer rebate programs to encourage homeowners to use alternative lawn practices. This is common in arid states where water conservation is a priority. Criteria may include low water-use plants, efficient irrigation practices, and improved soil. Case Study: Xeriscaping Rebate program – City of Peoria, AZ Barriers Addressed in Case Study: https://www.amwua.org/what-you-can-do/demonstration-gardens Education, Cost & Societal Pressures4 Peoria Xeriscape Demonstration Garden USE OF PRIVATE SECTOR Description: Homeowners may be inspired to transition their lawn despite the lack of a local certification or rebate programs. These individuals can work with local nurseries to perform their own landscaping or hire companies that specialize in ecological landscape management Case Study: Green Jay Landscaping – Westchester, NY Barriers Addressed in Case Study: https://www.greenjaylandscaping.com/portfolio/contemporary-ecological-masterpiece.php Education & Societal Pressures7 Green Jay Landscaping Services WHICH IS BEST? Each of these implementation examples have advantages and disadvantages. Research has proposed that a government supported, neighborhood-level certification program may be the most efficient means for maximizing ecological impact. By working with neighborhood developments and homeowners associations, continuous areas of lawn would be converted, ensuring higher levels of habitat connectivity and eliminating the piecemeal nature of programs that focus on individuals. Government-supported rebates would incentivize participation 2 Prototype Neighborhood-Scale Certificationand reduce costs. LAWNS AS NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS The International Union for the Conservation of Nature describes nature-based solutions (NBS) as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” 8 In short, an NBS project can harness the benefits that naturally arise from ecological processes to mutually aid both humans and the environment.  Although NBS are often considered at larger scales, alternative lawns aim to restore traditional lawns to a more holistic, and even near- natural state, where native plants, wildlife, and appropriate water usage are prioritized. Alternative lawns are therefore a form of NBS, one that individuals and communities can spearhead and have agency over. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Find plants that are native to your region: https://www.nwf.org/nativeplantfinder/plants More info and tips on Xeriscaping: https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2070/2013/07/Step-by-Step-Xeriscape.pdf More info and tips on Meadow/Pollinator Lawns: https://joegardener.com/podcast/converting-lawn-into-meadow/ Detailed regional guides for Meadow Lawns: https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/habitat-installation-guides?page=0 National Wildlife Federation's "Wildlife Habitat Certification": https://www.nwf.org/CERTIFY https://fieldoutdoorspaces.com/no-mow-lawns-and-meadows/ SOURCES: 1. Backyard Habitat Certification Program. 2020. Certification Criteria - Backyard Habitats. Retrieved November 24, 2020, from https://backyardhabitats.org/certification-criteria/ 2. Carlin, Deborah. 2020. The Future Of Lawns: From Monocultures To Productive Ecosystems. Cornell University, unpublished. 3. Carrico, A. R., Fraser, J., & Bazuin, J. T. 2012. Green With Envy. Environment and Behavior, 45(4), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511434637 4. City of Peoria. 2020. Xeriscape - Conversion Rebate | City of Peoria. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.peoriaaz.gov/government/departments/water-services/water- conservation/rebate-programs/xeriscape-conversion 5. EPA. 2017. US Outdoor Water Use in the United States. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/watersense/pubs/outdoor.html 6. EPA. 2018. Report on the Environment. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm? i=55#:%7E:text=Consumption%20continued%20to%20increase%20in,22.0%20million%20tons%20in%2020. 7. Green Jay Landscaping. 2020. Environmental Landscaping | Bedford NY, Greenwich CT | design, Build. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.greenjaylandscaping.com/ 8. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Resolution 69 on Defining Nature-based Solutions (WCC-2016-Res-069). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and Other Decisions. 6-10 September 2016. World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai‘i, USA. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_069_EN.pdf 9. Milesi, C., Elvidge, C. D., Dietz, J. B., Tuttle, B. T., Nemani, R. R., & Running, S. W. 2012. “A strategy for mapping and modeling the ecological effects of US lawns.” Retrieved from https://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/8-W27/milesi.pdf 10. Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. 2009. “What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92(3–4), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010 11. National Wildlife Federation. (n.d.). Certified Wildlife Habitat. https://www.nwf.org/CertifiedWildlifeHabitat? campaignid=WH22VSY&utm_source=gfwhomepage&utm_medium=webpage&utm_campaign=default&utm_content=default_gfw_homepagesquare_FY22 12. Robbins, P., Polderman, A., & Birkenholtz, T. 2001. “Lawns and Toxins.” Cities, 18(6), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-2751(01)00029-4 13. Rudd, H., Vala, J., & Schaefer, V. 2002. “Importance of Backyard Habitat in a Comprehensive Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: A Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces.” Restoration Ecology, 10(2), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.26-100x.2002.02041.x 14. Sarabi, Shahryar, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries, Rianne Valkenburg, and Elke den Ouden. 