U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Series 2014–1155

Prepared in cooperation with the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania 

and the Penn Institute for Urban Research

A symposium organized by the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems—

A Wharton School/USGS Collaborative, cosponsored by the Penn Institute for Urban 

Research

Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a 

Green Philadelphia
Cover. Top—Photo by B. Krist for Visit PhiladelphiaTM; bottom left—Photo by B. Krist for Visit PhiladelphiaTM; and bottom right—Photo by 

R. Kennedy for Visit PhiladelphiaTM. 
Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision 

Making for a Green Philadelphia

By Dianna M. Hogan, Carl D. Shapiro, David N. Karp, and Susan M. Wachter

Prepared in cooperation with the Wharton School at the University of 

Pennsylvania and the Penn Institute for Urban Research

A symposium organized by the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems, 

a Wharton School/USGS Collaborative, cosponsored by the Penn Institute for 

Urban Research

Open-File Report 2014–1155

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Hogan, D.M., Shapiro, C.D., Karp, D.N., and Wachter, S.M., 2014, Urban ecosystem services and 

decision making for a green Philadelphia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1155, 21 p., 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141155.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain

copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be 

secured from the copyright owner.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Introductory Comments ................................................................................................................................2

Greenworks: Philadelphia’s Sustainability Initiative.......................................................................2

Bringing Science to Provide Ecosystem Service Approaches to Meeting the 

Challenges of an Urban Center.............................................................................................2

Goals for a Green Philadelphia....................................................................................................................3

Science and Urban Ecosystem Services—A National Perspective.....................................................3

Urban Water—Managing Stormwater, Rivers, and Watersheds..........................................................3

America’s Great Outdoors and Urban Waters Federal Partnership......................................................7

Thinking Holistically and Making Connections.........................................................................................7

Urban Green—Managing Forests, Trees, and Greenspace...................................................................8

Establishing an Urban Research Agenda for Decision-Ready Science—Priorities and 

Opportunities...................................................................................................................................11

Going Forward: Developing a Research Agenda and a Community of Practice ..............................12

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................13

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................13

Appendix 1: Agenda.....................................................................................................................................14

Appendix 2: Speaker Biographies.............................................................................................................16

Appendix 3: List of Participants.................................................................................................................20

Figures

1. An integrated approach to water. Community is at the center of the PWD’s 

approach to stormwater management. Source: Howard Neukrug, 

Philadelphia Water Department, panel presentation slide ...................................................4

2. Water management impact web. Factors and linkages involved in 

Philadelphia’s water management plan. Source: Howard Neukrug, 

Philadelphia Water Department, panel presentation slide ...................................................5

3. Where do cities and nature overlap (or should they?) Illustrations by 

David Hsu. Source: David Hsu, panel presentation slide.......................................................6

4. EnviroAtlas, Web-based interactive mapping tool. Source: 

http://www.epa.gov ....................................................................................................................10

5. Percent tree cover by census tract, southeastern Pennsylvania, five-county 

region. Source: PHS, Nancy Goldenberg, panel presentation slide..................................10

Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a 

Green Philadelphia

By Dianna M. Hogan, Carl D. Shapiro, David N. Karp, and Susan M. Wachter

Introduction

Traditional approaches to urban development often do not 

account for, or recognize, the role of ecosystem services and 

the benefits these services provide to the health and well-being 

of city residents. Without such accounting, urban ecosystem 

services are likely to be degraded over time, with negative 

consequences for the sustainability of cities and the well-being 

of their residents (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; 

Hirsch, 2008). On May 23, 2013, the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), a collaboration between 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions 

Center and the Wharton GIS Lab, convened a one-day symposium—Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: 

A Green Philadelphia—at the University of Pennsylvania 

in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to examine the role of green 

infrastructure in the environmental, economic, and social wellbeing of cities. Cosponsored by the USGS and the Penn Institute for Urban Research (Penn IUR), the symposium brought 

together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from a 

range of disciplines to advance a research agenda on the use 

of science in public decision making to inform investment in 

green infrastructure and ecosystem services in urban areas.1

The city of Philadelphia has recently implemented a 

program designed to sustain urban ecosystem services and 

advance the use of green infrastructure. In 2009, the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability launched its Greenworks 

plan,2

 establishing a citywide sustainability strategy. Major 

contributions towards its goals are being implemented in coordination with the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). The 

Green City, Clean Waters initiative,3 the city’s nationally recognized stormwater management plan, was signed into action 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 

April 2012. The plan outlines a 25-year strategy to use green 

infrastructure to protect and improve the city’s watershed. 

Widespread support for the plan marks a citywide effort to 

1

Comments made by speakers not affiliated with the USGS do not necessarily reflect the positions of the USGS.

2

http://www.phila.gov/green/greenworks/index.html.

3

http://www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/documents_and_data/

cso_long_term_control_plan.

factor environmental quality concerns into the city’s strategic 

planning, choosing to replace expensive and aging grey4 infrastructure, with innovative and resilient green5

 infrastructure.

The symposium focused on these city of Philadelphia 

initiatives and also on two new Federal- local partnership 

programs: America’s Great Outdoors,6 initiated to promote 

conservation and recreation, and the Urban Waters Federal 

Partnership,7 a multiagency effort to reconnect urban communities to their waterways.8

A second goal of the symposium was to advance a 

research agenda on urban ecosystem services. While there has 

been considerable work on ecosystem services, the discussion 

of the benefits provided by urban ecosystems is not as developed. Benefits range from improved water and air quality to 

quality of life gains, including aesthetic and recreational considerations.9

 There is also need for additional focused research 

toward furthering the understanding of the multiple indirect 

benefits provided by urban ecosystem services (Bolund and 

4

Grey infrastructure is defined as the infrastructure used to collect, transport, temporarily store, and treat sewage and stormwater, including pipes, 

treatment plants, and inflatable dams; often called “traditional infrastructure” 

(PWD, http://www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/traditional_

infrastructure).

5

Green infrastructure is defined as “a soil- and vegetation-based approach to 

wet weather management that is cost-effective, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. Green infrastructure management approaches and technologies 

infiltrate, evapotranspire, capture, and reuse stormwater to maintain or restore 

natural hydrologies” (U.S. Green Building Council, http://www.usgbc.org/

glossary).

6

http://www.doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/index.cfm.

7

http://www.urbanwaters.gov/.

8

On May 10, 2013, the USGS recently announced a new partnership in the 

Delaware River Basin that covers Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Penn.); Camden, New Jersey; Chester, Penn.; and Wilmington, Delaware; a collaboration 

of Federal, State, regional, local government, and nongovernment partners 

focused on the protection and restoration of the Delaware River watershed, 

through reconnection with economically distressed communities. The initiative aims to promote better utilization of Federal resources to advance sustainable development in communities throughout the watershed. Existing efforts 

in other watersheds include riverfront master plans, landscape restoration, and 

building community capacity.

9

See Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010; Wise and others, 2010; 

Wachter and others, 2008; and Wachter and Wong, 2008.
2 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

Hunhammar, 1999). Moreover, there is a need for a greater 

understanding of how best to inform local decision making in 

this area, as local decision makers in cities across the country 

are increasingly recognizing the importance of developing 

sustainability measures for their immediate and long-term 

planning (United States Conference of Mayors, 2005).

Approaching these local and regional plans from a 

holistic perspective has become a guiding principle of sustainability10 and resiliency.11,

12 Therefore, there is a need to better 

understand the gains that have been achieved and to advance 

a research agenda on ecosystem services going forward. The 

day’s program included presentations on greening initiatives 

from the Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 

as well as discussion about using an urban ecosystem services framework to evaluate these initiatives. Panel sessions 

included discussion of the Green City, Clean Waters initiative; 

a dialogue about the management of urban trees and green 

space; and a conversation addressing the needs for future 

research. The following provides a summary of the day’s 

events.

10“Sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans 

and nature can exist in productive harmony, which permit fulfilling the social, 

economic, and other requirements of present and future generations. Sustainability is important to making sure that we have and will continue to have the 

water, materials, and resources to protect human health and our environment.” 

(EPA, http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm.)

11Resiliency refers to the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb 

disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and 

change. In keeping with this theme, “resilient cities” reduce vulnerability to 

extreme events and respond creatively to economic, social, and environmental 

change in order to increase their long-term sustainability. As such, resilient cities define a comprehensive “urban resilience” concept and policy agenda with 

implications in the fields of urban governance, infrastructure, finance, design, 

social, and economic development, and environmental/resource management. 

(Resilient City Series, International Council for Environmental Initiatives 

(ICLEI), http://resilient-cities.iclei.org/resilient-cities-hub-site/resilienceresource-point/glossary-of-key-terms/.)

12As of 2012, more than 1,000 U.S. mayors agreed to meet Kyoto Protocol 

targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by signing the Climate Protection Agreement. Focusing on ways to reduce energy consumption, cities have 

increased investment in public transit, established efficiency standards for 

lighting, heating, and cooling, and incorporated Lead in Energy and Enviromental Design and other standards into their local building codes. Such local 

efforts to combat global warming extend to goals for reducing sprawl, protecting open space, managing sensitive land use, and restoring natural resources. 

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability has aided these efforts by 

helping local governments to develop long-term sustainability plans. ICLEI’s 

STAR Community Index guide describes a commitment to natural resource 

planning, green infrastructure, and watershed protection. Internationally, the 

ACES (A Community of Ecosystem Services) conference has been held biannually since 2008 to bring together decision makers and researchers to link 

science and practice in the area of ecosystem planning and management. The 

next meeting will be held in 2014.

http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm

http://www.kyotousa.org/

http://www.icleiusa.org/library/documents/STAR_Sustainability_Goals.pdf

http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces/index.html

Introductory Comments

Greenworks: Philadelphia’s Sustainability 

Initiative

Katherine Gajewski, Director of the Philadelphia Mayor’s 

Office of Sustainability, presented a brief overview of Greenworks, the city of Philadelphia’s sustainability framework and 

action plan. Gajewski outlined the structure of Greenworks, 

which was put into action by Mayor Michael Nutter in 2009, 

with the establishment of the newly created Mayor’s Office of 

Sustainability. With a 6-year timeline, Greenworks establishes 

5 core goals, 15 measurable targets, and 166 individual initiatives to be completed by 2015.

