Sudsnet International Conference all sessions 2018 by Abertay University

The Efficacy of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) In Humanitarian Settlements: A Case for an Alternative Method in Flood Risk Management. Mitch McTough1,2, Andrew Adam-Bradford 2 and Sue Charlesworth 2 1 2

Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Session Contents 1. Current practices – in humanitarian settlements 2. UN International Organisation for Migration (IOM) case study – management of floods and surface water 3. Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR) SuDS pilot project – Gawilan Refugee Camp 4. Ways forward – recommendations and next steps

1. Current practices in humanitarian settlements

2. UN International Organisation for Migration (IOM) case study: Rapid response to floods and surface water

Qayyarah and Jeddah Camps

TENT LAYOUT / EMERGENCY SITE CAMP DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

3. CAWR SuDS Pilot Project: Gawilan Refugee Camp

4. Ways forward: efficacy of SuDs for flood risk mitigation

Barriers to SuDS or improved drainage: 60.0% 54.3% 50.0%

Percentage

40.0%

30.0% 22.9% 20.0%

8.6%

10.0%

8.6% 5.7%

0.0% Coordination, responsibility and ownership

Lack of understanding and capacity by partners and agencies

Financial barriers

Environmental barriers

What are the main challenges to drainage in the humanitarian sector?

All of the above

Improved Ways Going Forward 1. Sector requires further support on drainage / Urban Agriculture (UA) related content, capacity building of local offices/teams, including rapid assessments and programme design 2. Establish a drainage sub-theme group / technical working group that cross cuts, Shelter, Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Camp Management and Camp Coordination (CCCM) sectors, using a pilot online platform. 5. Establish further pilot projects on innovative and durable solutions for drainage and urban agriculture in and around camps in line with humanitarian â&#x20AC;&#x201C; development nexus (trajectory). 6. New research initiatives to build evidence base 7. Capacity building in new edition of Sphere Guidelines for drainage

Contact Details Mitch McTough UNDP / CAWR SuDS Researcher Email: mctoughm@uni.coventry.ac.uk Whatsapp: +44750 738 9942 Twitter handler: @MMCTOUGH

Innovative Drainage Techniques for Surface Water Management in African Refugee Camps Oluwatoyin Opeyemi Ajibade1 & Kiran Tota-Maharaj2 1University

2Faculty

of Greenwich, Faculty of Engineering & Science, Department of Engineering Science, Medway Campus, United Kingdom.

of Engineering & Technology, Division of Civil and Environmental Engineering & The International Water Security Network, University of West of England, Bristol, (UWE Bristol), United Kingdom

Background • Across refugee camps & Internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in Africa, problems related to poor management of surface water & wastewater are among the main challenges facing humanity. • These problems include:- localised ponding of surface water; flooding; drought and contamination of drinking water sources from wastewatergreywater intermixing. • The research project focuses on development & evaluation of low cost innovative and implementable technologies that can be incorporated into drainage systems of existing camps and/or future camps as well as other temporary settlements.

Sites for South Sudan refugee camps in 2013 After Emergency, Transition and Implementation Phase

Illustration of the phases of relief agencies activities during crises & critical needs that arise in refugee and IDP camps after emergency and transition phases are completed

Refugee camp community development and monitoring phase

Illustration of current drainage system in Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya (Source: Agnon, 2016).

Illustration of poor stormwater management in Lietchuor refugee camp located in Gambella region of Ethiopia (Source: Al Jazeera, 2014).

The Need for Improved Drainage Systems Across Refugee & IDP Camps Improved Drainage Systems for Refugee Camps neededď&#x192;&#x2DC;Incorporating effective stormwater & wastewater management techniques required. ď&#x192;&#x2DC;By reducing localised ponding of water and prevent cross-mixing of stormwater with wastewater to mitigate outbreak of diseases; reduce runoff volumes, peak runoff rates & pollutants load in stormwater. Localised ponding of water that resulted from 2014 flooding event in Lietchuor camp, Gambella region of Ethiopia (Source: LWF, 2014).

Research Aims â&#x20AC;˘ To develop innovative & implementable drainage designs, practical designs and techniques for stormwater and wastewater treatment/reuse, use of a range of options for flood reduction, erosion control, and water resource recycling suitable for refugees and Internally Displaced Persons across the settlements. â&#x20AC;˘ To aid and support ongoing works by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and NGOs (Oxfam, Red Cross, World Vision, and Shelter Box) in terms of developing new strategies for constructing and maintenance methods low cost drainage & wastewater management infrastructure across the camps.

Case Study- CURRENT SITUATION OF REFUGEE & IDP CAMPS IN SOUTH SUDAN • Over 2.6 million of South Sudanese have become refugees while 1.94 million South Sudanese are internally displaced (UNHCR, 2016b; Oxfam, 2017) • The results from the absence of proper surface water drainage & wastewater management in South Sudan refugee camps include frequent flooding & spread of diseases- Cholera, Diarrhoea and Hepatitis E (Laccino, 2014; Oxfam, 2014).

SuDS Can be Implemented Across African Refugee Camps

Cross-section of filter drains Cross-section of an under-drained swales

Cross-section of tree pits

Rainwater collection from roof of a tent & storage in tank

Cross-section of Engineered (Constructed Wetlands)

Economic costs for SuDS Implementation & Maintenance across refugee camps in Africa SuDS

Capital costs (£)

Annual maintenance costs (£)

Technology Filter drains

£ 100 – 140 Per m3 of stored volume

£ 0.3 – 1.3 Per m3 of stored volume

Wetlands

£ 20 – 30 Per m3 of treatment volume

£ 0.1 Per m2 of wetland surface area

Filter strips

£2 – 4 Per m2 of filter strip area

£ 0.1 Per m2 of filter strip area

Swales

£ 10 – 15 Per m2 of swale area

£ 0.1 Per m2 of swale area

Concrete

£ 440 – 520 Per m3

storage tanks

Case Study- Current Situation of Refugee & IDP Camps in South Sudan

Potable water tank in a South Sudan camp surrounded by floodwater after heavy rainfall events making it difficult for refugees to access water supplies

Flooding event in Jamam refugee camp in South Sudan

Design & Experimental Testing-Phase 1 The performance of two (2) types of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) were evaluated in laboratory systems to assess their effectiveness at reducing levels of pollutants in harvested rainwater and stormwater quality. The first SuDS (S1a - d) comprised four (4) experimental sections of Engineered Wetlands, each with a different combination of sub-surface bedding materials. The second SuDS (S2a - f) comprised six Gravity Flow Biofilters containing different combinations of media

Engineered Wetlands (S1)

Components of the Stormwater Treatment System (S2) systems (S2-a, S2-b, S2-c, S2-d, S2-e & S2-f) Biofilters

Filter media

S2-a

Sorbent pillow

Geotextile

Sand

Gravel

S2-b

Sorbent pillow

Sand

Geotextile

Gravel

S2-c

Peat moss

Sorbent

Sand

Geotextile

Gravel

pillow S2-d

Peat moss

Sand

Geotextile

Gravel

S2-e

Peat moss

Geotextile

Sand

Geotextile

Gravel

S2-f

Sorbent pillow

Peat moss

Geotextile

Sand

Geotextile

Gravel

Biofilters (S2 a & S2 b)

Biofilters (S2 c & S2 d)

Biofilters (S2 e & S2 f)

Ammonium, Phosphates & Nitrates Results (Phase 1)

BOD, COD & Turbidity Results (Phase 1)

Summary of Results (Phase 1): Average pollutants removal rates of S1(Engineered Wetland) & S2 (BioFilters) systems and corresponding standard deviations (n = 36 weeks).

• The overall performances of the Engineered Wetlands (S1 systems) & Gravity Biofilters (S2 systems) are showed that both systems are suitable for water quality improvement across African refugee and IDP camps.

SuDS

TDS

BOD

COD

Turbidity

Colour

Phosphate

Ammonium

Nitrite

S1-a (%)

21 %

60 %

70 %

72 %

63 %

57 %

s (%)

2.64

0.91

0.03

0.05

0.33

0.14

2.65

S1-b (%)

50 %

82%

47%

44%

39%

s (%)

2.82

0.25

0.02

2.16

0.54

2.13

0.14

2.02

S1-c (%)

15%

30%

31%

10%

28%

57%

s (%)

2.80

0.18

0.03

0.44

0.11

1.88

0.10

2.42

S1-d (%)

32%

40%

76%

65%

53%

52%

74%

s (%)

2.56

0.38

0.01

0.32

0.05

1.50

0.10

2.80

S2-a (%)

75%

100%

22%

93%

99%

21%

• Among the S1 systems, S1-a (combination of gravel & sand substrate) had the best BOD, Turbidity, Colour, Phosphate & Ammonium removal efficacies.

s (%)

0.0005

0.24

0.08

0.12

0.003

0.18

0.05

0.30

S2-b (%)

71%

76%

70%

41%

95%

99%

97%

• S1-d (combination of limestone, peat and sharp sand substrate materials) achieved the best TDS & Nitrite removal efficacies

s (%)

0.0005

2.66

2.19

0.03

0.003

0.18

0.05

0.15

S2-c (%)

78%

91%

14%

89%

99%

s (%)

0.0005

2.9

0.89

0.10

0.003

0.22

0.04

0.46

S2-d (%)

52%

100%

41%

96%

98%

88%

s (%)

0.0004

0.3

0.06

0.32

0.002

0.17

0.10

0.29

S2-e (%)

68%

75%

100%

43%

93%

92%

98%

s (%)

0.0005

2.14

2.34

0.54

0.002

0.16

0.07

0.10

S2-f (%)

54%

10%

100%

45%

95%

99%

90%

s (%)

0.0005

0.43

0.05

0.10

0.003

0.17

0.10

0.30

•

S1-b (combination of crushed coal & peat substrate materials) had the best COD removal rates.

