URBAN STREAM REHABILITATION INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES IMPACTS

URBAN STREAM REHABILITATION

INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES & IMPACTS INDICATORS OF SUCCESS THE URBEM FRAMEWORK CASE STUDIES SOCIAL APPRAISAL AESTHETICS REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES SITE MONITORING BENEFITS / IMPACTS

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 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 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 (2000 c) 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 t 0 t 1 Implementation Strategic decision Problem identification • t 3 t 2 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 2000 c, 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: Adaptive Management 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)

• 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 Figure 3: 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 (Pf. AM, Grabaum 1996) – The Pf. AM 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 SUB-CATEGORIE COMPONENT (*WFD) Biological elements* Biodiversity 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* Hydrological regime* Hydrology Quantity and dynamics of water flow* Connection to groundwater bodies* River Ecology Morphological conditions* Morphology 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 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 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