Transcript Slide 1

URBAN STREAM
REHABILITATION
INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES & IMPACTS
THE URBEM FRAMEWORK
INDICATORS OF SUCCESS
CASE STUDIES
SOCIAL APPRAISAL
AESTHETICS
SITE MONITORING
BENEFITS / IMPACTS
REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES
POST
IMPLEMENTATION
ASSESSMENT &
INDICATORS OF
SUCCESS
Joachim T. Tourbier, Ines Gersdorf
Jochen Schanze, Alfred Olfert
Technische Universitaet Dresden
Institute of Ecological and Regional Development, Dresden
Content
1 Theoretical Background
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Terms and understanding of success appraisal
State of science and current practice
Relation to the planning and implementation and management process
Defining the scope for success appraisal
Development of indicators for post implementation assessment
2 Urban River Post Implementation Assessment Method
2.1 Existing Methods of Indicator Based Project
2.2 Procedure for the establishment of a project specific
indicator system for urban river rehabilitation
2.3 Establishing a Monitoring plan
2.4 Application considerations
2.5 Framework for irregular Post Implementation Assessment
3 Description of Criteria and Indicators
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Hierarchy of Criteria and Indicators
Criteria and Indicators of Ecology
Criteria and Indicators of Social Well-being
Criteria and Indicators of Economic Sustainability
10. URPIA & Indicators
1 Theoretical background
1.1 Terms and understanding of success appraisal
Scientific literature serves with various terms related to (ex-post) project
appraisal with relation to success. General terms include:
• Project Evaluation resp. Assessment, Post Project Appraisal (Downs and
Kondolf 2002
• Post Project Evaluation (Kondolf and Micheli 1995, Kondolf 1998)
• Success Appraisal or Assessment of Success (Schmickler 1986, Heitzer
2000, Scholz 2000c, Hobbs 2003, Brühl 2004)
• Effectiveness Monitoring (FISRWG 1998), Performance Control or Audit
(Marti and Stutz 1993, Skinner 1999, Downs and Gregory 2004)
•
Environmental Impact Auditing (Glasson et. Al, 1999) etc.
To delimit the attempted reach of appraisal this presentation will concentrate
on
the term “Post Implementation Assessment” (PIA).
• Post Implementation Assessment is an indicator based evaluation of
intended and unintended effects, effectiveness and efficiency of an
urban river rehabilitation effort.
• In choosing the term Post Implementation Assessment respect is
paid to the fact that PIA is a part of the complex project
assessment.
• PIA being an integral part of any rehabilitation project which is not
ended until assessment results are published.
• Indicators must:
- be enquired at different (at least two) points of time – before
and after the implementation process.
- have a spatial and temporal resolution.
- reflect the thematic targets of the project as precise as possible.
1.2 State of science and current practice
•
•
•
•
•
The importance of and the need for post project appraisal is well
documented in scientific literature referring to river rehabilitation, to urban
and spatial development and in General
Post implementation assessment is not only considered important for the
determination of whether and to which degree a rehabilitation project has
been successful.
Project appraisal itself is often seen to be a vital component of successful
river rehabilitation (cf. Kondolf 1995, Bruce-Burgess and Skinner 2002).
In practice only few exemplary cases of appraisal monitoring efforts are
known (Marti and Stutz 1993, Hillenbrand and Liebert 2001).
Appraisal of social and economic impacts of river rehabilitation projects is
conducted even less. Reasons mentioned are the complexity, uncertainty
and related difficulties of predicting socio - economic impacts and their
measurement (c.f. Diaz Redondo, 2003).
Reasons for lacking systematic project appraisal are manifold (Kondolf
1995, Kondolf and Micheli 1995, Bruce-Burgess 2001, Downs and
Kondolf 2002):
• Missing legal requirements to conduct appraisals and therefore
• Funding usually covers only the physical part of implementation, regarding
post project appraisal to be rather scientific work
• Complexity of the riverine system and connected difficulties in measuring
the effect
• Reluctance of responsibles to be confronted with bad news
• Project appraisal is often not foreseen in the project concept (Schanze et al.
i.p.)