• All S2 systems achieved High TDS, COD, phosphate & ammonium removal rates relative to the S1 systems. • The sand layer of filter media/substrate material was found to be generally effective in reduction of contaminants.

Design & Experimental Testing-Phase 2 â&#x20AC;˘ Evaluation of Hydraulic & Hydrologic performances of laboratory experimental set up of SuDS technologies mimicking stormwater management conditions for African IDP and refugee camps. â&#x20AC;˘ Two (2) rigs of filter drains and two rigs of engineered wetlands constructed using similar sourced low-cost sustainable materials which can be easily engineered in Africa. Experimental SuDS were evaluated for stormwater attenuation, hydrologic performance and hydraulic efficacies.

Illustration of experimental set up for Engineered Wetlands & Filters

Constructed experimental setup with Wetlands and Filters

Physical Structure & Properties of Experimental Rigs Properties of rigs

FD1

FD2

Surface layer

Grass and garden soil

Gravel

Grass & garden soil

Filter media

Soft sand

Sharp sand

Storage layer

Gravel

Sharp sand Gravel

Gravel

Particle size distribution of aggregate materials used as filter media and storage layers

Methods (Phase 2) Mean values of water outflows from each experimental rig and calculated rainfall intensities from 01 February 2017 to 08 September 2017 (N = 46 weeks). Average Simulated Rainfall Inflow = 325 (103 mm3) Time (s) W1 W2 Total Intensity Total Intensity outflow (mm/s) outflow (mm/s) (103 mm3) (103 mm3)

FD1 Total Intensity outflow (mm/s) (103 mm3)

FD2 Total outflow (103 mm3)

Intensity (mm/s)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0 3 30 90 120 130 150 170

0 15 100 180 210 230 240 245

0 0.097 0.325 0.390 0.341 0.299 0.260 0.227

0 10 32 50 85 130 170 175

0 0.065 0.104 0.108 0.138 0.169 0.184 0.162

0 2 10 40 55 70 80 85

0 0.013 0.032 0.087 0.089 0.091 0.087 0.079

0 0.019 0.097 0.195 0.195 0.169 0.162 0.158

Methods (Phase 2) The infiltration rate of each experimental rig was estimated by calculating

phi-index (Ă&#x2DC;) as the difference between precipitation received by each experimental rig and direct runoff over 70 secs duration.

The phiâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;index for each experimental rig was calculated using equation:

đ?&#x2018;&#x192;â&#x2C6;&#x2019;đ?&#x2018;&#x2026; Ă&#x2DC;= đ?&#x2018;&#x2021;

Methods (Phase 2) Water drained function was computed using equation: D t = â&#x2C6;&#x2026;; if â&#x2C6;&#x2026; â&#x2030;¤ i t and D t = i t ; if â&#x2C6;&#x2026; > i(t) Total water drained, D, through each experimental rig was calculated using

equation:

D = Ď&#x192; D t â&#x2C6;&#x2020;t

The total water drained, D obtained was compared with the difference

between total precipitation, P and direct runoff, R as follows: If đ??&#x192; = đ?&#x2018;ˇ â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;š ; â&#x2C6;&#x2026; đ??¨đ??&#x203A;đ??đ??&#x161;đ??˘đ??§đ??&#x17E;đ??? đ??˘đ??Ź đ??Żđ??&#x161;đ??Ľđ??˘đ???

Methods (Phase 2) The total water drained, D obtained was compared with the difference between total precipitation, P and direct runoff, R as follows: If D = P − R ; ∅ obtained is valid However, if D < P − R ; ∅′ was calculated using equation: ∅′

=∅+

P−R−D T′

D is then re-calculated for ∅′ to obtain D = P − R . Proportion of inflow water attenuated by each rig was calculated using Equation: Attenuated proportion of inflow, % =

D×A Iv

× 100

Results (Phase 2 Experiments & Testing)

Illustrations of simulated rainfall intensities, calculated Ă&#x2DC; & total depth of water drained from each system.

Results (Phase 2 Experiments & Testing) â&#x20AC;˘ Overall efficacies of the SuDS for attenuating flows to minimise flooding & localised water ponding across African refugee camps is presented in Figure below:

Illustration of efficacies of the SuDS systems for stormwater attenuation for experiments

Results (Phase 2 Experiments & Testing) Summary of performance of W1, W2, FD1 and FD2 for draining stormwater

Infiltration parameters Precipitation, P Direct runoff, R Phi-index Drained water, D Attenuated Proportion of Inflow

Units mm mm mm/s mm %

W1 9.30 0.93 0.13 8.37 39.7

FD1 4.78 0.478 0.070 4.302 20.4

FD2 9.95 0.995 0.146 8.954 42.4

19.39 1.939 0.274 17.451 82.6

Phase 2 Experiments Outlook

â&#x20AC;˘ FD2(Filter Drain 2- Gravel-Soft sand-Gravel) shows the best performance by attenuating almost 83% of the total rainfall it received over the 70s duration.

â&#x20AC;˘ However, W2 (Engineered Wetland 2- Grass & Top Soil-Sharp SandGravel) could only attenuate 20% of total precipitation it received due to the lack of vegetated surfaces and variations in the particle size distributions of the sub-base zones.

Ongoing WorksDadaab refugee camp in Kenya • Surface water drainage models are being simulated and evaluated with MicroDrainage and Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) software packages • This enables drainage systems to be designed, audited and tested for exceedance. The two software packages (MicroDrainage and SWMM) are currently evaluating real-time rainfall patterns and flow conditions for the Dadaab refugee camp, Kenya. • So far, initial results has shown a strong correlation between the results obtained using the two simulation and modelling software packages for the simulated Dadaab refugee camp surface water management conditions.

Ongoing Works- Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya (Preliminary Results) • Preliminary results showed that applying the simulated drainage model for surface water management across the Dadaab refugee camp can achieve effective storage of 25 to 35 % of total annual precipitation & minimises runoff loss from approx. 11 to 16 % of total annual precipitation. • This can significantly reduce the quantities of stormwater and the chances of flooding occurrences within the Dadaab camp during extreme rainfall events. • Infiltration rates for existing drainage infrastructure can be maintained between 55 to 70 % to prevent droughts and support micro-organisms in soils for balanced soil replenishment

The authors would like to express gratitude and thanks to the following people & institutions who have been very supportive during this study:

• • • • •

Brian Clarke (University of Surrey) Shelter Box and Project Officer Mr David Hatcher Ms Loan Diep, Project Officer from Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor (WSUP) Oxfam International Water Security Network.

The Interplay of Green Infrastructure on Urban Heat Stresses & Stormwater Management: Southeast Asia's Urban Future K. Tota-Maharaj1 & M. Gรณmez2

1University

of the West of England, (UWE Bristol), Faculty of Environment and Technology, Division of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY, United Kingdom. Kiran.Tota-Maharaj@uwe.ac.uk

2Polytechnic

University of Catalonia, Department of Hydraulic, Maritime and Environmental Engineering, 1-3 Jordi Girona St., 08034 Barcelona, Spain; manuel.gomez@upc.edu

Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia • Kuala Lumpur is the capital city of Malaysia, boasting gleaming skyscrapers, colonial architecture and a myriad of natural attractions. • The only global city in Malaysia, covering an area of 243 km2 and has an estimated population of 1.73 million. • Greater Kuala Lumpur, also known as the Klang Valley, is an urban agglomeration of 7.25 million people as of 2017. • It is among the fastest growing metropolitan regions in South-East Asia, in both population and economic development.

Urban Heat Island (UHI) & Flash Flooding Anomalies Affecting Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia • Urban heat island (UHI), Urban-related Convective Precipitations & Flash Flooding Anomalies are undoubtedly an ongoing worldwide problem facing tropical cities. • In rapidly urbanised cities with tropical climates, (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) climate change impact is aggravated by multiple factors that interplay simultaneously, leading to the creation of pocket areas of extreme heat, depending of the morphology of the location of the sources & the way they interact with each other, the intensity of the abnormality can reach critical levels of danger to the population. • Analysis of historical meteorological records shows that the frequency of intense rain showers (20 mm/hr) and UHI has increased in the last decade for Kuala Lumpur. • The daytime heat island is often associated with the intensification of rain showers, changing precipitation patterns which often leads to surface water floods and flash flooding. • Elevated temperatures (> 32 ͦC) within the city centre of Kuala Lumpur (KLCC) is also correlated with high usage of air-cooling & air-conditioning systems which increases volumes of hot exhaust air, surrounding the buildings and paved surfaces increasing the effects of UHI.