Gajewski presented a basic summary of the city’s efforts 

and progress thus far, expressing the need for the city to continue its current momentum and leadership forward, in building and planning for a more sustainable future. She explained 

that the next wave of sustainability planning will need to 

implement a “comprehensive strategy that crosses multiple 

parts of government in order to achieve impactful outcomes 

and multiple benefits.” Director Gajewski emphasized the 

importance of government adaptation and the modification of 

fixed systems for long-term impact, specifically noting asset 

management as an area that needs attention. As the Mayor’s 

term in office is coming to a close, Gajewski stressed the need 

for both governmental and nongovernmental commitment to 

sustainability goals, highlighting in particular the interagency 

constituency that made Greenworks possible. The ability to 

endure and adapt together with these changes will dictate 

Philadelphia’s long-term standing as a leading city in the sustainability movement.

Bringing Science to Provide Ecosystem Service 

Approaches to Meeting the Challenges of an 

Urban Center

Carl Shapiro, Director of the USGS Science and Decisions Center, posed the central question for the day’s discussion: How can understanding the provisioning and valuing of 

urban ecosystem services help inform local decisions about 

prioritizing the preservation and enhancement of ecosystem 

services in different locations and in different timeframes? 

Beginning with a definition of what those services produce—

“the benefits that humans receive from nature”—Shapiro 

explained that our collective understanding of these services 

and our ability to measure their benefits is continuing to 

develop, while concerns regarding the monetization of nature 

persist.

As with all public goods, the benefits of urban ecosystem 

services are not adequately described in markets nor easily estimated. Nonetheless, without an understanding of the 

function and benefits of these services, the community incurs 

the risk of underestimating their value and not including that 
Urban Water—Managing Stormwater, Rivers, and Watersheds 3

value in decisions. Thus, an understanding of how to estimate 

and apply the benefits of ecosystem services is required to 

inform policy regarding the use and protection of these natural 

resources.13

The mission of the USGS Science and Decisions Center 

is to advance the use of science in decision making, in part by 

improving the understanding of ecosystem services and their 

economic and social values, especially when these benefits 

are not reflected in markets. The Spatial Information Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), established by the USGS in 

partnership with the University of Pennsylvania and co-led by 

Susan Wachter of Wharton and Dianna Hogan of the USGS, is 

part of this effort.14

Shapiro ended his comments by highlighting questions 

for participants to keep in mind for the day’s concluding 

panel on advancing a research agenda: How can science most 

effectively be incorporated into urban decision making? What 

are the key scientific opportunities and challenges? And how 

might we develop partnerships and create incentives for ecosystem services to be more effectively and routinely considered to inform sustainable urban decisions?

Goals for a Green Philadelphia

Michael DiBerardinis, Deputy Mayor for Environmental 

and Community Resources for the City of Philadelphia and 

Commissioner of the Department of Parks and Recreation, 

addressed the necessity for the city to invest in green infrastructure—both to improve the quality of its environment 

and to remain attractive and competitive with other cities to 

advance economic development. The overarching goal of the 

Greenworks plan is to integrate science and decision making 

with the goal of improving the lives of Philadelphians.

DiBerardinis emphasized the importance of engaging citizens. He described the city’s sustainable action strategies that 

include: a city government energy conservation plan, efforts 

toward improving city-wide access to green spaces to all 

citizens, the greening of recreation centers and school yards, 

and tree-planting goals. To accomplish these, he emphasized 

the importance of partnerships among public, private, and 

nonprofit entities. DiBerardinis closed by stating the unique 

opportunity for municipal governments to lead by example. 

As owner and manager of public lands, the city can influence 

and drive a green agenda by setting high standards for urban 

ecosystem management.

13See Callicott, J.B. (2001).

14SILUS and Wharton GIS Lab researchers are currently investigating 

instruments of stormwater management financing under an EPA STAR grant 

[EPA-G2012_STAR_G1]. Dr. Susan Wachter is a researcher on the project, 

along with other leading Penn faculty.

Science and Urban Ecosystem 

Services—A National Perspective

Bill Werkheiser, Acting Deputy Director of the USGS, 

offered a Federal perspective on the utility of real-time data 

and science-based quantitative analysis to monitor and value 

ecosystem services, explaining that you “cannot manage what 

you cannot monitor.” He affirmed up front the importance of 

developing a strong identity for urban ecosystem services, 

stressing that “connecting people with nature must happen in 

an urban landscape.” From an historical context, Werkheiser 

explained how the definition of ecosystem services has developed from meaning the “products of the national domain” to 

a more modern interpretation as the “benefits people receive 

from nature.” It is now important to have the science, the 

incentive frameworks, and the governance to specifically 

address urban ecosystem services. He emphasized that since 

the majority of the national and global population now resides 

in urban areas, we must look to these areas as the primary 

source of action concerning ecosystem service provision and 

protection.

Werkheiser pointed to ongoing efforts to monitor the 

quality of ecosystems for science-based quantitative analysis 

of benefits and services, including real-time stream monitoring programs, such as WaterSMART,15 to provide information about water availability and effects of stream restoration 

efforts. To highlight the role of stakeholders in developing 

these initiatives, he posed the question, “What information do 

we need in order to manage water resources effectively?”

Werkheiser discussed the need for future research to 

develop a better understanding of the value of nature, from 

mussels in streambeds to riparian tree canopy, to restoring and 

maintaining the quality of urban streams and fisheries, and a 

long-term assessment of the impact of stream restoration policies. He emphasized a focus on improving our understanding 

of the economic impacts of restoration efforts and stressed the 

importance of ongoing monitoring and assessment to identify unexpected outcomes and adjust strategies to ensure the 

achievement of intended goals.

Urban Water—Managing Stormwater, 

Rivers, and Watersheds

Howard Neukrug, Commissioner of PWD, described the 

city of Philadelphia’s “First in the Nation” agreement with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to substitute 

green infrastructure for grey infrastructure in managing stormwater.16 David Hsu, Assistant Professor of City and Regional 

15http://water.usgs.gov/watercensus/WaterSMART.html.

16In June 2011, the Philadelphia Water Department’s (PWD’s) Green City, 

Clean Waters plan was publically endorsed by the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection, signing a consent agreement acknowledging its 
4 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

Planning at Penn’s School of Design, and Tom Daniels, 

Professor of City and Regional Planning at Penn’s School of 

Design, followed Neukrug’s presentation, giving their review 

of the issues and innovations in stormwater planning.

Commissioner Neukrug addressed the importance 

of watershed restoration and protection as a key objective 

of reconnecting hydrological processes into urban design. 

He noted that this objective means ensuring access to and 

conservation of scarce water resources through effective, 

efficient, and ecologically sound stormwater management. 

Neukrug spoke of the need for an integrated approach to 

water management, recognizing the connection between the 

watersheds, drinking water provision, and stormwater and 

wastewater treatment (fig. 1). Nonetheless, Philadelphia’s “one 

water, one city” approach raises questions around the scale of 

governance, the engagement of private actors in infrastructure 

provision, and the acceptability of spending taxpayers’ dollars 

on preservation.

Within the context of Philadelphia’s decision to develop 

an innovative green infrastructure investment plan in lieu 

of a more costly17 “grey infrastructure” solution (involving 

the construction of new, separate pipes for waste water and 

stormwater), Neukrug discussed the logistics of managing 

a billion-dollar “green utility.” Key to these logistics is the 

25-year green infrastructure strategy—Green City, Clean 

Waters—which decentralizes the city’s stormwater management through citywide greening efforts. Pointing to the key 

flaw of the city’s Combined Sewer Outfall (CSO) system, 

$2-billion, 25-year plan. In April 2012, the EPA also entered into an agreement with PWD to collaborate on the implementation of the plan—through 

developing demonstration projects, efforts to streamline and integrate the plan 

on a large scale, and to conduct studies to test and monitor water quality in the 

Delaware River watershed. In that first year, 184 green stormwater projects 

were built. Through improvements made to streets, schools, public facilities, 

parking lots, and other public and private properties, the PWD’s plan aims 

to implement green stormwater infrastructure tools in order to capture runoff 

close to its point of origination, slowing the rate that it enters the sewer system, and preventing polluted water from entering into the rivers and creeks. 

In a partnership with the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation, the PWD 

has begun working towards a goal of realizing 500 “greened acres” by 2015, 

through an effort to locate “at least a patch of parkland within a 10-minute 

walk of anywhere in the city.”

http://phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing

http://www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/documents_and_data/

cso_long_term_control_plan

http://www.phillywatersheds.org/philly-500-city-begins-speeding-toward500-new-green-acres-2015

17The Pennsylvania Water Department (PWD) explored alternatives in the 

development of the Green City, Clean Waters Program. Options included a 

comprehensive overhaul of the existing “grey” stormwater management and 

sanitation systems. This option met the Combined Sewer Outfall policy goals 

but failed to serve any beneficial environmental purpose. The estimated present worth capital cost for a complete sewer separation would have been $16 

billion as opposed to the estimated $2.4-billion green structure investment. 

The selected approach involves a 25-year commitment of $2.4 billion ($1.67 

billion in Green Stormwater Infrastructure, $345 million in upgrades to treatment plant capacity, and $420 million in a category of “flexible spending”).

Figure 1. An integrated approach to water. Community is at 

the center of the PWD’s approach to stormwater management. 

Source: Howard Neukrug, Philadelphia Water Department, panel 

presentation slide.

