riprocity - fenixedu · 4th ecrr conference on river restoration italy, venice s. servolo island...

- Publicação Saraiva, M.G.; Ramos, I.L.; Vaz, L.; Bernardo, F. & Condessa, B. 2008. Towards sustainability in rehabilitating urban river landscapes. Crossing ecology with social concerns. Proceedings of the 4th ECCR Conference on River Restoration, Venice

RiProCiTy

Centro Italiano per la Riqualificazione Fluviale

VENIC

E E

DITO

R

Contacts:

ECRR - European Centre for River Restoration

web: www.ecrr.org

e-mail: [email protected]

CIRF - Centro Italiano per la Riqualificazione Fluviale

web: www.cirf.org

e-mail: [email protected]

IVth ECRR International Conference on RIVER RESTO

RATION

PROCEED

ING

S

ECRR

CIRF

IVth ECRR International Conference onRIVER RESTORATION 2008

P R O C E E D I N G SEDITED BY: B. GUMIERO, M. RINALDI, B. FOKKENS

European Centre for River Restoration

Venice, San Servolo Island - 16/19 June 2008

Drava River

Tagliamento River

4th ECRR Conference on River

RestorationItaly, Venice S. Servolo Island

16-21 June 2008

TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY IN REHABILITATING URBAN RIVER LANDSCAPES. CROSSING ECOLOGY WITH

SOCIAL CONCERNS

Saraiva M.G.1*, Ramos I.L.1, Vaz L.2, Bernardo F.3, Condessa B.1

1 Researchers at CESUR/IST; Technical University of Lisbon2 Collaborator at CESUR/IST; Technical University of Lisbon

3 University of Évora* Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACTUrban rivers are complex systems to manage in the current context of the search

for sustainability. The rehabilitation and restoration of urban watercourses is a demanding challenge for planners, scientists, experts, decision makers and urbancitizens. The methods, lessons learned and outcomes of river restoration processes inless disturbed areas, such as rural or natural landscapes, are not transferable to highly urbanized landscapes, where impervious surfaces and disturbance causemajor changes in the geomorphologic, hydrological and ecological characteristics of the catchment. The EU WFD requirements are more difficult to achieve, due to strong human pressures, requiring the application of “highly modified water bodies”status.Rivers bring added values to urban areas, such as amenity, aesthetics, recreation, heritage, spatiality, identity, restorative capacity and influence urbanpattern and uses. Recent interest for urban riverfronts calls for new approaches for urban river management, which take into account ecological, spatial, social,economic, aesthetic and institutional issues, and use multidisciplinary approacheswhich require public participation.

Building on a previous research developed under the European research projectURBEM (www.urbem.net), an in-depth study has been undertaken on city-riversrelationships and how a river can contribute to urban sustainability. This study isconducted under an ongoing project called “Ri-Pro-City, opportunities for urbansustainability”. A set of indicators of sustainability which can be applied to fluvialcities and urban river corridors has been developed, aiming to assess progress in river rehabilitation projects. The indicators are based on the evaluation of: sustainable urban land use, flood risks, water quality, river corridor habitats,contribution to amenity and microclimatic balance, access and use of riverfrontfacilities, public satisfaction towards the river and the river corridor, andinstitutional arrangements for these specific projects.

Towards sustainability in rehabilitating urban river landscapes

Some case studies in Portugal have been selected, where river rehabilitation hasbeen part of larger projects of urban regeneration. In these cities, those projects havebeen assessed using several indicators, aiming to evaluate strengths and weaknessesof the rehabilitation process. The lessons learned can contribute to ameliorate andimprove urban rehabilitation techniques and processes, leading to more ecologically-balanced urban river landscapes, which are socially experienced and valued bycitizens and local stakeholders.

Key words: urban river, sustainability, rehabilitation, evaluation, indicators.

1. INTRODUCTIONIn the context of urban landscapes, a better balance between natural

components and the built environment is seen as an important target for urban development, correlated with a better human quality of life. Water is akey natural resource for sustainability and plays an important role in the urban environmental quality. The relationship city/water is a complex and demanding issue, requiring special management procedures affecting all thelevels of urban management.

