Charles Gottlieb

Bio: Charles Gottlieb is an academic researcher from Albany Law School. The author has contributed to research in topics: Public engagement & Participatory budgeting. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 4 publications receiving 12 citations.

Sustainable Habitat Restoration: Fish, Farms, and Ecosystem Services

Abstract: The conversion of estuarine marshes and floodplains to agricultural uses through diking, draining, and filling has left little adequate salmon habitat and, as a result, has been a critical factor in the decline of salmon populations. Current efforts to restore salmon by reestablishing ecosystem functionality. In particular, it has become more common to include dam and dike breaches as feasible solutions. Of course, there is a cost involved in habitat restoration, even if it is not an obvious environmental cost. This article examines the dialogue on salmon valuation by contrasting the historical view of salmon-as-commodity with insights from "ecosystem services." This emerging trend in ecological economics will play a critical role in justifying restoration projects and formulating sustainability strategies; ecosystem services valuation is showing that investments in natural capital can provide substantial returns. This article also provides a case study of the Smith Island Habitat Restoration Project in Snohomish County, Washington. Smith Island, which was converted to farmland a century ago, exhibits enormous potential value for habitat restoration and begs for an inclusive process that considers the voices for economic, human, and ecosystem well-being. The resolution of the Smith Island controversy provides an insightful example of how a sustainability framework can be useful in showing that restoration strategies can offer substantial benefits to other lands uses and interests.

Engaging Deliberative Democracy at the Grassroots: Prioritizing the Effects of the Fiscal Crisis in New York at the Local Government Level

Abstract: This article discusses many of the factors contributing to the fiscal crisis at the local level in New York including historic decreases in federal and state revenue sharing, the imposition of a new property tax cap, the failure of New York to meaningfully address the subject of unfunded mandates on local governments, and the dependency of some local jurisdictions on the timely adoption of a state budget. The article then discusses concepts of deliberative democracy and how local residents might be engaged to become partners with local officials in making difficult fiscal decisions that impact all community residents. Public polling, participatory budgeting, collaborative decision making and citizen advisory committees are examples of models promoted as methods of enhancing civil discourse and public engagement in helping to set local fiscal priorities. The paper concludes with a recognition that “business as usual” is simply not sustainable and that while the state must do its part to ease some of the fiscal burdens, local government officials must return to the people who put them in office to seek more frequent input in an organized and methodical manner by employing one or more of the deliberative democracy techniques discussed.

Engaging Deliberative Democracy at the Grassroots: Prioritizing the Effects of the Fiscal Crisis in New York at the Local Government Level

Abstract: II. DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE AND VEHICLES FOR CIVIL DISCOURSE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR MUNICIPAL FISCAL DECISION MAKING The preceding Part explained the challenges facing local government officials with respect to making difficult fiscal budgeting decisions, especially in the context of the current economy and the present environment of unfunded mandates, fixed government costs, dwindling revenues and now a property tax cap. As documented above, municipal officials have been trying since the late 1970s to undo many unfunded mandates, meeting with only minor periodic relief. Required expenditures, including payments pursuant to public sector collective bargaining agreements and public pension fund contributions, account for a significant percentage of municipal budgets. (181) Many required local expenditures can be traced to federal and state statutes and directives, and therefore do not fall within the exclusive purview of each individual municipality to control. (182) Further, absent a constitutional amendment to allow for initiatives and referenda in New York, local residents have little power to force state legislators to provide relief from these fiscal requirements. While municipal officials and advocates continue the important work of educating federal and state lawmakers about the costly impacts of these mandates and requirements on local governments, the current fiscal crisis presents the perfect storm to positively engage members of the public in taking greater ownership and interest in fiscal issues, and in providing meaningful input into the local budgeting process. A number of participatory frameworks exist from deliberative democracy processes to civic engagement strategies. This Part of the Article addresses different models that offer potential opportunities for the public to provide meaningful input and articulate preferences and priorities when it comes to the allocation of limited dollars to support local government service delivery. The most identifiable method of public engagement is the public hearing. (183) Typically, however, state enabling statutes simply require one public hearing prior to local legislative decision making. (184) For example, as part of the town budgeting process in New York, the budget is drafted by the budget officer who then turns the tentative budget into the town clerk, after which the town board reviews the budget and modifies it as needed. (185) The town board then conducts a public hearing where town residents may voice their concerns. (186) After the public hearing occurs, the town board may change the preliminary budget further, but state law does not require another public hearing. (187) The local government, however, may prescribe additional requirements. (188) The required public hearing is not an effective method of public engagement for a number of reasons. First, hearings typically do not promote dialogue between members of the public and decision makers because to satisfy the law, legislators need only provide an opportunity for the public to speak. The legislators need not respond. Next, members of the public speak to the decision making body, but they do not have the opportunity to engage each other in conversation. Furthermore, members of the public typically have only a limited amount of time and to provide comments, and individuals are often prevented from speaking more than once during the hearing. These limitations mean that members of the public cannot respond to other comments. Public hearings can leave members of a community dissatisfied and frustrated, feeling disconnected and lacking ownership in the ultimate decision. A. Deliberative Democracy In the participatory governance model, however, active involvement of residents in government decision making which may include deliberative democracy and collaborative governance is preferable. (189) It is when the vote is taken from the politicians and placed into the "public sphere" that accountability and justification will emerge within government decision making. …

Bug Catching for the State: Gathering Baseline Ecological Information Under Wave

Abstract: In the ongoing process of establishing and maintaining water quality, state regulators have been challenged by a general lack of information about the condition of our nation’s waters. This dilemma largely results from inadequate resources to conduct water quality investigations. Presently, state regulators lack water quality information for hundreds of thousands of miles of water resources. One recent trend to correct this informational deficiency converges the reach of citizen monitoring with the efficiency of indicator species analysis, such as in New York’s Wadeable Assessment of Volunteer Evaluators (WAVE) pilot program. This article will highlight state and federal efforts to evaluate the biological health of streams though the collection and identification of macroinvertebrate indicators by citizen volunteers. The article identifies the basic regulatory principles at stake and the numerous quality assurances set in place by different programs to ensure reliable data.