Neukrug explained that every time it rains, the city’s sewers 

overflow into the two major rivers. Focusing on innovative 

designs to “manage water where it falls,” Neukrug explained 

the long-term strategy to avoid having to increase capacity of 

sewer tunnels and treatment plants. He highlighted site projects such as streetscape improvements; permeable basketball 

courts; green roofs on new and retrofitted development; and 

new green spaces, parks, and riparian landscapes. As shown 

in figure 2, collectively, these improvements would constitute 

a dynamic and diversified system, which from its integrated 

approach would depend heavily on regulation, policy, incentives, and education; the benefits also could be far reaching. 

Neukrug stressed the community component, explaining that 

green space needs to be “clean, safe, and accessible,” to ensure 

that the community is willing to engage in its maintenance and 

to improve its value.18

To facilitate the success of Green City, Clean Waters, the 

PWD is working with stakeholders, including the EPA, the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and 

local environmental groups. The PWD is expected to invest 

$2.2 billion in green and grey infrastructure over the next 25 

years, working toward a goal of 10,000 “greened acres”—the 

Water Department’s metric of determining the amount of 

stormwater managed and diverted from the sewer system 

(which translates to the removal of 34 percent of the city’s 

existing impervious surface, or 15 square miles).

18In the end, the improvements are to be financed by the rate-paying public; 

thus, the importance of both advancing and expanding the benefits that 

accrue and contribute to the overall revitalization of the city; and therefore a 

complete understanding of societal costs and benefits is critical in justifying 

these initiatives to rate payers. The PWD outlines a list of the quantifiable 

benefits and external costs associated with its long-term strategy: water-quality and ecosystem improvement; recreation benefits; reduction in heat-stress 

mortality; air-quality improvement from trees; energy savings; and improved 

property values.
Urban Water—Managing Stormwater, Rivers, and Watersheds 5

Figure 2. Water management 

impact web. Factors 

and linkages involved 

in Philadelphia’s water 

management plan. Source: 

Howard Neukrug, Philadelphia 

Water Department, panel 

presentation slide.

Neukrug noted the importance for the PWD to plan 

its actions in conjunction with other initiatives around the 

city, including the Greenworks plan and the Planning Commission’s Philadelphia 2035 long-range plan. Emphasizing 

a theme of building towards long-run sustainability policy, 

Neukrug expressed the goal of working toward institutionalizing the incentives, policies, regulations, and fees the PWD is 

putting in place in order to ensure that funding is available for 

ongoing investments in the city’s green infrastructures.

David Hsu began his presentation by asking three general 

questions that he suggested are relevant to all ecosystem 

initiatives:

1. How can we get people to respond through incentives to 

environmental concerns?

2. What do we need to know to make urban environmental 

policy?

3. How do we coordinate to achieve good environmental 

outcomes?

Hsu pointed to the importance of getting incentives right; 

short-sightedness and comfort with “business as usual” slow 

the adoption of new practices and must be overcome with 

incentives. On environmental policy, Hsu discussed the importance of the scale of the impact and the need for solutions that 

move from the property level to the street to the neighborhood, city, region, and Nation. Hsu highlighted the importance of place, and the importance of structural design and 

policy design to be unique to a local and ecological context, 

identifying the need to understand how urban and natural 

landscapes overlap and the need to coordinate on all levels to 

achieve desired environmental outcomes. Hsu used this broad 

frame to examine the management of stormwater flow in the 

city. Thinking about how we can reconfigure street trees and 

landscape to help “detain, infiltrate, and reuse sheeting water,” 

Hsu explained that this is an open question for designers, 

planners, and engineers (fig. 3). The challenge is to figure out 

how to build systems that work together to maintain multiple 

functions, given slow incremental change (of ecosystems), 

existing property rights and laws, and various structures of 

urban economics and public policy.

Hsu used the illustrations presented in figure 3 to point to 

the differences between natural and built landscapes, and the 

design challenges of reconfiguring urban landscapes to incorporate elements of green infrastructure. The first illustration 

depicts the main fluxes of water in a natural setting, including 

evaporation, precipitation, and flows across the landscape. 

Hsu used the other three illustrations to point to questions that 

arise when we shift to an urban context: How does stormwater 

flow in the city? Hsu discussed the incremental approach that 

should be taken to reconfigure an urban landscape to manage stormwater more efficiently. Highlighting the individual 

components of the illustrations, Hsu asked what challenges 

arise in efforts to detain, infiltrate, and reuse water in the local 

landscape, including policy questions that arise with regard 

to property rights. What rights does a property owner have 

to below-ground uses, and what rights does a building owner 

have to the street in front? Property rights, the science of 
6 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

Figure 3. Where do cities and nature overlap (or should they?) Illustrations by David Hsu. The series of illustrations 

present (from left to right) the shift from natural to built landscape, and the changes of an incrementally reconfigured 

urban landscape. The first depicts a flow of water in a natural setting; the second shows water sheeting off of 

impervious surfaces and entering the sewer system; the third envisions a redesigned landscape where runoff can flow 

through green space before entering the sewer (diverting some water for reuse); and the final demonstrates a scenario 

with multifunctional green infrastructure (where water is collected on the roof, and retained in a cistern (temporarily) or 

in a bioswale, which can recharge the groundwater. Source: David Hsu, panel presentation slide.
Thinking Holistically and Making Connections 7

permeation, and the spatial configuration of the grey infrastructure all must be taken into account in determining how to 

proceed.

Tom Daniels, Professor of City and Regional Planning 

at Penn’s School of Design, expanded on the importance of 

establishing a local ecological framework by stressing the 

need to embrace the entire regional watershed. Professor 

Daniels’ presentation focused on managing Philadelphia’s 

urban watershed, especially in regard to land use and water 

supply and quality regulations. The Delaware and Schuylkill 

watershed regions directly impact the quality of Philadelphia’s 

water; thus, comprehensive research, planning, and policy 

implementation is needed to secure the management and 

safety of the city’s water supply. Daniels specifically noted 

New York City as a “gold standard” in terms of watershed 

protection. The program in New York was widely successful 

due to practices such as land preservation, rehabilitation and 

replacement of failing septic systems, and the implementation of a “whole farm management plan” that encouraged 

farmers to adopt better conservation practices. The city also 

focused on protecting water quality at its original source, looking upstream towards the “headwaters,” in particular. While 

Philadelphia faces different challenges than those of New 

York City, Daniels points out that practices such as these could 

dramatically improve the state of Philadelphia’s watershed and 

its drinking water.

America’s Great Outdoors and Urban 

Waters Federal Partnership

David Russ, Regional Director of USGS Northeast 

Region, presented two recent Federal initiatives: America’s 

Great Outdoors (AGO) and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership (UWFP). Bringing attention to these collaborative efforts 

between Federal agencies and local governments, Russ suggested that there is growing concern surrounding the importance of natural resource protection and responsible urban and 

economic development. 

The America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative is a collective effort to reconnect people to nature. Access and awareness figure prominently in the focus of the program and are 

intended to enhance parks and green spaces across the country 

and to promote outdoor recreation and park visitation. Initiative goals include (1) establishing urban parks and community 

green spaces, (2) conserving and restoring large landscapes 

and working lands, and (3) enhancing rivers and waterways by 

improving physical access and restoring riparian areas. Using 

examples from the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades, and 

discussing national support for sustainable farming within 

major watersheds, Russ highlighted the need to “keep these 

working landscapes functioning and sustained, while conserving the important aspects of the outdoors and ecosystem 

health.”19 He asked, “From a watershed approach, how do we 

work together at all levels of government, with watershed 

associations and other groups, to restore ecosystems, restore 

habitat, and make them healthier as a system?”

The UWFP is a partnership of 11 Federal agencies, led by 

the EPA, the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service, with a 

goal to “restore and protect urban water quality, and revitalize 

and reconnect people to the waterfronts in cities.” The question of access is at the center of this initiative, pointing out that 

while many large cities were historically founded on a major 

body of water, riverfronts today are often blocked off to citizens, making it difficult to provide access, provide recreation, 

enhance tourism, build economic opportunity, and encourage 

new business and industry.

Russ summarized the roles of AGO and UWFP and their 

abilities to “recognize [the value of] putting communities first, 

engaging the municipal authorities, the watershed associations, 

the [nongovernmental organizations] NGOs, and the academic 

folks, to see what programs are in place, and to see what the 

Federal authorities can bring to the table to enhance or support 

[existing] efforts.” He asked, “How can we work together collectively to make this a more effective type of program?”

Concluding with an overview of progress to date, Russ 

described seven pilot programs as part of the UWFP, each of 

which has one or more Federal cosponsors. He talked about 

the need for geographic information system (GIS)-based tools 

to help decision makers compile an inventory of efforts across 

jurisdictions and to see where there are gaps and where there 

is a need for added information and collaboration.

Russ noted that on May 10, 2013, 11 new program sites 

were announced at a launch event in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

including the Greater Philadelphia area. Russ credited the 

leadership of the USDA Forest Service (USFS) in sustaining 

Philadelphia as a site, with Michael Leff based at the Urban 

Forest Station as ambassador for the Delaware River Watershed Urban Waters Partnership.

Thinking Holistically and Making 

Connections

Mark Alan Hughes, School of Design, University of 

Pennsylvania, discussed his work with the city of Philadelphia developing the Greenworks initiative. He explained 

Greenworks as a “framework,” describing it as “a simplifying 

tool for decision making in the face of complexity.” Expanding on the benefits of the “framework” strategy being more 

guiding principles than a formalized “plan,” he explained 

how it encourages the alignment of short-term and long-term 

decisions that are being made simultaneously, among agencies 

19Russ also provided examples of two National Blueways, which are 

federally designated waterways that USGS sponsors through partnerships of 

stakeholders focused on river and watershed stewardship.
8 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

and partners both inside and outside of city government, while 

also holding policymakers accountable to target metrics. 