The presence and crossing of rivers in cities bring additional concerns to the urban environment. Besides the historical, geographical and morphological features, several specific aspects should be considered, such as water quality, flood vulnerability, accessibility, increased aesthetic and landscape value and contribution to urban attractiveness and identity, amongmany others.

The presence of nature in urban areas may contribute to an increase in perceived quality of life. Thus, various sets of indicator have been developedfor the purpose of assessing urban sustainability, including indicatorsconsidering the presence and accessibility of green urban areas (e.g., UrbanAudit1). Even though not explicitly considered, rivers provide an uniqueopportunity to introduce nature into urban areas.

Two main characteristics of rivers might contribute to a more sustainableurban development: its continuity and the presence of water. Continuity and connectivity are key issues in promoting quality of ecological system and inthe conservation of biodiversity (Hellmund and Smith, 2004) because they enable fluxes of species, matter and energy (Forman, 1985) and create habitats for urban fauna.

These linear continuous structures (corridors) also provide opportunitiesfor movement of people by increasing access to open areas, as advocated by the ‘greenway’ concept (Jongman and Pungetti, 2004). In the light of climate change and the need to reduce CO2 emissions, these corridors may set the basis for more sustainable modes of mobility and a shift in urban lifestyle,

1 http://www.urbanaudit.org/

930

Saraiva, M.G., Ramos, I.L., Vaz, L., Bernardo, F., Condessa, B.

where proximity, a sense of community and social interaction may gain anew realm.

Water is recognized as being of fundamental importance for all species.The presence of water bodies is thereby of special relevance to people by creating more attractive and relaxing environments, valued for their aestheticqualities (Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1991). Rivers are also of great potential forrecreational and outdoor activities linked to water. Notably, in Mediterranean cities, due to the combination of high temperatures and absence of rainfall in summer, water becomes very attractive. The presenceof water is an essential factor in fighting the ‘urban heat island’ (Hough, 2004) and thus provides an increased climatic comfort to the residents.Taking into account climate change the presence of water may play an evenmore relevant role in the future.

Rivers in urban areas provide important ecological and social benefitsand thereby show a great potential for forming the backbone of theecological structure of cities. River corridors should be addressed in order to create spaces where “residents can enjoy beautiful surroundings that are more suitable for wildlife” (UNEP, 2007).

2. CONTEXT OF URBAN RIVER RESTORATION ANDREHABILITATION

The increasing interests in the restoration and rehabilitation of rivers and watercourses is motivating an emergent trend of river restoration programmes, all around the world (Palmer et al., 2005). The specific case of urban rivers calls for increased complexity, either on the physical and ecologic domains, as well on the social dimensions, related with the public,the experts and the decision makers that experience, promote or conduct therehabilitation schemes (Kondolf and Yang, 2008). So, physical andecological processes, as well as social processes, need to be both identified and studied, in order to achieve a successful project, which takes into account the several domains involved.

According to Bernhardt and Palmer (2007), the restoration of urban rivers is a demanding process due to the changes of land use and urbanization of catchments, along three main axis: a) The geomorphic simplification inhabitat heterogeneity and reduced floodplain connectivity; b) the ecologicalsimplification with decline in stream biodiversity and sediment transport; c) the diminished social value of rivers, becoming unattractive for social usesand recreation. The level of intensity of these disturbances creates verydifferent situations, where a continuum of cases can occur, from a non-disturbed catchment processes into a highly urbanized urban land uses(Kondolf and Yang, 2008). So, different objectives and targets can be established, from a more restoration-oriented project to others which couldbe more adequately classified as “rehabilitation” or even “improvement”.

931


When planning actions on urban rivers and streams, it is then importantto state the level of the intervention, according to the degree of existing constraints and the potentiality to restore some natural processes andfunctions. The distinction of concepts can be useful in order to analyze the constraints and establish the potential targets and aims (Schanze et al., 2004): “Restoration is directed towards recreating the pristine physical,chemical and biological state of rivers. In its purest sense it means a fullstructural and functional return to a pre-disturbance state (Wade et al. 1998;p.2, in Schanze et al., 2004). Renaturalisation or naturalisation describes the naturalistic way of bringing (river-) ecosystem back to a natural state butwithout targeting the really pristine, pre-disturbance state (cp. Mendiondo,1999 in Schanze et al., 2004). Rehabilitation indicates a process which can be defined as the partial functional and/or structural return to a former or pre-degradation condition of rivers or putting them back to good working order (Wade et al., 1998; p.2 in Schanze et al., 2004). It is dedicated to the ecologic state (biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical) by structural and partly non-structural measures. Enhancement means animprovement of the current state of rivers and its surroundings. It aims at a general valorisation of the ecological, social, economic and aesthetic properties”.