Improve Drainage Systems to Avoid Flash Floods in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ?

http://www.themalaysiantimes.com.my/improve-drainage-system-to-avoid-flash-floods-say-experts/

Holistic Approach needed for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Largest city centre of KL and five sub-centres in the region of GKL

• There are very limited number of studies for the Greater Kuala Lumpur region on the impacts of Urban Heat Island Intensity (UHII) & Flash Flooding, derived from weather stations and historical weather parameters • The UHII & flash flooding events have been associated to the reduction in vegetation cover and land use changes. • This opens up new areas of investigation for retrofitting Green Infrastructure & Nature Based Solutions for the local context. • This study is focusing on the feasibility of Green Infrastructure as Nature Based Solutions as remediation technologies

Ramakreshnan, Logaraj, et al 2018. "A critical review of urban heat island phenomenon in the context of greater Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia." Sustainable Cities and Society.

Strategies in Mitigating the Urban Heat Island of Kuala Lumpur • The study assesses the UHI studies past, present historical events & possible futuristic scenarios with a current urban heat island intensity ranging from 4° C6°C, influencing air pollution dispersion & energy demand for cooling in the city of Kuala Lumpur. • Factors which are being considered in the study include: Urban Fabric, Nature of Infrastructure, Artificial Heat Production, Evapotranspiration Rates, Urbanisation as well as Human Activities • The main strategy for the research project is lessening the intensity of the UHI of the city with Sustainable Land Management and Plant Cover with the use of Green Infrastructure and Nature Based Solutions

• Previous students have shown that the UHI various from a change in ambient temperatures of around 3.9 oC to 5.5 oC . This intensity various throughout the year. • Since 1985, the City has shown an intensity increase from 4 oC to 5.5 oC (Δ 1.5 oC)

Urban Heat Island (UHI) Past & Projected Future for Kuala Lumpur (Temporal pattern of UHI effect from 1997 to 2013) Yusuf et al. 2014, Spatio-temporal assessment of urban heat island effects in Kuala Lumpur metropolitan city using landsat images. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 42(4), pp.829-837.

• Reports have shown that the increase in the intensity of the UHI of the city of Kuala Lumpur is more 1.5 oC and closer to 2 oC , which is a considerable a significant value whenever human health and comfort are the concern.

Distribution of urban heat island and land use/land cover (1997-2013)

Yusuf et al. 2014, Spatio-temporal assessment of urban heat island effects in Kuala Lumpur metropolitan city using landsat images. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 42(4), pp.829-837.

Benefits of Green Infrastructure (Environmental) for Kuala Lumpur • Reducing Flooding: Increasing infiltration, evapotranspiration & storage where precipitation falls will reduce runoff and flooding.

• Improving Water Quality: Reducing urban runoff & allowing runoff to be treated by soils-vegetation will reduce pollutant loads to receiving water bodies

• Reducing Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect: Removing concrete pavements, façade steel and concrete structures and planting vegetation can cool & shade urban neighbourhoods

• Improving Air Quality: Urban vegetation removes pollutants from the air and can mitigate smog formation by reducing temperatures

• Mitigating Global Warming: By sequestering carbon dioxide in soils and plant biomass, urban vegetation can reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations and mitigate global warming.

• Increasing Groundwater Recharge: Green infrastructure practices that reduce impervious cover and enhance infiltration can increase the flow of water to the groundwater. Despite concerns about the impact of stormwater recharge on groundwater quality, studies have consistently demonstrated that soils are very effective in removing priority pollutants from stormwater

Benefits of Green Infrastructure (Social) for Kuala Lumpur • Improving Public Health: Cooler temperatures and cleaner air can dramatically improve health, particularly for children and the elderly. More pedestrian-friendly landscapes can also promote physical activity.

• Beautifying Neighbourhoods & Residences: Gardens and public rights-ofway irrigated with passive and active rainwater harvesting can create beautiful landscapes.

• Traffic Calming Measures: By reducing street and road widths and introducing curves, green street techniques can slow traffic and improve road safety.

• Building Communities: By beautifying neighbourhoods and residential zones, creates a unique sense of place, green infrastructure practices can increase neighbourhood interaction. Neighbours, residents, visitors may even work together to integrate green infrastructure into the town/city.

Benefits of Green Infrastructure (Economic) for Kuala Lumpur • Reducing Landscape Maintenance Costs: Rainwater harvesting and drought adapted plants can reduce the cost of irrigation and maintenance. • Increasing Available Water Resources: Green infrastructure practices can increase groundwater recharge, providing significant cost savings by averting increased pumping costs and increased water imports across the city. • Reducing Water Imports: Many cities and towns in Asia depend on costly imports of water from great distances to meet their water demand. By reducing landscape irrigation, green infrastructure can reduce water demand and water imports. • Reducing Energy Consumption: The energy required to import, treat, and distribute municipal water could be significantly reduced by using precipitation where it falls. The energy and cost savings would not be trivial.

Various Types of Green Infrastructure Considered

Green Infrastructure Retrofitting & Planning for New Developments in KL, Malaysia

Ongoing Works in Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) • The project explores the interaction & fluctuation of the sources of heat, flash floods and the interaction between stormwater management and UHI through quantitative data collection and analysis in KLCC, a densified business area, where physical mechanisms are dynamically interplaying with each other in contextual characteristics that differ from other parts of the city. • The study is currently identifying patterns of behaviour in this interaction to propose measures of mitigation by incorporating Green Infrastructure intervention in contemporary urban design strategies. • Further investigations will review airborne pollutants which can be trapped and often remediated by nature-based solutions (NbS) for KLCC

Ongoing Works-Data Collection & Analysis • Rural & Urban Temperatures • Humidity • Solar Radiation & Influx • Wind Speeds, Wind Directions & Flow Pathways • Rainfall Events, Precipitation Levels & Occurrences of Floods • Use of Archgis & Google Street View to obtain important urban parameters (e.g. built up areas, green areas & façade ratio) • Conduct Geographical Information System (GIS) study in order to statistically represent the most important urban scenarios with and without Green Infrastructure and Nature-Based Solutions

Several buildings and multi-storey complexes across Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) retrofitted with green Infrastructure to reduce the reliance of urban ventilation, decreasing the absorption & reflection patterns of solar radiation as well as managing the impacts of intense rainfall events.

Models for possible cases of Green Infrastructure Retrofitting with Nature Based Solutions

Impact of Study • Focusing on the role of vegetation on urban temperature reduction, future studies need to focus more on examining the feasibility of Green Infrastructure remediation technologies to flooding as well • This research project suggest thus far, that rigorous attention should be given to a systematic site characterisation, controlled and synchronous measurements, broader weather datasets, as well as incorporation of real-time data to elucidate the current UHI and Flooding Status of Kuala Lumpur • This study will significantly benefit Town and Country Planners in Malaysia from the utilisation of modelling and simulation techniques based on a well-informed decision making system inline with the aspirations of Kuala Lumpur to achieve world class sustainability status • The incorporation of Green Infrastructure for UHI phenomena and Flash Flooding Anomalies is essential in mitigating deleterious impacts of climate change with eco-friendly practices that can be adopted by various stakeholders.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

www.watersecuritynetwork.org www.twitter.com/water_network Acknowledgement The project is funded by Lloydâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Register Foundation, a charitable foundation helping to protect life and property by supporting engineering-related education, public engagement and the application of research. For more information, see: www.lrfoundation.org.uk

Addressing disease vectors with SuDS: the Zika virus in favelas in NE Brazil Rebecca Lewis - MRes Project Supervisors; 𝑆𝑢𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ 1, 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑤 𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑡 1,2 , 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑐𝑘 2 1𝐶𝐴𝑊𝑅,𝐶𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 , 2𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 , 𝐶𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦

Research Background Zika virus Overview • Transmitted by Aedes aegypti. • inhabits urban areas of tropical and subtropical regions. • also transmits chikungunya, dengue and yellow fever. • Zika virus presents with flu-like symptoms. • 80% of infections are symptomless. • Known trigger for Guillain-Barré syndrome. • Congenital Zika Syndrome

(Oliveira 2017) & (Getachew et al 2015)

Global coverage of Zika virus

Figure 1: Carlson, Dougherty and Getz (2016)

Aedes aegypti prevention strategies • Household activities • Clearing gutters/drains • Covering water storage containers • Government-led initiatives • Fogging/spraying of insecticide • Larvicide application • Risk communication door-todoor via health workers • Scientific trials and research: • Wolbachia bacterium • Genetic modification of mosquitoes

(Waking Times 2016)

Zika virus in Brazil • 2013 - Zika identified in Brazil • 12th November 2015 – Brazil declares a national health emergency. • 1st February 2016 – Identified by WHO as an international health emergency. • 17th February 2016 – compulsory notification mandate. • May 2016 – Microcephaly formally attributed to Zika virus. Figure 2: (Lowe et al 2018)

Congenital Zika Syndrome & Microcephaly • 3000+ babies born with Microcephaly throughout Brazil. • Signs & symptoms of Congenital Zika Syndrome: • • • • •

Figure 3: (Lowe et al 2018)

Severe microcephaly Decreased Brain Tissue Damage to the back of the eye Restricted body movement after birth Reduced mobility of joints – e.g. Clubfoot.

