Comparison of community structure of mangrove and riprap rock habitats along urban coastlines of south Florida

Globally, mangrove ecosystems have substantially declined, largely a result of human impacts. Mangroves provide a number of ecosystem services such as shoreline stabilization and nursery habitat for fish species. As declines continue, many of these ecosystem services are lost or altered. The need for shoreline stabilization has become increasingly apparent when chronic erosion wear away coastlines once mangroves are removed. Limestone boulders called riprap have been employed to offset continued erosion associated with mangrove clearing. In urban coastal areas adjacent to Biscayne Bay, Florida, as much as 80 percent of mangroves have been lost. More recently, riprap has been used in conjunction with mangroves to restore wetlands throughout the Bay. This riprap-mangrove habitat provides structure for marine organisms to colonize. However, fish assemblages and benthic composition could vary between this hybridized habitat and natural mangrove systems. Comparisons of fish and benthic community structure were made, to determine if abundance, species richness, and overall diversity differed between the two habitat types. Visual census and benthic quadrat surveys were conducted in vi mangrove and mangrove-riprap sites within two regions of Biscayne Bay. Total fish abundance was greater in mangroves, but the effect of habitat type on species richness varied between regions. The community structure of fishes and benthic composition differed significantly between mangroves and riprap habitats. Because species composition is so distinct, it is likely that the two communities do no function in the same manner. In areas with cleared shorelines, it may be important to consider the function of added anthropogenic structure for ecological communities.

The Influence of HOPE VI Public Housing on Public Schools

In the United States, public school enrollment is typically organized by neighborhood boundaries. This dissertation examines whether the federally funded HOPE VI program influenced performance in neighborhood public schools. In effect since 1992, HOPE VI has sought to revitalize distressed public housing using the New Urbanism model of mixed income communities. There are 165 such HOPE VI projects nationwide. Despite nearly two decades of the program’s implementation, the literature on its connection to public school performance is thin. My dissertation aims to narrow this research gap. There are three principal research questions: (1) Following HOPE VI, was there a change in socioeconomic status (SES) in the neighborhood public school? The hypothesis is that low SES (measured as the proportion of students qualifying for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program) would reduce. (2) Following HOPE VI, did the performance of neighborhood public schools change? The hypothesis is that the school performance, measured by the proportion of 5th grade students proficient in state wide math and reading tests, would increase. (3) What factors relate to the performance of public schools in HOPE VI communities? The focus is on non-school, neighborhood factors that influence the public school performance. For answering the first two questions, I used t-tests and regression models to test the hypotheses. The analysis shows that there is no statistically significant change in SES following HOPE VI. However, there are statistically significant increases in performance for reading and math proficiency. The results are interesting in indicating that HOPE VI neighborhood improvement may have some relationship with improving school performance. To answer the third question, I conducted a case study analysis of two HOPE VI neighborhood public schools, one which improved significantly (in Philadelphia) and one which declined the most (in Washington DC). The analysis revealed three insights into neighborhood factors for improved school performance: (i) a strong local community organization; (ii) local community’s commitment (including the middle income families) to send children to the public school; and (iii) ties between housing and education officials to implement the federal housing program. In essence, the study reveals how housing policy is de facto education policy.