According to these concepts, it can be accepted that in mostly urbanlandscapes interventions are commonly related with improvement andrehabilitation, based on the existing constraints and the potential for achieving process-led schemes rather than form-led projects. In both cases,social concerns and motivations can also be assessed through similarapproaches.

3. APPROACHES TO URBAN RIVER REHABILITATIONDuring the last decades urban rehabilitation and regeneration

programmes have been carried out in major urban areas in order to promotebetter urban environments, find solutions for degraded areas and to improvecity image. Also in Portugal, for the Lisbon World Exhibition (EXPO 98), an urban area was subject to a regeneration process. This process wasdisseminated throughout 28 Portuguese cities by the application of a publicsupported urban rehabilitation programme, called “POLIS”.

The POLIS programme established, as main goals, the improvement of life quality, through urban and environmental interventions, increasing attractiveness and competitiveness in the national urban system.

Since the rehabilitation programme favoured the creation of public open space, water played an important role in the choice of the intervention sites. Among the projects in the 28 cities, 17 of the sites included intervention on the river and river corridor.

932


The nature of these interventions depended on the relative position of theriver in the city (central or peripheral), which restrained both the spaceavailable, but also the relation with the city and the citizens.

Interventions ranged from a very localized creation of green urban areas in the river corridor that did not address rivers at all, to intervention on thewhole river corridor that crosses the city, to intervention on reaches of rivers,mostly located in degraded or neglected urban areas, as for example, in Cacém (Figs 1 and 2) and in Bragança (Figs 3 and 4).

Figure 1 - River Jardas at Cacém (beforethe intervention).

Figure 2 - River Jardas at Cacém (after the intervention).

Figure 3 - River Fervença in Bragança(before the intervention).

Figure 4 - River Fervença in Bragança(after the intervention).

For instance, the success of the intervention on the river Fervença inBragança, was systematically assessed by Vaz (2008), by using a set ofsuccess indicators based on the dimensions of sustainability, according to ecological, social and economic targets (Tourbier and Gersdorf, 2005).Results showed that mainly the social dimension had been successfullyaddressed. The river, which before was isolated in the periphery of the city,turned in a recognized and used space that now belongs to the city. However,

933


the rehabilitation on the river itself showed deficiencies. The creation ofartificial riverbanks and the construction of a dam downstream to ensure the constant presence of water to increase visual quality of the site, heavily constrained the ecological dimension.

4. INDICADORS ADDRESSING THE CONTRIBUTION OF RIVERSTO URBAN SUSTAINABILITY – THE ‘RIPROCITY’ APPROACH

Any intervention in highly variable systems, such as river systems,necessarily implies consequences, not only for the intervention area, but also for upstream and downstream areas, depending on the degree of intervention developed. Thus, the assessment of the success of a rehabilitation activity can be conducted by selecting an appropriate set of indicators. The use of indicators allows to perceive the advantages and disadvantages of a particular option and to understand if the strategy was successful or not,supporting the decision for future projects of similar nature.

Monitoring, evaluation and management are thus essential componentsfor a successful implementation of any rehabilitation project of river systems, particularly in the urban context, which entails greater complexityof analysis and understanding. In this case, the selection of the types of indicators to be used creates greater difficulties. The monitoring and evaluation process requires integrating different aspects including theeconomic, social, environmental, ecological and aesthetic ones.

That was one of the objectives of the European research project URBEM- "Urban River Basin Enhancement Methods", (www.urbem.net) on rehabilitating urban rivers in the perspective of sustainability, to which our research group had the opportunity to collaborate. Its main aim was toconduct a study on the state of the art of rehabilitation of urban rivers in Europe, including the experience of some countries from other continents.The following topics were selected: the process of planning and intervention, rehabilitation techniques, environmental impacts, social and economic,aesthetic evaluation, community involvement and monitoring of performance through the application of indicators to assess the success ofinterventions (Tourbier and Schanze, 2005; Silva et al., 2005).