Reiterating Howard Neukrug, Hughes emphasized that while 

short-term goals are set for the scope of a two-term mayoral 

administration, outcomes still need to be understood in context 

of 25- and 50-year frameworks. He explained that Greenworks had been “designed to align accountability with power,” 

addressing the importance of having quantifiable benchmarks, 

objectives, and structures of accountability.

Hughes went on to discuss three main themes: capacity, 

scale, and jurisdiction. Describing how the ecosystem services 

conversation relates to broad-scale sustainability, he stressed 

the importance of understanding that sustainability is “not 

just about making and balancing resource allocations, but 

also about fundamental integrity or resilience of the system.” 

He stressed the need for the institutional capacity to manage 

complex urban ecosystems. He also noted the importance of 

“clearly delineating between ecological phenomena (functions), their direct and indirect contributions to human welfare 

(services), and the welfare gains that they generate (benefits)” 

(De Groot and others, 2010). The system’s organization, he 

suggested, has a necessary spatial component. Recognizing 

the often artificial construction of physical delineation, he 

acknowledged the pragmatic benefit of drawing boundaries in order to shape and organize the social and political 

conversation.

Hughes pointed out the key problem of ecosystem 

service management: being a mixed public20 good, valuation 

is uncertain and usage difficult to regulate. Nonetheless, the 

real trouble with effectively managing ecosystem services, he 

explained, is not the science, nor the design and engineering, 

but rather the politics. A critical issue is whether the community has the ability and interest in paying for ecosystem investments. The technical conversation, he claimed, is actually a 

distraction from the more challenging task of facilitating real 

institutional change. Crediting the PWD with its innovative 

approach, he explained that much can be done when a city 

agency is sufficiently equipped with control of public assets 

and provided with adequate financial resources. The PWD, he 

explained, has unlocked the buried value in “the city’s legacy 

assets.” He described how the PWD has taken what could 

be seen as a burden or a liability and instead “pivoted urban 

surfaces into a whole new use.” He closed by saying that the 

relationship between legacy and innovation, with the PWD 

being an exemplar of such innovation, is critical to enabling 

cities like Philadelphia to thrive. Arbitraging its legacy assets 

is a relatively low-cost way to accomplish environmental and 

economic gains that would otherwise appear impossible.

20Mixed public goods incorporate both elements of public goods (a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, 

either by the government or a private individual or organization) and private 

goods (“an item that yields positive benefits to people” that is excludable; 

that is, its owners can exercise private property rights, preventing those who 

have not paid for it from using the good or consuming its benefits) (EconPort 

Handbook, 2006).

Urban Green—Managing Forests, 

Trees, and Greenspace

This panel focused on how public agencies and nonprofit 

organizations are building capacity for managing and valuing 

green infrastructure, particularly green places and tree canopy, 

within an urban context. Focusing on the emerging roles of 

the USFS and the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS) in 

their efforts to grow and manage Philadelphia’s tree canopy, 

panelists covered topics of tree planting, sustainable harvesting, community capacity building, and data collection and 

analysis. Additionally, a series of mapping tools being developed by the EPA were presented in the context of providing 

integrated and innovative tools for decision making, planning, 

and spatial analysis. Led by moderator Emily Pindilli, USGS 

Science and Decisions Center, presentations were made by 

Michael T. Rains, Director, Northern Research Station, USFS; 

Laura Jackson, Research Biologist, Sustainable and Healthy 

Communities Research Program, EPA; and Nancy Goldenberg, Senior Vice President for Programs, PHS.

Michael T. Rains accentuated the importance of the 

urban dimension in the overall concept of ecosystem services: 

services need to be provided to people where they live. Today, 

83 percent of Americans live in urban areas. Rains discussed 

the evolving role of the USFS and its focus on Urban Natural 

Resources Stewardship (UNRS), a comprehensive approach 

to caring for the land and serving people in towns and major 

metropolitan areas. Rains noted that there are about 851 million acres of forest across our country and that 103 million of 

these acres are classified as urban forests—almost as much as 

all the national forests combined. Urban forests are a critical part of America’s landscape and these forests produce a 

variety of valuable services, including clean air and water, low 

energy costs, watchable wildlife habitat, stormwater protection, open space, and recreation. Reinforcing the importance 

of UNRS, Rains talked about the need to address social wellbeing through urban resource management—identifying the 

positive links between environmental health and community 

stability as a result of sound urban natural resource stewardship. Rains spoke about the growing focus and support being 

directed toward the stewardship of urban areas. He described 

UNRS as a cohesive, comprehensive approach, focusing not 

only on the trees, but also on community engagement and economic development. Rains emphasized the importance of the 

partnerships discussed by David Russ, specifically highlighting the UWFP for its promotion of “banding together, sharing 

resources, and avoiding duplication” to help improve people’s 

lives. Rains referred to the UWFP as a “conservation legacy 

event” and urged us to “think big to act big.”

Laura Jackson (EPA) presented a new Web-based GIS 

data tool, EnviroAtlas,21 which is designed to provide deci21The community component provides detail for select cities at a local level, 

summarizing data by block group to show the availability, accessibility, and 

beneficial qualities of natural amenities in the area. Precompiled analytics are 

included to provide information about proximity to green space, exposure 
Urban Green—Managing Forests, Trees, and Greenspace 9

sion makers and researchers with a map-based resource for 

understanding and valuing ecosystem services (released as 

a beta version in June 2013; fig. 4). Emphasizing the link 

between ecosystem services and human health and well-being, 

Jackson pointed out EnviroAtlas’s Community component, 

which presents data at a finer geographic scale, compiled 

with a variety of metrics for valuing ecosystem benefits.22

She highlighted the value of this component for its relevance 

to issues of environmental justice, equity, and civic empowerment. Jackson referred to the EnviroAtlas’s integration 

of tools to develop its datasets and analysis—like iTree23

(which illustrates value derived from the urban tree canopy), 

BenMap24 (which illustrates the health benefits of air pollution reductions), and the Eco-Health Relationship Browser25

(which illustrates the directional links between human health 

and ecosystem services)—and indicated the process of sourcing data from local municipalities, institutions, and community 

groups and organizations. EnviroAtlas is currently in its first 

stage of development, which is the compilation of data and 

construction of metrics in an integrated, usable, and accessible format. The second stage will be to learn and improve 

upon how communities can be empowered by access to such 

information and how this information can support local and 

regional decision making and research. Jackson highlighted 

two core goals of the community component of EnviroAtlas: 

to air pollution, capacity of vegetative cover to address water-quality and 

heat-island effects, and health benefits and avoided costs due to air-quality 

improvements gained from tree cover. Through the use of aerial imagery 

and other software tools, the EPA explains that these analyses “illustrate the 

protective and health promotional benefits of natural resources, and how their 

loss or degradation may be contributing to cumulative burdens on community health and well-being.” (http://www.epa.gov/research/priorities/docs/

enviroatlas-community-factsheet.pdf.)

22The community component provides detail for select cities at a local level, 

summarizing data by block group to show the availability, accessibility, and 

beneficial qualities of natural amenities in the area. Precompiled analytics are 

included to provide information about proximity to green space, exposure 

to air pollution, capacity of vegetative cover to address water-quality and 

heat-island effects, and health benefits and avoided costs due to air-quality 

improvements gained from tree cover. Through the use of aerial imagery 

and other software tools, the EPA explains that these analyses “illustrate the 

protective and health promotional benefits of natural resources, and how their 

loss or degradation may be contributing to cumulative burdens on community health and well-being.” (http://www.epa.gov/research/priorities/docs/

enviroatlas-community-factsheet.pdf.)

23“Through a partnership with the USDA Forest Service, EnviroAtlas leverages i-Tree, an ecosystem services calculation toolkit, to produce some of the 

community metrics. I-Tree helps identify the extent to which trees and other 

natural infrastructure meet community needs and where the availability of 

these assets falls short.”

24BENmap is a map-based software, developed by EPA, designed to model 

estimated health and economic impacts related to changes in air quality. For 

more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap.

25The EnviroAtlas interactive mapping tool adds a visual and spatial component to the existing Eco-Health Relationship Browser (http://www.epa.gov/

research/healthscience/browser/index.html), which is a catalogue of scientific 

research, systematically organized to illustrate directional pathways of how 

natural ecosystems contribute benefits to human health and well-being.

(1) to help communities assess the current and potential role 

of “green infrastructure” to mitigate hazards and promote 

health, and (2) to work with cities to produce useful data for 

on-the-ground analyses. She also pointed out the need to 

gather feedback from a range of users (of varying skill, knowledge, and discipline). The project is currently being launched 

in six pilot communities. Fifty cities, including Philadelphia, 

are slated for inclusion by the end of 2017.

Nancy Goldenberg introduced the role of the PHS, 

describing the focus of their programs on “gardening, greening, and learning” with the goal of improving quality of life 

by “creating a sense of community through horticulture.” 

The PHS contributes to greening efforts throughout the city 

through tree plantings and vacant lot maintenance. Greening lots has been determined to impact communities broadly 

by reducing crime, increasing property value, and improving 

neighborhood conditions. The PHS Philadelphia LandCare 

program has performed the greening of 7.8 million square feet 

of select vacant lots by removing debris, planting grass and 

trees, building fences, and performing regular maintenance 

every 2 weeks.26 Goldenberg described the PHS focus on 

growing the city’s tree canopy through its partnerships with 

TreeVitalize and TreePhilly to work toward the “Plant One 

Million” campaign across 13 counties in southeastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware (fig. 5). Goldenberg pointed 

to the urgency of urban tree canopy loss in recent decades.27

She described the efforts of the TreeTenders program, a volunteer training program that equips residents with the skills, 

tools, and supplies to plant and maintain trees across the city; 

the program is credited with planting 15,000 trees and shrubs 

annually. Involvement by resident tree tenders, she explained, 

spiked between 2005 and 2012 (corresponding with the Nutter Administration and the development of Greenworks). In 

addition to growing the tree canopy, the program promotes 

community belonging by strengthening residents’ sense of 

ownership and pride in their neighborhoods. The PHS is 

expanding local incentives and continues to develop partnerships throughout the region, including those with the Urban 

Field Station of the Forest Service in Philadelphia. This is an 

important accomplishment for the PHS, given its long-term 

role as a steward of greening efforts in the region.