• Lack of knowledge about how to conduct appraisal
• Lack of data
1.3 Relation to the planning and implementation and
management process
•
Based on the controlling approach used in business economics (cf. Ossadnik
2003, Brühl 2004) Scholz (2000c) proposes the understanding of post
project appraisal as part of the overall project evaluation.
Control of framework conditions and
premises
Control of accomplishment
and realisation
t0
t1
Implementation
Strategic
decision
Problem
identification
•
t3
t2
New problem
identification
Control of effectiveness and impacts
Control of efficiency and adequacy
Figure 1: Assessment of success as a strategic process (modified from
Scholz 2000c, p. 11, Ossadnik 2003, p. 285)
• Success appraisal is to be seen embedded in the general planning,
implementation and management process of any urban river
rehabilitation effort.
• Within general Project Appraisal a variety of different modules are
proposed. Most common seems the sequence (cf. Schmickler 1986,
Marti and Stutz 1993, Heitzer 2000):
– Implementation Control (as planned / as built control)
– Effectiveness Control (effects the implementation caused in
general and single measure related)
– Control of Goal Achievement (Performance control)
– Effect Analysis (why did certain effects occur / not occur).
• An important element emphasised by all authors is the feedback of
success appraisal to the project management to allow for
adjustments in the scope of adaptive management.
• Because of the close relationship to issues of urban development
(cf. Schanze et al. i.p.) urban river rehabilitation must be seen also
in their urban context and in relation to urban planning.
Appraisal Phases:
Phase 1. Pre-project appraisal
data collection
Output: -Objective setting
-Set scope of monitoring
programme
-Define success criteria
:
Appraisal Steps:
Desk study
Site selection
Problem definition
Statement of project goals
Securing resources
Pre project baseline
data collection
Phase 2 Project design and
implementation
Output:
Project design
Construction
Phase 3 Post-project appraisal and
Post- project data collection
Adaptive Management
Post- project appraisal
Output: -Document project
success/failure
Project Failure
-Publicise results of
Long term management
project appraisal
programme
-Increase knowledge base
-Process of refinement and development
Figure 2: Post Project Appraisal and adaptive management (Bruce-Burgess
and Skinner 2002)
Adaptive
Management
•
Marti and Stutz (1993) propose the differentiation of compliance audit and
performance audit (Downs and Gregory 2004, p. 230)
Current state
Historical
development
Leitbild
Target definition
Coordination
Target analysis
Prognostic assessment
of success
(Evaluation of measures)
Implementation plan
Monitoring concept
Implementation
Monitoring
Implementation control
Assessment of
target achievement
Assessment of
effectiveness
Figure3: Steps of Project Assessment (translated from Marti and Stutz
1993, p. 125)
Post project monitoring and review as
part of project management
Phase of planning
and
implementation
•
Problem
Definition
Project
Definition
Baseline
Surveys
Feasibility
Definition
Design
Construction
Post- investment
operation
Figure 4: Post project monitoring and review (modified and considerably
shortened from Gardiner 1991a, p. 9)
Revise Plan
Revise Plan
Define
Restoration
Measures
Determine
Need for
Project,
General
Objectives
Secure
Resources
Study
Historic
Channel
Conditions
Define
Evaluation
Criteria
Define
Evaluation
Techniques
Propose
Contingency
Measures
•
Review by
Agencies
and Public
Implement
restoration
Measures
Evaluate
success
Determine
if Budget is
Adequate
Figure 5: Success evaluation in the process of project realisation (Kondolf
and Micheli 1995, p. 3)
1.4 Defining the scope for success appraisal
1.4.1 Target dimension
•
•
•
•
•
•
The availability of clearly defined and generally accepted goals is the most
important prerequisite for an appraisal of success.