This methodology was applied to the assessment of river rehabilitation process to the river Fervença in the city of Bragança, under the POLISProgramme, as refered above. The use of the set of indicators of successdeveloped in the URBEM project (Tourbier and Gersdorf, 2005) showedsome limitations, due to the difficulty in data acquisition, the absence of reference values to assess the indicators significance in many cases, and the lack of information concerning institutional issues that were relevant for the process implementation.

In order to encompass the gaps identified in the previously described methodology and in an attempt to further develop the research, our research

934


group has undertaken another research project called "RiProCity,opportunities for urban sustainability." The main issue was to analysemultiple relationships between cities and rivers under the perspective ofintervention and enhancement of both systems, in the context of sustainabledevelopment.

The various dimensions of the relationship between rivers and cities has been explored by an expert panel, to answer the question “To what extent does the river contribute to urban sustainability?”. During a ‘post-it’ session of two hours, 15 experts produced 177 contributions that have beenorganized into a set of 5 dimensions: (1) ecological/environmental; (2) spatial/urban; (3) psychological/social; (4) economic and (5)institutional/governance.

The discussion of the content of these contributions and the typology ofrelated issues has directed the choice of a set of indicators to assess the path towards sustainability in urban river rehabilitation processes. The level of integration, their representativeness and the capacity to express the multipledimensions involved, were the main criteria required. The team’s choice was the adaptation of a set of indicators already tested for assessing urbansustainability – the “common indicators” (EEA 2000) to the city-rivercontext and to the multiple dimensions emerging from the outcome of the expert panel.

Then, a set of indicators of sustainability, applicable to fluvial cities and urban river corridors were developed, aiming to assess progress in river rehabilitation projects., These indicators address sustainable urban land use, flood risks, water quality, river corridor habitat, contribution to amenity andmicroclimatic balance, riverfront access and use of facilities, publicsatisfaction towards the river and the river corridor, and institutionalarrangements for these specific projects.

Table 1 summarizes the set of indicators chosen, called ‘RiProCityindicators’. Their designation, objectives and methods of measurement arebriefly described. The current phase in the research is their application to two case studies, the cities of Coimbra /river Mondego and Leiria/river Lis.

Table 1 – List of Riprocity indicators for assessing sustainability in urban river rehabilitation programmes.

RIPROCITYINDICATORS

OBJECTIVES MEASUREMENT

Citizen satisfactionwith the localriverfront

Recognizing that welfare ofcitizens and their satisfactionwith the city are importantelements for sustainability.

Satisfaction Level of thecitizens in relation to theintervention area.

River contribution tolocal bioclimatic

Comparative analysis of climatein the river water body adjacent

Measurements of climaticvariables (temperature,

935


change green area, with other greenareas without influence of the river.

relative humidity, wind speed(direction), solar radiation).

Ecological quality ofthe river corridor

Evaluate the ecological quality of river corridors, integratingalso through citizens’ perceptionof the quality of their rivers.

Riparian corridorconservation status;Ecological status of water bodies.

Flood risk Analyse land uses in the areavulnerable/exposed to flooding;Evaluate the area vulnerable toflooding in the city of Leiria andset levels of risk.

Risk = Probability(probability of chain ofevents from origin to impact)x Exposure x Vulnerability(consequences/damages).

Sustainable land use Establish a strategy forprotecting urban rivers andsensitive areas from ahydrological point of view.

% of impervious surfaces inurban watersheds (Schueler,1995) ; % of soil sealingand its impact on the hydrological cycle in ecologically sensitive areas .

Mobility and riveraccessibility

To promote an increasedaccessibility to the water andallow a better publicappropriation of the banks, as well as stimulate enhancedconnection between banks.

River crossing bypedestrians; Accessibility tothe river by public transportation.

Availability of localpublic spaces andservices

To determine the quality of theurban setting, services andleisure areas provided on theriverfront.

Social facilities area on theriverfront per inhabitant;Percentage of open public space on the riverfront; Areaoccupied by restaurants,commerce and other servicesavailable for recreation overtotal surface area of theriverfront.

Governance andsustainablemanagement

Management models’ efficiency(towards sustainability) of theriver’s banks.