Figure 4: (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention 2018)

Zika and Climate • Lowe et al (2018) addresses Aedes aegypti transmitted dengue fever but broadly can also be applied to Zika. • “Disease outbreaks were more likely to occur 4-5 months after periods of drought and 1 month after periods of excessive rainfall” • Tesla et al (2018) – 1st climate paper with Zika specific focus. • Zika is optimised at 29°C (thermal range of 22.7°C – 34.7°C) • Zika transmission occurs in areas 5°C warmer than Dengue fever. • They claim global coverage estimates are over-predicted. Figure 5 & 6: (GISTEMP 2018)

Typical challenges in favelas • Poor infrastructure • Favela location • Vulnerability to other hazards • Natural & climatological • Health • Crime • Lack of integration with government initiatives/planning/social security support • Socio-economic issues. • Fluctuating population growth • House the most vulnerable communities.

Photo: Sue Charlesworth

MaracanaĂş and Rosalina favelas

Photo: Sue Charlesworth

Photos: Sue Charlesworth

eggs

larvae

pupae

Photo: Sue Charlesworth

Literature Gaps • Globally there is little literature on application of SuDS in informal settlements – apart from South Africa. • South African studies also touch on community engagement – no link to wider development studies. • There is no literature addressing SuDS in informal settlements in Brazil despite SuDS methods being used in larger Brazilian cities. • Past literature in 80s & 90s links drainage to the problem of Malaria but no literature or urban programmes have taken this link further. • No literature suggests SuDS as a means to address Zika virus.

Aims & Objectives Aim 1: To establish the backgrounds of, and connections between SuDS, Zika virus and favelas. Objectives: 1. Identify typical background of favela communities in NE Brazil (socio-economic, health and physical features). 2. Determine links between Zika virus/microcephaly and favela communities. 3. Establish potential role of SuDS and greywater management in favelas. 4. Ascertain appropriate methods to discuss issues with communities.

Aim 2: To review issues of water management in favela communities. Objectives: 1. Engage with members of favelas to determine current water issues and practices. 2. Identify whether the communities perceive a link between mosquitoes (Zika, dengue, chikungunya) and water. 3. Review what the community see as potential solutions to any water management issues.

Data Collection Primary Data: • Surveys/Interviews – favela community members and government stakeholders • • •

•

Perceived ‘water’ risks/problems in the favelas. Zika Virus understanding. Current water management strategies & level of ‘organisation’ (if any) – individual household, neighbourly, community-wide, government/NGO. Feasibility for SuDS at policymaker and the community levels.

• Recording of settlement layout, visual issues of water management and general observations.

Secondary Data: • Public Health/Epidemiology Data • Zika & microcephaly Cases

• Brazilian Census Data: • Socio-economic & demographic indicators, • Water and sanitation indicators/availability • Settlement dwelling construction type

• GIS/Google Earth geospatial data files to support mapping

Fortaleza

Cearรก State

Brazil

Data Collection Challenges • Unstable and hierarchal structure of favelas. • Lacking engagement from chosen favelas, issues accessing additional communities. • Safety issues prevent collection of enough data.

• Language & translation misinterpretation. • ill-perceived views of my presence/project/outcomes.

Suketu Mehta (2013)

Potential Research Outcomes • To identify potential correlation between Zika, microcephaly and inadequate water infrastructure in my chosen study area. • To discuss SuDS with favela communities. • To identify practical means to address water management issues in favelas by adopting SuDS methods.

Photo: Sue Charlesworth

Rebecca Lewis Email: lewisr15@coventry.ac.uk Twitter: @RebeccaaLewis

Figures Figure 1

Carlson, C.J., Dougherty, E.R., and Getz, W (2016) ‘An ecological assessment of the pandemic threat of Zika Virus’ PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 10 (8), 1-18. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004968

Figure 2

Lowe, R., Barcellos, C. ,Brasil, P., Crus, O.G., Honório, N.A., Kuper H., and Sá Carvlho, M (2018) ‘The Zika Virus Epidemic in Brazil: From Discovery to Future Implications’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15 (96) 1-18.

Figure 3

Figure 4

Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) Congenital Zika Syndrome & Other Birth Defects [online] available from < https://www.cdc.gov/pregnancy/zika/testingfollow-up/zika-syndrome-birth-defects.html > [Accessed 23 July 2018]

Figure 5 & 6

GISTEMP (2018) GISS Surface Temperature Analysis – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [online] available from < https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp > [6 August 2018]

References •

•

Adibi, J. J., Marques, E. T. Jr., Cartus, A., and Beigi, R. H. (2016) ‘Teratogenic effects of the Zika virus and the role of the placenta’ Lancet 387, 1587–1590. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)006504 Aguiar, B.S., Virginio, F., Suesdek, L., and Chiaravalloti-Neto, F. (2018) 'Potential risks of Zika and chikungunya outbreaks in Brazil: A modeling study'. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 70, 20-29 Arbex, A.K., Bizarro, V.R., Paletti, M.T., Brandt, O.J., de Jesus, A.L.C., Werner, I., Dantas, L.M., and de Almeida, M.H. (2016) 'Zika Virus Controversies: Epidemics as a legacy of mega events?'. Health 8 (7), 711-722 Batterman, S., Eisenberg, J., Hardin,R., Kruk, M.E., Lemos, M.C., Michalak, A.M., Mukherjee, B., Renne, E., Stein, H., Watkins, C., and Wilson, M.L. (2009) 'Sustainable control of water-related infectious diseases: A review and proposal for interdisciplinary health-based systems research' Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (7), 1023 – 1032 Boyer, S., Calvez, E., Chouin-Carneiro, T., Diallo, D., and Failloux, A-B. (2018) 'An overview of mosquito vectors of Zika virus' Microbes and Infection [online], 1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2018.01.006 Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (2018) Congenital Zika Syndrome & Other Birth Defects [online] available from < https://www.cdc.gov/pregnancy/zika/testing-follow-up/zikasyndrome-birth-defects.html > [Accessed 23 July 2018]

References •

•

• •

Charlesworth, S.M., Winter, K., Adam-Bradford, A., Mezue, M., McTough, M., Warwick, F., and Blackett, M. (2017) 'Sustainable Drainage in Challenging Environments' New Water Policy & Practice Journal 4 (1), 31 – 41 de Souza, V., Albuquerque, M., Vazquez, E., Bezerra, L., Mendes, A., Lyra.T., Araujo, T., Oliveira, A., Braga, M., Ximenes, R., Miranda-Filho, D., Silva, A., Rodrigues, L., and Martelli, C. (2018) ‘Microcephaly epidemic related to the Zika virus and living conditions in Recife, Northeast Brazil’. BMC Public Health 18 (1), 130 Ferguson, N.M., Cucunubá, Z.M., Dorigatti, I., Nedjati-Gilani, G.L., Donnelly, C.A., Basáñez, M.-G., Nouvellet, P., and Lessler, J. (2016) ‘Countering the Zika epidemic in Latin America’ Science 353 (6297), 353–354 Gulland, A., and Majid, A (2018) Infection with Zika in early weeks of pregnancy poses high risk to baby [online] available from < https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/14/infection-zikaearly-weeks-pregnancy-poses-high-risk-baby/ > [21 August 2018] Knudsen, A.B. and Slooff, R. (1992) 'Vector-borne disease problems in rapid urbanization: new approaches to vector control'. Bulletin of the Wold Health Organization 70 (1), 1-6 Lowe, R., Barcellos, C., Brasil, P., Cruz, O.G., Honório, N.A., Kuper, H., and Carvalho, M.S. (2018) ' The Zika Virus Epidemic in Brazil: From discovery to future implications'. Environmental Research and Public Health 15 [online], 96. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15010096