26The PHS has also partnered with the Philadelphia Parks & Recreation’s 

TreePhilly program, the New Jersey Tree Foundation, the Delaware Center 

for Horticulture, The Phillies, Aramark, and the Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources TreeVitalize program to plant trees around the region. 

Researchers at Penn Medicine conducted a randomized control study to evaluate the impact of the PHS’s greening efforts on neighborhoods’ conditions, 

finding that the greening of vacant lots was associated with reductions in 

crime and improvements in perceptions of safety.

http://phsonline.org/greening/landcare-program

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2012/08/vacant/

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2012/08/06/

injuryprev-2012-040439.full

27Between 1985 and 2000, the region’s tree canopy declined by 1.5%. 

http://www.systemecology.com/4_Past_Projects/AF_DelawareValley.pdf
10 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

Figure 4. EnviroAtlas, Web-based interactive mapping tool. Source: http://www.epa.gov.

Figure 5. Percent tree cover 

by census tract, southeastern 

Pennsylvania, five-county 

region. Source: PHS, Nancy 

Goldenberg, panel presentation 

slide.
Establishing an Urban Research Agenda for Decision-Ready Science—Priorities and Opportunities 11

Establishing an Urban Research 

Agenda for Decision-Ready Science—

Priorities and Opportunities

This panel, moderated by Dianna Hogan, USGS SILUS 

Co-Director, focused on existing and emerging research on 

valuing urban ecosystem services and aimed at initiating a 

conversation about the gaps, growing needs, and direction of 

future research. Sarah Low, Coordinator, Philadelphia Field 

Station, USFS; Kathleen Wolf, Research Social Scientist, 

University of Washington; and Christopher Crockett, Deputy 

Water Commissioner, PWD, made presentations.

Sarah Low discussed the need to create a “feedback 

loop,” where research guides practice, which then informs further research. Recognizing the theme of the day—how science 

can inform policy—she asked the following questions: Who is 

making decisions? Who is doing the research? Are they communicating? What spatial scale and level of detail are used? 

Low focused on the need for data and presented an example 

of a division between decision makers and researchers that led 

to inefficiency and resulted in trees dying, due to our lack of 

knowledge of species and local context. She talked about the 

iTree tool28 and the importance of developing an inventory and 

valuation system for ecosystem services and the benefits of 

trees. She explained that documenting what a forest is worth 

may help justify efforts to protect that forest.29 She described 

the process of developing a valuation system by turning a 

science-based method into a practical tool that can then be 

applied and implemented by the community. Low discussed 

other tools used to analyze urban tree cover, in addition to 

iTree, such as lidar and remote sensing. She closed by asking, “How do we address issues of equity when talking about 

economic value?” She also pointed to the developing UWFP 

collaboration, as not only facilitating a conversation but also 

promoting actions that hopefully will be guided by science.

Kathleen Wolf provided an overview of research on 

cultural ecosystem services, including amenity and aesthetic 

benefits, wellness support, and “environmental fitness.” These 

services are particularly important in urban areas, Wolf noted, 

as the aesthetic and cultural value of nature have an especially high impact where access to nature is limited. Wolf’s 

28i-Tree is a software suite developed by the USFS to support urban forest 

management. These tools aid communities in gaging and quantifying the benefits of trees in their ecosystems. i-Tree provides baseline data that can be used 

to model the value of urban tree canopy, through metrics pertaining to forest 

structure, pollution removed from the air, health and economic improvements, 

carbon storage, rainwater management, and so forth. i-Tree is peer-reviewed 

and can be freely downloaded (http://www.itreetools.org/).

29The i-Tree tool sets have been used by communities throughout the United 

States and internationally, to evaluate regional-, neighborhood-, and streetlevel benefits of urban tree cover. These evaluations have been incorporated 

into regional plans and resource assessments to analyze the value and effect 

of urban forests, by identifying trees contributing to improvement, such as air 

quality, climate regulation, energy efficiency, real estate value, and recreational and aesthetic appeal.

presentation explored both existing knowledge and research 

gaps in the field. She reflected on the recent growth in cultural 

ecosystem services research, noting that over 2,000 articles on 

the topic have been written across numerous disciplines, ranging from the health benefits of outdoor activities to the healing 

and therapeutic benefits of exposure to nature.30,

31

Wolf also described “hyperfunctional landscapes” that 

provide multiple ecosystem services in urban areas, making the point that nature is very good at “multitasking.” 

These areas may be created to attract people, limit crime, 

and improve urban safety, while providing stormwater 

management.

Wolf concluded with a review of future research needs, 

including: (1) developing a causal understanding about the 

positive effects of nature on human well-being, rather than the 

prevailing correlational assessments; (2) improving ecosystem 

hyperfunction by better integrating the use of green spaces as 

green infrastructure by design; and (3) providing comprehensive economic assessments of the benefits and costs of humanhealth and well-being impacts.

Christopher Crockett presented the final part of the panel, 

expanding on Howard Neukrug’s earlier presentation by 

providing research questions related to the multidimensional 

approach taken by Philadelphia in its stormwater management 

and greening initiatives. He pointed to unknowns in the logistics of designing and constructing the city’s green stormwater 

infrastructure (designed to achieve the outcomes of the Green 

City, Clean Rivers program). He spoke about the importance 

of understanding the response of the private sector and, in 

particular, of property developers, to regulation and incentives. 

He explored how to best encourage private builders to adopt 

various alternative practices. He also expressed the importance of learning from pilot programs to better understand and 

to advance the outcomes of innovative aspects of engineering urban landscapes, streetscapes, and building designs. He 

emphasized the need for empirical evidence to back up anecdotal observation. Pointing out the potential indirect benefits 

from various landscape improvements, he gave an example of 

a porous pavement basketball court that is dry and usable following a storm; it also is significantly cooler during the heat of 

the summer. He posed the question, “Could we have sensors to 

measure that?” He spoke about understanding and needing to 

assess benefits at various scales, explaining varying points of 

impact from street corner to street block to a neighborhood of 

30To provide a history of ecosystem services research, a collaboration 

between the University of Washington and the USFS has resulted in the development of the Green Cities, Good Health Web site (http://depts.washington.

edu/hhwb/), which provides resource managers, policymakers, and citizens 

an online repository of information about public health, urban greening, and 

other cultural ecosystem service benefits.

31In particular, Wolf pointed to attention restoration theory (citing the work 

of Rachel and Stephen Kaplan at the University of Michigan), exploring how 

people experience nature and how time spent in a natural setting or even with 

a view of nature from an office can have positive benefits—commonly understood as nonuse value.
12 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

blocks, and asked, “What is the critical mass for making real 

impact in a regional ecosystem?”

He went on to reinforce Neukrug’s point that community, 

businesses, residents, and other stakeholders are key to creating value and sustaining and maintaining green infrastructure 

investments for the long run. Putting the question in historical context and emphasizing a long-term vision, he said, “...

we have [had] a [functioning] pipe in south Philadelphia from 

1840...Can we plan to have [living] trees [and functioning] 

pipes and bump outs in 100–200 years?”

Dianna Hogan (USGS) focused on the development of 

an agenda for future research on valuing urban ecosystem services. Several general themes emerged. Participants expressed 

the need to develop research projects around incentives to 

encourage the implementation and financing of green infrastructure, and on engagement with public and private sector 

leaders and with the general public. Participants highlighted 

the need to develop additional measurement tools to estimate 

the value of urban ecosystem services, particularly for public 

health and community vitality outcomes. They identified the 

following specific recommendations:

4. Develop methods, tools, and databases to measure ecosystem services provided in urban areas. These measures 

should leverage the use of existing datasets already 

gathered by Federal agencies.

5. Create a virtual space for urban ecosystem services 

practitioners and researchers to share best practices, case 

studies, and methods to value and advance investments 

in urban ecosystem services, and to inform decision 

makers and to engage the public.

Going Forward: Developing a Research 

Agenda and a Community of Practice

The symposium provided an opportunity to better understand urban ecosystem services and how they can be incorporated into urban decision making and planning. Participants 

emphasized an integrated approach and community engagement, highlighting interagency and community-based programs currently underway. Bringing together practitioners and 

researchers, the symposium offered participants an opportunity 

to envision the holistic role urban ecosystem services can play 

in creating sustainable and resilient cities. The symposium also 

offered approaches for applying that vision in practical and 

pragmatic ways. While long-term planning was recognized as 

important, learning from ecosystem management experiences 

and translating new information into adaptive decision making 

was also highlighted.

Because ecosystems are inherently intertwined, the 

symposium identified efforts already in place to address water 

quality and improve urban tree canopies as two components 

in a broad overarching goal. Green infrastructure can produce 

multifunctional landscapes that serve stormwater management 

goals, while also providing recreational spaces for residents, 

as well as a host of indirect benefits (including air quality, temperature control, real estate value, and psychological benefits). 

Multifunctional and interdependent ecosystems make measurements complex; nonetheless, building a scientific foundation to allow cities and regions to account for the magnitude 

of benefits being produced and their value within and beyond 

their boundaries is critical for incentivizing and financing the 

efficient production of urban ecosystem services.

While identifying innovative practices and advances 

in knowledge currently underway, symposium participants 

pointed to potential gains to be made by addressing knowledge 

gaps. Research advances are needed to: (1) better identify 

and measure values of natural and developed landscapes; (2) 

better understand the biophysical production of urban ecosystem services; and (3) better account for their role in people’s 

economic and social well-being in urban areas and beyond. 

In particular, understanding the interrelationship of urban 

ecosystem services across spatial scales needs to be improved. 

