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
• 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)
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)
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
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
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