Assessing Nature-Based and Classical Engineering Solutions for Flood-Risk Reduction in Urban Streams

• Autorzy: Ourloglou Olga , Stefanidis Konstantinos , Dimitriou Elias

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12911/22998993/116349

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Urbanization of stream ecosystems with the purpose of managing the flash-flood events is nowadays considered responsible for habitat loss and alteration of the natural flow regime with severe implications for the ecosystem functioning. Unsurprisingly, the river scientists have started seeking alternative options inspired from nature for mitigating the flood-risk and maintaining the stream at its natural state. With this article the authors demonstrate the effects of a nature-based solution (NBS) for managing an urban stream based on the use of bioengineering materials (e.g. plants) and the implementation of the actions that restore the stream to its natural form (e.g channel widening). The HEC-RAS software was employed to simulate the flow and hydraulic components of an approximately 800m long reach of an urban stream under three different scenarios of flood risk management with a design flow set to 400 m³/s. The first scenario was based on the current situation of the stream, the second scenario concerned the stream restoration by following the nature-based solutions, while the third scenario was based on the classical “grey” engineering approach of concrete channelization. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry methods and the Pix4Dmapper software were used in order to develop a detailed 3D model of the studied reach that accurately captured the current geomorphology. The obtained results showed that with concrete channelization, the average and maximum flow of the stream increases significantly in relation to the current situation, from 2.48 and 4.88m/s to 9.82 and 11.22 m/s, respectively, while the average Froude number raises from 0.36 to 1.69 implying super-critical flows. In contrast, the NBS scenario retained lower flow velocities and average Froude number similar to those under the current conditions. In addition, a cost estimation analysis for both stream management techniques revealed that the NBS is much cheaper than the traditional channelization (1.1 mil € vs 5.6 mil €). In conclusion, our findings suggest that the future restoration of urban streams should consider the nature-based solutions since i) they can be effective with regard to the reduction of flood-risk, ii) are cheaper than the traditional “grey” techniques and, most importantly, iii) maintain the natural state of the ecosystem which improves not only the ecosystem functioning but also the aesthetic value within the urban context.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

urban streams; stream restoration; bioengineering; nature based solution; hydraulic modelling; UAVs

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Inżynierii Ekologicznej ; Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Journal of Ecological Engineering
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 21, nr 2
• Strony: 46--56
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 29 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ourloglou Olga

• Hellenic Open University, School of Science and Technology, Parodos Aristotelous 18, 26 335, Patra, Greece

autor

Stefanidis Konstantinos

• Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR), Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, 46.7 km of Athens, Sounio Ave., 19013 Anavyssos, Attiki, Greece

autor

Dimitriou Elias

• Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR), Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, 46.7 km of Athens, Sounio Ave., 19013 Anavyssos, Attiki, Greece