References •

•

• • •

Lowe, R., Gasparrini, A., Van Meerbeeck, C.J., Lippi, C.A., Mahon, R., Trotman, A., Rollock, L., Hinds, A.Q.J., Ryan, S.J., and Stewart-Ibarra, A.M. (2018) ‘Nonlinear and delayed impacts of climate on dengue risk in Barbados: A Modelling study’ PLOS Medicine 15 (7), DOI:10.1371/ journal.pmed.1002613 Messina, J.P., Kraemer, M.UG., Brady, O.J., Pigott, D.M., Shearer, F.M., Weiss, D.J., Golding, N., Ruktanonchai, C.W., Gething, P.W., Cohn, E., Brownstein, J.S., Khan, K., Tatem, A.J., Jaenisch, T., Murray, C.JL., Marinho, F., Scott, T.W., and Hay, S.I. (2016) 'Mapping global environmental suitability for Zika virus' eLife[online] 5. DOI:10.7554/eLife.15272 Mittal, R., Nguyen, D., Debs, L.H., Patel, A.P., Liu, G., Jhaveri, V.M., K, SIS, Mittal, J., Bandstra, E.S., Younis, R.T., Chapagain, P., Jayaweera, D.T., and Liu, X.Z. (2017) 'Zika Virus: An emerging global health threat' 7, 486 Paixão, E.S., Barreto, F., da Glória Teixeira, M., da Conceição, N., Costa, M., and Rodrigues, L.C. (2016) ‘History, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations of Zika: A systematic review’ American Journal of Public Health 106, 606–612. Parkinson, J. (2003) 'Drainage and Storm-water management strategies for low-income urban communities' Environment and Urbanization 15 (2), 115-126 Parkinson, J., Tayler, K., and Mark, O. (2007) 'Planning and design of urban drainage systems in informal settlements in developing countries' Urban Water Journal 4 (3), 137-149 Proenca-Modena, J.L., Milanes, G.P., Costa, M.L., Judice, C.C., and Costa, F.T.M. (2018) 'Zika virus: lessons learnt in Brazil'. Microbes and Infection [online], 1-9 DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2018.02.008

References •

•

• •

Schuler-Faccini, L., Ribeiro, E.M., Feitosa, I.M.L., Horovitz, D.D.G., Cavalcanti, D.P., Pessoa, A., Dorigui, M.J.R., Neri, J.I., de Pina Neto, J.M., Wanderley, H.Y.C, Cernach, M., El-Husney, A.S., Pone, and M.V.S., Sanseverino, M.T.V. (2016) ‘Possible association between Zika Virus infection and Microcephaly – Brazil 2015’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 65 (3), 59-62 Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde (2017) ‘Ministério da Saúde Monitoramento dos casos de dengue, febre de chikungunya e febre pelo vírus Zika até a semana epidemiológica 25, 2017.’ Bol. Epidemiol. 2017 (48), 1–10. Snyder, R.E., Boone, C.E., Cardoso, C.A.A., Aguiar-Alves, F., Neves, F.P.G. and Riley, L.W. (2017) 'Zika: A scourge in urban slums' PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 11 (3), 1-4 Tesla, B., Demakovsky, L.R., Mordecai, E.A., Ryan, S.J., Bonds, M.H., Ngonghala, C.N., Brindley, M.A., and Murdock, C.C (2018) ‘Temperature drives Zika virus transmission: evidence from empirical and mathematical models’ Proceedings of the Royal Society. B 285. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0795 Tsuzuki, A., Duoc, V.T., Higa. Y., Yen, N.T., and Takagi, M. (2009) ‘High potential risk of dengue transmission during the hot-dry season in Nha Trang City, Vietnam.’ Acta Trop 111(3), 325–9. UN (2018) 68% of the worlds population projected to live in urban areas by 2015, says UN [online] available from < https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html > [10 August 2018]

References •

• •

Watts, J (2014) Brazil drought crisis leads to rationing and tensions [online] available from < https://www.theguardian.com/weather/2014/sep/05/brazil-drought-crisis-rationing > [21 August 2018] WHO (2016) Microcephaly [online] available from < http://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/detail/microcephaly > [21 August 2018] WHO (2017) Long-term management of congenital Zika virus syndrome [online] available from < http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/podcasts/2017/longterm-management-zika/en/ > [28 May 2018]

Images • Getachew, D., Tekie, H., Gebre-Michael, T., Balkew, M., and Mesufin, A (2015) ‘Breeding sites of Aedes aegypti: Potential dengue vectors in Dire Dawa, East Ethiopia’ Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases. DOI: 10.1155/2015/706276 • Oliveira, C (2017) Heat and rain: Aedes aegypti’s preferred environment [online] available from < http://jornalibia.com.br/cadernos/ibiasaude/calor-e-chuvaambiente-preferido-do-aedes-aegypti/ > [16 August 2018] • Suketu Mehta (2013) In the violent favelas of Brazil [online] available from < https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/08/15/violent-favelas-brazil/ > [15 August 2018] • Waking Times (2016) Zika: Brazil admits it’s not the virus [online] available from < https://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/08/25/zika-brazil-admits-not-virus/ > [15 August 2018]

SUDSnet International Conference | 3O & 31 August 2018

Improving the functionality of the “sponge” – Does plant choice matter? SITI NUR HANNAH ISMAIL VIRGINIA STOVIN ROSS CAMERON University of Sheffield, UK Email: snhismail1@sheffield.ac.uk | v.stovin@sheffield.ac.uk | r.w.cameron@sheffield.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION • Vegetation in Green Infrastructure/SuDS supports natural hydrological processes for stormwater management: – Canopy interception provides retention – Plants can also re-charge the soil’s retention capacity by evapotranspiration (ET) of existing soil water back into the atmosphere

• Different morphological and physiological traits such as leaf shape, size, surface texture, moisture storage capacity, canopy structure, branch and leaf angle and orientation all influence the hydrological performance. • Here we focus on ET …

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1. To identify whether different leaf traits influence ET performance. 2. To quantify daily ET rates of the plants and factors influencing those rates. 3. To determine how moisture behavior by different plant taxa is affected by prevalent weather conditions. 4. To determine which plants can combine stress tolerance with good ET potential.

METHODOLOGY An experiment was conducted to observe daily ET responses due to different plant traits, based on moisture content behavior under UK natural climatic conditions (outdoors)

Six plant species with two canopy sizes arranged on a green roof site for the experiment.

METHODOLOGY • Six plant species were chosen to investigate the influences of leaf traits and canopy structure on ET. • Plant choices represent three contrasting shape categories of groundcover plant species: – narrow/linear (needle-like) leaves – large, broad leaves – small and simple leaf with mat-forming growth habit

Dianthus ‘Haytor White’

Festuca glauca ‘Elijah Blue’

Bergenia cordifolia

Vinca minor

Hosta sieboldiana

Pachysandra terminalis

METHODOLOGY • Each plant species had 2 canopy sizes (full and halftrimmed) to identify whether plant canopy size within a particular taxon affects moisture loss and survival.

Full-canopied V. minor

Half-canopied V. minor

• Monitoring took place in an outdoor environment (green roof site, University of Sheffield), where plants were exposed to natural climatic conditions – no additional water was applied. • A weather station records hourly temperature, wind speed, solar radiation and atmospheric pressure, and a rain gauge records rainfall depths.

METHODOLOGY • Plants were weighed daily on a balance scale at the same time every day (at 14:00) – over 30 days’ duration (during late summer /early autumn). • Weighing only took place during weekdays due to inability to access site on weekends.

• Plant stress was observed by measuring chlorophyll fluorescence in three consecutive days at the end of the monitoring.

Leaf clip attached to a random leaf sample to measure chlorophyll fluorescence.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS • All treatments were initially at field capacity. • Differences in the starting weight on (Day 1) may be due to variations of species morphological features (e.g. fresh weights, number of leaves roots and plant biomass). • Longest dry period was observed for 10 days (Day 7 to Day 17) – noticeable weight decrease by all treatments during this period. • F. glauca (both canopy sizes) lost the most weight during this period and growing media lost the least.

Mean daily weights of each species for full-canopied (above) and half-canopied (bottom) throughout the whole monitoring period.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS •

•

As rainfall and ET are quantified in units of depth (mm), changes in soil moisture were converted from weight differences (g) to moisture depths (mm). In general, the half-canopied plants captured less water compared to the full-canopied species. F. glauca (both canopy sizes) gained the highest amount of moisture on most rainfall days and lost (ET) the most moisture during dry periods (Day 7 to Day 17). P. terminalis and H. sieboldiana consistently gained the least amount of water during rain days, and ET the least during dry periods. Mean moisture changes of each species for fullcanopied (top) and half-canopied (bottom) throughout the whole monitoring period.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS •

ET rates per day was observed on 2 days – –

•

Day 15; highest mean daily temperature; Day 9; second highest temperature.

For the full-canopied plants on Day 9, F. glauca lost a significant amount of water compared to the other species (p < 0.05), except for B. cordifolia (p = 0.06). P. terminalis had the lowest ET rate and was significantly different from the other species (p < 0.05), except for the growing media (p = 0.23). On Day 15, D. ‘Haytor White’ and V. minor ET a significantly high amount of moisture (4.02 mm d-1 and 3.56 mm d-1 respectively) compared to the other species (p ≤ 0.001) High ET rates on Day 15 suggest that the plants were not moisture stressed.

