Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Perceptions on Tourism: An Econometric Analysis of the Impacts and Opportunities for Economic and Financial Development in Albania and Kosovo
Next Article in Special Issue
Morphological Suitability Analysis of Urban Greenspaces with Rivers: A Case Study of the Lixiahe Riverine Area
Previous Article in Journal
Evolution and Driving Mechanism of Tourism Flow Networks in the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration Based on Social Network Analysis and Geographic Information System: A Double-Network Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Fit of Urban Waterfront Interventions: Matters of Size, Money and Function
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/su14137657
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agroforestry Contributions to Urban River Rehabilitation

by
Tzitzi Sharhí Delgado-Lemus
* and
Ana Isabel Moreno-Calles
*
Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores, ENES-Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico (UNAM), Morelia 58190, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 7657; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14137657
Submission received: 5 May 2022 / Revised: 6 June 2022 / Accepted: 19 June 2022 / Published: 23 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human–River Interactions in Cities)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The context of urban rivers is one of pollution of their courses, the degradation of riparian habitats, the loss of biodiversity, and the marginalization of the human populations that live next to them. Due to urban growth, the hydrological dynamics in entire basins and the hydromorphology of rivers are changing. This situation increases flooding, decreases the availability of water for human use, and disconnects the rivers from the dynamics of the city. Agroforestry is the integration of cultural, wild, and domesticated diversity with use, conservation, and restoration objectives. These practices in cities can contribute to addressing the problems mentioned. We analyze agroforestry practices and the socio-ecological contributions to urban river rehabilitation. We review 37 experiences worldwide. Agroforestry practices included in the review are trees and hedgerows; wetland agroforestry; aquatic, botanical, edible, educational, and rain gardens; bioswales; green parking lots; food forestry; vegetation in alleys and streets; vertical terrace walls, among others. Agroforestry contributes to efforts to solve urban river problems, improve water quality and access, restore riparian habitats, enhance river hydromorphology, support local economies, and create a river culture. We emphasize promoting multi-relational people–river interactions based on theoretical and practical frameworks that integrate diverse disciplines, perspectives, and experiences.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Most rivers in the world suffer from pollution, fragmentation, and overexploitation. Only one-third of the rivers in temperate and tropical zones are still free-flowing [1]. The growth of cities has led to changes in land use, resulting in the proliferation of impervious covers (cement, pavement, etc.) that alter the hydrology and geomorphology of rivers [2,3]. Urban streams are recipients of sewage and solid waste, which are a cause of health problems. All of these impacts have led some authors to propose the term “urban stream syndrome” [4], which describes the ecological degradation that is consistently observed in streams draining urban land.
Among the concepts most frequently used in the literature on interventions to recover the ecological functions of rivers are: rescue, remediation, rehabilitation, and restoration [5]. Restoration is the most radical form of interaction since the objective is to return the ecosystem as much as possible to its original situation before humans acted on it [6,7]. However, it becomes complicated to think of restoring a river to its original ecological state [5]. In these cases, it is more appropriate to use the term “rehabilitation” since it focuses on recovering important socio-ecological functions and allowing the river to be incorporated nicely into the city’s landscape [8]. The river becomes a green corridor built and developed from the city’s rivers [9] and water bodies to transform densely populated areas into attractive spaces [5,10,11]. Most studies on the recovery, restoration, and rehabilitation of urban rivers have focused mainly on ecological aspects [2,4,12]. However, considering socio-cultural factors is of great importance for the rehabilitation of rivers in cities [11,13,14]. In turn, the rehabilitation of urban rivers is an opportunity for urban restructuring [15] and for enhancing local wellbeing [16].
The rehabilitation of urban rivers has been approached through ecohydrology [15,16], new urbanism [8], the “sponge city” [17,18], green infrastructure [19], and “nature-based solutions” [20]. These approaches propose the integration and management of both natural and human-made elements to recover river functions. Agroforestry is the integration of cultural, wild, and domesticated diversity to benefit from the interactions of such integration [21]. The term agroforestry also designates systems and forms of land use that incorporate perennial woody plants in the same spatial unit as crops and farm animals [10,11,12,13]; it is a system that optimizes ecological and cultural interactions among its elements [22]. These strategies allow for the conservation of native wild species and cultivated species, as well as the biocultural landscape and environmental contributions in the areas where they are found [10,12,14,23,24]. Their importance for subsistence, the local and family economy, and the cultural identity of the population that practices agroforestry is also widely recognized [25,26,27,28,29,30]. Agroforestry provides an alternative way of thinking about human–nature interactions that promote connections to re-establish ecological functions and integrate human activities and aspirations with the natural dynamics of rivers in cities. According to the literature, agroforestry is the most appropriate model for the recovery and conservation of forests, jungles [7], and wetlands [1,2,31,32].
Urban agroforestry (UAF) refers to the interactions of urban dwellers with trees, crops, and associated fauna and microorganisms in various areas (parks, sidewalks, rivers, gardens, rooftops, etc.). UAF generates socio-ecosystemic contributions to local human communities [33,34,35,36,37] and urban ecosystems [33]. It also creates a “river culture” where rivers are an essential part of life in the city [38]. For this reason, the integration, theoretical frameworks, diverse methods, and perspectives on urban river rehabilitation are a necessity and an opportunity for urban rivers. Urban agroforestry is an essential contribution to such approaches and methodologies, and it deserves to be studied and recognized.
The literature on urban agroforestry contributions to urban river restoration and rehabilitation projects is scattered in various repositories (the term does not appear as a category on its own, but rather as a variety of practices, such as “bioremediation”, “wetland”, “trees”, “native plants”, or “food garden” in the case of the Landscape Performance Series repository, https://www.landscapeperformance.org/, accessed on 22 May 2022). This information is part of the recent interest in the importance and contribution of urban green areas to the health of cities. The number of publications on “Urban Open Green Spaces” increased from 50 publications in 1997 to more than 500 per year in 2015 [39]. The rehabilitation of urban rivers and streams is an established trend and recognized as an efficient way to promote welfare in cities [23,40]. However, the benefits resulting from the rehabilitation of urban rivers to the quality of life of urban dwellers have received little attention, as the emphasis has been on pollution control, flood control, drainage works, and urban development [41].
This paper addresses the general question: How does agroforestry contribute to the rehabilitation of urban rivers? The particular questions are (i) What are the problems related to rivers in cities? (ii) What experiences exist in the rehabilitation of urban rivers around the world? (iii) Who carries them out, and what strategies and actions do they implement? (iv) What is the relevance of agroforestry practices in these experiences? and (v) How does agroforestry contribute to the necessary processes to achieve the goals and social and environmental aspirations of the rehabilitation of urban rivers? This work contributes to a comprehensive agroforestry approach to river rehabilitation in urban contexts (See Figure 1) by researching and reviewing not only the literature on theoretical frameworks and concepts but also reviewing 37 experiences around the world and the actions that they implement to respond to the challenges in urban river rehabilitation.
Section 3.1 provides a summary of the problems of urban rivers. Section 3.2 analyzes the experiences reviewed, showing how experiences respond to the issues described in Section 3.1 and contribute to rehabilitating urban rivers. Section 3.2 organizes the actions implemented based on their contribution to the processes identified and defined as the socio-ecological goals and aspirations of urban river rehabilitation (See Figure 1). The aims and aspirations of the study are based on the review and synthesis of the problems and the main concepts of rehabilitation of urban rivers found in the academic and institutional literature. The conclusion ends with a reflection on agroforestry’s future needs and prospects in urban river rehabilitation efforts.

2. Methods

The review began with a search in Google Scholar and other specialized databases such as SciELO and World Wide Science to find out what kind of literature and content we could find based on the Spanish terms: “agroforestería, rehabilitación ríos urbanos” (1700 results in Google Scholar) and in English “agroforestry, urban river rehabilitation” (11,200 results), “agroforestry, urban river restoration” (19,700 results), “ríos urbanos” (117, SciELO), “urban river rehabilitation” (318 outcomes, World Wide Science), and “silvicultura, ríos urbanos” (silviculture, urban rivers) (Google Scholar, 21,800 results). Based on the first results obtained by these search engines, we selected the 40 publications most related to the question that this review aims to answer.
After reading the first selected articles, we continued the literature search by applying a “snowball” method, identifying the main topics discussed in the documents found, and following the references and authors in the reviewed works. We reviewed 120 publications, repositories, and web pages in-depth. In addition to the information found in scientific journals, we conducted a broader search from other sources, such as social networks, web pages, and local media. We analyzed and integrated the information through the qualitative analysis software Atlas-Ti version 9.0 [42]. We generated codes to organize the information into categories regarding the problems of rivers in cities, existing experiences, agroforestry practices used, and their environmental contributions.
In a second phase, we searched for the most important problems of urban rivers and, based on this information, defined where socio-ecological processes are being impacted by the problems presented in the literature. After we defined the processes, we organized the information on the experiences based on how they deal with the identified problems and which practices were implemented to tackle them.
We organized the information on the experiences in a database (Supplementary S1). This annex presents the 37 selected experiences, locations, practices, actions, and strategies. These were selected based on the completeness of the information related to the questions of this research. Supplementary S2 presents the sources of information classified according to the type of source. We spatialized this information in the map presented in Section 3.2, which can also be found in the supplementary files. Additionally, included in the supplementary files is a glossary (Supplementary S3) that offers a definition and description of the actions and practices implemented in the experiences reviewed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. What Are the Main Problems of Water Bodies and Rivers in Cities?