Without precisely defined goals, the core element of post implementation
assessment – the establishment of goal compliance – will not be possible.
it is indispensable that targets be defined already in the process of project
planning
Targets need to be operationalised.
Each target must be furnished with at least one fully practicable indicator
Generally, targets can be: a) strategic targets; b) management targets and
c) targets for single measures (Marti and Stutz 1993).
1.4.2 Effect dimension
•
•
It is supposed, that rehabilitation activities cause certain effects. Generally
these can be classified into intended and unintended effects.
Generally, two different perspectives on cause – effect relationship are
important
The cause-effect
relationship
Cause
Effect
(e.g. targeted
change)
Cause
(e.g. single
measure,
environmental
conditions etc.)
Effects
(e.g. targeted
change)
Figure 6: The cause-effect relationship (Hellstern and Wollmann 1984, p. 36)
•
In practice, a three step approach is useful to evaluate with intended and
unintended effects:
1.
Effect analysis
2.
Effectiveness analysis
3.
Efficiency analysis)
1.4.3 Scale of Assessment Abstraction dimension
• Evaluation of urban river rehabilitation generally can refer to different
organisational levels:

Program level.

Project level.

Measure or Effect level.
1.4.4 Space dimension of effects
the following spatial dimensions of effects are distinguished:
Water level: considering effects that occur directly in the water body
(e.g. water quality improvements).
Stream reach level: considering effects in certain stream sections in the project
area.
Impact area level (hinterland): considering the urban area, where no
intervention has taken place, but which is influenced by the changed conditions
in the rehabilitation site (social catchment).
1.4.5 Time dimension
•
•
The time, necessary to complete post implementation assessment can vary
from months to years and even decades, depending on the speed of the
stream system’s response to the treatment applied (FISRWG 1998, p. 6-39
sq.).
Kondolf (1995) suggests that the “commitment to the long term” is
necessary for the appraisal of ecological success to capture delayed effects
that materialise only after years.
1.4.6 Interpretation of results
•
Five levels are distinguished for the development of a parameter:
– Baseline, representing the current state of target issues and framework
conditions.
– Prognosis, being the expected development without intervention,
determined ex-ante by assuming a certain development of relevant
framework conditions.
– Trend, being the real development that would have occurred without
intervention, determined ex-post by comparing the assumed
development of related framework conditions and their real
development.
– Real development observed after the intervention.
– Target, being the defined goal for the development of the parameter of
interest.
Defined goals/
targets
(ex ante)
Target
∆2
Observed development
(ex post)
Real Development
∆4 Effectiveness
∆1
Observed trend of
external conditions
(ex post)
Trend
Degree
∆3 of
Success
Expected development
without intervention
(ex ante)
Current state of target
issues and framework
conditions (ex ante)
Prognosis
∆6
∆5
∆7
Baseline
Figure 7: Levels of
information for success
appraisal (translated
from Hellstern and
Wollmann 1984, p. 39)
∆ 1: Target-Baseline comparison
∆ 2: Target-Real development comparison (planned development)
∆ 3: Baseline-Real development comparison (degree of goal achievement)
∆ 4: Real development-Trend comparison (actual target effectiveness)
∆ 5: Baseline-Trend comparison (effects of external factors)
∆ 6: Trend-Prognosis comparison (prognosis failure margin)
∆ 7: Prognosis-Baseline comparison (expected development without intervention)
1.4.7 Conclusions / prerequisites for the assessment
1. The setting of rehabilitation targets (objectives, goals, etc.)
2. Definition of performance indicators
3. Availability of benchmarks
4. Establishment of baseline conditions
5. Appropriate monitoring frequency
6. Spatial adequacy of data time aspect
7. Consideration of the trend without intervention
8. Damping of effects
1.5 Development of indicators for post implementation
assessment
1.5.1 Existing indicators and indicator systems for appraisal
of urban river rehabilitation
•
•
•
•
•
it can be summarised, that currently there is practically no systematic post
implementation assessment in urban river rehabilitation projects.