Enhancing the knowledge base in these areas is a first step for 

better informed decision making within and across political 

jurisdictions.

Considering urban ecosystem services in public and 

private decision making related to restoring, revitalizing, and 

protecting natural resources is critical to the ongoing sustainability and well-being of Philadelphia and other cities. The 

provision of, and benefits from, urban ecosystem services 

often transcend city boundaries, and it is critical that we 

advance our understanding of the flow of these services.

Key questions for local, regional, and national decision 

makers are: (1) how to create more livable places through 

enhancing urban ecosystem services; (2) how to incentivize 

and finance the production and use of these services; and (3) 

how to manage and improve urban ecosystem services that 

require regional levels of cooperation that cross agencies 

and levels of government. As the global population becomes 

increasingly urban, knowledge advances in these areas become 

even more important.

The discussion and findings of this symposium highlight 

the need for expanding knowledge in key research areas and 

point to the importance of developing a national research 

agenda. The following research topics are critical to these 

efforts, based on the following findings from the symposium: 

(1) the impact on nature and society of enhancing urban 

ecosystem services and replacing grey infrastructure with 

green infrastructure; (2) consistent methods of identifying, 

describing, and measuring values from natural and developed 

landscapes that cut across diverse groups of stakeholders; 

(3) practices derived from management experiences and that 

incorporate new information into adaptive decision making; 

(4) development of incentives to encourage efficient behavior that considers benefits from nature that are not apparent 

in markets; and (5) methods and measures of urban system 

resilience and how connections between developed and natural 

landscapes can enhance ecological and societal resilience.
References Cited 13

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Olivia Ferriter (Department of the Interior) and Pierre Glynn (USGS) for their 

thoughtful and helpful comments on a previous version of this 

report.

References Cited

Bolund, Per, and Sven Hunhammar, 1999, Ecosystem services 

in urban areas: Ecological Economics, v. 29, no. 2, p. 293–

301, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.

Callicott, J.B., 2001, Multicultural environmental ethics, in 

Daedalus, Religion and Ecology; Can the Climate Change?: 

American Academy of Arts & Sciences, v. 130, no. 4, 

p. 77–97, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027719.

Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010, The value of 

green infrastructure; A guide to recognizing its economic, 

environmental and social benefits: Washington, D.C., 

American Rivers, 80 p., accessed September 4, 2013, at 

http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/resources/thevalue-of-green-infrastructure.html.

De Groot, R.S. de, Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, 

L., Haines-Young, R., Gowdy, J., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., 

Polasky, S., Portela, R., and Ring, I., 2010, Integrating the 

ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and 

ecosystem service valuation, in Pushpam Kumar, ed.,The 

Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): 

Ecological and Economic Foundations, 400 p., ISBN 

9781849712125.

Georgia State University, 2006, Public goods v. private goods 

in EconPort Handbook: Georgia State University, Ga., 

Experimental Economics Center, accessed May 2, 2014, at 

http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Market-Failure/

Public-Goods/PRIV-V-PUB.html.

Hirsch, D.D., 2008, Ecosystem services and the green city, in 

Birch E.L., and Wachter, S.M., eds., Growing greener cities; 

Urban sustainability in the twenty-first century: Philadelphia, Penn., University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 281–293.

Local Governments for Sustainability, 2014, Glossary of key 

terms in Resilient cities series: Bonn Germany, Local Governments for Sustainability, accessed May 2, 2014, at http://

resilient-cities.iclei.org/resilient-cities-hub-site/resilienceresource-point/glossary-of-key-terms/.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and 

human well-being (Synthesis Reports): Washington, D.C., 

Island Press, 155 p., accessed September 5, 2013, at http://

www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx.

Philadelphia Water Department, 2014, What We’re Doing: 

Philadelphia, Penn., Philadelphia Water Department, 

accessed May 2, 2014, at http://www.phillywatersheds.org/

what_were_doing/traditional_infrastructure.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014, What is sustainability?: Washington D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, accessed May 2, 2014, at http://www.epa.gov/

sustainability/basicinfo.htm.

U.S. Green Building Council Glossary, 2014, Green infrastructure: Washington D.C., U.S. Green Building Council, 

accessed May 2, 2014, at http://www.usgbc.org/search/

green%20infrastructure?filters=type%3Acredit_definition.

United States Conference of Mayors, 2005, U.S. Conference 

of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement: Washington, 

D.C., Mayors Climate Protection Center, accessed September 5, 2013, http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/

agreement.htm.

Wachter, Susan, Gillen, K.C,. and Brown, C.R., 2008, Green 

investment strategies; How they matter for urban neighborhoods, in Birch, E.L., and Wachter, S.M., eds., Growing 

greener cities; Urban sustainability in the twenty-first century: Philadelphia, Penn.,University of Pennsylvania Press, 

p. 316–325.

Wachter, Susan, and Wong, Grace, 2008, What is a tree worth? 

Green-city strategies and housing prices: Real Estate 

Economics, v. 36, no. 2, p. 213–239, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-

6229.2008.00212.x.

Wise, S., Braden, J., Ghalayini, D., Grant, J., Kloss, C., MacMullan, E., Morse, S., Montalto, F., Nees, D., Nowak, D., 

Peck, S., Shaikh, S., and Yu, C., 2010, Integrating valuation methods to recognize green infrastructure’s multiple 

benefits: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 21 p., http://

www.cnt.org/resources/integrating-valuation-methods-torecognize-green-infrastructures-multiple-benefits/.

Wolf, K.L., 2008, Metro nature; Its functions, benefits, and 

values, in Birch, E.L., and Wachter, S.M., eds., Growing 

greener cities; Urban sustainability in the twenty-first century: Philadelphia, Penn., University of Pennsylvania Press, 

p. 294–315.
14 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

Appendix 1: Agenda

Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: A Green Philadelphia

May 23, 2013

8:30 a.m.–4:00 p.m.

8:30–9:00 Registration

9:00–9:30 Session 1: Welcome and Context

Susan Wachter, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban 

Systems (SILUS) Co-Director

Katherine Gajewski, Director of the Philadelphia Office of Sustainability

Carl Shapiro, Director, Science and Decisions Center, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

9:30–10:00 Session 2: Morning Speakers

Our Goals for a Green Philadelphia: What We Can and Must Achieve, Michael DiBerardinis, Deputy 

Mayor, City of Philadelphia

Science and Urban Ecosystem Services: A National Perspective, Bill Werkheiser, Acting Deputy Director, 

USGS

10:00–10:15 Break

10:15–11:45 Session 3: Urban Water—Managing Stormwater, Rivers, and Watersheds

Moderator: Susan Wachter, SILUS Co-Director

Howard Neukrug, Water Commissioner, Philadelphia Water Department (PWD)

Tom Daniels, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania

David Hsu, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania

11:45–1:15 Lunch sponsored by Penn Institute of Urban Research (Penn IUR)

Session 4: Lunch Speakers

America’s Great Outdoors and Urban Waters Initiative, David Russ, Regional Director, Northeast, USGS

Thinking Holistically and Making Connections, Mark Alan Hughes, School of Design, University of 

Pennsylvania

1:15–2:15 Session 5: Urban Green—Managing Forests, Trees, and Greenspace

Moderator: Emily Pindilli, Science and Decisions Center, USGS

Michael T. Rains, Director, Northern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Appendix 1: Agenda 15

Laura Jackson, Research Biologist, Sustainable & Healthy Communities Research Program, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Nancy Goldenberg, Senior Vice President for Programs, Pennsylvania Horticultural Society

2:15–2:30 Break

2:30–3:50 Session 6: Establishing an Urban Research Agenda for Decision Ready Science—Priorities and 

Opportunities

Moderator: Dianna Hogan, USGS, SILUS Co-Director

Sarah Low, Coordinator, Philadelphia Field Station, USFS

Christopher Crockett, Deputy Water Commissioner, PWD

Kathleen Wolf, Research Social Scientist, University of Washington

3:50–4:00 Closing Remarks: Susan Wachter and Dianna Hogan
16 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

Appendix 2: Speaker Biographies

Session 1

Susan Wachter is the Richard B. Worley Professor of Financial Management and Professor of Real Estate and Finance at 

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. She 

is the Co-Director of the Penn Institute for Urban Research, 

along with Eugénie L. Birch, with whom she edited the volume Growing Greener Cities (Penn Press, 2008). At Penn, she 

is also Founder and Director of the Wharton GIS Lab and the 

Wharton Geospatial Initiative and Co-Director of the Spatial 

Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), a collaborative with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). As Assistant 

Secretary for Policy Development and Research at the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from 

1998 to 2001, she was responsible for national housing and 

urban policy. During that time, she served as a member of the 

White House Interagency Taskforce on Livable Cities and 

directed the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing 

for the development of sustainable design in housing. She is 

currently an investigator in the Department of Energy (DOE)-

funded Energy Efficient Building Hub. The author or editor of 

over 200 publications, she is a past president of the American 

Real Estate and Urban Economics Association and past editor of “Real Estate Economics.” Among her recent articles is 

“What is a Tree Worth? Green-City Strategies and Housing 

Prices.”

Katherine Gajewski is the Director of Sustainability for 

the City of Philadelphia. She leads the Mayor’s Office of 

Sustainability and is responsible for coordinating the implementation of Greenworks Philadelphia. In this role, she works 

with city government partners and external stakeholders to 

advance progress across 15 targeted goals. Since Mayor Nutter 

launched the plan in 2009, Greenworks has received broad 

support within Philadelphia, has garnered national and international attention, and has positioned Philadelphia as a leader in 

urban sustainability. Gajewski is also the Director of EnergyWorks, a comprehensive energy solutions program for home 

and commercial building owners in the Philadelphia region. 

She is active nationally as Co-Chair of the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, a professional network of municipal 

government sustainability professionals.