The main problems of rivers in cities mentioned in the literature include the following:
  • Water availability. According to the United Nations [43], one in three people do not have access to safe drinking water, and 60% of people lack access to safely managed sanitation facilities. In cities in Africa, water availability decreases as we move away from city centers; in other regions, such as Asia, cities have expanded over areas of importance for water access [44].
  • Water body pollution by direct and diffuse sources [45,46]. Pollutants discharged into water bodies in urban areas represent up to 80% of wastewater [46]. Every day, almost 1000 children die from preventable diarrheal diseases related to water and sanitation. These waters also cause diseases such as cholera and schistosomiasis [47].
  • Loss of habitat and biodiversity in riparian and aquatic environments [48]. Urban development and channelization of rivers have led to the reduction of riparian vegetation, which affects the water cycle by reducing groundwater recharge, impacting water availability and soil stability (subsidence) [3,11]. Loss of infiltration into groundwater decreases storage, increasing runoff and the speed of stormwater discharges. It also increases stream erosion, flooding, and the concentration and number of pollutants in stormwater [3,49,50].
  • Loss of the natural pattern of hydromorphology and connectivity of the river due to hydraulic maneuvers [3,49,50,51]. The loss of wild river vegetation is one of the impacts of urbanization on river hydromorphology [52]. The construction of impermeable surfaces changes the hydrology of the basin, the river flow, and sediment mechanisms, as well as the movement of organisms, which restricts the dynamics of the rivers [53,54,55]. Hydraulic maneuvers to improve navigation or prevent flooding have also modified the connection of rivers with cities and their citizens [14,17,52,53,55,56].
  • Floods [14,56,57,58,59] Flooding in urban areas is caused mainly by a reduction in the infiltration capacity of soils in urban areas [14] due to the construction of impervious surfaces [53] and the consequent increase in the amount of runoff [34,35], as well as deforestation and land-use changes upstream [60]. Approximately 70% of all deaths related to natural disasters in 2018 came from water-related disasters such as floods [43]. In 2050, the number of people at risk of flooding will increase to 1.6 billion in cities [58].
  • Loss of water bodies and green areas in cities [61] and the degradation of public and recreational spaces connected to water bodies (waterscapes) [41,61,62]. In most of the world’s cities, the public open spaces or urban green areas that are available to the general population are small and highly visited, evidencing a significant need for open (green) spaces [61,63]. However, concerns such as litter, pollution, water and river flow safety, and insecurity (crime) influence people’s perception of urban rivers. They can be determinant in the acceptance of river rehabilitation projects [41,64] and impact how people access and use these spaces.
  • Land subsidence [65] is becoming a common problem in many cities worldwide [66,67,68]. It is “a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to removal or displacement of subsurface earth materials,” [65] with underground water extraction being one of the leading causes. In addition to the damage to buildings and constructed capital, one of the most pressing problems is the compaction of aquifers to store water [69] which impacts urban water availability.
  • Marginalized and poverty-stricken areas along rivers [64]. Riverbanks are diverse areas where we can find high real estate value as well as places of great marginality and abandonment. Certain spatial conditions may be a consequence of the lack of government attention to these marginalized areas [64]. These conditions affect access to and use of these spaces and their connection to other areas of social and ecological importance in the cities.
  • Low potential for food production in connection with urban water bodies [70,71]. Farmers use approximately 70% of all water extracted from rivers, lakes, and aquifers for irrigation [43]. Thebo et al. [71] found that 60% of irrigated cropland and 35% of rain-fed cropland are within a 20 km radius of an urban area globally. However, food production in urban areas poses health risks due to high contamination levels, which has led to a ban on food production in cities such as Sydney [46,72]. Regardless, agricultural practices are typical along riverbanks and floodplains in towns worldwide [72,73,74,75]. See Figure 2 for a representation of the problems described and the processes they impact.

3.2. Experiences in the Rehabilitation of Urban Rivers

As mentioned in the introduction, this section offers a description of the experiences reviewed and synthesized and attempts to respond: What experiences exist in the rehabilitation of urban rivers around the world? Who carries them out and what strategies and actions do they implement?; Additionally, what is the relevance of agroforestry practices in these experiences? We focused our attention on how these experiences respond to the problems described in the section above by contributing to the processes essential to achieving the socio-ecological goals and aspirations of urban river rehabilitation projects. Due to space constraints, we offer a description of only some of the actions performed in some of the experiences reviewed. Table 1 synthesizes this information, while all actions implemented in all of the experiences reviewed are described in more detail in the glossary (Supplementary S3). Supplementary S1 also offers information on which actions were implemented in each of the experiences. Map 1, included in the supplementary files (Supplementary S4), shows where the experiences we reviewed are located in the world. Although it is not statistically significant, it could point to where in the world these experiences are more popular and whether they are being documented.

3.2.1. Improve Water Quality, Access, and Availability

Water quality is one of the most critical factors for the rehabilitation of urban rivers since its acceptance [41,61], and the sustainability of habitat conservation and recreation projects will depend on it, especially when seeking to generate activities that require contact with water [61]. River sanitization has been one of the central interventions of the rehabilitation projects. These interventions are generally costly and focus on centralized wastewater treatment but are ineffective due to their high costs [76] and different flows in the river sections. People pay little attention to rainwater management, and the tendency has been to “over-design” the urban system, forgetting that the urban landscape has a “patchy” character, with a gradient of blue–green and gray infrastructure [77].
Managing the interactions between biota and urban river water helps regulate the dynamics and quality of river water [16]. Wetlands include permanently or temporally flooded lands in many different habitats such as rivers, and this vegetation lives in unique hydric and soil conditions [31]. Wetland agroforestry and aquatic gardens are agroforestry practices for improving water quality. They are management systems in an eco-hydrological combination (wetlands and gray infrastructure) and constitute an alternative to wastewater treatment [78,79]. In the experiences researched, some of the implemented agroforestry actions that contribute to water quality were the aquatic garden in Glenstone, Maryland and wetlands in the Colorado River Delta or the Anacostia River in Washington D.C. A “water garden” or “aquatic garden” is a garden or parts of a garden where water dominates as the principal element [80]; In the aquatic garden in Maryland, more than 4000 plants were sawn. Wetlands are unique ecosystems that are either permanently or seasonally inundated with water, supporting species that are adapted to live there, and they encompass a broad range of wet environments that include rivers and streams, floodplains, estuaries and deltas, lakes, ponds, ditches, wet grasslands, marshes, mudflats, peat bogs, mangroves, reedbeds, and coral reefs. The lawns at Glenstone were converted from turf and pasture into sustainable meadows planted with all native species, including little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and purpletop (Tridens flavus) [81]. Additional techniques for enhancing water quality include nature-based solutions with a green–gray infrastructure focus: biofiltration (See Figure 3 and Figure 4 below) and detention ponds, retrofits, construction of marginal drainage for domestic wastewater, or the installation of ultraviolet light treatment plants (See Supplementary S1 and Supplementary S3). The use of treated water is considered an effective way to restore ecosystem contributions from rivers [82].

3.2.2. Restore River Hydromorphology and Connectivity

Agroforestry promotes connectivity between green areas in the city, and it helps expand green places and connect riverbanks with other green spaces in the city [83]. The construction of wetlands through eco-hydrological techniques such as gabion dams [16,77,78,79,84] responds to the problems of habitat and biodiversity loss by re-establishing connectivity along the river, promoting greater ecological diversity [43] and diversity of spaces and landscapes [40,41,62]. The above allows rivers to return to their natural course [53], which arises from the interaction of water and accumulation of soils and recovering vegetation (sometimes trees and shrubs). In this way, connectivity along the river can be re-established, promoting greater ecological diversity [39] and diversity of spaces and landscapes [40,41,62].
In the case of the Santa Cruz Riverbank and Ecosystem Restoration case, habitants planted 10,000 trees and cacti. They fused a traditional gray infrastructure with a nature-based approach to control and manage erosion [85]. In other cases, citizens habilitated green areas such as rain gardens, bioswales, or green parking lots for water management [86]. Some of the actions implemented in the projects reviewed were the “lighting” of streams and rivers (see Figure 3 above) and the removal of concrete covers to make urban streams and rivers more visible [87]. The city’s inhabitants improved the flood plains and the green areas for water management, and they reconnected meanders and streams and built retention ponds and rock bridges (See Figure 5 below). The agroforestry practices used were the planting and transplanting of trees and hedgerows and the creation and rehabilitation of wetlands (See Supplementary S1 for specific examples).

3.2.3. Restore Riparian and Aquatic Habitats: Flora, Fauna, and Microorganisms

Restoring riparian and aquatic habitats and the species of flora and fauna that inhabit them has been one of the main objectives of urban river rehabilitation [3,9,39,88]. Agroforestry practices respond to the loss of riparian habitats and the flora and fauna and the failure of the natural pattern of river hydromorphology. The aim is to respond to these problems by generating green riparian zones where citizens plant diverse native plants. The above ensures the effectiveness of the restoration and construct of “cues to care” [89] while inviting people to use these spaces. “Cues to care” refer to the little actions of care of green and public areas, such as the pruning of trees, herbs, and shrubs to make paths more “walkable” and the vista more “visible,” to allow for a broader spatial perception of the place, to create the sensation of a site that is being cared for (as in the illustration in Figure 4.
These actions increase river life, for example, the increase in fish species in a stream in Salzburg, Austria (Alterbachsystem). Here, nine species were found after rehabilitation, compared to one species before the stream was restored [11].
Agroforestry as science has generated many studies on native species and local and traditional knowledge that can contribute to ecological restoration and biodiversity. This knowledge can be of great support when selecting the plant species with which to intervene on the riverbanks. Plants not only control erosion [90] but help connect rivers, and this connectivity, in turn, contributes to the mobility of both fauna and flora and serves as a refuge for them [53,91].