2020. “Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions: An Analysis of Barriers Using Interpretive Structural Modeling.” Journal of Environmental Management 270 (September): 110749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110749. 15. Simmons, M., Bertelsen, M., Windhager, S., & Zafian, H. 2011. “The performance of native and non-native turfgrass monocultures and native turfgrass polycultures: An ecological approach to sustainable lawns.” Ecological Engineering 37(8), 1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.03.004 16. Sovocool, K. A., Morgan, M., & Bennett, D. 2006. “An in-depth investigation of Xeriscape as a water conservation measure.” Journal - American Water Works Association, 98(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.51-8833.2006.tb07590.x FACT SHEET PRODUCED BY DEBORAH CARLIN, 2022 “Living Shorelines” Fact Sheet: 40 LIVING SHORELINES Context: GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE Coastal regions, where one-third of the global population resides, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to flooding from sea-level rise and storm surges.6 Gray infrastructure, the conventional means for shoreline stabilization, aims to protect people and property from inundation at the cost of long-term erosion control and healthy intertidal habitat.8 As municipalities LIVING SHORELINE look towards alternatives, a crucial issue arises: how can both coastal communities and coastal ecosystems be protected from impending climate hazards?  Living shorelines, a type of nature-based solution, are viable options for solving this problem. The images on the right depict how living shorelines restore the land-sea connection, offering higher rates of long-term resiliency. https://www.delawarelivingshorelines.org/what-is-a-living-shoreline What Are Living Shorelines? “Living shoreline” is a broad term that describes various shoreline restoration and stabilization techniques in areas of low- medium wave energy, such as the shores of estuaries, bays, and tributaries. They incorporate forms of soft stabilization (vegetation or biodegradable materials) and hybrid stabilization (organic/engineered structures, such as oyster shells, rocks, and reef balls). In either technique, living shorelines should always aim to replicate natural shoreline processes.7 Benefits: Protects inland areas from storm surges Reduced Wave Action Aids in preventing erosion Reduced Erosion Physically stabilizes the shoreline to ensure longevity and resilience Increased Habitat and Ensures a self-sustaining shoreline Native Biodiversity Provides aesthetic quality and educational opportunities Increased Sediment Accretion Shoreline can combat sea-level rise 7 Design Types: Soft Stabilization Native Plants & Coir Fiber Logs: The deep root systems of native marsh plants prevent erosion by holding soil/sand in place, while the aboveground biomass decreases wave energy and promotes deposition of sediments from the water. Coir fiber logs are biodegradable structures that temporarily stabilize slopes and minimize erosion. They last about 3-5 years, allowing grasses to grow through the fibers and into the sand for stable https://vaswcd.org/living-shorelines establishment.3,14 Native Plants and Coir Fiber Logs Hybrid Stabilization Sills and Toe Revetments: Sills and toe revetments run parallel to the shoreline edge and can be made with rocks or bagged oyster shells. Sills are used on shorelines that are in need of restoration and are designed to increase the width/elevation of the marsh, while toe revetments are typically installed along functioning/natural marshes that may need erosion control. Both techniques should have gaps throughout the structure to encourage connectivity between the land and the sea.3 https://vaswcd.org/living-shorelines Rock Sill and Native Plants Breakwaters: Reef Balls: Breakwaters are constructed from rock, rubble, Reef balls are engineered structures made from pH- concrete, or bagged oyster shells. They are typically balanced concrete and fiberglass. They are hollow, placed in deeper water that is further from the shore, porous, textured, and have large holes throughout to and can withstand higher levels of wave energy than support various marine life, such as mollusks, fish, and sills/toe revetments. In addition to reducing wave crabs. They are placed parallel to the shore in multiple energy, they allow sediment to accumulate on their rows to decrease wave energy and promote sediment landward side, making it easier for vegetation to accumulation.14 establish.14 https://info.tensarcorp.com/building-living-shorelines-with-oysters https://cleancoast.texas.gov/documents/guide-to-living-shorelines-texas.pdf Oyster Reef Breakwaters Reef Balls Barriers to Implementation: Decision makers/property owners are not typically educated on living shorelines, and 1: Lack of Urgency and therefore have no conscious need to deviate from business as usual. 1 0 Additionally, research shows a lack of adequate case study reporting, leaving knowledge gaps on Awareness measured successes, practical solutions to barriers, or examples of socially equitable implementation.1 2: Avoidance of Risk and Decision makers/property owners often perceive living shorelines as risky, and are Change more comfortable with traditional gray infrastructure options.10 Creating living shorelines can require communication and cooperation throughout 3: Siloed Thinking multiple permitting offices at the federal, state, and local levels. This can lead tocomplicated and lengthy permitting processes and increases the chance of miscommunication between agencies.4 Shoreline stabilization (whether hardened or not) is typically implemented in a 4: Short-Term vs. Long-Term piecemeal manner, which can exacerbate flooding and erosion issues for surrounding Planning properties. True shoreline resiliency requires a long-term management plan that10 considers the shoreline as a continuous