ET rates for the full canopied plants

ET rates for the half canopied plants

PLANT STRESS • Chlorophyll fluorescence (expressed in Fv/Fm values: lower values (<0.7) indicating stress condition) results helps indicate plant stress levels, due to photosynthetic activity. • Data for D. ‘Haytor White’ and F. glauca were not taken due to very small leaf area, which prevents the attachment of leaf clips onto leaf samples. However, they did not exhibit visual signs of stress. • During dry periods, H. sieboldiana and P. terminalis generally had lower ET rates compared to other species. In addition, stress signs such as secondary pathogens, drying and dying leaves were observed more on these species compared to others. • This evidence was supported by average result of chlorophyll fluorescence, which showed plant stress signs were found mostly on H. sieboldiana with lower values of Fv/Fm on most replicates (average reading of 0.66). • Stress signs were also physically observed on H. sieboldiana as most leaves have dried up / died towards the end of the experiment.

Week 1

Week 3

Week 5

Week 7

CONCLUSIONS • ET rates were generally greater with narrow leaved species (F. glauca) than large broad-leaved (H. sieboldiana) and simple leaf species (P. terminalis. • Even though P. terminalis and H. sieboldiana ET relatively low amounts throughout the experiment, they were showing the most stress signs at the end of the monitoring. • There was no significant differences in ET performance with regards to different canopy sizes. • It can be concluded that species choices matters when implementing SuDS, as different plant varieties functions differently. • In another study – focusing on canopy interception – the narrow-leaved D. ‘Haytor White’ performed significantly better than B. cordifolia or V. minor. • More data on ET from SuDS plants is required …

Dianthus ‘Haytor White’

Bergenia cordifolia

Vinca minor

Festuca glauca ‘Elijah Blue’

Hosta sieboldiana

Pachysandra terminalis

KTP Green On Top Investigation of the biodiversity value of water managed GI

Green roofs for biodiversity Current preference for sedum plant species for green roofs

Drought tolerant due to water-saving adaptations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CAM photosynthesis and reduction in quantity of stomata Do not require specialist knowledge or regular and costly maintenance Low water requirements

Your Logo or Name Here

o Brown Roofs found to be successful o Sedum roofs are limited o Habitat quality is often poor

Your Logo or Name Here

Green cities Re-wilding

Nature based solutions SMART Cities Habitat Meta-connectivity Your Logo or Name Here

Increase urban Biodiversity

Habitat connectivity

Urban cooling

Flood risk reduction

Your Logo or Name Here

The Product

Your Logo or Name Here

The technology Wicking • Textile and cones • Passive irrigation

• Water saving • Self-maintaining

Smart water control • System of valves • Remote Control

• Adaptive • Pre-emptive • Water attenuation & recycling

Your Logo or Name Here

Aspirational design

Your Logo or Name Here

The Roofs

Smart Roof 2.0

SEL Stepping Stones

Polypipe Terrain Blue-Green Roof

Lightweight platform

Amsterdam

Blackburn

Aylesford

Coventry University

3 x Stepping stones

Replica of Smart roof

Wet grassland species

Wet water cell provides water to central area

2 Green roof container tops and a third amenity platform with water feature

Retrofit green roof with Cloud Water control capabilities. Sedum, grass and wildflower planting

Cloud water controlled Your Logo or Name Here

The research

Water Consumption

Conventional

Soil profile

Vegetation

Invertebrates

Soil moisture, temperature and PH measurements

Monitoring of growth, species emergence an success

Monitoring of invertebrate presence, emergence and behaviour

Roof sampling

Monitoring water levels to Drawing comparisons draw conclusion on water between conventional use with varying habitat sedum roofs in local areas types

Your Logo or Name Here

Vegetation Survey • Limited sedum diversity

• Visible growth pattern (wicking cones) • Dormancy through winter • Spring growth – colonising species • Planted plug plants as well as seed

Your Logo or Name Here

Invertebrate presence Invertebrate Survey • High pollinator activity on all sites

• Meadow grasshoppers present • Significant presence of Linyphiid sps. • More mature species of spider and beetles found on PP roof • Dragonfly species present on PP roof Your Logo or Name Here

Maximising appeal Species Preferences • PP Wet Cell show most pollinator activity • SS has high presence of flies and carder bee • Biodiversity is highest in on SS with higher moisture levels • PP shows higher presence of red-tail and garden bumble bee Your Logo or Name Here

Green roofs for all life stages • SS have evidence of eggs and immature species • PP has more mature ground level invertebrates • PP Bee hive colonised within 1 month • SR is most successful for bumblebee species

Your Logo or Name Here

Vegetation establishment and seasonal changes • Species success varies on the stepping stones

PLANT SPECIES EMERGENCE - POLYPIPE BLUE-GREEN ROOF 18

• Self-seeded plants are locally abundant

10 8

• Mimics local habitat

• Response to drought varied

0 Mar-18

Apr-18

May-18

Jun-18

Jul-18

Number of species present

Your Logo or Name Here

Temperature and moisture content Interactions between moisture, temperature and plant success • CWC visibly maintained moisture content • CWC maintained plant growth and health regardless of extreme weather events

• Temperature varies with plant structure • SS variation shows necessity for water Your Logo or Name Here

• Summer monitoring utilising pan traps, pitfall traps, quadrating and visual surveys

• Quantification of invertebrate populations • Comparing rooftop assemblages to ground level to determine species mobility

Upcoming research aims

• Drawing conclusions as to the ecological health of the sampling sites • Offering recommendations as to how biodiversity can be further supported and improved

April 2018 – April 2019

Your Logo or Name Here

Thank you Sophie Barron-West (BSc Hons) Coventry University ac5982@Coventry.ac.uk

Seasonal Variations in Green Roof Hydrology S. De-Ville, V. Stovin

Presentation Outline • Introduction • Rationale & Study Aim • Methodology • Results • Conclusions & Impact

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Introduction • Green Roofs are a type of Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) • Provides multiple benefits • Stormwater Management • Ecology & Biodiversity • Amenity • Thermal

• Acoustic

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

PhD Rationale & Study Aim

2010

2013

Throughout its operational life the green roof substrate will be subject to numerous process that are likely to result in changes to hydrological performance.

Aim • Vegetation & Root Growth To quantify the • Substrate evolution of Consolidation hydrological performance in • Organic Matter extensive green roofs Turnover at multiple temporal • Weathering scales

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Methodologies

9 Green Green Roof Roof Test Roof Bed Substrates Configurations 62 Green Configurations Two6-year Differently Monitoring Aged Programme Samples Sizes (Virgin (2010 Vs. - 2016) 5-Years) Two Microcosm Rainfall/Runoff/Climate/Substrate Non-invasive X-Ray Imaging Moisture 1-Year of Repeated Observation Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Monitoring Study

Rainfall & Runoff Data Collection

Moisture Content Monitoring

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Hydrological Modelling 6

Methodology – Retention 30

0.4

25 0.3

20 15

0.2

10 0.1 5 0

Rainfall Vertical Lines:

0.5

500

Runoff Runoff Start

1000 Event Duration, (min) Moisture, Top Rainfall Stop

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

1500 Moisture, Mid

Volumetric Water Content, (%)

Cumulative Rainfall & Runoff (mm)

• Field Capacity (θFC) used as an indicator of potential maximum retention • 4 test beds each instrumented with 3 moisture probes • 98 – 198 evaluated rainfall events over 5 years

27/Jul/2013

Moisture, Bot

Field Capacity Measurement

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Detention â&#x20AC;˘ Fitted Reservoir Routing model used as a descriptor of physical detention processes.

Scale Optimised parameter â&#x201E;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ą (1-D = ) â&#x201E;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąâ&#x2C6;&#x2019;1 + (mm E /min) Depth of đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;Ą stored waterđ?&#x2018;Ą (mm)

Exponent Fixed = 2 đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x2013;đ?&#x2018;&#x203A;đ?&#x2018;Ą â&#x2C6;&#x2019; đ?&#x2018;&#x201E;đ?&#x2018;&#x153;đ?&#x2018;˘đ?&#x2018;Ąđ?&#x2018;Ą (dimensionless)

Inflowđ??ˇđ??¸ = i.e. đ??ˇđ?&#x2018; rainfall . â&#x201E;&#x17D;đ?&#x2018;Ąâ&#x2C6;&#x2019;1 (mm)

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Outflow i.e. runoff (mm)

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Trends â&#x20AC;˘ Values of Î¸FC and DS are plotted by day of the year â&#x20AC;˘ Fourier series models fitted to data

Î¸đ??šđ??ś

100

150

200

250

300

365

2đ?&#x153;&#x2039; 2đ?&#x153;&#x2039; = đ?&#x2018;&#x17D; + đ?&#x2018;?. cos đ??ˇ. + đ?&#x2018;?. sin đ??ˇ. 365 365

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Results – Retention

• Clear annual cycle – up to 27% change in potential retention • Lowest in Summer, Highest in Winter

Note: these variations cannot be detected by simply looking at rainfall/runoff performance, as they are masked by climatic variability

Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Results – Detention

• Some evidence of an annual cycle (lack of summer data) • Less effective detention in Summer (high DS), Highest in Winter (low DS) Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Conclusions & Impact

PhD Conclusions & Impact Sub-Annual variation in Typical Physical Typical Hydrological Green Roof changes in the Green Roof Performance configurations substrate can configurations is significant. have stable support can support Detention variation of Multi-Annual elevated elevated 63% vs. 4% long Hydrological Hydrological Hydrological term Performance Performance Performance Simon De-Ville | The University of Sheffield | Department of Civil & Structural Engineering | September 2018

Thank You Questions?