3.2.4. Create Local River Cultures and Social Cohesion

An essential aspect of urban river rehabilitation is to enhance a river culture by considering essential social elements such as people´s emotional connection with rivers [17,92]. People need a connection with nature for recreation and leisure [3,88]. The importance of listening to birdsong [92], interactions with other people, and the integration of plants preferred by local inhabitants [3]. To develop projects that integrate both nature and people, “river culture” [38] recognizes the intersection of hydrological, biological, and cultural values, which should be a basis for preserving ecological and cultural diversity along rivers. However, in most of the world’s cities, the “river culture” is a culture of spaces that are used as garbage and drainage dumps, areas intentionally rejected and hidden [8,40,41,62,89,92,93,94]. Integrating “sensory values” [92], such as the presence of flowers or “cues to care,” enhance the connection with nature [3,41,62]. It is important to incorporate locally valued plants and elements as a strategy to integrate local cultural expectations of landscapes into rehabilitation strategies [41,62].
The projects included in this study comprise the participation of neighbors in planting and caring for plants (shrubs, grasses) along the riversides, such as in Chapinero, Colombia, where a diverse community, from children to elders, participated actively in transplanting and substituting plants for native species such as Myrcianthes leucoxyla (Arrayán) or Baccharis latifolia ([95], see p. 193 for other species used). Other experiences, such as Water L.A., integrate people into their ”urban acupuncture” strategy to rehabilitate water basins through promoting the construction of “rain tanks, rain grading, parkway retrofits, greywater systems, infiltration trenches, and permeable paving as the six major water management strategies [...]. As part of the process, Water LA also replaces turf grass with native plants and trees and edible gardens” [86,96,97]. All of this is carried out with the active participation of schools, neighbors, and other population sectors. Other practices integrated into different experiences focus on teaching neighbors to compost, environmental education and river cleanup campaigns, building botanical gardens along the riversides, integrating environmental interpretation signs, constructing ecological zones for ecological education and nature education sites, and organizing forums to talk about local rivers.

3.2.5. Guarantee Food Production

Food production receives little attention in the literature on urban river rehabilitation through urban agroforestry, agriculture, and food forestry [98,99]. Despite this, food production in the city is a topic that is beginning to be studied [73,74,75]. Clark and Nicholas [100] proposed the concept of “urban food forestry.” This term articulates agroforestry, urban forestry, agroecology, and permaculture for food production in cities. Urban food forestry contributes to landscapes and minimizes costs using multifunctional species, which produce benefits such as air quality, climate and water regulation, oxygen production, erosion control, and habitat for biodiversity [98,99]. Urban agriculture improves community food security, public health, and social capital and creates microenterprise opportunities [37,101,102]. Despite the importance given to this dimension in the literature, urban rivers are not explored adequately for food production in the literature [100,103].
The Water LA Project “activates Angelenos” to develop edible gardens in their backyards and gardens [86]. They also use gray water and other actions (See Supplementary S1 for reference). In some experiences studied, people implemented programs such as an educational garden and conducted composting efforts in places such as museums [81].

3.2.6. Impact on Public Policies

Worldwide, citizens and politicians have created public policies to restore and rehabilitate rivers, with the rise in Europe (Water Framework Directive [104]) and North America (Clean Water Act and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership [105,106]). For example, in Paris, France, laws were created for factories that discharge substances into water ([107] see Supplementary S1). In addition, authorities encourage farmers not to pollute the river. In the case of the Colorado River, which originates in the United States and whose delta is in the Gulf of California in Mexico, authorities have conducted intersectoral work to generate a binational policy for its management [108]. In Bogotá, the Interlocal Committee of the Salitre River has been working for many years in forums and workshops for a Territorial Environmental Management Plan intending to influence local policies for the management of the Salitre River basin [109].
Zingraff-Hamed et al. [15] reviewed the impact of the European Water Framework Directive on urban river rehabilitation experiences in two European countries. Among the main observations they offer is that arriving at this regional policy requires the consideration of differences in landscape planning approaches and cultural and administrative issues in each country, among other factors. In Germany, for example, priority has been given to recovering the ecological functions of rivers, while France has emphasized social and cultural processes.

3.2.7. Rehabilitate Local Economies and Integrate the Urban Landscape

The rehabilitation of urban rivers represents an opportunity for governments to address the needs of marginalized populations in cities. Marginalized people are in demand not just for services such as running potable water and sanitation [110] but for spaces for recreation, leisure, and connection with nature [61] and, in some cases, to engage in food production systems [111]. Vacant land along riverbanks represents an opportunity to promote the participation of inhabitants in the rehabilitation of their environment and their economy. This is the case for the San Antonio River, where local inhabitants consider that the rehabilitation of the river provided many economic benefits to the population [23]. Some elements integrated into the experiences reviewed were: an equine exhibition area, markets, museums, passive and active recreational areas, sports arenas, and stores.
One controversial issue could be how the renewal of poor and marginalized areas may affect residents in the future, as it may increase the cost of services such as electricity, water, and the land itself. Some projects have included relocating families living along the river bed to other more suitable areas. Still, relocation itself could be considered a sort of displacement of poor inhabitants from the future benefits that the rehabilitation of the river will provide.

3.2.8. Create Recreational Spaces and Contribute to Physical and Mental Health

The need for recreation, a connection to nature, and areas to clear our minds and interact and socialize with other people and non-human beings is of chief importance to human health [112]. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased awareness of the importance that this human-nature connection has for human health [113,114].
Recreation is not only about doing something fun in nature. The emotional relationship between people and nature is also promoted and enhanced through entertainment, and this element can be improved when social values are recognized in rehabilitation projects [41,62]. Users require infrastructure that provides comfort and safety and an aesthetic dimension to the spaces [40]. Water bodies and rivers in cities where people connect with water are of great importance for health [62,114,115,116], particularly mental health [117].
The rehabilitation projects reviewed here have a recreational and connection-with-nature component. Scholars have suggested that many of these projects include trails and benches [40,62], bike paths [61], bridges [62], and other amenities that enhance the site experience, such as piers or beaches, playgrounds/green schools, public toilets, but also architectural elements inspired on nature, such as vertical terrace walls, as well as willow swamps or marshes and low-lying areas.
Connectivity to other means of transportation through linear and ecological corridors and green riverside areas is also crucial because it allows people to access riverside areas and connect to other green spaces in the city. The vegetation in these strategies is a fundamental element. It is here where the science of Agroforestry can provide solutions that integrate the natural element and the cultural element that rescues local knowledge and preferences about the species that best fit the answers for each situation.