Carl Shapiro is the Director of the Science and Decisions 

Center (SDC) at the USGS. The SDC advances the use of 

science in public policy decisions and focuses on research 

and applications in decision science, ecosystem services, and 

sustainability and resilience. Between 1987 and 2005, Shapiro 

was the Principal Economist in the Office of the Director at 

the USGS. There he led numerous studies and initiatives on 

science and policy, natural resource management, and natural 

hazards. Shapiro also is Adjunct Associate Professor of Economics in the School of Public Affairs at American University 

in Washington, D.C.

Session 2

Michael DiBerardinis is Deputy Mayor for Environmental 

and Community Resources in Philadelphia. DiBerardinis is 

also Commissioner of the Parks and Recreation Department, 

as well as Special Advisor to the Mayor on the Free Libraries. 

DiBerardinis has overseen the merger of the Fairmount Park 

Commission and the Department of Recreation, which became 

effective July 1, 2010. He is a graduate of Saint Joseph’s University with a bachelor of arts in political science.

Bill Werkheiser is the Acting Deputy Director, USGS, and 

has served in a number of USGS management positions, 

including USGS Regional Director for the Eastern Region. He 

also led the Natural Hazards Initiative Team and the Longterm Hurricane Katrina Response and Recovery Team for the 

USGS. He has over 25 years of experience with the USGS 

and other agencies working on a variety of environmental and 

scientific issues.

Session 3

Howard Neukrug is Chief Executive of Philadelphia’s Water 

Utility and is responsible for providing safe and affordable 

drinking water and integrated wastewater and stormwater services to over 2.3 million people. Neukrug is a national leader 

for urban sustainability and the creator of Philadelphia’s Green 

City, Clean Waters program. He is a Professional Engineer, 

Board Certified Environmental Engineer, and a graduate in 

civil and urban engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, where he currently teaches a course on Water, Science, 

and Politics.

Tom Daniels is a Professor in the Department of City and 

Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania, where he 

teaches Environmental Planning, Land Use Planning, Growth 

Management, and Land Preservation. Daniels holds a B.A. 

in economics from Harvard, an M.S. in agricultural economics from the University of Newcastle (UK), and a Ph.D. in 

agricultural economics from Oregon State University. He 

has taught in planning departments at Iowa State University, 

Kansas State University, and the State University of New York 

at Albany. For 9 years, he was Director of the Agricultural 

Preserve Board of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where 

he managed the county’s nationally recognized purchase of 

development rights program. Daniels is the author of “When 

City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe” and coauthor of “Holding Our Ground: Protecting 

America’s Farms and Farmland,” “The Small Town Planning 

Handbook,” “The Environmental Planning Handbook for 

Sustainable Communities and Regions,” and “The Planners 

Guide to CommunityViz.” Daniels often serves as a consultant to State and local governments and land trusts. Recently, 
Appendix 2: Speaker Biographies 17

he was a copresenter at a planner training session on green 

infrastructure for the American Planning Association. He 

also has recently consulted for the Delaware Riverkeeper on 

land use and water-quality issues relating to Marcellus Shale 

development. He is currently working on the second edition 

of “The Environmental Planning Handbook” for the American 

Planning Association.

David Hsu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of City 

and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania. He 

studies how environmental policy is implemented in cities. 

Topics of particular interest include energy and water networks, policies to encourage green buildings, and how implementation of these policies is affected by improving data and 

analysis tools. He is currently working on a paper, based on 

data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

which summarizes the state of green infrastructure efforts in 

the United States. He is also working on a number of papers 

with the DOE’s Efficient Buildings Hub on how information 

tools can inform regulations and overcome barriers to energy 

efficiency in the real estate market.

Session 4

David Russ is the Regional Director for the Northeast in the 

USGS. He is located at the USGS National Center headquarters in Reston, Virginia. A geologist by training, he leads 11 

USGS science centers in the Mid-Atlantic and New England 

regions. These centers conduct a broad range of geologic, 

biologic, and hydrologic investigations and studies. In his 

current position as Regional Director for the Northeast, Russ 

serves as the executive leader of the USGS Chesapeake Bay 

program and he leads USGS participation on the Northeast 

Regional Ocean Council and the Mid-Atlantic Region Council 

for the Ocean. He has served as the Department of the Interior 

representative to the steering committee to develop a Federal 

multiagency research plan for unconventional oil and gas 

resources related to hydraulic fracturing, and he is overseeing 

the development of an interagency plan to study the potential 

effects of Appalachian shale gas production on the environment. He is a member of the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative steering committee, chairs the Stakeholder 

Advisory Committee of the Northeast Climate Science Center, 

and coordinates USGS participation in the UWFP. Russ 

received his B.S. (1967) and Ph.D. (1975) degrees from Penn 

State and an M.S. degree (1969) from West Virginia University, with specialties in geomorphology and structural geology.

Mark Alan Hughes is a Professor of Practice at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Design and Director of 

Sustainability Innovation and Policy in the Office of the Vice 

Provost for Research. He is a Faculty Fellow of the Penn 

Institute for Urban Research, a Senior Fellow of The Wharton 

School’s Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership, and a 

Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Penn’s Fox Leadership 

Program. He was Chief Policy Adviser to Mayor Michael A. 

Nutter and the founding Director of Sustainability for the City 

of Philadelphia, where he led the creation of the Greenworks 

Plan. Hughes holds a B.A. from Swarthmore and a Ph.D. from 

the University of Pennsylvania in regional science. He has 

published in leading journals in the fields of economic geography, urban economics, political science, policy analysis, and 

has won the National Planning Award for his research in city 

and regional planning. He has designed and fielded national 

policy efforts in a variety of areas, including the Bridges to 

Work program in transportation, the Transitional Work Corporation in job training and placement, and the Energy Efficient 

Buildings Hub in regional economic development. This work 

has been funded by HUD, the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, DOE, the Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller 

Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, William Penn Foundation, 

and others.

Session 5

Emily Pindilli is an economist in the USGS Science and 

Decisions Center, where she specializes in the value of information, integrated environmental and economic analyses, and 

providing tools for science-based decision making. Pindilli 

joined the Survey in 2012 having previously worked in Federal government consulting, providing decision analytics in the 

areas of energy, transportation, and the environment. She has 

an extensive background in conventional, unconventional, and 

alternative fuels; in environmental science and management; 

and in benefit-cost and regulatory impact analysis. Notably, 

Pindilli has led analyses evaluating the vulnerability of the 

Nation to crude oil import disruptions; the value provided by 

Landsat geospatial data; the sustainability of biofuels investments; and the monetized mobility, safety, and environmental 

benefits of connected vehicles. She is particularly interested 

in nontraditional, nonmarket benefits assessment. Pindilli 

received her bachelor’s degree in economics and political 

science from James Madison University, a master’s degree in 

environmental science and policy from George Mason University, and is pursuing a Ph.D. from George Mason University in 

environmental policy, focusing on environmental economics. 

Michael T. Rains has had an accomplished 45-year career 

with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), focusing on land 

stewardship. Rains has developed and implemented successful programs across a wide range of landscapes and of large, 

complex organizations. He currently directs the world’s largest 

research organization—the Northern Research Station and 

the Forest Products Laboratory—helping forest landowners 

manage, protect, and use their rural and urban forests through 

leading-edge scientific discovery and technology development. Rains leads 140 scientists and 23 experimental forests 

throughout a 24-State region. He holds a master’s degree in 

secondary education and teaching certifications in Pennsylvania in Science and Math, a master’s degree in science in 
18 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

watershed management from Humboldt State University, 

and a bachelor of science degree in forest management from 

Humboldt State University. He is a respected national leader 

in linking environmental health with community stability with 

significant experience in congressional affairs, strategic planning, partnership development, and communications. Rains 

has been a member of the Senior Executive Service since 

1986. He proudly started his career as a wildland firefighter for 

California in the mid-1960s. Rains received the Presidential 

Rank Award in 2011. 

Laura Jackson is a landscape ecologist with the EPA’s Office 

of Research and Development in Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina. She is a principal investigator in the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program, leading 

the high-resolution component of the EnviroAtlas online 

national mapping tool. Her research has explored the links 

between ecosystem services and human well-being, the landscape ecology of urbanizing areas, and the effects of the built 

environment on ecological and public health. Current research 

includes exploring the effects of near-road and neighborhood 

tree cover on birth weight, associating Lyme disease with 

forest fragmentation metrics, and characterizing sprawl for 

EnviroAtlas. Previous research has addressed ecological indicator development, environmental monitoring and assessment, 

and landscape change analysis. Her record demonstrates a 

facility for cross-disciplinary synthesis; her recent publications 

have appeared in ecology, epidemiology, and urban planning 

journals, and medical and remote-sensing textbooks. Jackson 

has developed and led research and performed research management and strategic planning for the EPA since 1990. She 

received her undergraduate degree from Bryn Mawr College, 

a master’s degree in environmental management from Duke 

University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 

and a Ph.D. in ecology from the University of North CarolinaChapel Hill.

Nancy Goldenberg is Senior Vice President of Programs and 

Planning at the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society (PHS), 

where she manages and develops programs for the Nation’s 

largest horticultural society, including initiatives related 

to urban gardening and building sustainable communities 

through innovative greening activities and civic engagement. 

At the PHS, she also manages the planning and development 

of design and enhancements to significant landscapes and 

streetscapes and oversees the tracking of policies and legislation that impact greening, gardening, and educational initiatives related to the work of the PHS. Prior to arriving at the 

PHS in October 2012, Goldenberg served as Vice President 

of Strategic Planning for the Center City District for 12 years, 

where she was responsible for the planning, fundraising, and 

renovation of several downtown public spaces, including 

Three Parkway Plaza, Sister Cities Park, Collins Park, and Dilworth Plaza. For 4 years, she also served as Director of Public 

Information for the Center City District. Between 1997 and 

2000, Goldenberg worked for the Fairmount Park Commission 

as Program Administrator for a $26.6 million, nationally recognized initiative to restore the natural areas of Philadelphia’s 

municipal park system and establish a comprehensive system 

of volunteer stewardship. Today, she serves as Chair of the 

Philadelphia Commission on Parks and Recreation. Goldenberg is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s School 

of Design, where she earned her master’s degree in city planning. She did her undergraduate work at George Washington 

University. Goldenberg currently serves on the board of PennPraxis, the Fairmount Park Conservancy, the Neighborhood 

Gardens Trust, and the City Parks Alliance. She is the founder 

of Outward Bound Philadelphia and has completed eight Outward Bound courses throughout the world.