Only singular attempts can be realised, but which in general are not
consequently in the overall project management
The used monitoring parameters and indicators are as follows:
Ecological monitoring
Hydrology and hydromorphology
– Hydrological regime (incl. NQ, MQ, HQ)
– Bank full flow conditions
– Sediment balance
– Bed shear force
– Stream morphology
– Cross section
•
Water quality
–
–
–
–
•
Flora
–
–
–
–
•
Invasives
Shrubs
Trees
perennials
Fauna
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Chemical
Biological
Physico-chemical (e.g. automated dissolved oxygen)
Different groups of pollutants
Aviofauna
Ichtiofauna
Invertebrates
Mammals
Amphibians
Sediment concentrations
Nutrient concentrations
Other
– Soil pollution (heavy metals)
– Potential for re-colonisation of river section
– Land use distribution (e.g. percentage of impervious area within the basin)
Social and economic aspects
•
•
•
River rehabilitation in urban areas may have significant impacts on social
and economic well being.
Social and economic aspects have rarely been explicitly considered for
appraisal in the context of urban river rehabilitation.
An extensive public perception study was carried out for Skerne River and
Kaitzbach. Following aspects have been considered:
– Social
• Public perception of rivers,
• Public acceptance and awareness
• Stewardship and advocacy
• Stakeholder network
• Ownership
• Built structure
• Aesthetics
• Recreational value
•
Economic
– Economic appraisal
– Cost measurement
•
Methods, applied for the assessment of social, aesthetic and economic
aspects were:
– Stakeholder analysis
– User surveys
– River Landscape Assessment
– Photo documentation and
– Cost-benefit- analysis
•
Other aspects
– A number of further aspects where considered in site appraisals:
• Historical conditions
• Flood potential
• Watershed problems
1.5.2 Criteria for the choice of indicators
•
•
•
A central element for the choice of indicators for an indicator system is the
orientation along the defined ‘Leitbild’ (cf. Kern 1994, Kondolf 1998,
Birkmann et al. 1999).
Scientific requirements for criteria
– Theoretical soundness
– Measurability
– Predictability
– Scientific credibility
– Temporal Sensitivity
– Spatial Resolution
– Robustness
Organisational requirements for criteria
– User and policy relevant
– Comprehensibility and communicability
– Efficiency and practicability
– Participation
– Obligation
2 Method for post implementation appraisal
2.1 Existing Methods of Indicator Based Project
Assessment
– The following is a presentation of existing multi-criteria assessment
methods, that were found to be especially applicable to assist the
development of a PIA method for urban river rehabilitation.
Polyfunctional Assessment Method (PfAM, Grabaum 1996)
– The PfAM is an ex-ante multi-criteria assessment method, to determine
the best land use option for a site.
1. Formulation of objective functions
2. Determination of parameters for objective function
3. Weighting of parameters for each objective function
4. Assignment of impact function to each parameter related to the
objective function
5. Assessment of best land use option trough the combination of
parameter weight and impact function
FLAG Method (Nijkamp & Ouwersloot 1998)
• The FLAG Method comprises a multi criteria decision method, similar to the
PfAM Method It is used to analyse regional sustainability based on “a
[operationalized] set of minimum (or critical) conditions to be fulfilled”
(Nijkamp & Ouwersloot 1998, p. 4).