4. Conclusions: The Contributions of Agroforestry to Urban River Rehabilitation Experiences

Lastly, this section discusses how agroforestry contributes to the necessary processes to achieve the goals and social and environmental aspirations of urban river rehabilitation. Agroforestry and its practices offer multiple opportunities to solve problems associated with rivers and the economic, health, and cultural needs of city dwellers. In this sense, it is essential to promote “river cultures” [38] in conjunction with Agri-silvi (cultures) that allow a healthier emotional and spiritual connection with rivers in cities. This connection enables a greater interest in caring for these spaces, their functions, and natural elements and contributes to governance around their conservation [15]. Rehabilitation efforts can create and enhance this culture by changing people’s perceptions of rivers and their biodiversity, including agroforestry [40,64]. It is essential to return to Korsunsky’s argument [70] regarding the need to generate new ecological cultures that allow for different ways of managing ecosystems, for nature to adapt to the conditions of cities, and for those forms of management that are found between “cultivation and desert” [118] to exist.
Currently, urban rivers worldwide are beginning to be seen as connectors between points of interest in the city and as elements for improving neighborhoods [5,61], local environmental improvement, and other benefits. Territorial strategies around urban rivers in recent years have incorporated integrating visions that take into account the functions [41], the hydraulic and ecological aspects, as well as the formal or landscape aspects and, in general, “the elements that allow enhancing the role of rivers in urban and suburban structuring” [19,62].
The state of the rivers in the neighborhoods of the low socioeconomic level of the cities will depend not only on the neighbors’ efforts to take care of the river but also on the initiatives that come from the governments, the local business sector, the academic and research institutions, NGOs, and other significant organizations, whose actions have demonstrated the importance of collaboration to empower local riverside cultures and experiences. The experiences outlined in this work are an expression of the potential that rivers acquire when they become the object of local, national, and international initiatives throughout the world; they are also a demand for more significant support from governments and the integration of urban river rehabilitation into public policy [99]. An issue of great importance for the urban development plan will also be solutions to the pressing water problems facing cities worldwide.
Although environmental benefits are the most used justification for rehabilitation projects, it is vital to strengthen the relationship with social criteria so that interventions are accepted, cared for, and promoted by local inhabitants. Studies show the preference of people for mixed-use spaces, that is, spaces that offer recreation, sports, and connection with nature, and that can also become spaces for the production of food or other resources necessary for the population [40,41,62,64].
From an academic perspective, it is imperative to respond to the diversity of socio-ecological needs and aspirations through a strong multidisciplinary understanding [14] of water management in urban contexts. What we find in this review is a variety of cross disciplines, concepts, languages, and conceptual and theoretical frameworks. While there may be different ways of conceptualizing and talking about urban river rehabilitation, the elements and actions are similar in more than one dimension. The rehabilitation of urban rivers must be nourished by the intersection of disciplines, without forgetting that the application of techniques and methods will be based on the specific objectives of each place, the principles that govern the projects, local knowledge and perceptions, and the rehabilitation strategies defined in each case.
We must emphasize that no concept and activity should be considered separately from the others if a rehabilitation project is successful. As we have become accustomed to approaching problems from a disciplinary point of view, it feels out of place to think of integrating efforts to conserve or restore nature with those to improve public spaces, vacant land, or create spaces for recreation. More and more examples worldwide are considering a more integrated perspective for the rehabilitation of urban rivers where agroforestry is an essential element. Agroforestry is one of the fundamental disciplines considered necessary to rehabilitate urban rivers.
Agroforestry is among the fundamental disciplines considered necessary to rehabilitate urban rivers. As our review of concepts and experiences shows, agroforestry intersects and connects concepts with actions and processes, becoming an essential discipline in urban river rehabilitation. Therefore, it is crucial to deepen the systematization of agroforestry knowledge and its contributions to repairing urban rivers.
In the world, more and more city dwellers desire better spaces to connect with nature. Rivers, their beds, and banks offer an excellent opportunity to achieve this desire. What we present here is just a small sample of experiences worldwide where people are working to rehabilitate and connect with their urban rivers in the hope of achieving the social and ecological aspirations of urban river rehabilitation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/su14137657/s1. Supplementary S1: Experiences in the rehabilitation of urban rivers 17 May 2022; Supplementary S2. Classification of sources reviewed; Supplementary S3. Glossary; Supplementary S4. Map of reviewed experiences in urban river rehabilitation. References [119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S.D.-L. and A.I.M.-C.; Formal analysis, T.S.D.-L.; Funding acquisition, T.S.D.-L. and A.I.M.-C.; Investigation, T.S.D.-L.; Methodology, T.S.D.-L. and A.I.M.-C.; Project administration, A.I.M.-C.; Resources, A.I.M.-C.; Writing—original draft, T.S.D.-L.; Writing—review and editing, T.S.D.-L. and A.I.M.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The first author received a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the “Programa de Becas de Posdoctorado en la UNAM” during the time she wrote this manuscript. The second author would like to thank CONACYT through its PRONAII Project 000000000321285 and DGAPA-UNAM IG200720 for financing the publication of this manuscript and support for fieldwork.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is based on a review of information openly available on the internet. It did not involve research with study subjects; therefore, no institutional review board approval was required.

Informed Consent Statement

In line with the statement above, no human subjects were involved in the research; therefore, we required no informed consent from subjects.