Session 6

Dianna Hogan is a Research Physical Scientist with the 

USGS Eastern Geographic Science Center in Reston, Virginia. 

Her research focuses on ecosystem services and the environmental effects of urban land use on natural systems. She is 

Co-Director of SILUS, a collaboration between the USGS 

Science and Decisions Center and the Wharton GIS Lab at the 

University of Pennsylvania. Her current research includes an 

assessment of the ability of urban stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to 

mitigate water quality, quantity, and flow; investigating how 

environmental data and a consideration of ecosystem services 

is used in ongoing land use decision making in an urbanizing 

area; and the exploration of the development of ecosystem 

service production functions in urban watersheds. Recent projects include the development of an ecological value model to 

support land use decision making in south Florida and serving 

on the organizing committee for A Community on Ecosystem 

Services (ACES 2008), as well on the planning committee 

as a program manager for ACES 2010 and ACES 2012. She 

received a B.S. in biochemistry, an M.S. in biology, and a 

Ph.D. in environmental science and public policy.

Sarah Low works for the USFS as Coordinator of the 

Philadelphia Field Station. She focuses on bridging the gaps 

between policy, planning, and science, specifically as it relates 

to the interaction of people and nature. In her role at the 

Philadelphia Field Station, Low leads a group of researchers and practitioners who focus on the role trees, forests, and 

natural resources play in making cities more livable. The 

group specifically focuses on the ecosystem value of trees and 

forests, factors that influence tree mortality, socioecological 

impacts of green infrastructure, and stewardship. The Field 

Station aims to develop and deliver science that helps decision 

making on the local and regional levels. Low’s passion for the 

natural world drives her interest in environmental conservation and community engagement. She holds a bachelor of 

science degree in fish and wildlife conservation and a master 

of science degree in watershed science and management from 

the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She has worked 
Appendix 2: Speaker Biographies 19

in ecological restoration, community forestry, trail design, 

stewardship, and park management for over 10 years, and has 

worked for consulting companies, nonprofit organizations, and 

government agencies.

Christopher Crockett is the Deputy Commissioner of the 

Planning and Environmental Services Division at the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD), which is responsible for 

Green Cities/Clean Waters, capital planning, energy, wet 

weather, research and development, and laboratory programs 

at the PWD. Crockett has 20 years of experience in the water, 

stormwater, and wastewater industry, participating and leading 

innovative projects to improve customer service, performance, 

revenue, environmental management, and regulatory compliance. His accomplishments are many and include leading 

the award-winning source water protection programs, and 

development and implementation of new stormwater management requirements for development of impervious cover-based 

stormwater billing for nonresidential customers. He is also 

a tireless champion for stream restoration and green street 

efforts. Under Crockett’s leadership, his teams continue to 

help move Philadelphia towards being the greenest city in the 

country. These efforts include changing the concept of wastewater treatment to include energy and resource recovery initiatives that have created the first full-scale sewer geothermal 

system in the United States, installed over 1,000 solar panels, 

recycled over 9 million gallons of aircraft deicing fluid for 

biogas generation, and resulted in the construction of the 5.6 

MW (megawatt) Northeast biogas cogeneration facility that 

will provide 85 percent of the Northeast wastewater plant’s 

energy needs by harnessing its own biogas. His latest ecosystem research includes understanding the ecosystem services of 

urban green for not only stormwater, but also climate change 

resilience and stream and riparian restoration to understand 

how far urban areas can bring a stream back to “natural” 

conditions. Crockett received his bachelor’s, master’s, and 

doctorate degrees in civil/environmental engineering from 

Drexel University, where he is also an adjunct professor teaching courses in fluid mechanics, hydraulics, urban hydrology, 

water quality, and facility design. He is a licensed professional 

engineer in Pennsylvania.

Kathleen Wolf is a Research Social Scientist with the College of the Environment, University of Washington. She has 

been a key collaborator with the USFS Pacific Northwest 

Research Station in the development of a program on urban 

natural resources stewardship. Since receiving her Ph.D. from 

the University of Michigan, Wolf has done research to better 

understand the human dimensions of urban forestry and urban 

ecosystems. Her studies are based on the principles of environmental psychology; her professional mission is to discover, 

understand, and communicate human behavior and benefits, as 

people experience nature in cities and towns. Recent research 

on connections between urban natural resources and human 

health and well-being is an effort to expand how we think 

about cultural ecosystem services in cities. Moreover, she is 

interested in how scientific information can be integrated into 

local government policy and planning. Wolf is a member of 

the Environmental Design Research Association, the International Society of Arboriculture, the Society of American 

Foresters, and the Washington State Community Forestry 

Council, as well as a technical contributor on human wellbeing to the Sustainable Sites Initiative, and Research Advisor 

to the TKF Foundation (http://naturesacred.org/evidence-ofnature-benefits-for-mental-wellness-3/). She has presented 

her research throughout the United States, in Canada, Europe, 

Australia, and Japan. An overview of Wolf’s research programs can be found at www.naturewithin.info; additional 

research findings on Green Cities: Good Health can be found 

at www.greenhealth.washington.edu.
20 Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia

Appendix 3: List of Participants

Arthur Acoca-Pidole, Spatial Integration Laboratory for 

Urban Systems (SILUS), The Wharton School, University of 

Pennsylvania

Alon Abramson, Project Manager of Energy Initiatives, 

Penn Institute for Urban Research (Penn IUR), University of 

Pennsylvania

Jennifer Adkins, Executive Director, Partnership for the 

Delaware Estuary 

Paul Amos, SILUS, The Wharton School, University of 

Pennsylvania

Stuart Andreason, Penn IUR, University of Pennsylvania

Greg Arthaud, National Leader for Ecosystem Services 

Research, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Debbie Beer, Eastwick Friends Neighbors Coalition 

Mariana Bergerson, Deputy Refuge Manager, John Heinz 

National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Frank Casey, Ecosystem Services Theme Lead, Science and 

Decisions Center, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Christopher Crockett, Philadelphia Water Department, City 

of Philadelphia

Tom Daniels, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania

Michael DiBerardinis, Department of Parks and Recreation, 

City of Philadelphia

Anneclaire De Roos, Associate Professor, Drexel University

Theodore Eisenman, School of Design, University of 

Pennsylvania

Olivia Barton Ferriter, Deputy Director, Office of Policy 

Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior

Katherine Gajewski, Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, City 

of Philadelphia

Sarah Gerould, Staff Scientist, USGS

Pierre Glynn, Chief, Eastern Branch of the National Research 

Program, USGS

Nancy Goldenberg, Pennsylvania Horticultural Society

Simeon Hahn, Environmental Scientist, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration

Dianna Hogan, SILUS, USGS

Amie Howell, Program Coordinator, Delaware National Estuary Program

David Hsu, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania

Laura Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Jacqueline Jenkins, Wharton Small Business Development 

Center, University of Pennsylvania

David Karp, SILUS, The Wharton School, University of 

Pennsylvania

Michelle Kondo, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and 

Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia Field 

Station, USFS

Danielle Kreeger, Science Director, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

David Lange, Chief, Northeast Region Conservation and Recreation Assistance Division, National Park Service

Beth Larry, National Program Lead For Urban Research, 

USFS

Michael Leff, Urban Research Forester, Ecosystem Services 

team within the Davey Institute at the USFS Philadelphia 

Field Station

Sarah Low, Philadelphia Field Station, USFS

Amy Lynch, School of Design, University of Pennsylvania

Maura McCarthy, Friends of the Wissahickon

Erik Meyers, Vice President, The Conservation Fund and 

Chair, Natural Capital Investment Fund

Amy Miller, Environmental Planner, Delaware Valley 

Regional Planning Commission

Rachel Muir, Science Advisor, Northeast Region, USGS

Howard Neukrug, Philadelphia Water Department, City of 

Philadelphia

Matt Nicholson, Landscape Ecologist, EPA, Mid-Atlantic 

Region

Emily Pindilli, Economist, Science and Decisions Center, 

USGS

Michael T. Rains, Director, Northern Research Station, USFS

Ramona Rousseau-Reid, Richman, Berenbaum and Associates, PC

David Russ, Regional Director, Northeast Region, USGS

Carl Shapiro, Director, Science and Decisions Center, USGS

Silvia Schmid, Wharton Initiative for Global Environmental 

Leadership, University of Pennsylvania

Curtis Schreffler, Associate Director for Research and Scientific Investigations, Pennsylvania Water Science Center, USGS

Iliana Sepulveda, wH2O Journal, University of Pennsylvania

Guy Sheets, AMO Environmental Decisions Inc.

Noel Soto, Resource Conservationist, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Susan Wachter, SILUS, The Wharton School, University of 

Pennsylvania
Appendix 3: List of Participants 21

Richard Weller, Martin and Margy Meyerson Chair of 

Urbanism and Professor and Chair of Landscape Architecture, 

School of Design, University of Pennsylvania

Bill Werkheiser, Acting Deputy Director, USGS

Annie Winter, Penn IUR, University of Pennsylvania

Kathleen Wolf, University of Washington
Hogan and others—Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making for a Green Philadelphia—Open-File Report 2014–1155

Printed on recycled paper

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141155

Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: A Green Philadelphia

May 23, 2013

How do we advance the use of science in public decision making and investment in green 

infrastructure and ecosystem services in urban areas?

How do we account for nature’s role in people’s economic and social well-being in urban areas?