Stability of the land-usemanagement system ;Existence of projects orprogrammes with influenceover the riverfront; Compatibility/conflictsbetween differentmanagement instruments.

5. CONCLUSIONSThe application of these indicators is in an early stage, and requires the

collection of data and the integration of information from different sources.However, the discussion undertaken has contributed to define aninterdisciplinary approach, where ecological, social and institutional issues have been crossed and approached in an integrated way.

The possibility to overcome conflicts and uncertainties, common to almost any river restoration and rehabilitation processes, increases with this

936


‘crossed’ vision that enlarges the scope, the effects and the role andinvolvement of different stakeholders. We expect that, in the near future, thelessons learned through this methodology will contribute to bridge the gap between distinct and opposite professional sectors and ways of conductingsuch projects.

Public acceptance and involvement are key issues for the success of river restoration projects. Notably in urban areas, this aspect is of major relevancedue to the multiple issues at stake. Therefore, bringing together social expectations with the achievement of healthy ecological processes and ecosystems can be viewed as a progress towards sustainability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSAcknowledgements are due to the other members of RiProCity research project,

for the discussion and construction of the set of indicators.This research is funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and

Technology.

REFERENCESBernhardt E.S. and Palmer M.A. (2007) – Restoring streams in an urbanizing world.

Freshwater Biology, 52, 738-751.EEA (2000) - Towards a Local Sustainability Profile: European Common Indicators.

Technical report. European Commission, Expert Group on the UrbanEnvironment, DG Environment, Brussels, Luxembourg.

Forman R. (1985) – Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions.Cambridge Press, Cambridge.

Hellmund P. and Smith D. (2006) – Designing greenways: sustainable landscapesfor nature and people. Island Press, Washington.

Hough M. (2004) - Cities and natural process: a basis for sustainability. Routledge(second edition). London.

Jongman R. and Pungetti G. (2004) – Introduction: ecological networks and greenways. In: Ecological Networks and Greenways: concept, design andimplementation. Studies in Landscape Ecology, Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 1-6.

Kaplan S. and Kaplan R. (1989) - The Experience of Nature: A PsychologicalPerspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kondolf G.M. and Yang C. (2008) – Planning river restoration projects: social andcultural dimensions. In: S. Darby and D. Sear (Eds), River Restoration:Managing the Uncertainty in Restoring the Physical Habitat, John Wiley & Sons,Ltd.

Palmer, M.A., E. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, and the National River Restoration ScienceSynthesis Working Group. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful riverrestoration. J. Applied Ecology 42: 208-217.

Schanze J., Olfert A., Tourbier J.T., Gersdorf I. and Schwager T. (2004) – Existingurban river rehabilitation schemes (Work Package 2). URBEM project, LeibnizInstitute of Ecological and Regional development and Drseden University of Technology, Dresden http://www.urbem.net.

937


Schueler T. (1995) – Site Planning for Urban stream protection, EnvironmentalLand Planning Series, Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, Marylandand Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington D.C.

Silva J.B., Saraiva M.G., Ramos I.L. and Bernardo F. (2005) – Methodology ofaesthetic evaluation of rivers in urban context. In: Urban River Rehabilitation,Proceedings of the International conference on Urban river Rehabilitation URRC2005, Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development, Dresden, 113-121.

Tourbier J.T. and Gersdorf I. (2005) – Indicators of success (Workpackage 10).URBEM porjecy, Dresden University of Technology, Dresdenhttp://www.urbem.net

Tourbier J.T. and Schanze J. (Eds) (2005) - Urban River Rehabilitation, Proceedingsof the International conference on Urban river Rehabilitation URRC 2005,Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development, Dresden.

Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A. and Zelson M. (1991)- Stress Recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.

UNEP (2007) - Cities and Biodiversity: Engaging Local Authorities in theImplementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity(Unep/Cbd/Cop/9/Inf/10). Conference of The Parties to the Convention onBiological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-09/information/cop-09-inf-10-en.pdf, 17th of March 2008.

Vaz L.F. (2007) – Cidades fluviais. Questões ecológicas associadas a processos deregeneração urbana. Dissertação de Mestrado em Regeneração Urbana eAmbiental, Faculdade de Arquitectura, UTL; Lisboa.

938

riprocity - fenixedu · 4th ecrr conference on river restoration italy, venice s. servolo island...

Documents