Data Availability Statement

The data used for the study is openly available in the references cited.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (National Science and Technology Council of Mexico-CONACYT)) through the PRONAII project, 000000000321285, and DGAPA-UNAM IG200720 for the support received for the fieldwork and publication of this manuscript. We would also like to thank the Programa de Becas de Posdoctorado en la UNAM for the postdoctoral fellowship awarded to the first author. Thank you to Cesar Javier Sánchez for his creation of the map of experiences and Gabriel Rico-Lemus for all illustrations in the figures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Opperman, J.; Orr, S.; Baleta, H.; Garrick, D.; Goichot, M.; McCoy, A.; Morgan, A.; Turley, L.; Vermeulen, A. Valuing Rivers: How the Diverse Benefits of Healthy Rivers Underpin Economies. WWF. 2018. Available online: https://www.unwater.org/valuing-rivers-how-the-diverse-benefits-of-rivers-underpin-economies/#:~:text=Traditionally%2C%20rivers%20have%20been%20valued,of%20the%20water%20they%20carry (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  2. Paul, M.J.; Meyer, J.L. Streams in the Urban Landscape. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 2001, 32, 333–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Michel, S.; Graizbord, C. Los ríos Urbanos de Tecate y Tijuana: Estrategias para Ciudades Sustentables. Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias. 1997. Available online: https://cemdi.org.mx/docs/library/spa_URIV_SPA.PDF (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  4. Walsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Morgan, R.P. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24, 706–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. González Reynoso, A.E.; Hernández, M.L.; Perló Cohen, M.; Zamora Sáens, I. Rescate de Ríos Urbanos: Propuestas Conceptuales y Metodológicas para la Restauración y Rehabilitación de Ríos; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baldauf, C. Participatory Biodiversity Conservation: Concepts, Experiences, and Perspectives; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Vieira, D.; Holl, K.; Peneireiro, F. Agro-successional restoration as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. Restor. Ecol. 2009, 17, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Espinosa, P.; de Meulder, B. River Restoration/Rehabilitation as a New Urban Design Strategy: Learning to Re-see Urban Rivers. Int. J. Constr. Environ. 2016, 7, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Morsch, M.R.S.; Mascaró, J.J.; Pandolfo, A. Sustentabilidade urbana: Recuperação dos rios como um dos princípios da infraestrutura verde. Ambiente Construído 2017, 17, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Findlay, S.; Taylor, M. Why rehabilitate urban river systems? Area 2006, 383, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jochen, S.; Olfert, A.; Tourbier, J.; Gersdorf, I.; Schwager, T. Existing Urban River Rehabilitation Schemes. European Commission. 2004. Available online: https://www.upv.es/contenidos/CAMUNISO/info/U0643718.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  12. Seager, J.; Abrahams, R.G. The Impact of Storm Sewage Discharges on the Ecology of a Small Urban River. Water Sci. Technol. 1990, 22, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kristiánová, K.; Gécová, K.; Putrová, E. Watercourse as cultural heritage in contemporary urbanism: Preservation approaches from Košice and Prešov in Slovakia. Archnet-IJAR 2015, 9, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Lundy, L.; Wade, R. Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 653–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zingraff-Hamed, A.; Greulich, S.; Wantzen, K.M.; Pauleit, S. Societal drivers of European water governance: A comparison of urban river restoration practices in France and Germany. Water 2017, 9, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zalewski, M. Ecohydrology, biotechnology and engineering for cost efficiency in reaching the sustainability of biogeosphere. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2014, 14, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yu, K. Turenscape. 2021. Available online: https://www.turenscape.com/en/about/course.html (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  18. ONU Habitat. La Ciudad Esponja. 2018. Available online: https://onuhabitat.org.mx/index.php/la-ciudad-esponja (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  19. Gill, S.E.; Handley, J.F.; Ennos, A.R.; Pauleit, S. Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure. Built Environ. 2007, 33, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. WWAP. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water; United Nations World Water Assessment Programme, UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Luna, V.J.G.; Casas-Fernández, A.; Toledo, V.M.; Ramos, M.V.; Fita, D.S.; Guerrero, A.C. Etnoagroforestería: El estudio de los sistemas agroforestales tradicionales de México. Etnobiología 2014, 12, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  22. AFTA. What Is Agroforestry? 2014. Available online: www.aftaweb.org/about/what-is-agroforestry.html (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  23. Otto, B.; McCormick, K.; Leccese, M. Ecological Riverfront Design: Restoring Rivers, Connecting Communities; APA Planning Advisory Service Reports. 2004, Volume 518–519, pp. 1–170. Available online: https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9026851/ (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  24. Zingraff-Hamed, A.; George, F.N.; Lupp, G.; Pauleit, S. Effects of recreational use on restored urban floodplain vegetation in urban areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 67, 127444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Toledo, V.M.; Casas, A. Los sistemas agrofororestales tradicionales de México: Una aproximación biocultural. Bot. Sci. 2013, 91, 375–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Casas, A.; Viveros, J.L.; Caballero, J. Etnobotánica Mixteca: Sociedad, Cultura y Recursos Naturales en la Montaña de Guerrero; Instituto Nacional Indigenista: Mexico City, Mexico, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  27. Alcorn, J.B. Indigenous Agroforestry Systems in the Latin American Tropics. In Agroecology and Small Farm Development; Hecht, S.B., Altieri, M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jose, S.; Gold, M.; Garrett, H. The Future of Temperate Agroforestry in the United States. In Agroforestry—The Future of Global Land Use, Advances in Agroforestry 9; Garrity, N.D., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  29. Nair, P.; Gordon, A.; Mosqueda-Losada, M. Agroforestry. In Encyclopedia of Ecology (Ecological); Jorgensen, S.J., Fath, B., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  30. Toledo, V.; Barrera-Bassols, N. La Memoria Biocultural: La Importancia Ecológica de las Sabidurías Tradicionales; Icaria Editorial: Barcelona, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. Arunachalam, A.; Balasubramanian, D.; Arunachalam, K.; Dagar, J.C.; Mohan Kumar, B. Wetland-Based Agroforestry Systems: Balancing Between Carbon Sink and Source. In Agroforestry Systems in India: Livelihood Security & Ecosystem Services; Dagar, J., Singh, A., Arunachalam, A., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2014; pp. 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Haase, D.; Haase, D. Urban Wetlands and Riparian Forests as a Nature-Based Solution for Climate Change Adaptation in Cities and Their Surroundings. In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Mann, S. Urban agroforestry: Connecting agroecology, permaculture, urban forestry and urban agriculture with agroforestry. Forest 2014, 8385, 29–50. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tellström, S. Urban Agroforestry for Developing Ecosystem Services in Urban Forests. Bachelor’s Thesis, Department of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  35. Salbitano, F.; Sanesi, G. Urban forestry and agroforestry. In Developing Resilient Urban Food Systems; de Zeuuw, H., Drechsel, P., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fisk, S. A Preliminary Framework for Better Urban Agroforestry. Soil Science Society of America. 2021. Available online: https://www.soils.org/news/science-news/preliminary-framework-better-urban-agroforestry/ (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  37. Lovell, S.T. Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2499–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Wantzen, K.M.; Ballouche, A.; Longuet, I.; Bao, I.; Bocoum, H.; Cisse, L.; Chauhan, M.; Girard, P.; Gopal, B.; Kane, A.; et al. River Culture: An eco-social approach to mitigate the biological and cultural diversity crisis in riverscapes. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2016, 16, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rakhshandehroo, M.; Mohd Yusof, M.J.; Parva, M.; Nochian, A. The environmental benefits of urban open green spaces. Alam Cipta 2017, 10, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  40. Che, Y.; Yang, K.; Chen, T.; Xu, Q. Assessing a riverfront rehabilitation project using the comprehensive index of public accessibility. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 40, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Asakawa, S.; Yoshida, K.; Yabe, K. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Atlas-ti, Version 9.0; ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. Available online: https://atlasti.com/ (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  43. UN Sustainable Development Goals. 2018. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/ (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  44. Rodríguez, A.; Ana, S. La nueva agenda urbana: Pensamiento mágico. Hábitat Y Soc. 2017, 10, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chen, C.; Meurk, C.D.; Cheng, H.; Lv, M.; Chen, R.; Wu, S. Incorporating local ecological knowledge into urban riparian restoration in a mountainous region of Southwest China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Comisión Nacional del Agua. El saneamiento del río Apatlaco. De lo crítico a lo sustentable. Report. SEMARNAT. Mexico D.F. 2012. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/121857/El_saneamiento_del_r_o_Apatlaco._De_lo_cr_tico_a_lo_sustentable.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  47. FAO. Ciudades más Verdes en América Latina y el Caribe, 1, no. 0. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura, Roma, Italy. 2014. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i3696s/i3696s.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  48. Lings of the Report of a joint FAO/WHO workshope Viol, I.; Mocq, J.; Julliard, R.; Kerbiriou, C. The contribution of motorway stormwater retention ponds to the biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 3163–3171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dallman, S.; Piechota, T. Storm Water: Asset Not Liability; The Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  50. Michel, S. The Alamar River Corridor: An Urban River Park Oasis in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico; Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San Diego State University: San Diego, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  51. Everard, M.; Moggridge, H.L. Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15, 293–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Solari, L.; van Oorschot, M.; Belletti, B.; Hendriks, D.; Rinaldi, M.; Vargas-Luna, A. Advances on Modelling Riparian Vegetation-Hydromorphology Interactions. River Res. Appl. 2016, 32, 164–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gurnell, A.; Lee, M.; Souch, C. Urban Rivers: Hydrology, Geomorphology, Ecology and Opportunities for Change. Geogr. Compass 2007, 1, 1118–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gurnell, A.M.; Gonzalez Del Tanago, M.; O’Hare, M.T.; Van Oorschot, M.; Belletti, B.; Buijse, T.; Garcia De Jalon, D.; Grabowski, R.; Hendriks, D.; Mountford, O.; et al. Influence of Natural Hydromorphological Dynamics on Biota and Ecosystem Function. Part 1 (Chapters 1 to 3 of 6). Deliverable 2.2 Part 1 of REFORM (REstoring Rivers FOR Effective Catchment Management), a Collaborative Project (Large-Scale Integrating Project) Funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement 282656; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; 324p. [Google Scholar]
  55. Meyer, J.L.; Kaplan, L.A.; Newbold, J.D.; Strayer, D.L.; Woltemade, C.J.; Zedler, J.B.; Beilfuss, R.; Carpenter, Q.; Semlitsch, R.; Watzin, M.C.; et al. Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. Available online: http://www.stroudcenter.org/about/pdfs/lk_meyer2003_defending_streams.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  56. Berndtsson, J. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Madlener, R.; Sunak, Y. Impacts of urbanization on urban structures and energy demand: What can we learn for urban energy planning and urbanization management? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2011, 1, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. ONU. Informe del Relator Especial sobre los Derechos Humanos al Agua Potable y al Saneamiento Acerca de su Misión a Mongolia; Nota de la Secretaría, 39a sesión, 18 de julio de 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/es/documents/reports/report-special-rapporteur-human-rights-safe-drinking-water-and-sanitation-his-1 (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  59. Shi, P.J.; Yuan, Y.; Zheng, J.; Wang, J.A.; Ge, Y.; Qiu, G.Y. The effect of land use/cover change on surface runoff in Shenzhen region, China. Catena 2007, 69, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bunge, V.; Cotler, H.; Iura González, D.; Enríquez, C. Incorporación del enfoque de cuencas en los ordenamientos ecológicos. In Dimensiones Sociales en el Manejo de Cuencas; Burgos, A., Bocco, G., Sosa Ramírez, J., Eds.; Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental (Morelia), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Morelia, Mexico, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kondolf, G.M.; Pinto, P.J. The social connectivity of urban rivers. Geomorphology 2017, 277, 182–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Åberg, E.U.; Tapsell, S. Revisiting the River Skerne: The long-term social benefits of river rehabilitation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 113, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vannote, R.L.; Minshall, G.W.; Cummins, K.W.; Sedell, J.R.; Cushing, C.E. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1980, 37, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Korsunsky, A. From vacant land to urban fallows: A permacultural approach to wasted land in cities and suburbs. J. Political Ecol. 2019, 26, 282–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. US Geological Survey. Land Subsidence. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/land-subsidence#:~:text=BACKGROUND,drainage%20of%20organic%20soils (accessed on 12 April 2022).