Bibliografia

• 1. AloTerra Restoration Services, LLC, Golder Associates. 2016. Living Streambanks A Manual of Bioengineering Treatments for Colorado Streams. Colorado Water Conservation Board.
• 2. Anim, D.O., Fletcher, T.D., Vietz, G.J., Pasternack, G.B., Burns, M.J. 2018. Effect of urbanization on stream hydraulics. River Research Applications 34, 661–674. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3293a
• 3. Anim, D.O., Fletcher, T.D., Vietz, G.J., Pasternack, G.B., Burns, M.J. 2018. Restoring in-stream habitat in urban catchments: Modify flow or the channel? Ecohydrology 12, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2050b
• 4. Anim, D.O., Fletcher, T.D., Vietz, G.J., Burns, M.J., Pasternack, G.B. 2019. How alternative urban stream channel designs influence ecohydraulic conditions. J. Environmental Management 247, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.095
• 5. Bair, B. 2018. Stream Restoration Cost Estimates-Streambank stabilization, streambank fencing, nuisance species control, riparian zone management. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Gifford-Pinchot National Forest.
• 6. Brunner, G. 2008. HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic reference manual, US Army Corps of engineers, Hydrologic engineering center.
• 7. Burns, M.J., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., Ladson, A.R., Hatt, B.E. 2012. Hydrologic shortcomings of conventional urban stormwater management and opportunities for reform. Landscace and Urban Planning 105, 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.012
• 8. Donat, M. 1995. Bioengineering Techniques for Streambank Restoration, A Review of Central European Practices, Watershed Restoration Project Report No. 2., Watershed Restoration Program, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, University of B.C., Vancouver.
• 9. Eklipse 2019. Nature-Based Solutions. http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/.
• 10. European Commission. 2019. Nature-Based Solution\ https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs
• 11. European Commission 2019. Energy, Climate change, Environment, Climate Action EU, Action, Adaptation to climate change. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/how_en
• 12. European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR) 2019. River Restoration Flood risk management http://www.ecrr.org/RiverRestoration/Floodrisk-management/tabid/2615/Default.aspx
• 13. European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR) 2018. Urban River Restoration. (http://www.ecrr.org/RiverRestoration/UrbanRiverRestoration/tabid/3177/Default.aspx)
• 14. Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A. 2017. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas–Linkages Between Science, Policy and Practice, in: Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A. (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-319–56091–5_1
• 15. Kalantari, Z., Ferreira, C.S.S., Keesstra, S., Destouni, G. 2018. Nature-based solutions for flood-drought risk mitigation in vulnerable urbanizing parts of East-Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health 5, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.06.003
• 16. Konrad C. 2016. Effects of Urban Development on Floods. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 076–03.
• 17. Küng, O., Strecha, C., Beyeler, A., Zufferey, J.-C., Floreano, D., Fua, P., and Gervaix, F. 92011). The Accuracy Of Automatic Photogrammetric Techniques On Ultra-Light Uav Imagery. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Sci., XXXVIII-1/C22, 125–130.
• 18. Langhammer, J. 2019. UAV monitoring of stream restorations. Hydrology 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology6020029
• 19. Li, G., Clarke, D. 2007. Vegetation patterns and the prediction of debris flow. In Chen, C. Major, JJ (eds), Debris-flow hazards mitigation: Mechanics, prediction, and assessment, pp 35–44. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Mill Press.
• 20. Lumbroso, D., Gaume, E., 2012. Reducing the uncertainty in indirect estimates of extreme flash flood discharges. Journal of Hydrology 414–415, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.048
• 21. Maris, F. 2017. Bioengineering methods for stream Restoration. DUTH, Laboratory of Mountain Water Management and Risk Management, Orestiada.
• 22. River Restoration Centre (RRC) 2018. Manual of River Restoration Techniques. http://www.therrc.co.uk/manual-river-restoration-techniques.
• 23. Region of Attica 2017. Hydraulic Study of Podoniftis stream from Chalkidos Bridge to Eratonos Street. Directorate of Flood Protection Projects, Region of Attica
• 24. Shrestha A., Ezee, G., Kadhikary, R., Rai, S. 2012. Resource Manual on Flash Flood Risk Management Module 3: Structural Measures-Chapter 4: Bioengineering Measures. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu.
• 25. Trieste, D.J., 1992. Evaluation of supercritical/subcritical flows in high-gradient channel, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol 118, No 8, August 1992.
• 26. Ven Te Chow. (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics. Mc Graw Hill Book Company, New York.
• 27. Violin, C.R., Cada, P., Sudduth, E.B., Hassett, B.A., Penrose, D.L., Bernhardt, E.S., 2011. Effects of urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of stream ecosystems. Ecological Applications 21, 1932–1949. https://doi.org/10.1890/10–1551.
• 28. Wild, T., Bernet, J., Westling, E. and Lerner, D. 2010. Deculverting: reviewing the evidence on the ‘daylighting’ and restoration of culverted rivers. Water and Environment Journal 25, 412–421.
• 29. Yochum, S.E., Goertz, L.A., Jones, P.H. 2008. Case study of the Big Bay Dam failure: Accuracy and comparison of breach predictions, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE, September 2008 HRPP558.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).