system. The Army Corps of Engineers did not develop a living shoreline general permit until 5: Lack of Policies and 2017. Prior to that, property owners had to submit individual federal permits, which required lengthy and expensive site survey analyses. Although the general permit is Regulations now in existence, many states do not accept it, which continues to make the permitting 4 process complicated. Living shoreline design parameters vary between regions/states due to differing 6: Lack of Design Standards landscapes. Lack of site-specific design guidelines impacts a state’s ability to efficientlypermit living shorelines, as well as impacts an engineer/contractor’s ability to design and build the project.4 7: Lack of Trained A plethora of widespread, trained professionals are necessary to implement living shorelines. Those not trained typically default to building gray infrastructure, or they Professionals  will charge higher prices for living shoreline services.10 The responsibility for funding shoreline stabilization can often be put onto property 8: Lack of Funds and owners, who have specific financial priorities. The misconception that hard Incentives infrastructure is more cost-effective than living shorelines often pushes property owners to stick with traditional means of hardening.1 4 The most successful living shorelines have available space for plants to migrate 9: Space Constraints12,13 landward in response to sea-level rise. Those implementing the living shoreline should expect this landward retreat to occur, as well as natural succession of the ecosystem.10 Evidence shows that when socially vulnerable groups live in coastal areas, they are 10: Lack of Indigenous and often disproportionately impacted by coastal flooding. There is a gap in available Local Engagement 9 research regarding how to equitably implement living shorelines and how to engage local stakeholders around their creation.2 Methods to Address Barriers: 1 General and Targeted Programs: Databases: Site Analysis:Outdoor education and Directory of regional living Mapping tools to educateintegration into public school shoreline professionals for government officials andEducation curriculum hire/consultation NGOs about the physicalWorkshops and professional Central repository of living site suitability of an area 15training programs shoreline/coastal resilienceDemonstration/pilot living research 10,11shorelines 4,10 Permitting: Financial Incentives: Management and Planning: Make the permitting process Grants Manage shorelines at the regional easier/faster Low-interest loans scale to maximize ecological Require permit applicants to justify Tax exemptions health, shoreline protection, and why they are requesting gray Permit fee waivers4,10 buyout/retreat options Regulation infrastructure Prioritize creating state-level Improve similarities between guidelines for implementing and federal and state permits 4 designing living shorelines10 2 Solutions In Practice: Restore America's Estuaries created the "Living Shoreline Academy" database: https://livingshorelinesacademy.org/index.php Virginia Institute of Marine Science has begun using GIS to model and asses shoreline conditions: https://www.vims.edu/ccrm/advisory/ccrmp/bmp/smm/index.php North Carolina amended their permitting processes so that living shorelines are as easy to approve as bulkheads: https://www.nccoast.org/project/advocating-living-shorelines/ Sources: 1. Carlin, Deborah. 2022. Pathways To Understanding Living Shoreline Implementation. Cornell University (unpublished). 2. Collins, Timothy W., Sara E. Grineski, and Jayajit Chakraborty. 2018. “Environmental Injustice and Flood Risk: A Conceptual Model and Case Comparison of Metropolitan Miami and Houston, USA.” Regional Environmental Change 18 (2): 311–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1121-9. 3. Hardaway, C. Scott, Donna Milligan, Christine Wilcox, and Karen Duhring. 2017. “Living Shoreline Design Guidelines for Shore Protection in Virginia’s Estuarine Environments.” Reports, September. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5CF1N. 4. Hilke, C, J Ritter, J Ryan-Henry, E Powell, A Fuller, B Stein, and B Watson. 2020. “Softening Our Shorelines: Policy and Practice for Living Shorelines Along The Gulf And Atlantic Coasts.” Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2020/Softening-Our-Shorelines.ashx. 5. Leonard, Kelsey. 2021. “WAMPUM Adaptation Framework: Eastern Coastal Tribal Nations and Sea Level Rise Impacts on Water Security.” Climate and Development 13 (9): 842–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1862739. 6. Mehvar, Seyedabdolhossein, Tatiana Filatova, Ali Dastgheib, Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck, and Roshanka Ranasinghe. 2018. “Quantifying Economic Value of Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Review.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 6 (5). https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/jmse6010005. 7. Mitchell, Molly, and Donna Marie Bilkovic. 2019. “Embracing Dynamic Design for Climate‐resilient Living Shorelines.” Edited by Rute Pinto. Journal of Applied Ecology 56 (5): 1099–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13371. 8. O’Donnell, Jennifer E. D. 2017. “Living Shorelines: A Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts.” Journal of Coastal Research 33 (2): 435–51. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00184.1. 9. Reed, Graeme, Nicolas D. Brunet, Deborah McGregor, Curtis Scurr, Tonio Sadik, Jamie Lavigne, and Sheri Longboat. 2022. “Toward Indigenous Visions of Nature-Based Solutions: An Exploration into Canadian Federal Climate Policy.” Climate Policy 22 (4): 514–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2047585. 10. Restore America’s Estuaries. 2015. “Living Shorelines: From Barriers to Opportunities.Pdf.” Arlington, VA.https://estuaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Living-Shorelines-From-Barriers-to- Opportunities.pdf. 11. Restore America’s Estuaries and the North Carolina Coastal Federation. n.d. “Living Shorelines Academy.” Accessed May 12, 2022. https://livingshorelinesacademy.org/index.php. 12. Sarabi, Shahryar, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries, and Laura Wendling. 2019. “Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review.” Resources 8 (3): 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030121. 13. Sarabi, Shahryar, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries, Rianne Valkenburg, and Elke den Ouden. 2020. “Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions: An Analysis of Barriers Using Interpretive Structural Modeling.” Journal of Environmental Management 270 (September): 110749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110749. 14. Texas General Land Office (GLO). 2020. “A Guide To Living Shorelines In Texas.” Texas. https://cleancoast.texas.gov/documents/guide-to-living-shorelines-texas.pdf. 15. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2022. “Shoreline Management Model.” 2022. https://www.vims.edu/ccrm/advisory/ccrmp/bmp/smm/index.php FACT SHEET PRODUCED BY DEBORAH CARLIN, 2022 “Green Infrastructure For Urban Stormwater Management” Fact Sheet: 45 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Urban municipalities face the unprecedented challenge of needing to accommodate growing populations while simultaneously preparing the built environment for the hazards of climate change. One of those hazards – storms – are projected to increase in both frequency and intensity, and will inevitably increase urban flood events. These floods threaten human safety, ecosystem processes, and economic stability. Current urban stormwater management practices revolve around funneling stormwater away from impervious surfaces towards wastewater treatment facilities; these facilities are often out-of-date and not capable of handling high volumes of runoff. A solution to this pressing issue is to integrate green infrastructure as a key component of urban stormwater management. With green infrastructure, stormwater can be both reduced and treated, while providing other much- needed ecosystem services to urban areas. STORMWATER AND URBAN FLOODING Stormwater is precipitation that hits the ground and becomes runoff. Urban areas have high percentages of impervious surfaces (i.e. paved roads, parking lots) that enable stormwater to travel quickly and pick up pollutants along the way.3 Flooding occurs when the amount of stormwater overwhelms drainage systems (gray infrastructure). It is estimated that by 2050, annual flood losses will reach $40.6 billion.1 1 https://www.postandcourier.com/news/more-rain-falling-in-charleston-flash-flood-watches-in-place/article_e9b554b6-28da-11e7-9a58-7facc979c034.html FATE OF STORMWATER UNDER GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES ON HYDROLOGY: In urban areas, only about 15% of precipitation is infiltrated into soil. Impervious surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete, are not porous, and therefore not capable of absorbing precipitation. Reduced tree cover increases the amount of water that makes it to the ground. Over half of precipitation becomes surface runoff, traveling directly to water bodies or the sewer system. This leads to increased velocity of stormwater runoff, reduction of groundwater aquifers, and increased street flooding.1 https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R43131.pdf IT IS ESTIMATED THAT ONE ACRE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CREATES 16X MORE STORMWATER VOLUME THAN ONE ACRE OF MEADOW.4 COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM: Many older urban areas have combined sewer systems, where domestic/commercial wastewater, stormwater, and other forms of runoff go into the same pipe systems. In times of high precipitation events, wastewater facilities do not have the capacity to treat such high volumes of water and must dump untreated wastewater into nearby water bodies. For example, estimates show that 27 billion gallons of raw sewage and stormwater are released annually into the New York Harbor.2 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: In sanitary, or separated, sewer systems, wastewater and stormwater are sent to different pipes underground - wastewater is brought to treatment plants, while stormwater is sent to larger water bodies. Although this prevents the dumping of sewage, polluted stormwater runoff is then sent directly back into fragile water bodies without being filtered.7 https://sewerequipment.com/sanitary-vs-combined-sewer-systems/ SOLUTION: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITS OF VEGETATED SURFACES FOR HYDROLOGY: In a typical vegetated area, about 50% of precipitation will infiltrate into soils. After infiltration, the stormwater can: Travel through soil pores at slow rates towards a body of water. Percolate deeper into the soil and become groundwater. During infiltration, chemical pollutants are removed from stormwater through microbial processes.3 Vegetation can prevent precipitation from becoming stormwater runoff by intercepting precipitation before it hits the ground. An average forest can intercept 10-40% of precipitation.7 https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R43131.pdf WHY GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE? Vegetated landscapes clearly allow for better management of stormwater through the processes of infiltration, interception, and evapotranspiration. Green infrastructure (also called Low-Impact Development) harnesses these ecosystems services. Using vegetation, soil, topography, and bioengineering, green infrastructure can: Retain stormwater on-site, thus reducing runoff, minimizing peak runoff discharges, and decreasing urban flood events. Filter pollutants out of stormwater, protecting nearby ecosystems. Prevent combined-sewage overflow events. Attempt to restore pre-development hydrology.1 IT IS ESTIMATED THAT IN COMPARISON TO GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE, GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IS 5-30% LESS EXPENSIVE TO CONSTRUCT AND 25% LESS EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN.1 Green infrastructure designs vary in materials, scale, function, and cost. Considerable attention should be given to choosing the form of green infrastructure that best fits your city's stormwater goals. https://www.cleanwaternashville.org/nashville-green-infrastructure TYPES OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE POROUS AND Goals: increase infiltration/groundwater recharge and10 PERMEABLE remove pollutants.Porous asphalt/concrete is poured in place and has SURFACES more void spaces that allow water to flow through. Alternatives to Permeable pavers allow water to flow between traditional discrete, pre-cast units that are typically made of impervious concrete, brick, or stone. 6 surfaces https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7422/htm Goals: reduce runoff volumes, remove pollutants, improve building performance.10 Global studies have shown that green roofs can retain GREEN 55% to 88% of runoff. ROOFS Vegetation is usually planted in a growing medium which sits on top of a waterproofing layer. Roofs that are Vegetation and growing medium depth is dependent fully/partially on roof load-bearing capacities and overall planting covered by goals.8 vegetation. https://zinco-greenroof.com/systems/urban-climate-roof Goals: minimize peak flow, remove pollutants, and improve biodiversity.10 Rain gardens are shallow, vegetated depressions that RAIN GARDENS are often built downhill from sidewalks or roof AND downspouts. They collect and hold water in place, also BIOSWALES aiding in infiltration and groundwater recharge.Bioswales are typically linear, vegetated depressions Small-scale, built adjacent to roadsides and parking lots that landscaped convey stormwater into sewer systems. They are retention areas deeper than rain gardens and capable of handling higher volumes.1 https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/newsroom/2018/04/10/a-rain-garden-is-an-attractive-way-to-improve- water-quality Goals: reduce runoff, minimize peak flow, improve water quality, increase infiltration/groundwater recharge, improve biodiversity.9 CONSTRUCTED Free water surface wetlands contain vegetated basins WETLANDS through which water flows slowly at shallow depths. These are typically used for treatment of stormwater Large-scale, runoff, while subsurface flow wetlands would be used vegetated specifically to treat wastewater.5 retention areas Reeds (Phragmites), cattails (Typha), and bulrushes that aim to mimic (Scirpus) are often planted, but incorporation of native natural wetlands wetland species is highly encouraged. 9 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Performance-Analysis-of-Constructed-Wetland-to-Bhanuse Bhosale/3f5b8e313178a006fca128ff2e415013a021a9ad#extracted Goals: increase infiltration, groundwater recharge, interception, and evapotranspiration; improve air quality and biodiversity; decrease urban heat island.10 PARKS Urban forestry efforts can include creating new parks,improving quality of existing parks, and planting AND street trees with adequate drainage pits. STREET TREES Tree canopies are most effective at interception for Increased tree short periods of rainfall. canopy Tree roots help maintain healthy soils that are capable of retaining higher volumes of stormwater.4 https://www.hortweek.com/time-reconsider-green-infrastructure-says-academic/arboriculture/article/1413372 OTHER BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Green infrastructure is often used for more than just stormwater management. In the big picture, green infrastructure is a nature-based solution that has a multitude of benefits across the economy, environment, and community. As such, incorporating green infrastructure into urban areas is not just important for effective stormwater management, but it is important for improving overall sustainability and resiliency. Examples of these many benefits can be seen below:1 ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY Minimizes infrastructure costs Improves water quality and Reduces street flooding Minimizes potential property regulates hydrology Increases aesthetic quality damages from flooding Decreases local temperatures/ Creates recreation opportunities Increases green jobs stabilizes urban heat island effect Improves air quality Promotes investment in Increases biodiversity Reduces noise pollution underserved communities Provides habitat space Increases educational Improves building performance Sequesters atmospheric CO2 opportunities LEARN MORE Building green infrastructure can often lead to unintended gentrification, which displaces vulnerable minority populations. Learn how to implement just and equitable green infrastructure: Greening in Place: https://www.greeninginplace.com/toolkit Enhancing Sustainable Communities: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/green- infrastructure.pdf The EPA's Green Infrastructure Database has many resources for design and construction, as well as info on how to overcome barriers and find funding: https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure See sources below for more information https://emoryhercules.com/events/2020-southeastern-regional-environmental-justice-conference SOURCES 1.Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2010. “The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits.” https://cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_Value-of-Green-Infrastructure.pdf. 2.“Combined Sewage Overflows (CSOs).” n.d. Riverkeeper. Accessed March 27, 2022. https://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/sewage-contamination/cso/. 3.Copeland, Claudia. 2014. “Green Infrastructure and Issues in Managing Urban Stormwater.” Congressional Research Service. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R43131.pdf. 4.Kuehler, Eric, Jon Hathaway, and Andrew Tirpak. 2017. “Quantifying the Benefits of Urban Forest Systems as a Component of the Green Infrastructure Stormwater Treatment Network.” Ecohydrology 10 (3): e1813. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1813. 5.Liao, Kuei-Hsien, Shinuo Deng, and Puay Yok Tan. 2017. “Blue-Green Infrastructure: New Frontier for Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management.” In Greening Cities: Forms and Functions, edited by Puay Yok Tan and Chi Yung Jim, 203–26. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4113-6_10. 6.Clean Water Services. 2021. “Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook.” https://www.cleanwaterservices.org/media/1468/lida-handbook.pdf. 7.NYC Dept of Environmental Protect. 2016. “Stormwater Management - Protecting Our Waters.” https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/water/stormwater/stormwater-management-protecting-our-waterways-ms4.pdf. 8.Shafique, Muhammad, Reeho Kim, and Muhammad Rafiq. 2018. “Green Roof Benefits, Opportunities and Challenges – A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (July): 757–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.006. 9.Stefanakis, Alexandros I. 2019. “The Role of Constructed Wetlands as Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban Water Management.” Sustainability 11 (24): 6981. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246981. 10.US EPA. 2015. “Performance of Green Infrastructure.” Overviews and Factsheets. October 5, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/performance-green-infrastructure. 11.Wing, Oliver E. J., William Lehman, Paul D. Bates, Christopher C. Sampson, Niall Quinn, Andrew M. Smith, Jeffrey C. Neal, Jeremy R. Porter, and Carolyn Kousky. 2022. “Inequitable Patterns of US Flood Risk in the Anthropocene.” Nature Climate Change 12 (2): 156–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01265-6. This fact sheet was produced by Deborah Carlin, 2022 CONCLUSION Through this capstone project, it is clear that nature-based solutions have a role to play within all social sectors. As shown in Section 1, the private sector is uniquely positioned to help scale NBS – corporations have higher resource capacities than the public sector and can only gain from cost-effective practices that improve water security and quality. Meanwhile, the fact sheets in Section 2 demonstrate that the public sector, NGO’s, and property owners all have the potential to influence NBS implementation. Governments must lead by example by investing in green infrastructure throughout cities and communities, offering financial incentives to property owners and businesses that embark on NBS projects, and adjusting regulations to prioritize NBS over gray infrastructure. NGOs can increase NBS education opportunities and create incentivizing programs (such as Portland Audubon’s “Backyard Habitat Certification”), while property owners can take the initiative to utilize NBS on their own land, which will aid in normalizing such practices. Just as these sectors must collaborate and work together, we must also collectively work with, and not against, nature to solve the anthropogenic challenges of our time. As people reconnect with nature, experience the benefits that nature provides, and become educated about those benefits, we will ideally have a growing, vested interest in reducing environmental impacts. By prioritizing nature-based solutions, we can encourage societal paradigm shifts in how humans interact with and consider the environment, ideally bringing us closer to a more resilient and biodiverse future. 50 REFERENCES ABSTRACT & PREFACE Brill, Gregg, Tien Shiao, Cora Kammeyer, Sarah Diringer, Kari Vigerstol, Naabia Ofosu-Amaah, Michael Matosich, Carla Müller-Zantop, Wendy Larson and Tim Dekker. 2021. Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds: Guide United Nations CEO Water Mandate and Pacific Institute. Oakland, California. www.ceowatermandate.org/nbs/guide CEO Water Mandate. 2022. “Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds.” CEO Water Mandate. 2022. https://ceowatermandate.org/nbs/. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Resolution 69 on Defining Nature-based Solutions (WCC-2016-Res-069). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and Other Decisions. 6-10 September 2016. World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai‘i, USA. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_069_EN.pdf Pauleit, Stephan, Teresa Zölch, Rieke Hansen, Thomas B. Randrup, and Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch. 2017. “Nature-Based Solutions and Climate Change – Four Shades of Green.” In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice, edited by Nadja Kabisch, Horst Korn, Jutta Stadler, and Aletta Bonn, 29–49. Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_3 51 SECTION 1 : PACIFIC INSTITUTE OUTPUTS Bakker, J.P., P. Poschlod, R.J. Strykstra, R.M. Bekker & K. Thompson. 1996. Seed banks and seed dispersal: important topics in restoration ecology. Acta botanica neerlandica, 45(4), 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.1996.tb00806.x Brill, Gregg, Tien Shiao, Cora Kammeyer, Sarah Diringer, Kari Vigerstol, Naabia Ofosu-Amaah, Michael Matosich, Carla Müller-Zantop, Wendy Larson and Tim Dekker. 2021. Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds: Guide United Nations CEO Water Mandate and Pacific Institute. Oakland, California. www.ceowatermandate.org/nbs/guide CEO Water Mandate. 2022. “Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds.” CEO Water Mandate. 2022. https://ceowatermandate.org/nbs/. Cross, Katharine, Katharina Tondera, Anacleto Rizzo, Lisa Andrews, Bernhard Pucher, Darja Istenič, Nathan Karres, and Robert McDonald, eds. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater Treatment: A Series of Factsheets and Case Studies. IWA Publishing. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781789062267. Forest Trends. 2017. “Qualitative Assessment of the Range of Hydrological Impacts by Green Interventions.” International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2012. Habitats Classification Scheme (Version 3.1). Cambridge: IUCN Global Species Programme Red List Unit. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/habitat-classification-scheme 52 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Resolution 69 on Defining Nature-based Solutions (WCC-2016-Res-069). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and Other Decisions. 6-10 September 2016. World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai‘i, USA. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_069_EN.pdf Pacific Institute. 2021. “NBS Benefits Explorer.” NBS Benefits Explorer. 2021. https://nbsbenefitsexplorer.net/. Sarabi, Shahryar Ershad, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries and Laura Wendling. 2019. Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review. Resources 8(3), 121; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030121. Shiao, Tien, Cora Kammeyer, Gregg Brill, Laura Feinstein, Michael Matosich, Kari Vigerstol and Carla Müller-Zantop. 2020. Business Case for Nature-Based Solutions: Landscape Assessment. United Nations Global Compact CEO Water Mandate and Pacific Institute. Oakland, California. www.ceowatermandate.org/nbs/landscape University of Oxford. 2019. Nature-Based Solutions Initiative. Oxford: University of Oxford Department of Zoology. https://www.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/ SECTION 2: FACT SHEETS Alternative Lawns: Backyard Habitat Certification Program. 2020. Certification Criteria - Backyard Habitats. Retrieved November 24, 2020, from https://backyardhabitats.org/certification-criteria/ 53 Carlin, Deborah. 2020. The Future Of Lawns: From Monocultures To Productive Ecosystems. Cornell University, unpublished. Carrico, A. R., Fraser, J., & Bazuin, J. T. 2012. Green With Envy. Environment and Behavior, 45(4), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511434637 City of Peoria. 2020. Xeriscape - Conversion Rebate | City of Peoria. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.peoriaaz.gov/government/departments/water-services/water-conservation/reb ate-programs/xeriscape-conversion EPA. 2017. US Outdoor Water Use in the United States. Retrieved November 22, 2020, from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/watersense/pubs/outdoor.html EPA. 2018. Report on the Environment. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=55#:%7E:text=Consumption%20continued%20 to%20increase%20in,22.0%20million%20tons%20in%2020. Green Jay Landscaping. 2020. Environmental Landscaping | Bedford NY, Greenwich CT | design, Build. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.greenjaylandscaping.com/ International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Resolution 69 on Defining Nature-based Solutions (WCC-2016-Res-069). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and Other Decisions. 6-10 September 2016. World Conservation Congress Honolulu, Hawai‘i, USA. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2016_RES_069_EN.pdf Milesi, C., Elvidge, C. D., Dietz, J. B., Tuttle, B. T., Nemani, R. R., & Running, S. W. 2012. “A strategy for mapping and modeling the ecological effects of US lawns.” Retrieved from https://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/8-W27/milesi.pdf 54 Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. 2009. “What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92(3–4), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010 National Wildlife Federation. (n.d.). Certified Wildlife Habitat. https://www.nwf.org/CertifiedWildlifeHabitat?campaignid=WH22VSY&utm_source=gf whomepage&utm_medium=webpage&utm_campaign=default&utm_content=default_gf w_homepagesquare_FY22 Robbins, P., Polderman, A., & Birkenholtz, T. 2001. “Lawns and Toxins.” Cities, 18(6), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-2751(01)00029-4 Rudd, H., Vala, J., & Schaefer, V. 2002. “Importance of Backyard Habitat in a Comprehensive Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: A Connectivity Analysis of Urban Green Spaces.” Restoration Ecology, 10(2), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.26-100x.2002.02041.x Sarabi, Shahryar, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries, Rianne Valkenburg, and Elke den Ouden. 2020. “Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions: An Analysis of Barriers Using Interpretive Structural Modeling.” Journal of Environmental Management 270 (September): 110749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110749. Simmons, M., Bertelsen, M., Windhager, S., & Zafian, H. 2011. “The performance of native and non-native turfgrass monocultures and native turfgrass polycultures: An ecological approach to sustainable lawns.” Ecological Engineering 37(8), 1095–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.03.004 Sovocool, K. A., Morgan, M., & Bennett, D. 2006. “An in-depth investigation of Xeriscape as a water conservation measure.” Journal - American Water Works Association, 98(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.51-8833.2006.tb07590.x 55 Living Shorelines: Carlin, Deborah. 2022. Pathways To Understanding Living Shoreline Implementation. Cornell University (unpublished). Collins, Timothy W., Sara E. Grineski, and Jayajit Chakraborty. 