  66. Osmanoğlu, B.; Dixon, T.; Wdowinski, S.; Cabral-Cano, E.; Jiang, Y. Mexico City subsidence observed with persistent scatterer InSAR. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2011, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kumar, H.; Syed, T.H.; Amelung, F.; Agrawal, R.; Venkatesh, A.S. Space-time evolution of land subsidence in the National Capital Region of India using ALOS-1 and Sentinel-1 SAR data: Evidence for groundwater overexploitation. J. Hydrol. 2022, 605, 127329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Castellazzi, P.; Garfias, J.; Martel, R. Assessing the efficiency of mitigation measures to reduce groundwater depletion and related land subsidence in Querétaro (Central Mexico) from decadal InSAR observations. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021, 105, 102632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Poreh, D.; Pirasteh, S.; Cabral-Cano, E. Assessing subsidence of Mexico City from InSAR and LandSat ETM+ with CGPS and SVM. Geoenvironmental Disasters 2021, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rudge, S.; Staff, M.; Capon, A.; Paepke, O. Serum dioxin levels in Sydney Harbour commercial fishers and family members. Chemosphere 2008, 73, 1692–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Thebo, A.; Drechsek, P.; Lambin, E. Global assessment of urban and peri-urban agriculture: Irrigated and rainfed croplands. Env. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 114002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Balmer, K.; Gill, J.; Kaplinger, H.; Miller, J.; Peterson, M.; Rhoads, A.; Rosenbloom, P.; Wall, T. The Diggable City: Making Urban Agriculture a Planning Priority; Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University: Portland, OR, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  73. Oliveira, V.; Pinho, P.; Mendes Batista, L.; Patatas, T.; Claudia, M. Our Common Future in Urban Morphology; FEUP: Porto, Portugal, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  74. Boissière, T. Le jardinier et le citadin. Ethnologie d’un espace agricole urbain dans la vallée de l’Oronte en Syrie; Institut Francais du Proche-Orient: Damascus, Syria, 2005; 480p. [Google Scholar]
  75. Santos, P.; Pena-Corvillon, D. Urban black holes: The rural in the urban as liminal spaces from where to build a new city. In Our Common Future in Urban Morphology; Olivera, P., Ponho, P., Mendes Batista, L., Patatas, T., Eds.; FEUP: Porto, Portugal, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  76. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Programa Nacional Hídrico 2020–2024; Diario Oficial: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2020; Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5609188&fecha=30/12/2020 (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  77. Jarosiewicz, P.; Jurczak, T.; Zalewski, M. Ecohydrology for sustainable urban water management. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference « Water, Megacities and Global Change », Online Pre-Conference, 7–11 December 2020; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  78. Villa, P.M.; Martins, S.V.; Delgado Monsanto, L.; de Oliveira Neto, S.N.; Mota Cancio, N. La agroforestería como estrategia para la recuperación y conservación de reservas de carbono en bosques de la Amazonía. Bosque 2016, 36, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Fleischer, S.; Gustafson, A.; Joelsson, A.; Pansar, J.; Stibe, L. Nitrogen Removal in Created Ponds. Ambio 1994, 23, 349–357. Available online: http://0-www-jstor-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/stable/4314235 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  80. IOWA State University Water Gardens: Aquatic Plants. Available online: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/smallfarms/water-gardens-aquatic-plants (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  81. Landscape Performance Series. Glenstone. Available online: https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/glenstone#/lessons-learned (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  82. Halaburka, B.J.; Lawrence, J.E.; Bischel, H.N.; Hsiao, J.; Plumlee, M.H.; Resh, V.H.; Luthy, R.G. Economic and ecological costs and benefits of streamflow augmentation using recycled water in a California coastal stream. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10735–10743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Leibowitz, S.G.; Wigington, P.J.; Schofield, K.A.; Alexander, L.C.; Vanderhoof, M.K.; Golden, H.E. Connectivity of streams and wetlands to downstream waters: An integrated systems framework. EPA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2018, 54, 298–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Castelli, G.; Foderi, C.; Guzman, B.H.; Ossoli, L.; Kempff, Y.; Bresci, E.; Salbitano, F. Planting Waterscapes: Green Infrastructures, Landscape and Hydrological Modeling for the Future of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. Forests 2017, 8, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Naturally Resilient Communities. Santa Cruz Riverbank and Ecosystem Restoration, Pima County, Arizona. Available online: http://nrcsolutions.org/santa-cruz-riverbank-and-ecosystem-restoration-pima-county-arizona/ (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  86. Water, L.A. Strategies for Urban Acupuncture. Available online: https://www.waterla.org/strategies (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  87. Kim, H.; Jung, Y. Is Cheonggyecheon sustainable? A systematic literature review of a stream restoration in Seoul, South Korea. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nassauer, J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc. J. 1995, 14, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Moreno-Calles, A.; Casas, A.; Blancas, J.; Torres, I.; Masera, O.; Caballero, J.; Garcia-Barrios, L.; Pérez-Negrón, E.; Rangel-Landa, S. Agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation in arid zones: The case of the Tehuacán Valley, Central México. Agrofor. Syst. 2010, 80, 315–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lake, P.S.; Bond, N.; Reich, P. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshw. Biol. 2007, 52, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Burmil, S.; Daniel, T.C.; Hetherington, J.D. Human values and perceptions of water in arid landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 44, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cranz, G.; Boland, M. Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Model for Urban Parks. Landsc. J. 2004, 23, 102–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Nassauer, J.I.; Wang, Z.; Dayrell, E. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bejarano, P. Proyecto Recuperación Integral de las Quebradas de Chapinero. Historia ambiental y recuperación integral de los terrritorios asociados a quebradas y ríos en Bogotá (caso Chapinero). Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Alcaldía Local de Chapinero y Conservación Internacional Colombia. Bogota. Available online: https://www.ambienteysociedad.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/LIBRO-QUEBRADAS-DE-CHAPINERO.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  96. Water, L.A. Guides & Videos. Available online: https://www.waterla.org/resources/guides-and-videos (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  97. Calascape. Bee’s Bliss Sage, Salvia x “Bee’s Bliss”. Available online: https://calscape.org/loc-California/’bee’s%20Bliss’%20Sage%20(Salvia%20x%20′Bee’s%20Bliss’)?newsearch=1 (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  98. Nowak, D.J. Institutionalizing urban forestry as a “biotechnology” to improve environmental quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 5, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Konijnendijk, C.; Sadio, S.; Randrup, T.B.; Schipperijn, J. Urban and Peri-Urban Forestry for Sustainable Urban Development. 2003. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/XII/0976-B5.htm (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  100. Clark, K.H.; Nicholas, K.A. Introducing urban food forestry: A multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1649–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. World Health Organization. Fruit and Vegetables for Health: Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Workshop on Fruit and Vegetables for Health, 1–3 September 2004, Kobe, Japan; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  102. Brown, K.H.; Jameton, A.L. Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture. J. Public Health Policy 2000, 21, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Park, H.; Kramer, M.; Rhemtulla, J.M.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Urban food systems that involve trees in Northern America and Europe: A scoping review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 45, 126360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Introduction to the EU Water Framework Directive. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  105. UWFP Urban Waters Federal Partnership 2021 Partner Recommitment. 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners/framework-future-urban-waters-federal-partnership-2021-partner-recommitment (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  106. UWFP The Urban Waters Federal Partnership. Vision, Mission and Principles. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/documents/uw_vision_mission_principles_11-28-17_-_new_third_page_only.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  107. Poudevigne, I.; Alard, D.; Leuven, R.S.E.W.; Nienhuis, P.H. A systems approach to river restoration: A case study in the lower Seine valley, France. River Res. Appl. 2002, 18, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. SER. Mexico: Wetland Restoration at Three Sites in the Colorado River Delta. 2022. Available online: https://www.ser-rrc.org/project/mexico-wetland-restoration-at-three-sites-in-the-colorado-river-delta/ (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  109. Riosalitre.org. Mesa Interlocal de la cuenca del río Salitre. Available online: http://www.riosalitre.org/index.html (accessed on 11 April 2022).
  110. Konijnendijk, C.; Gauthier, M.; van Veenhuizen, R. Agricultura Urbana. Revista, A.U. December 2005. Available online: www.ruaf.org (accessed on 3 June 2022).
  111. Urban Nature Atlas. Available online: https://naturvation.eu/atlas.html (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  112. Marques, E.; Kállay, T. Impacts of Green Spaces on Physical and Mental Health. URBACT 2020 Thematic Report No. 1. Available online: https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/media/thematic_report_no1_impacts_on_health_healthgreenspace_2910.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  113. Wortzel, J.D.; Wiebe, D.J.; DiDomenico, G.E.; Visoki, E.; South, E.; Tam, V.; Greenberg, D.M.; Brown, L.A.; Gur, R.C.; Gur, R.E.; et al. Association Between Urban Greenspace and Mental Wellbeing During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a U S Cohort. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 3, 686159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Reid, C.E.; Rieves, E.S.; Carlson, K. Perceptions of green space usage, abundance, and quality of green space were associated with better mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic among residents of Denver. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Petts, J. Learning about learning: Lessons from public engagement and deliberation on urban river restoration. Geogr. J. 2007, 173, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Steinwender, A.; Gundacker, C.; Wittmann, K.J. Objective versus subjective assessments of environmental quality of standing and running waters in a large city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Völker, S.; Kistemann, T. International Journal of Hygiene and The impact of blue space on human health and well-being—Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2011, 214, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  119. American Trails. Study Cites Health Benefits of Urban River Parkways. 2014. Available online: https://www.americantrails.org/resources/study-cites-health-benefits-of-urban-river-parkways (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  120. Anastasios, I.Z.; Panagiotis, A.M.; Savvina, G.P. Groundwater and Soil Pollution: Bioremediation. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, 2nd ed.; Nriagu, J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 369–381. [Google Scholar]