Reduction of CSO discharges and improved surface water runoff quality through the use of rainwater planters

www.sudsplanter.com

Presentation Summary SuDSPlanter Feedback and observations from retro-fit domestic installation in SW England Feedback from retro-fit installation at community regeneration SuDS project in NE England Thanks and acknowledgements Questions and discussion

SuDSPlanter Pre-assembled, standard range of rainwater planters High strength construction Integral storage/attenuation volume Customisable, controlled outlet Storage overflow Environmentally friendly construction Recycled material options Recyclable Monitoring system under dev. via The WaterHub

SuDSPlanter in SW England Objectives Test media mix for hydraulics and plant support/health Structural stability of planter construction Hydraulic performance of planter Test various outlet configurations o o o

Garden irrigation pipework (leaky pipes) Secondary water storage (RWH) Direct to SW drain

Experiment with storage options and self irrigation

Installed August 2017 Including adjacent weather station

Oct 19th - 36mm/hr

10th December 2017 27.2mm rain = 938 ls No discharge to drain

21st January 2018 30.5mm rain = 1052 ls No discharge to drain

Significant events Date

Peak Rainfall (mm/hr)

Acc. Rainfall (mm)

Attenuation Overflow ?

Overflow Volume (l)

Inflow volume (l)

Sept 8th ‘17

26.9

10.2

352

Sept 16th ’17

41.4

Yes

Not measured

414

Oct 19th ’17

36.1

23.1

Yes

797

Dec 10th ‘17

7.1

27.2

938

Dec 25th ’17

16.3

15.2

524

Jan 21st ’18

7.3

30.5

1052

32.5 & 26.9

14.5

Yes

May 27th ’18

500

27th August 2018

Planted April 2018

June

Findings and Observations Media mix appears to perform very well Useful feedback on method of construction/materials etc. Good information on hydraulic performance o o

Significant attenuation properties achieved Virtually all events diverted from SW drain

Very resistant to wet and dry conditions Low maintenance Useful information to feed into our monitoring development with The WaterHub

SuDSPlanter in NE England South Moor - Partnership streetscape project Live test facility supporting businesses to test green products in a live residential environment Retro-fit SuDS to limit CSO discharges, and enhance blue-green infrastructure 1000 houses connected to combined sewer CSOs discharge to nearby River Twizell

March 23rd 2018

June 26th 2018

Findings and Observations Excellent opportunity to gain householder engagement Residents are very happy to have them “I certainly think they’re excellent additions to peoples’ yards and it would be fantastic if we could get more of them in” - DCC rep. Logistics/positioning can be a challenge Too early to gain any performance data

Thanks & acknowledgements

www.sudsplanter.com

Greener Gardens â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Raingardens and attenuation units in residential gardens Rebecca Wade, Abertay University Neil Berwick, Abertay University James Travers, Lovell Homes Bob Peter, Abertay University r.wade@abertay.ac.uk

SUDSnet 2018 30th &31st August 2018

School of Science Engineering & Technology, Abertay University, Dundee, Scotland, UK

abertay.ac.uk

Benefits of Houseplot source control SUDS • Provide first level of treatment in a treatment train for a development • Reduce size of flood risk problems and management features (site control) downstream • Reduce burden on public purse for endof-pipe features. • Potential to provide more opportunity for ES/Biodiversity

“Source control can greatly reduce management costs of downstream SUDS … However, there are limited examples across Scotland of the treatment train and the use of emerging source control techniques such as green roofs and proprietary SUDS at the single plot level and in dense urban areas” CREW Source Control Report (2015) abertay.ac.uk

Importance of private gardens (Greenspace Scotland)

Primary land use stats show: amenity greenspace (37%) and private gardens or grounds (28%) together account for two-thirds of Scotlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban greenspace. Ref: 3rd State of Scotlands Greenspce Report (2018)

2_3rdstateofscotlandsgreenspacereport_010218.pdf

abertay.ac.uk

Source control and proprietary SuDS

SuDS Manual C753 (2015) & SuDS for Roads (2009)

Considerable mention of propietary systems/ options/ treatments Ch 14 dedicated to proprietary systems

SUDS for Roads (2009) Lots of mention of source control â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;proprietaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; only mentioned wrt vortex control systems abertay.ac.uk

Need for partnerships and an evidence base “Ideally source control techniques should be located as close to the source of rainfall as possible, however the responsibility of a house plot source control measure falling to the owner is also identified as a barrier to uptake” “… However, research into emerging innovative techniques such as green roofs and rain gardens is limited in Scotland and this may prove to be a barrier in the future” CREW Source Control Report (2015)

abertay.ac.uk

Where this project started 2013 NovaTech paper (D’Arcy, Campbell, Wade) 2013 - 2015 MSc /BSc projects at Abertay with C&D Associates and with Taylor Wimpey • SUDSbutt • SUDSbox • Raised raingarden

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of modular house plot drainage systems as source control SUDS Design & testing of SUDS Box Within Abertay Campus Sized for a hardstanding of 100 Sq. m roof area + 30 Sq.m parking Average house plus 2 parking spaces Geographic location Vertical Perforated outflow Control panel (multi orifice) Simulated rainfall â&#x20AC;&#x201C; up to 200yr + 20% climate change

abertay.ac.uk

SUDSbox test design • • • • •

1500l capacity (6 No. stormcell units) 100mm dia. inlet Perforated outlet plate (multi 5mm dia. Holes) Ran at full plot scale 1hr test using up to 3000l of water

abertay.ac.uk

Design storm simulations

abertay.ac.uk

Rainfall simulation

Rainfall Simulator • 2 No. 1250l water tanks • Manually adjustable valve controls • To mimic any storm event (micro drainage output) • At full plot scale • 1 hr test using approx.3000l of water abertay.ac.uk

Lab Results • Assuming no infiltration or losses

• 200 year storm outflow reduced to below 30 year • Delayed time of entry to sewers • Increased retention time

abertay.ac.uk

Taylor Wimpey’s Torrance Park development in Holytown Project overview 4 source control and water saving features installed within residential houseplot ‘show home’: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Natural raingarden ‘in-ground’ Suds Box Raised bed raingarden 200 litre water butt

abertay.ac.uk

Working with the house builder Developer commitment: • A two-year trial with Abertay University monitoring source control attenuation unit – SUDSbox • Water butts will be retro-fitted to the gardens of new homes already built at the development, and the remaining supply will be installed as construction progresses as part of Taylor Wimpey’s commitment to the Greener Gardens concept. • Potential of additional trial Raingardens over further Taylor Wimpey West Scotland developments • Collaboration with partners to create a supporting leaflet to raise the profile of greener gardens which can be used for a wide range of audiences including new homeowners, local schools, business and the wider housebuilding industry A copy of the Developer’s Guide is available at: www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/greenergardens Abertay commitment: • Testing on SUDS Box for min. 2 years • Rain gauge installation to record events against outflows • Liaise with local schools on surface water management & biodiversity • Further work with the Scottish Government and CSGN on the Greener Gardens initiative • Potential of additional trial Raingardens over further Taylor Wimpey West Scotland developments abertay.ac.uk

• Scottish Government approach Central Scotland Green network (CSGN) to involve a major house builder with regards to Green Infrastructure

• Installations at Torrance Park • Greener gardens client leaflet • VIBES Judge’s visit, Sept. 2015

• Co-operation Award Winners 2015

abertay.ac.uk

Award-winning partnership

C&D Associates

abertay.ac.uk

Raingardens in Schools â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Holytown, Motherwell

http://www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/campaigns/greener-gardens

abertay.ac.uk

Inlet Flow

0.65

0.05

Outlet 29/09/2016 13:54

Max Flow l/s Max Flow Inlet l/s 28/09/2016 22:50 0.59 0.35

0.30

Flow (l/s)

Building the evidence base for stormflow reductions from houseplots using source control Flow 0.70

0.60

Outlet Flow

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

19/10 00:00 18/10 00:00 17/10 00:00 16/10 00:00 15/10 00:00 14/10 00:00 13/10 00:00 12/10 00:00 11/10 00:00 10/10 00:00 09/10 00:00 08/10 00:00 07/10 00:00 06/10 00:00 05/10 00:00 04/10 00:00 03/10 00:00 02/10 00:00 01/10 00:00 30/09 00:00 29/09 00:00 28/09 00:00 27/09 00:00 26/09 00:00 25/09 00:00

abertay.ac.uk

Raingardens and SUDsbox attenuation units In Summary: • Project success

• partnership, evidence, awareness raising

• Step-change in collaboration

• need to maintain the momentum

• Evidence base development

• Lab/controlled studies with design storms • 2 years of monitored ‘field’ data (SUDSbox)

• Educational success (see presentation in session 4) Thank you for listening r.wade@abertay.ac.uk n.berwick@abertay.ac.uk abertay.ac.uk

The fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from storm water in a model SuDS swale system. Janine Robinson Prof. John Williams, Dr Fay Couceiro, Dr Joy Watts

Overview • Background- SuDS and PAHs-what are they and why are they worth studying? • My PhD research • Designing and building a model swale • Research methods

• Results • Conclusions

Road runoff and SuDS • Road runoff • Exhaust and brake dust. • Fuel and oil leaks. • Combustion emissions. • Tyre wear. • Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), including roadside swales, direct, divert, retain and remediate runoff before it enters a water course. • Vegetated swales are often the first stage of SuDS treatment trains – plants can help!

