Cargando…

The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.

In this paper, we assess the challenges of water, waste and climate change in six cities across the U.S.: New York City, Boston, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Portland and Los Angeles. We apply the City Blueprint(®) Approach which consists of three indicator assessments: (1) the Trends and Pressures Framework...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feingold, Daniel, Koop, Stef, van Leeuwen, Kees
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29101426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0952-y
_version_ 1783292186745372672
author Feingold, Daniel
Koop, Stef
van Leeuwen, Kees
author_facet Feingold, Daniel
Koop, Stef
van Leeuwen, Kees
author_sort Feingold, Daniel
collection PubMed
description In this paper, we assess the challenges of water, waste and climate change in six cities across the U.S.: New York City, Boston, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Portland and Los Angeles. We apply the City Blueprint(®) Approach which consists of three indicator assessments: (1) the Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF), (2) the City Blueprint Framework (CBF) and (3) the water Governance Capacity Framework (GCF). The TPF summarizes the main social, environmental and financial pressures that may impede water management. The CBF provides an integrated overview of the management performances within the urban watercycle. Finally, the GCF provides a framework to identify key barriers and opportunities to develop governance capacity. The GCF has only been applied in NYC. Results show that all cities face pressures from heat risk. The management performances regarding resource efficiency and resource recovery from wastewater and solid waste show considerable room for improvement. Moreover, stormwater separation, infrastructure maintenance and green space require improvement in order to achieve a resilient urban watercycle. Finally, in New York City, the GCF results show that learning through smart monitoring, evaluation and cross-stakeholder learning is a limiting condition that needs to be addressed. We conclude that the City Blueprint Approach has large potential to assist cities in their strategic planning and exchange of knowledge, experiences and lessons. Because the methodology is well-structured, easy to understand, and concise, it may bridge the gap between science, policy and practice. It could therefore enable other cities to address their challenges of water, waste and climate change.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5765205
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57652052018-01-25 The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S. Feingold, Daniel Koop, Stef van Leeuwen, Kees Environ Manage Article In this paper, we assess the challenges of water, waste and climate change in six cities across the U.S.: New York City, Boston, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Portland and Los Angeles. We apply the City Blueprint(®) Approach which consists of three indicator assessments: (1) the Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF), (2) the City Blueprint Framework (CBF) and (3) the water Governance Capacity Framework (GCF). The TPF summarizes the main social, environmental and financial pressures that may impede water management. The CBF provides an integrated overview of the management performances within the urban watercycle. Finally, the GCF provides a framework to identify key barriers and opportunities to develop governance capacity. The GCF has only been applied in NYC. Results show that all cities face pressures from heat risk. The management performances regarding resource efficiency and resource recovery from wastewater and solid waste show considerable room for improvement. Moreover, stormwater separation, infrastructure maintenance and green space require improvement in order to achieve a resilient urban watercycle. Finally, in New York City, the GCF results show that learning through smart monitoring, evaluation and cross-stakeholder learning is a limiting condition that needs to be addressed. We conclude that the City Blueprint Approach has large potential to assist cities in their strategic planning and exchange of knowledge, experiences and lessons. Because the methodology is well-structured, easy to understand, and concise, it may bridge the gap between science, policy and practice. It could therefore enable other cities to address their challenges of water, waste and climate change. Springer US 2017-11-03 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5765205/ /pubmed/29101426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0952-y Text en © The Author(s) 2017 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Feingold, Daniel
Koop, Stef
van Leeuwen, Kees
The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.
title The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.
title_full The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.
title_fullStr The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.
title_full_unstemmed The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.
title_short The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water Management and Governance in Cities in the U.S.
title_sort city blueprint approach: urban water management and governance in cities in the u.s.
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5765205/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29101426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0952-y
work_keys_str_mv AT feingolddaniel thecityblueprintapproachurbanwatermanagementandgovernanceincitiesintheus
AT koopstef thecityblueprintapproachurbanwatermanagementandgovernanceincitiesintheus
AT vanleeuwenkees thecityblueprintapproachurbanwatermanagementandgovernanceincitiesintheus
AT feingolddaniel cityblueprintapproachurbanwatermanagementandgovernanceincitiesintheus
AT koopstef cityblueprintapproachurbanwatermanagementandgovernanceincitiesintheus
AT vanleeuwenkees cityblueprintapproachurbanwatermanagementandgovernanceincitiesintheus