  121. Bedford Conservation Commission. Passive Recreation. Available online: https://www.bedfordma.gov/conservation-commission/pages/passive-recreation (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  122. Bertule, M.; Lloyd, J.; Korsgaard, L.; Dalton, J.; Welling, R.; Barchiesi, S.; Smith, M. Green Infrastructure. In Guide for Water Management: Ecosystem-Based Management Approaches for Water-Related Infrastructure Projects; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya; DHI: Hørsholm, Denmark; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; The Nature Conservancy: Arlington County, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  123. Bornette, G.; Amoros, C.; Lamouroux, N. Aquatic plant diversity in riverine wetlands: The role of connectivity. Freshw. Biol. 1998, 39, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Carbon Brief. Guest post: Adapting to climate change through ‘managed retreat’. 2017. Available online: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-adapting-climate-change-through-managed-retreat (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  125. CIWEM. Policy Position Statement. 2005. Available online: www.ciwem.org (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  126. Davis, L. A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands; USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service and the US Environmental Protection Agency-Region III; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources: Harrisburg, PA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  127. European Environment Agency. Ecological Corridor. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/glossary/eea-glossary/ecological-corridor (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  128. Ensign, S.H.; Doyle, M.W. Nutrient Spiraling in Streams and River Networks. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2006, 111. Available online: https://0-agupubs-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1029/2005JG000114 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  129. EPA. Composting at Home. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  130. EPA. Stormwater Retrofit Techniques for Restoring Urban Drainages in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/BMPRetrofit.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  131. EPA Ohio. What Is a Storm Water Retrofit? Available online: https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/urban-subwatershed-restoration-manual-series-manual-3/ (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  132. Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. EU. Natural Water Retention Measures, Floodplain Restoration, and Management. Available online: https://nwrm.eu/measure/floodplain-restoration-and-management (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  134. Eubanks, E.; Meadows, D. Soil Bioengineering Techniques. In A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Stream-Bank and Lakeshore Stabilization; FS-683P; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program: San Dimas, CA, USA, 2002; Chapter 5. [Google Scholar]
  135. FAO. Fish Propagation. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fishery/docs/CDrom/FAO_Training/FAO_Training/General/x6709e/x6709e09.htm (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  136. FAO; WHO. Fruit and vegetables for health. In Proceedings of the Report of a joint FAO/WHO workshop, Kobe, Japan, 1–3 September 2004. [Google Scholar]
  137. Fullerton, A.H.; Burnett, K.M.; Steel, E.A.; Flitcroft, R.L.; Pess, G.R.; Feist, B.E.; Sanderson, B.L. Hydrological Connectivity for Riverine Fish: Measurement Chal-lenges and Research Opportunities. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 2215–2237. Available online: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC6071435/ (accessed on 16 June 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Galloway, B.T.; Muhlfeld, C.C.; Guy, C.S.; Downs, C.C.; Fredenberg, W.A. A framework for assessing the feasibility of native fish conservation translocations: Applications to threatened. Bull Trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2016, 36, 754–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Garcés-Prettel, M.E.; Jaramillo-Echeverri, L.G. Avenida ronda del Sinú: Entre espacios y significados. Rev. Luna Azul 2017, 44, 247–264. Available online: https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/lunazul/article/view/3836 (accessed on 16 June 2022). [CrossRef]
  140. Plant and Manage Hedgerows. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plant-and-manage-hedgerows (accessed on 21 April 2022).
  141. Groffman, P.M.; Bain, D.J.; Band, L.E.; Belt, K.T.; Brush, G.S.; Grove, J.M.; Pouyat, R.V.; Yesilonis, I.C.; Zipperer, W.C. Down by the riverside: Urban riparian ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 1, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hammes, F.; Velten, S.; Egli, T.; Juhna, T. Biotreatment of Drinking Water. In Comprehensive Biotechnology, 2nd ed.; Moo-Young, M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 517–530. [Google Scholar]
  143. Hino, M.; Field, C.B.; Mach, K.J. Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2017, 7, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Housatonic Valley Association. New culvert on Churchill Brook helps fish and reduces flood risks-Housatonic Valley Association. 2018. Available online: https://hvatoday.org/new-culvert-on-churchill-brook-helps-fish-and-reduces-flood-risks/ (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  145. Lamothe, K.A.; Drake, D.A.R.; Pitcher, T.E.; Broome, J.E.; Dextrase, A.J.; Gillespie, A.; Mandrak, N.E.; Poesch, M.S.; Reid, S.M.; Vachon, N. Reintroduction of fishes in Canada: A review of research progress for SARA-listed species. Environ. Rev. 2019, 27, 575–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Aziz, H.A.; Rasidi, M.H. The role of green corridors for wildlife conservation in urban landscape: A literature review. IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci. 2014, 18, 12093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Klonner, C.; Usón, T.J.; Aeschbach, N.; Höfle, B. Participatory Mapping and Visualization of Local Knowledge: An Example from Eberbach, Germany. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2020, 12, 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Konijnendijk, C.C.; Ricard, R.M.; Kenney, A.; Randrup, T.B. Defining urban forestry–A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Konijnendijk, C.C. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Landscape Performance Series. Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project. Available online: https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/cheonggyecheon-stream-restoration#/sustainable-features (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  151. Local Government Association. Sustainable Drainage Systems. Available online: https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/severe-weather/flooding/sustainable-drainage-systems (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  152. Loos, J.; Shader, E. Reconnecting Rivers to Floodplains; American Rivers: Wasington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://www.americanrivers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ReconnectingFloodplains_WP_Final.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  153. Maunder, M. Plant reintroduction: An overview. Biodivers. Conserv. 1992, 1, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Desilt. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desilt (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  155. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Reservoir. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reservoir (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  156. Merriam Webster Dictionary. Piers. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piers (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  157. Merriam Webster Dictionary. Beaches. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beach (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  158. Meyer, J.L.; Strayer, D.L.; Wallace, J.B.; Eggert, S.L.; Helfman, G.S.; Leonard, N.E. The Contribution of Headwater Streams to Biodiversity in River Networks1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43, 86–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Miller, R.W.; Hauer, R.J.; Werner, L.P. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces; Waveland Press: Long Grove, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  160. Monclús Fraga, F.J. Ríos, ciudades, parques fluviales, corredores verdes. In Ríos y Ciudades. Aportaciones para la Recuperación de los Ríos y Riberas de Zaragoza, 2181st ed.; de la Cal, P., Pellicer, F., Eds.; Fernando el Católico: Málaga, Spain, 2002; p. 404. [Google Scholar]
  161. National Park Service. Available online: https://www.nps.gov/articles/studying-salt-marsh-change.htm (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  162. National Wildlife Federation (The). Invasive Species. Available online: https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Threats-to-Wildlife/Invasive-Species (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  163. Natural Resilient Communities. Bioswales. Available online: http://nrcsolutions.org/bioswales/ (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  164. Naturally Resilient Communities. Green Parking Lots. Available online: http://nrcsolutions.org/solution-4/ (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  165. Natural Water Retention Measures. Re-meandering. Available online: http://nwrm.eu/measure/re-meandering (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  166. Newbold, J.D.; Elwood, J.W.; O’Neill, R.V.; Van Winkle, W. Measuring Nutrient Spiralling in Streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1981, 38, 860–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. NWRM. Removal of Dams and Other Longitudinal Barriers. Available online: http://nwrm.eu/measure/removal-dams-and-other-longitudinal-barriers#:~:text=Removing%20them%20consists%20in%20destroying,as%20sedimentary%20and%20ecological%20continuity.fromhttp://www.nwrm.eu (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  168. NWRM. Individual NWRM Retention Ponds. Available online: http://nwrm.eu/sites/default/files/nwrm_ressources/u11_-_retention_ponds.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  169. NYC Parks, Reed’s Basket Willow Swamp Park. Available online: https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/reeds-basket-willow-swamp-park/ (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  170. Otto, B.; Mccormick, K.; Leccese, M. Ecological Riverfront Design: American Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report Number 518–519 Restoring Rivers; Connecting Communities: Helmsdale, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  171. Peer Experiences and Reflective Learning (PEARL). Urban Solid Waste Management. 2015. Available online: https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/NIUA-PEARL%20Global%20Good%20Practices%20SWM.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  172. REFORM. Restoring Rivers for Effective Catchment Management. Remove Barrier. Available online: https://wiki.reformrivers.eu/index.php/Remove_barrier (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  173. Richardson, M.; Soloviev, M.; Toscano, A.; Hofman, J. The Urban River Syndrome: Achieving Sustainability Against a Backdrop of Accelerating Change. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Riis, T.; Kelly-Quinn, M.; Aguiar, F.C.; Manolaki, P.; Bruno, D.; Bejarano, M.D.; Clerici, N.; Fernandes, M.R.; Franco, J.C.; Pettit, N.; et al. Global Overview of Ecosystem Services Provided by Riparian Vegetation. BioScience 2020, 70, 501–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Rosgen, D.L. Cross-Vane, W-weir, and J-hook vane Structures (Updated 2006) Description, Design, and Application for Stream Stabilization and River Restoration. 2006. Available online: www.wildlandhydrology.com (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  176. Schueler, T. Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices; Manual 3. Small Watershed Restoration Manual Series; U.S. EPA. Center for Watershed Protection: Ellicott City, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  177. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Engineering in the Water Environment. Good Practice Guide. Riparian Vegetation Management. 2009. Available online: https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/151010/wat_sg_44.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  178. SICIREC. Ecological Corridors and bi Odiversity. Available online: http://www.sicirec.org/definitions/corridors (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  179. Steiger, J.; Tabacchi, E.; Dufour, S.; Corenblit, D.; Peiry, J.L. Hydrogeomorphic Processes Affecting Riparian Habitat within Alluvial Channel–Floodplain River Systems: A Review for the Temperate Zone. River Res. Appl. 2005, 21, 719–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Herzog, T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 1985, 5, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Trice, A. Daylighting Streams: Breathing Life into Urban Streams and Communities. Available online: https://www.americanrivers.org/conservation-resource/daylighting-streams-breathing-life-urban-streams-communities/ (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  182. Uggeldahl, K.C.; Olsen, S.B. Public preferences for co-benefits of riparian buffer strips in Denmark: An economic valuation study. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 239, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Upper Midwest Water Science Center. Evaluating the Potential Benefits of Permeable Pavement on the Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Runoff. 2019. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/upper-midwest-water-science-center/science/evaluating-potential-benefits-permeable-pavement#:~:text=Permeable%20pavement%20is%20a%20porous,of%20pollutants%20and%20runoff%20volume (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  184. URBACT. Natural Playgrounds of Poznan. 2021. Available online: https://urbact.eu/natural-playgrounds-poznan (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  185. Velázquez, L.; Ventura-Ramos, E.; Revuelta-Acosta, J.D. Effectiveness of Gabions Dams on Sediment Retention: A Case Study. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. A 2016, 5, 516–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Victoria State Government, Sport and Recreation. Available online: https://sport.vic.gov.au/our-work/participation/active-recreation#:~:text=Active%20recreation%20is%20leisure%20time,living%2C%20active%20transport%20and%20sport (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  187. Yochum, S.E.; Reynolds, L.V. Guidance for Stream Restoration; Technical Note TN-102.5; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA; U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management: Washington, DC, USA; Forest Service National Stream & Aquatic Ecology Center: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  188. Wikipedia. Bike Path. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_path (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  189. Wikipedia. Botanical Garden. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botanical_garden (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  190. Wikipedia. Compost. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  191. Wikipedia. Public Toilet. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_toilet (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  192. Wikipedia. Ronda del Sinú. Available online: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_del_Sin%C3%BA (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  193. Wikipedia. Sustainable Drainage System. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_drainage_system&oldid=1083174153 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  194. Winnipeg. Water and Waste Department. Ultraviolet Light Disinfection. Available online: https://winnipeg.ca/waterandwaste/water/treatment/uv.stm (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  195. Zhou, Q. A Review of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Considering the Climate Change and Urbanization Impacts. Water 2014, 6, 976–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Zubala, T.; Patro, M. Rainwater Reservoirs in the Urban Landscape-Case Study. J. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 16, 128–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 07657 g001 550