• It considers ecological, economic or social objectives and identifies three
steps for the assessment of sustainability:
1. Identification of a set of measurable indicators
2. Establishing normative reference values
3. Development of a practical impact methodology for assessing (future)
developments
CTV min
0
A
CTV
B
100
CTV max
C
D
Section A: green flag: no reason for Section
specific
concern
A: ‚green‘ flag: no reason for specific concern
Section B: orange flag: be very alertSection B: ‚orange‘‘ flag: be very alert
Section C: red flag: reverse trends
Section C: ‚red‘ flag: reverse trends
Section D: ‚black‘ flag: stop further growth
Section D: black flag: stop further growth
Figure 8: A range of
Critical Treshold values for
fuzzy CTV’s (adopted from
Nijkamp & Ouwersloot
1998, p. 10)
2.2 Procedure for the establishment of a project specific
indicator system for urban river rehabilitation
• The decision to use an indicator system needs to be taken early on
and the set up of such a system is closely correlated to the
definition of goals, objectives and targets for a urban river
rehabilitation project. The following method will include
the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Setting goals and objectives
Selection of a project specific set of indicators
Defining target values and value classes for indicators
Weighting of indicators
Assessment of parameters
Aggregation of data
Presentation of results
2.2.1 Setting General Goals and specific Objectives
•
General goals of rehabilitation projects should comply with sustainability
requirements and should therefore cover ecological, social and economic
aspects.
ECOLOGIC ASPECTS
Increase Biodiversity
Improve Hydrological conditions
Improve Morphology and
continuity
Improve Water quality
SOCIAL ASPECTS
Establish participative
processes
Enhance and provide
recreational values
Provision for public safety and
health
ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Low costs of maintenance
Use of Cost effective measures
Stimulation of investment
Table 2: Potential General Goals related to urban river rehabilitation
2.3 Establishing a Monitoring plan
•
•
Monitoring before, during and after a urban river rehabilitation project
provides the basis for a continuous project assessment.
Following aspects should be incorporated (adapted from Glasson, et.al.
1999; FISRWG, 1998; SFW, DEPMWCG, 2001):
– Monitoring Statement: Overview of project background, short
version of mission statement, goals and objectives, participants and
procedures
– List of Indicators: Set of measurable indicators and their description
as well as potential sub-sets of indicators
– Monitoring Matrix: when, where and how to measure (assessment
methods), potential alternatives, Statement of adequate duration for
post implementation assessment
– List of Responsibilities: for assessment, evaluation and reporting
– Report Statement: Form and Frequency of public reporting
– Cost Statement: Funding needs and potential sources
2.4 Application considerations
•
•
•
The URBEM method for appraisal of success described above (see chapter
3.3) is meant to be adapted, to different projects types, project size,
available budget and needs for decision making.
For complex, large scale projects additional methods (cf. annex 3) may be
incorporated into the appraisal procedure and different supporting tools
may be used.
Geographic information systems (GIS) provide one powerful tool to manage
multi-layered information.
2.5 Framework for irregular Post Implementation
Assessment
•
•
The concept of post implementation assessment for urban river
rehabilitation projects, that has been outlined above requires a precise
procedure, which doubtlessly is not yet widely practised.
The following particular problems may occur:
– Imprecise definition of targets, missing indicators
– zero-option for prognosis/trend is missing
– Missing baseline data
– Assessment procedures for indicators cannot be reproduced
3 Description of Criteria and Indicators
3.1 Hierarchy of Criteria and Indicators
•
The structure of the URBEM indicator set consists of several thematically
differentiated levels and is laid out to fulfil two major functions.
Level I
Overall project success level expressing the overall
success of the rehabilitation project
Level II (Category)
Success level, described by three main categories:
Ecology, Social and Economy
Level III (Sub- Category)
Success level,
categories
Level IV (Component)
Success level described by groups of rehabilitation
elements
Level V (Quality element)
Success level, described by single rehabilitation
elements
thematically
Table 3: Structure of the proposed indicator system
differentiating
the
3.2 Criteria and Indicators of Ecology
•
•
•
•
Contemporary water management, which also includes river rehabilitation in
urban areas in Europe is heavily influenced by the European Water
Framework Directive (cf. EC 2000, Schanze et al. i.p.).