Current index to legal periodicals

Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity : Theory, Tools and Applications

Abstract: Environmental problems are very often wicked problems: they are persistent, they have no clear end, and involve moral choices resulting in winners and losers. Just as the ecological and biological elements of these problems are dynamic and complex, so the social and political elements are also constantly changing and do not follow linear patterns. Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) is an approach developed to work on wicked problems that recognizes social-ecological systems and the need to incorporate systems thinking into natural resource management. In this chapter we describe the scope and scale of this book and briefly discuss its four sections: • foundational concepts • tools for the practice • national and international governance contexts • case studies. We then go on to identify some of the main lessons learned, challenges and the main needs required to further advance the applications of EBM. We conclude with an exhortation for readers to learn from our experience, to use and adapt the tools and techniques we present here and a call for continued international collaboration. T. G. O’Higgins (*) Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland e-mail: tim.ohiggins@ucc.ie T. H. DeWitt Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR, USA e-mail: dewitt.ted@epa.gov M. Lago Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany e-mail: manuel.lago@ecologic.eu © The Author(s) 2020 T. G. O’Higgins et al. (eds.), Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0_1 3

A long-term and comprehensive assessment of urbanization-induced impacts on ecosystem services in the capital city of India

Abstract: Globally, the present rate of urbanization in mega-urban centers is altering ecosystem functions and resultant ecosystem services of the landscapes. The natural and semi-natural ecosystems within the urban regions are under threat of loss and degradation. Estimating the economic values of the ecosystem services obtained from these natural and semi-natural ecosystems can play an important role in urban policy and decision making. The main objective of this paper is to quantify the changes in ecosystem service values (ESVs) in response to land use land cover (LULC) dynamics and urbanization in the capital city of India, Delhi. Using satellite imageries over the past two decades (1998–2018) we show the estimated changes in ESVs with the global value coefficient (VC) of proximate biomes. The study relies on benefit transfer approach of ESs valuation wherein the ESVs of proximate biomes, derived from one/multiple study site, are used in assessing ESVs at another site. For determining the reliability of the study, a sensitivity analysis is performed to check the effectiveness of VC. The results show a total decline of ecosystem services (ESs) in monetary terms by US$ 7.614 million ha−1 year−1 from 1998 to 2018 with prominent changes in LULC. The change analysis shows a loss (US$ 3.6141 million) of regulatory and provisional services. The prominent part (US$ 2.675 million) of this loss was due to decline in city forest cover by 6426.09 ha. The city has benefitted from initiatives in implementation of biodiversity parks and plantation drives, but also suffers widespread loss of forest over the years. The ESs monitoring at the city administrative divisions (i.e. district-wise) highlights the importance of conservation of natural ecosystems within the urban area with distribution equity. The results provide insights that should be considered for urban planning in order to protect natural resources, ESs, and thus overall well-being of residents.

Ecosystem Services in U.S. Environmental Law and Governance for the Ecosystem-Based Management Practitioner

Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of ecosystem services issues in United States (US) law and governance for the Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) practitioner A brief overview summary of a suite of US federal environmental laws where ecosystems services are relevant is presented along with a high-level overview of ecosystem services in federal and state agency regulations as it helps inform ecosystem-based management As with the published science-based literature on ecosystem services, there is also a sizeable law-based literature available on ecosystem services A HeinOnline law journal library focused search identified 1903 legal articles that contained reference to ecosystem services Focusing on a snapshot of key literature, this chapter presents an overview of those articles that contained “ecosystem services” or “ecosystem based management” just in the article’s title From this survey across the breadth of law journals, a suite of ecosystem services topics related to EBM in environmental law are identified and summarized Overall, the goal of this chapter is to present a high-level overview and direct the reader to resources to find more in-depth legal analyses of select ecosystem services topics

Toward Understanding Law and Exploration: Citizen Science, Technology and Regulation

Abstract: of a dissertation at the University of Miami. Dissertation supervised by Professor Kenneth Broad. No. of pages in text. (222) This dissertation consists of a series of case studies that explore the relationship between law and scientific exploration, focusing on how these fields interact to co-create emerging methods of collecting baseline environmental data. Chapter 1 situates this work in the larger methodological contexts of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) and legal studies of scientific evidence, integrating these two approaches to form the theoretical framework for this dissertation as a whole. Chapter 2 introduces the intertwined relationship between law and exploration, arguing that analyzing these fields together brings new insight on both sides and addressing the key features that define this relationship today. I then turn to a series of specific case studies that illustrate how law and scientific exploration together shape the adoption of emerging scientific methods. In Chapter 3, I look at the influence of the legal regime on how scientific data is collected in the context of underwater drones. In Chapter 4, I analyze how data is used, addressing the legal barriers to the use of citizen science data in law and policy decision-making. In Chapter 5, I draw these threads together in an analysis of data quality and regulatory consistency under the Clean Water Act. Chapter 6 synthesizes these findings and argues that emerging methods in scientific exploration have an important role to play in remedying widespread environmental monitoring failures, but that these will only be useful if attention is paid to the legal system in which they operate.