IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9500-d445336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Right to Urban Streams: Quantitative Comparisons of Stakeholder Perceptions in Defining Adaptive Stream Restoration

Author

Listed:
  • Chang-Yu Hong

    (Department of Urban Environmental Research, Jeju Research Institute, Jeju 63147, Korea)

  • Eun-Sung Chung

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul 01811, Korea)

  • Heejun Chang

    (Department of Geography, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201, USA)

Abstract

Assuring healthy streams in the urban environment is a major goal for restoration scientists, urban planners, and city practitioners around the globe. In South Korea, many urban stream restoration efforts are designed to provide safe water to society and enhance ecological functions. We examined the extent to which the individual interests and different values of multiple stakeholders were considered in previous decision-making in two urban stream restoration projects. The relevant data on stream restoration were collected through the nominal group technique (NGT) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for the two stream cases of a populated inland area and a coastal region in South Korea. The AHP results provide information about the comparative weights of the values of ecological restoration (priority score: 0.487), social restoration (priority score: 0.231), and landscape revitalization (priority score: 0.279) of the Ahn-Yang stream and ecological restoration (priority score: 0.527), social restoration (priority score: 0.182), and landscape revitalization (priority score: 0.290) of the Sahn-Jee stream. The stakeholders of the populated metropolitan area had a relatively high awareness of their role in environmental restoration, thus it was natural for them to place a high value on social restoration.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang-Yu Hong & Eun-Sung Chung & Heejun Chang, 2020. "The Right to Urban Streams: Quantitative Comparisons of Stakeholder Perceptions in Defining Adaptive Stream Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9500-:d:445336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9500/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9500/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moore, Ross G. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Kim, Tae-Goun, 2010. "The Effects of Climate Change Perceptions on Willingness to Fund the Prevention of Wetland Loss," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56495, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. D F Jones & S J Mardle, 2004. "A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(8), pages 869-875, August.
    3. Chang-Yu Hong & Eun-Sung Chung, 2016. "Temporal Variations of Citizens’ Demands on Flood Damage Mitigation, Streamflow Quantity and Quality in the Korean Urban Watershed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-19, April.
    4. William M Adams & Martin R Perrow & Angus Carpenter, 2004. "Conservatives and Champions: River Managers and the River Restoration Discourse in the United Kingdom," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(11), pages 1929-1942, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "Coherent weights for pairwise comparison matrices and a mixed-integer linear programming problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 143-161, September.
    2. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    3. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    4. Tomashevskii, I.L., 2015. "Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 774-780.
    5. Rung-Jiun Chou, 2016. "Achieving Successful River Restoration in Dense Urban Areas: Lessons from Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-23, November.
    6. Tomasz Wachowicz & Paweł Błaszczyk, 2013. "TOPSIS Based Approach to Scoring Negotiating Offers in Negotiation Support Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1021-1050, November.
    7. Bozóki, Sándor & Fülöp, János, 2018. "Efficient weight vectors from pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 419-427.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9500-:d:445336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.