2018. “Environmental Injustice and Flood Risk: A Conceptual Model and Case Comparison of Metropolitan Miami and Houston, USA.” Regional Environmental Change 18 (2): 311–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1121-9. Hardaway, C. Scott, Donna Milligan, Christine Wilcox, and Karen Duhring. 2017. “Living Shoreline Design Guidelines for Shore Protection in Virginia’s Estuarine Environments.” Reports, September. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5CF1N. Hilke, C, J Ritter, J Ryan-Henry, E Powell, A Fuller, B Stein, and B Watson. 2020. “Softening Our Shorelines: Policy and Practice for Living Shorelines Along The Gulf And Atlantic Coasts.” Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2020/Softening-Our-Shorel ines.ashx. Leonard, Kelsey. 2021. “WAMPUM Adaptation Framework: Eastern Coastal Tribal Nations and Sea Level Rise Impacts on Water Security.” Climate and Development 13 (9): 842–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1862739. Mehvar, Seyedabdolhossein, Tatiana Filatova, Ali Dastgheib, Erik de Ruyter van Steveninck, and Roshanka Ranasinghe. 2018. “Quantifying Economic Value of Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Review.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 6 (5). https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/jmse6010005. 56 Mitchell, Molly, and Donna Marie Bilkovic. 2019. “Embracing Dynamic Design for Climate‐resilient Living Shorelines.” Edited by Rute Pinto. Journal of Applied Ecology 56 (5): 1099–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13371. O’Donnell, Jennifer E. D. 2017. “Living Shorelines: A Review of Literature Relevant to New England Coasts.” Journal of Coastal Research 33 (2): 435–51. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00184.1. Reed, Graeme, Nicolas D. Brunet, Deborah McGregor, Curtis Scurr, Tonio Sadik, Jamie Lavigne, and Sheri Longboat. 2022. “Toward Indigenous Visions of Nature-Based Solutions: An Exploration into Canadian Federal Climate Policy.” Climate Policy 22 (4): 514–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2047585. Restore America’s Estuaries. 2015. “Living Shorelines: From Barriers to Opportunities.Pdf.” Arlington,VA.https://estuaries.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Living-Shorelines-From- Barriers-to-Opportunities.pdf. Restore America’s Estuaries and the North Carolina Coastal Federation. n.d. “Living Shorelines Academy.” Accessed May 12, 2022. https://livingshorelinesacademy.org/index.php. Sarabi, Shahryar, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries, and Laura Wendling. 2019. “Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review.” Resources 8 (3): 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030121. Sarabi, Shahryar, Qi Han, A. Georges L. Romme, Bauke de Vries, Rianne Valkenburg, and Elke den Ouden. 2020. “Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions: An Analysis of Barriers Using Interpretive Structural Modeling.” Journal of Environmental Management 270 (September): 110749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110749. 57 Texas General Land Office (GLO). 2020. “A Guide To Living Shorelines In Texas.” Texas. https://cleancoast.texas.gov/documents/guide-to-living-shorelines-texas.pdf. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2022. “Shoreline Management Model.” 2022. https://www.vims.edu/ccrm/advisory/ccrmp/bmp/smm/index.php Green Infrastructure For Urban Stormwater Management: Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2010. “The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits.” https://cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_Value-of-Green-Infrastructure.pdf. “Combined Sewage Overflows (CSOs).” n.d. Riverkeeper. Accessed March 27, 2022. https://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/sewage-contamination/cso/. Copeland, Claudia. 2014. “Green Infrastructure and Issues in Managing Urban Stormwater.” Congressional Research Service. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R43131.pdf. Kuehler, Eric, Jon Hathaway, and Andrew Tirpak. 2017. “Quantifying the Benefits of Urban Forest Systems as a Component of the Green Infrastructure Stormwater Treatment Network.” Ecohydrology 10 (3): e1813. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1813. Liao, Kuei-Hsien, Shinuo Deng, and Puay Yok Tan. 2017. “Blue-Green Infrastructure: New Frontier for Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management.” In Greening Cities: Forms and Functions, edited by Puay Yok Tan and Chi Yung Jim, 203–26. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4113-6_10. Clean Water Services. 2021. “Low Impact Development Approaches Handbook.” https://www.cleanwaterservices.org/media/1468/lida-handbook.pdf. 58 NYC Dept of Environmental Protect. 2016. “Stormwater Management - Protecting Our Waters.”https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/water/stormwater/stormwater-m anagement-protecting-our-waterways-ms4.pdf. Shafique, Muhammad, Reeho Kim, and Muhammad Rafiq. 2018. “Green Roof Benefits, Opportunities and Challenges – A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90 (July): 757–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.006. Stefanakis, Alexandros I. 2019. “The Role of Constructed Wetlands as Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban Water Management.” Sustainability 11 (24): 6981. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246981. US EPA. 2015. “Performance of Green Infrastructure.” Overviews and Factsheets. October 5, 2015.https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/performance-green-infrastructure. Wing, Oliver E. J., William Lehman, Paul D. Bates, Christopher C. Sampson, Niall Quinn, Andrew M. Smith, Jeffrey C. Neal, Jeremy R. Porter, and Carolyn Kousky. 2022.“Inequitable Patterns of US Flood Risk in the Anthropocene.” Nature Climate Change 12 (2): 156–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01265-6. 59