The overall aim of the WFD for surface waters is to achieve “good ecological
status” and “good surface water chemical status” in all bodies of surface
water by 2015.
Therefore, ecological indicators of success are based on the systematic
introduced by the WFD.
In the following, the structure of ecological indicators of success is
presented.
CATEGORIE
River
Ecology
SUB-CATEGORIE
COMPONENT
(*WFD)
Biodiversity
Biological
elements*
Hydrology
Hydrological
regime*
Morphology
Morphological
conditions*
QUALITY ELEMENTS
(*inland surface waters- river as defined by the WFD)
Composition and abundance of aquatic flora*
Composition and abundance of
benthic invertebrate fauna*
Composition, abundance and
age structure of fish fauna*
Quantity and dynamics of water flow*
Connection to groundwater bodies*
River depth and width variation*
Structure and substrate of the river bed*
Structure of the riparian zone*
Lateral connectivity
Continuity*
Water
Quality
General chemical
& physico chemical
elements*
Specific pollutants*
Other
Individual
Figure 12:
Structure of the indicator system – ECOLOGY
River/Stream Continuity*
Thermal conditions*
Oxygenation conditions*
Salinity*
Acidification status*
Nutrient conditions*
Pollution by priority substances*
Pollution by other substances*
Individual, not water related elements
3.3 Criteria and Indicators of Social Well-being
•
For the purpose of post implementation appraisal a hierarchy of social as
well as economic criteria is proposed, which is open to be adapted to the
local conditions in which a rehabilitation scheme takes place.
THEME
CATEGORY
SUB-CATEGORY
Public
Accessibility to
River and River
Site
Existing
Conditions
and Quality
of River and
River Site
Settings
Open Space
Extend and
Quality
Quality and Extend
of Recreational and
Cultural Facilities
Public Health and
Safety Related
Incidents and
Installations
Quality and
Density of Land
Uses
Social Wellbeing
Public
Appreciation
and Utilization
of River and
River Sites
Social Relations
and Social
Organisation
Public
Appreciation of
River and River
Sites
QUALITY ELEMENT
Access From City to Site
Physical Access to the Water
Access from River to Site
River Crossings
Extend of Open Space
Spatial Qualities of Open Space
Sensorial Qualities of Open Space
Quality and Amount of Recreational Facilities
Cultural Events
Quality and Amount of Natural and
Cultural Heritage Sites
Provision for Environmental Education and Awareness
Flood Damage Control
Provisions for Public Health and Safety
Accidents and Health Related Incidents
Type and Quantity of Crime at River Site
Quality and Density of Housing
Quality and Density ofCommercial,
Industrial and Utility Uses
Recreational
Use and User
groups
Residential Use
and Social
Structure of
Residents
Neighbourhood
Relations and
Neighbourhood
Cohesion
Relations between
Institutions and
Residents/Stakeholders
Perception of Public Health and Safety
Sensory Perceptions
Perception of Place Identity
Perception of Restorative capacity
Recreational User Groups
Amount and Diversity of Recreational Activities
Social Structure of Community
Quality of Residential Use
Quality and Size of Neighbourhood Networks
Trust in Neighbourhood
Public Trust in Institutions and Organisations
Level of Stakeholder participation
Figure13: Structure of Social Criteria for Urban River Rehabilitation
Public Accessibility to River and River Site
•
•
•
•
•
In past times public access to rivers has often been limited, due to
industrial uses or concentration of infrastructure lines
Private property rights often limit access to rivers, making access an act of
illegal trespass.
Urban river sites have a great potential to satisfy different recreational
needs
Public access is of paramount importance in any urban river rehabilitation
project and should be analysed.
The sub-category of accessibility may include the following quality
elements:
– Access from city to site
– Physical access to the water
– Access from river to site
– River crossings
Open Space Extend and Quality
•
•
•
Open space includes public as well as private and semi-public areas.