Figure 1. The research focuses on learning about the main problems faced by rivers in cities, the state of the art in urban river rehabilitation from different frameworks and disciplines, and the contributions of agroforestry to real experiences around the world that aim to achieve social and environmental goals and aspirations of urban river rehabilitation, and the processes necessary to achieve this.
Figure 1. The research focuses on learning about the main problems faced by rivers in cities, the state of the art in urban river rehabilitation from different frameworks and disciplines, and the contributions of agroforestry to real experiences around the world that aim to achieve social and environmental goals and aspirations of urban river rehabilitation, and the processes necessary to achieve this.
Sustainability 14 07657 g001
Sustainability 14 07657 g002 550
Figure 2. Elements, processes, and interactions in a watershed. The figure illustrates the processes that are impacted by a variety of human activities that modify eco–hydro–morphological dynamics in cities. Urbanization is one of the main dynamics impacting rivers in urban areas (F); the impacts associated with urbanization are many. Deforestation (A) in the higher lands of a basin prevents water from infiltrating into underground strata, while the building of impervious surfaces in the cities not only prevents infiltration but also causes water to flow through “super water highways”, that is, channels and streets, causing floods downstream (E). Coincidentally, many of the populations impacted by floods are also the most marginalized urban or peri-urban populations, with many living on the riversides (H). River morphology is affected in many ways, as in dams that prevent water flow or by straightening meanders or channeling them so they can flow through the city landscape (D). Pollution sources can be direct (such as direct dumping of untreated industrial waste into water bodies) or indirect (such as runoff from streets which carries oil and worn-off tires from cars, all sorts of garbage and other pollutants that may come from the upper lands, in the form of agricultural agrochemical residues) (I). Pollution strongly impacts food production in and around cities (J). All of the dynamics above impact aquatic and riverine habitat loss (B and C). Water availability in cities will be one of the most pressing problems in the near future. Soil subsidence will not only affect the ground structure in the city but also prevent water from infiltrating and remaining stored in the ground for later human use (G). This diagram shows only some of the impacts of urbanization on the hydrological cycle in a watershed (Illustration by Gabriel Rico-Lemus, 2022).
Figure 2. Elements, processes, and interactions in a watershed. The figure illustrates the processes that are impacted by a variety of human activities that modify eco–hydro–morphological dynamics in cities. Urbanization is one of the main dynamics impacting rivers in urban areas (F); the impacts associated with urbanization are many. Deforestation (A) in the higher lands of a basin prevents water from infiltrating into underground strata, while the building of impervious surfaces in the cities not only prevents infiltration but also causes water to flow through “super water highways”, that is, channels and streets, causing floods downstream (E). Coincidentally, many of the populations impacted by floods are also the most marginalized urban or peri-urban populations, with many living on the riversides (H). River morphology is affected in many ways, as in dams that prevent water flow or by straightening meanders or channeling them so they can flow through the city landscape (D). Pollution sources can be direct (such as direct dumping of untreated industrial waste into water bodies) or indirect (such as runoff from streets which carries oil and worn-off tires from cars, all sorts of garbage and other pollutants that may come from the upper lands, in the form of agricultural agrochemical residues) (I). Pollution strongly impacts food production in and around cities (J). All of the dynamics above impact aquatic and riverine habitat loss (B and C). Water availability in cities will be one of the most pressing problems in the near future. Soil subsidence will not only affect the ground structure in the city but also prevent water from infiltrating and remaining stored in the ground for later human use (G). This diagram shows only some of the impacts of urbanization on the hydrological cycle in a watershed (Illustration by Gabriel Rico-Lemus, 2022).
Sustainability 14 07657 g002
Sustainability 14 07657 g003 550
Figure 3. Schematic examples of the actions carried out in the experiences reviewed. As the daylighting of streams occurs in many cities, many other actions are taken to reconnect rivers to cities and habitats, restore riparian habitats, and habilitate recreational spaces. Agroforestry integrated as part of ecohydrology, and nature-based solutions can help treat direct pollution sources through methods such as biofiltration ponds, artificial wetlands, and willow swamps. Gabion dams may help regulate river flow and create breeding spaces for fish. Urban agriculture can utilize river resources and even be part of recreational spaces, together with playgrounds, bike paths, and trails, in a strategy that promotes mixed uses of space.
Figure 3. Schematic examples of the actions carried out in the experiences reviewed. As the daylighting of streams occurs in many cities, many other actions are taken to reconnect rivers to cities and habitats, restore riparian habitats, and habilitate recreational spaces. Agroforestry integrated as part of ecohydrology, and nature-based solutions can help treat direct pollution sources through methods such as biofiltration ponds, artificial wetlands, and willow swamps. Gabion dams may help regulate river flow and create breeding spaces for fish. Urban agriculture can utilize river resources and even be part of recreational spaces, together with playgrounds, bike paths, and trails, in a strategy that promotes mixed uses of space.
Sustainability 14 07657 g003
Sustainability 14 07657 g004 550
Figure 4. Schematic examples of the actions carried out in the experiences reviewed. The experiences include actions such as creating educational and vegetable gardens, sitting and bench areas, biofiltration ponds, and bridges and kayak ports to create waterscapes where people can access and connect to rivers.
Figure 4. Schematic examples of the actions carried out in the experiences reviewed. The experiences include actions such as creating educational and vegetable gardens, sitting and bench areas, biofiltration ponds, and bridges and kayak ports to create waterscapes where people can access and connect to rivers.
Sustainability 14 07657 g004
Sustainability 14 07657 g005 550
Figure 5. Actions found in two of the Mexican experiences. These are some examples of people´s activities around rivers and their initiatives to rehabilitate or “rescue” rivers in two Mexican cities. In Xalapa city, neighbor and government organizations worked for several years to rehabilitate the Sedeño River by building trails and paths (top center right) integrated with educational signs (top left) and pedestrian bridges (lower left), among other actions. In the city of Morelia, recreational areas next to rivers were habilitated by neighbors (top right), and agriculture is carried out on the margins of rivers (lower right). Other actions do not necessarily happen next to rivers but are crucial for river health, such as the construction of artificial ponds and wetlands, as in the case of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) campus in Morelia (top center left).
Figure 5. Actions found in two of the Mexican experiences. These are some examples of people´s activities around rivers and their initiatives to rehabilitate or “rescue” rivers in two Mexican cities. In Xalapa city, neighbor and government organizations worked for several years to rehabilitate the Sedeño River by building trails and paths (top center right) integrated with educational signs (top left) and pedestrian bridges (lower left), among other actions. In the city of Morelia, recreational areas next to rivers were habilitated by neighbors (top right), and agriculture is carried out on the margins of rivers (lower right). Other actions do not necessarily happen next to rivers but are crucial for river health, such as the construction of artificial ponds and wetlands, as in the case of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) campus in Morelia (top center left).
Sustainability 14 07657 g005
Table
Table 1. Practices in the experiences reviewed and the processes with which they´re associated.
Table 1. Practices in the experiences reviewed and the processes with which they´re associated.
Specific Processes and Associated ConceptsActions (Practices)
Improve water quality, access, and availabilityAquatic garden
Biofiltration
“Retrofits” (sidewalk drains to capture rainwater)
Construction of marginal drainage for domestic wastewaterConstruction of reservoirs
Installation of ultraviolet light treatment plants
Permeable pavement
Rainwater harvesting
Solid waste cleanup
Sustainable urban drainage systems
Restore river hydromorphology and connectivity“Daylighting” streams and rivers
Desilting
Floodplain restoration
Gabion dams
Green areas for water management
Hedgerow planting and transplanting
J-stone paddles
Logs to stabilize banks
Reconstruction of meanders
Re-establishment of connections between streams
Removal of concrete barriers and dams
Retention ponds
Rocks as bridges
Tree planting and transplanting
Wetlands
Restore riparian and aquatic habitats and flora, fauna, and microorganismsBioremediation
Construction of fish mating areas
Control of invasive species
Reintroduction of fish species
Reintroduction of native plants
Row planting with pioneer species
Soil bioengineering
Sustainable grasslands planted with native species
Create river culturesGreen riverside areas
Pumps to establish a constant flow
Shrub planting
Planting of grasses
Participation of neighbors in planting and caring for plants
Food gardens
All the actions related to “Generate recreational spaces and integrate the urban landscape” below
Compost
Educational vegetable garden
Environmental education and river cleanup campaigns
Blue areas
Botanical garden
Environmental interpretation signs
Ecological zone for environmental education
Nature education sites
Guarantee food productionFood gardens
Urban Food Forestry
Impact public policiesFines and incentives on river use across a region
Multisector water parliament at a regional level
Organization of forums on urban rivers
Regulatory changes and water use agreements in a region of Europe
Rehabilitate local economies and integrate the urban landscapeEquine exhibition area
Markets
Museums
Passive and active recreational areas
Relocation of families living along the riverbed
Re-use of demolition material of old canal structures
Sports arenas
Stores
Generate recreational spaces and integrate the urban landscapeBench areas
Bikeways
Connectivity to other means of transportation
Construction of linear and ecological corridor
Construction of marshes and low-lying areas
Construction of piers or beaches
Construction of willow swamps
Cycle paths
Green parking lots
Green riverside areas
Large parks or urban forests
Mapping
Ornamental trees
Playgrounds/green schools
Public toilets
Rain gardens
Sidewalk gardens and plantings
Trails and bridges, kayak ports
Vegetation in alleys and streets
Vertical terrace walls
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Delgado-Lemus, T.S.; Moreno-Calles, A.I. Agroforestry Contributions to Urban River Rehabilitation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7657. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14137657

AMA Style

Delgado-Lemus TS, Moreno-Calles AI. Agroforestry Contributions to Urban River Rehabilitation. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7657. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14137657

Chicago/Turabian Style

Delgado-Lemus, Tzitzi Sharhí, and Ana Isabel Moreno-Calles. 2022. "Agroforestry Contributions to Urban River Rehabilitation" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7657. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14137657

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop