Valuing the invaluable: Water Sensitive Urban Design (and beyond)

Transcription

1 Valuing the invaluable: Water Sensitive Urban Design (and beyond) Richard Ashley Emeritus Professor Pennine Water Group Department of Civil & Structural Engineering University of Sheffield Researcher University of Bradford Professor of Flood Resilience UNESCO IHE Delft Adjunct Professor Urban Water Technical University of Lulea 1

2 Who am I? 2

3 What we will consider today Changing 200 years of practice in water system management shifting from problem centric to opportunity centred How can we make the most of the resources we have? All aspects of water systems are potential assets Managing the water cycle for maximum value and flexibility We are beginning to understand how to do it Ideas as to what to do to Deliver; and to influence others Policy makers Fellow professionals Others 3

4 Where are we? Clouds of change affecting the form and function of cities (Fleming, 2008) 4

5 The position in urban areas Developed world Developing world Mostly we have the infrastructure and systems we need - but many assets are deteriorating and no longer fit for purpose Lacking much basic infrastructure they want what we have 5

6 What does this mean for my day job? Money is tight use it wisely Look for synergies in investment delivery Change your mindset to be more open to working with others across traditional boundaries 6

7 We will share some ideas from around the world Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) In a European context Coping with uncertainty and change Managed adaptation and Mainstreaming A vision for where we want to be Becoming an adaptive and reflexive organisation Not only water Also energy and other services Putting value on this How? And with what credibility? Getting buy-in Convincing those who matter Lessons from a number of international, EU, UK and Dutch national projects 7

8 Potable water supply and treatment plant Water treatment plant Natural environment Tradition but more efficiency Built environment Human consumption - kitchen USE Hot water system Shower and bathroom taps Clothes washing Toilet flushing Garden irrigation Built environment Natural environment Sewage treatment plant (STP) Discharge

9 Managing water as a cycle It s done - even within the city context Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) (Australia) Cities as water supply catchments (Australia) The water sensitive city (Australia) Low Impact Development (USA) 9

10 Potable water supply and treatment plant MINIMISE Natural environment Built environment All water is seen as an opportunity Human consumption - kitchen USE Stormwater treatment Train Not as now, as a problem and a threat Hot water system Shower and bathroom taps Clothes washing Toilet flushing Built environment Natural environment Discharge Sewage treatment plant (STP) MINIMISE Garden irrigation REUSE Discharge PROTECT & ENHANCE ENVIRONMENT

11 Cities of the future Wong et al, 2011, 2012, 2013 All forms of water are opportunities Pleasant and efficient places to live Water institutions are partnering and working with others to bring multi-value Engaged communities with local responsibilities 12/11/

12 But.. What about systems of systems? Hall et al, 2013: OECD estimate that infrastructure investments between 2000 & 2030 will be approximately US$71 trillion worldwide, or 3-5% of world GDP 12

13 What does it mean to us in the water sector? Do we think and work across sectors? Yorkshire We know about water-energyfood don t we? How many of us know about it but contribute nothing to it in our working lives? Cyprus 13

14 Being applied poorly what aspects of water management and the wider benefits do you feel are well considered in the land use planning and design processes in your country? flood risk management SuDS (sustainable drainage systems) watercourses and related eco-systems wastewater treatment and management 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Being applied well potable water treatment and supply rainwater harvesting contribution to ecosystems services water recycling for non-potable supply water efficiency contribution to green infrastructure respondents from 5 EU countries 14

15 would you agree with any of the following items in that taking a WSUD approach adds other benefits to society over and above flood and water management 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% linking water with place making 11 0 energy management 6 5 waste management 3 7 ecosystem health 11 0 add community health and welfare 10 0 agree create green and community related jobs 9 1 disagree security of water supply 6 4 mitigating and adapting to climate change 10 0 payment for ecosystems services 2 4 agree disagree 15

16 Not everything is the same In the southern hemisphere it is more often hot and dry though In the northern hemisphere it is more often cold and wet South north Thanks to Nigel Tapper 16

17 Cities as water supply catchments green cities as microclimates Thanks to Nigel Tapper 17

18 The Melbourne heat island Thanks to Nigel Tapper 18

19 Park cool islands Influence of WSUD features is controlled by its size and location, and local meteorological conditions. As much as 1km downwind Honjo and Takakura, 1990 Energy & Build. WSUD needs to be distributed throughout the landscape and where people actually are! Stream ecology benefits from distributed systems Bruse and Skinner, th Int. Cong. Biomet. & Int. Conf. Urban Clim. Source: Andy Coutts, Monash University

20 9 year programme from 2013

21 Singapore, China. Transposition? Northern Europe? In ,000 people had no tap water in Gloucestershire because of flooding In 2011 Welsh Water had the big freeze 21

22 Urban Design Microclimate and human comfort Water features and art Flood resilience Open spaces and recreation Community engagement Flood pathway integration Rainwater and surface water runoff recycling Surface water runoff reduction and improved treatment Local identity Sustainable water supply options Integrated water cycle management Reduced sewer overflows + Reduced flood risk Flood resilience Street and highway design Sustainable buildings Demand management + Greywater and wastewater recycling Flood resilience Wastewater reduction and improved treatment Symbiotic land use planning Local resource management Urban agriculture and landscape Local infrastructure efficiency Habitat creation and enhancement Urban Planning 22

23 Report available online 23

24 In Northern Europe we are more interested in Flooding Cold We may have to live differently Energy 24

25 All types of rainfall events are useful Fratini et al (2012) defined 3 PAs three points approach Serious hazard region Extreme events 2 Exceedance also happens here due to blockages and poor maintenance Increasing damage 4 Exceedance events Exceedance sits between design and extreme 3 Day-to day maintained region Design events 1 Return period (non-linear) 25

26 INNERS:- INNovative Energy Recovery Strategies in the urban water cycle 11 partners from the Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg think in a new way about the urban water cycle. Not only as a system that transports water, but also as a potential source of energy. Valuable energy which is lost in the current situation. 26

27 Where is the energy in the water cycle? 27

28 Some ways of thinking and tools We need to find new ways. 28

29 Managed adaptation and mainstreaming precautionary approach risk intervention not sensitive to climate change probability or risk no adaptation adaptive approach Multiple interventions Acceptable risk level time Big infrastructure investment 29

30 Dynamic adaptation (Haasnoot et al, 2013) Our uncertainties are here to stay But our policy and decision makers need to learn the new ways How do we manage our assets?

31 The grey infrastructure - Tipping points Provides required service level until such time as rainfall changes by this amount If we do this it will keep working until rainfall changes by this amount

32 Going from grey to green and blue Changed emphasis in practice Traditional methods are often resource intensive and lack flexibility 32

33 Mainstreaming disconnection from sewers Managed adaptation is coupled to normal urban regeneration

34 Shift in ATPs by disconnection from sewers Reduces flood risk Increases flood risk

35 Using real options analysis and decision trees 35

36 The need to make an economic argument Inclusion of green infrastructure in urban areas is usually for aesthetic, recreational or biodiversity reasons not to do with water More apparent drivers, benefits & costs for improved water management by GI will strengthen the argument Policy makers will then listen

37 What others have done already to assess multiple benefits Variety of examples none of which fit ideally into WSUD The green perspective & the stormwater perspective only in the USA has this been brought together convincingly There is no consistency (USEPA, 2013) Ecosystem Services: Mayesbrook Park Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management Eftec 2010 Green Infrastructure: Green Infrastructure North West Halewood primary school SuDS Surface Water: Centre for Neighborhood Technology: Philadelphia CSO reduction SuDS Environmental INFFER - Investment Framework for Environmental Resources Planning Integrated Valuation of Environmental Sciences and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Many health economic benefit assessments 37

38 (Marlow et al, in print, WERF) 38

39 So what are the benefits? Chow et al, 2013: A Systematic, Multi-Criteria Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Drainage Design 39

40 41 Social return on investment Clear evidence, but engaging local people and communities needs to be handled better than what has been in the past

41 The suite of ecosystem services values in this case study yields a lifetime benefit-tocost ratio of roughly 7:1 (6.94:1) or 7 of benefits for every 1 invested. More than 93% of this is for cultural services

42 Emerald cities in the USA These cities have recognized that stormwater, once viewed as a costly nuisance, can be transformed into a community resource At the same time, each dollar of investment in green infrastructure delivers other benefits that conventional infrastructure cannot 12/11/

43 Cumulative addedvalue (whole life) of using GI to deal with CSOs - $2.8bn Cumulative addedvalue (whole life) of using big sewers $122m 44

44 Municipality multiple benefits - Retrofit SuDS in Devonshire Park Bradford, UK 45

45 Bringing flood resilience, adaptive capacity and WSUD into an EU context Phase A. vision, principles, objectives and drivers A.1 Identify vision A.2 Define principles A.3 Specify objectives A.4 Identify key drivers Phase B. opportunities, players and outcomes B.1. identify opportunities C.1 define boundaries and systems to include B.2 identify stakeholders Phase C. refine and analyse options C.2 review and refine drivers, objectives, opportunities and criteria B.3 establish working partnerships C.3 define main options B.4 specify performance criteria and measures C.4 analyse options Monitor, evaluate and refine process Phase D. select, implement and monitor performance D.1 select preferred option(s) D.2 implement option D.3 monitor performance

46 Looking at how valuation has been done so far The robustness of some benefit values are questionable and the context of the initial assessment is important Certain benefits are not yet amenable to monetisation but should not be lost or missed from any evaluation Any tool needs to consider a time and spatial perspective for when SuDS/BMPs may be implemented ie. incrementally and possibly by different decision makers over time and in different contexts Manor park ponds Sheffield 47

47 examples Welsh Water Cost Database Provide Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water with a tool which can be used to predict costs associated with their Surface Water Management Strategy and to assess and quantify expected benefits and carbon implications For business planning and to fit into existing investment manager tool 48

48 49

49 Ecosystem services 50

50 A new tool for benefit assessment of SuDS Tiered approach to build up information Four levels 1. Confirms the assessment is appropriate and required 2. Screens and undertakes a qualitative assessment 3. Quantitative and monetised evaluation 4. Local benefits evaluation (if appropriate) 51

51 52 Level 1 - Confirm assessment is required / appropriate Level 1 Confirm assessment is required / appropriate Confirm the scope and determine if benefits assessment is needed Captures background and purpose SuDS approach Existing context Benefit evaluation required? Yes New development or retrofit No No assessment required or not appropriate

52 Level 2 Screening and qualitative assessment benefit evaluation Level 2 - Screening and qualitative assessment benefit evaluation Describe and establish the existing position and context Set out the baseline and do-nothing option Identify options Define the impacts of the option qualitatively compared with the existing context and baseline Are impacts likely to be significant / further work required? No Conclude assessment and report Yes 53

53 Level 3 Monetised benefits evaluation Quantify the impacts Option Ecosystem Annual / Year Year Project Quantity Units Value one off impacts impacts life NPV Service impact Nonestart Record endnon monetised (years) benefits, Climate 11.8 Can tonnes the values CO2ebe , conclude 2055assessment 40 and report - 31,381 Water quality Proportion 2 monetised? km of benefits 13,615 27,230 from key 2015ecosystem ,499 Hazard 32 service properties categories Yes 5, ,576 (SuDS Some Options Record 2) 40 3,685,373 non monetised benefits. Noise & 135 disruption Value households the impacts % - 7, ,587 0% Recreation 10,000 visits 4 44, Fish ,436 1 Amenity 882 properties 4,500 9% 3,969, ,834,783 Climate Review tonnes the CO2e results , Wild species 40 diversity 241,253 33% Water quality 2 km 13,615 27, Recreation ,499 Hazard 32 properties 5, , ,685,373 Amenity Consider the sensitivity of the results Climate 49% 5% Water quality 1% Hazard Traditional Level 3 - Monetised benefit evaluation Yes 54

54 Level 3 Monetised benefits evaluation Benefits of solutions (NPV) Yes 25,000,000 Quantify the impacts 20,000,000 Level 3 - Monetised benefit evaluation 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Can the values be monetised? Yes Value the impacts Review the results Consider the sensitivity of the results None Some Low estimate Best estimate High estimate Record non monetised benefits, conclude assessment and report Record non monetised benefits. 0 Conventional SuDS 1 SuDS 2 SuDS 3 55

55 56 Level 4 Detailed / local benefit evaluation Level 4 - Detailed / local benefit evaluation Are local values required? Yes Assess local benefit values and quantities and update evaluation No Conclude assessment and report Conclude assessment and report Identifying / obtaining local values is important to strengthen the business case These values need to be considered from the start of the process

56 Getting attention and building reflexive capacity EU project PREPARED 57

57 Influence other professionals and Work across disciplines decision makers Gather evidence and examples of innovation Challenge unprofessional and unethical behaviours Point out technician mentalities Don t be afraid to stand up and be counted Consider Learning Alliances Maximise the use of existing guidance and codes 58

58 Summary Uncertainty is here to stay.we cannot eliminate RISK We have new ways of thinking about water and new tools Water is but one of the many systems of systems and certainly not at the centre of thinking in our towns and cities Bacchin, TU Delft The frame is land use, land use planning and the quality and security of places 59

59 Conclusion We have a moral duty to maximise the value of what we do Uncertainty means we cannot keep doing what we always have This means working beyond the boundaries you are confined by Only technicians don t challenge inappropriate boundaries and stick only to the rules Innovate for sustainability we have many new ideas and tools we can use 60