Open space is an important resource for outdoor recreation (Lynch, 1998)
and a place, where stress can be relieved particularly in densely populated
urban areas.
The following quality elements are suggested
– Extend of open space
– Spatial qualities of open space
– Sensorial qualities of open space
Quality and Extend of Recreational and Cultural Facilities
•
•
The before mentioned study showed that active and passive recreation as
well as educational aspects played an important role in many rehabilitation
projects.
The potential of sites to fulfil such functions can be measured through the
quality and quantity of cultural and recreational facilities including:
– Quality and amount of recreational facilities
– Cultural events
– Quality and Amount of natural and cultural heritage sites
– Provisions for environmental education and awareness
Incidents and Provisions related to Public Health and Safety
•
•
•
•
•
Over the past decades European cities have been experiencing an ever
increasing frequency of flooding with affiliated losses.
Flood damage to structures and flood related threats to public health and
safety are a limiting factor in urban stream restoration.
Riverfront sites often consist of derelict land and abandoned land in
rundown neighbourhoods.
In relation to the evaluation of health and safety the perception of risk may
be accessed, which may differ from the expert assessment and provide
additional information to decision makers.
Quality elements include:
– Provisions for public health and safety
– Accidents and health related incidents
– Type and quantity of crime
Quality and Density of Land Uses
•
•
Type, quality, and density of land uses that abut a urban river improvement
site are bound to change.
The following quality elements will be considered
– Quality and density of housing
– Quality and density of commercial, industrial and utility uses
3.3.2 Public Appreciation and Utilization of River and River
Sites
•
•
A survey of public appreciation reflects how much a river and a river site is
appreciated and how it is perceived, by measuring values people attach to a
place.
In many cases river rehabilitation initiates neighbourhood revitalisation,
changing the social structure of the residents and the their quality of life.
Public Appreciation of River and River Sites
•
•
The values of people, their perception and attitudes toward the pre- and
post project environment, should be included in any audit (cf. Stolp, 2003)
of residents or user groups.
Quality elements to be assessed include:
– Perception of public health and safety
– Sensory perception
– Perception of place identity
– Perception of restorative capacity
Recreational Use and User groups
•
•
•
Existing conditions of a site influence its suitability for uses by different
population groups.
Which recreational needs a site can fulfil and how well it is accepted by
visitors or residents determines by whom, how, and how much it is being
used.
Quality elements include:
– Recreational user groups
– Amount and diversity of recreational activities
Residential Use and Social Structure of Residents
•
•
•
River sites are highly desirable for residential uses (Wagner et.al, 2003),
due to their amenities.
Urban river rehabilitation, depending on its size and accompanying
neighbourhood revitalisation, may have a significant impact on existing and
future residents.
This subcategory particularly applies to rehabilitation schemes, that bring
about significant change in urban quality and residential use:
– Social structure of community
– Quality of residential Use
3.3.3 Social Relations and Social Organisation
•
•
•
•
Projects of participative nature often have a significant impact on social
relations of stakeholders and may result in greater community cohesion and
in a greater trust in institutions.
Those relations are described by the term “Social capital”
Social capital makes cooperative action possible and describes the capacity
of the community to act together to improve their quality of life
In context of river rehabilitation, social capital helps a community to more
effectively pursue enhancement objectives based on shared values and
interests.
Neighbourhood Relations and Neighbourhood Cohesion
•
•
Residents living in a certain area tend to establish relations with the people
living around them and sharing their interests.
Following quality elements may be considered
– Quality and size of neighbourhood networks
– Trust in neighbourhood
Relations between Institutions/Organisations and
Residents/Stakeholders
•
•
•
•
Quality and organisation of relations between institutions and organisations
on one side and stakeholders on the other side will influence a projects
outcome.
High trust in institutions to act and decide in accordance with the
community values, participative planning and decision making will increase
social sustainability of any environmental project.
