Over at the Urban Watersheds blog, Kevin is riffing on the distinction between “restoration” and “rehabilitation” when undertaking an improvement effort on a stream in an urban setting.

It’s a thoughtful post on some distinctions that concern practitioners. But which of these words — rehabilitation or restoration — should those professionals use when they present their intentions to community members at a hearing?

I have no idea. What I do know is that when you tell the attendees you’re going to improve the health of the stream, most will think “that’s nice” but not get too excited. A handful of suspicious types might concoct a rationale to get upset. The way to get more heads nodding in agreement is to open up by talking about the bad things that won’t happen.

Will the project reduce the chance of a flood in the neighborhood? Will the project prevent an eroded streambank from collapsing and jeapordizing a road the community uses? Is curbing flash floods essential to preventing a major sewer pipe break? Start your presentation with the bad things you will prevent first, and then offer the benefits and improvements to close the deal.

Sad but true, it’s just human nature to prioritize attention that way.

One Response to “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of… restoration?”