Levels of active involvement may vary from plain information to active
involvement, arbitration and codetermination.
Following quality elements may be assessed:
– Stakeholder participation
– Public trust in institutions and organisations
3.4 Criteria and Indicators of Economic Sustainability
•
•
Rehabilitation of urban rivers will attract visitors and residents, but can also
attract new business to the site and upgrade economically depressed sites.
River rehabilitation can result in a range of economic benefits, including
(Otto et. al, 2004):
– Reduce costs of drinking water treatment due to improved water quality
– Curb flood damage and lower cost of flood control
– Decrease storm water management cost
– Revitalise riverfronts with new opportunities for housing, offices and
commercial services that attract new residents, business and visitors
– Provide new jobs for residents in construction and commercial business
– Offer recreational opportunities, open space and park amenities
– Raise property values and generate new tax revenues
– Attract state and federal founding, new volunteers and broad financial
support
Category
Production values
Water Resources and Energy Supply
Use Values
Such as recreational use,
economic activities,
shipping, employment,
property values and tax
revenue values.
Drainage and Waste Disposal
Transport of drainage water and
wastewater (point source and non-point
source pollutants)
Non-use values
such as values attached to
endangered species, or an
aesthetically pleasing view
Subcategory
Subcategory
Table 4:
Utility values
THEME
CATEGORY
Production
Values
SUBCATEGORY
Water Resources
and Energy Supply
Drainage and
Waste Disposal
Economic
Sustainability
Utility Values
Use Values
Non – Use Values
Project Costs
and
Maintenance
Costs
Project Costs
Maintenance
Costs
QUALITY ELEMENTS
Drinking Water Supply
Water Energy Supply
Carrying Capacity for Pollutants
Property values and taxes
Recreation and Amenity values
Economic activities and
Employment
PlanningCosts
Real estate Costs
Construction Costs
Regular Maintenance Costs
Event Related Maintenance
Figure 14: Structure of Economic Criteria for Urban River Rehabilitation
3.4.1 Production Values
•
•
The WFD paced special emphasis on economic aspects of urban river uses
through the paragraphs concerning “Heavily Modified Waterbodies”,
recognizing the values of rivers for shipping, water power, water supply,
storm water drainage and waste disposal.
Subcategories to assess under production values include
– Water Resources and Energy Supply
– Drainage and Waste Disposal
3.4.2 Utility Values
•
•
The value of a river and its setting can be divided into use values and nonuse values.
Use values relate to use of land- and water areas for housing, recreation,
commerce and utilities, while non-use values include such as a view of a
site or its natural condition seems to offer no immediate monetary value,
though a value it has.
Direct Use Values
•
•
Land and water areas along rivers offer opportunities for economic gain.
They do however suffer the “tragedy of the commons”, having been a free
for all in waste disposal. Water quality improvement of rivers came at a
cost, born by the public in improving sewage treatment.
– Property values and taxes
– Recreation and amenity values
– Economic activities and employment
Non-Use Values
•
•
Nature preserves set up to protect species abundance and diversity without
offering public access provide no direct economic gain, though they offer
long range benefits to humanity.
No-use values may be accessed for their economic value, but quantification
requires elaborate methods and expert knowledge.
3.4.3 Project Costs and Maintenance costs
•
The category project cost and maintenance cost has been included to
enable the assessment of a cost benefit ratio.
Project costs
•
The following quality elements should be considered for the assessment of
project cost:
– Planning costs
– Construction costs
– Real estate Purchase
Maintenance costs
•
•
•
A successful cost-effective river rehabilitation project will consider also
“operating costs” after the project has been implemented.
As a self sustaining equilibrium of the river should be achieved, a successful
river rehabilitation will keep annual maintenance costs as low as possible.
Maintenance cost can be divided in annual maintenance costs, which may
include such costs as for mowing and for weed control and event related
maintenance related to flooding.