Why are PAHs important? • By-product of natural and anthropogenic processes. • Water Framework Directive identifies PAHs as priority pollutants. • PAHs in environment are a major concern. • Multiple ring structure- many variations. • Low weight PAHs (2 and 3 rings) are considered toxic. • High weight PAHS (4, 5 & 6 rings) can be carcinogenic and mutagenic. • 16 reference PAHs – e.g. benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene.

Naphthalene

Fluorene

Pyrene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Field monitoring and design codes • Field monitoring studies have shown swales are effective in removing pollutants, but highly variable e.g. Delatic & Fletcher (2006), Stagg et al. (2012), Leroy et al. (2015).

• Variability on many levels means mechanisms of pollutant removal in SuDS systems are difficult to quantify and understand (Roinas et al. 2014). • Storms – different intensities, first flush effect • Sites – different environments, traffic, pollutant loading. • Current design advice only gives general information on removal/degradation rates (e.g. SuDS Manual, 2015). • PAHs in particular there is a lack in understanding.

A model swale • A model swale was therefore developed to: • Provide controlled environment. • Know what’s going through the system. • Reduce sources of variation. • Consider infiltration and travel of pollutants. • Help inform and improve design and maintenance codes.

Swale design

Swale soil made up of sandy loam which has good infiltration ability.

Building a swale in a greenhouseâ&#x20AC;¦

Specific SuDS turf supplied by Wildflower Turf

Research methods Experiment: • 10 storm events, two weeks apart. • 1000 L of water over half an hour in a 5 step triangular hydrograph. • Known levels of pollutant added, to simulate: • First flush effect. • Road runoff dust. • Study transport of particulates.

Sample analysis: • Water and soil samples. • Gas Chromatography- Mass Spectrometry (GCMS). • Focus on key PAHs.

Creating simulated road runoff dust • To create a means of delivery artificial runoff dust was created. • Average particle distribution in runoff dust determined. Fraction size

% of particulates

< 63 µm

63 – 150 µm

150 – 425 µm

• Creosote used to dose particles as it has all of the target PAH’s. • Polluted particles were suspended in tap water and pumped at a constant rate (140 ml/min) for 15 minutes into the main storm flow. • Dilution effect simulated the first flush.

Results - Water • Hydraulically the swale performed

1.2

Inflow (l/sec) Outflow (l/sec)

1.0

consistently over all runs.

Flow Flow(l/sec) (L/sec)

0.8

• Initial outflow was on average 7.5 mins after

the start.

0.6

0.4

• Average water retained/loss in swale was 16 0.2

± 6 %.

0.0 0

Time (min)

Hydrograph of inflow and outflow from the swale.

• Peak outflow was significantly reduced (T-Test T = 7.13, P = < 0.005).

Results - Water

• Comparison of PAH concentrations in the swale inflow and outflow (data from run 9).

70,000

INFLOW

OUTFLOW

PAH concentration (ng/L)

• To the left of the vertical line is inflow water to the right is outflow.

Fluorene (ng/L)

60,000

Pyrene (ng/L) 50,000 40,000

• Significant reduction in PAH concentrations.

30,000

PAH 20,000 10,000 0

17 3

7.5 4

23 5

Sampling time (min)

30 6

60 7

90 8

% loss Standard deviation

Fluorene

Fluoranthene

Pyrene

Naphthalene levels in soil. 1 = 0 – 5 cm layer 2 = 5 – 10 cm layer

Run 10

900

800

700

Naphthalene (ng/g)

Run 1

600

500 400 300 200

600 500 400 300 200

100

0 1

Sampling location (m)

• Reduction of NAP significant at locations 1, 2 and 8 (Kruskal-Wallis P- value < 0.05).

Sampling location (m)

• Reduction of NAP significant in all locations.

Benzo(a)pyrene levels in soil. Run 7

6,000

5,000

Benzo(a)pyrene (ng/g)

Run 1

1 = 0 – 5 cm layer 2 = 5 – 10 cm layer

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

4,000 3,000 2,000

1,000 0

2 3 5 Sampling location (m)

• No B(a)P detected below the top layer. • Highest levels seen where surface water pooled.

2 3 5 Sampling location (m)

• Increased PAH concentrations in 5 – 10 cm layer. • Concentrations in soil increasing over time.

Benzo(a)pyrene levels in soil. Run 7

1 = 0 – 5 cm layer 2 = 5 – 10 cm layer 3 = 10 – 15 cm layer

Run 10 12,000

Benzo(a)pyrene (ng/g)

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000

10,000

8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

0 1

2 3 5 Sampling location (m)

• Only significant difference was at the 2 and 5 m sampling locations.

2 3 5 Sampling location (m)

• Final three runs second layer showing increased concentrations of PAHs. • Significantly decreased PAH level between layers 2 and 3 (Kruskal Wallis P-value < 0.05).

Naphthalene movement in the swale. Water flow

Run 1 0

Depth (cm)

Distance along the swale (m)

• • • •

Contour plot of Naphthalene (PAH) levels along and through the swale. Darker colours show greater levels of pollution. Infiltration through soil levels. Greater concentration where surface water was constant.

Naphthalene movement in the swale. Water flow

Run 1 0

Depth (cm)

Run 10

1 0

Depth (cm)

Distance along the swale (m)

• • • •

Distance along the swale (m)

Benzo(a)pyrene movement in the swale. Run 1

Depth (cm)

Run 10

Depth (cm)

Distance along the swale (m)

Conclusions • Model swale successfully simulated behaviour observed in the field. • Hydraulic properties – retention, lag time (e.g. Davis • Pollution removal from water.

et al. 2012, Lucke et al, 2014, Woods Ballard et al. 2015)

• Significant reductions in PAHs were seen, both in water and through soil layers. • Main mechanisms of reduction: Filtration, adsorption onto particles and retention. • Other mechanisms not assessed but will take place once retained in the swale • microbial degradation, photodegradation, phytodegradation.

• Can use the model to demonstrate in experimental capacity what might occur in the field.

Some recommendations and future work • Study can provide evidence to inform and improve design and maintenance codes: • For planners, designers and stakeholders. • Consider PAHs individually, considering key environmental factors and pollutants.

• Remove/skim surface layer periodically, removing the pollutant build up. • Assess microbial activity and impact on PAH degradation.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Wildflower Turf for providing specialist SuDS turf.

Special thanks go to Dr Russ Cole, Dr Roshni Jose, Anita Carey and Lesley Chapman-Greig for all their help in running the experiments.

Thank you janine.robinson@port.ac.uk

References • Davis, A. P., Stagge, J. H., Jamil, E., & Kim, H. (2012). Hydraulic performance of grass swales for managing highway runoff. Water Research, 46(20), 6775–6786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.017 • Deletic, A., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Performance of grass filters used for stormwater treatment—a field and modelling study. Journal of Hydrology, 317(3–4), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.021 • Leroy, M. C., Legras, M., Marcotte, S., Moncond’huy, V., Machour, N., Le Derf, F., & Portet-Koltalo, F. (2015). Assessment of PAH dissipation processes in large-scale outdoor mesocosms simulating vegetated road-side swales. Science of the Total Environment, 520, 146–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.020 • Lucke, T., Mohamed, M. A. K., & Tindale, N. (2014). Pollutant removal and Hydraulic reduction performance of field grassed swales during runoff simulation experiments. Water (Switzerland), 6, 1887–1904. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6071887 • Roinas, G., Mant, C., & Williams, J. B. (2014). Fate of hydrocarbon pollutants in source and non-source control sustainable drainage systems. Water Science and Technology, 69(4), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.747 • Stagge, J. H., Davis, A. P., Jamil, E., & Kim, H. (2012). Performance of grass swales for improving water quality from highway runoff. Water Research, 46(20), 6731–6742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.02.037 • Woods Ballard, B, Wilson, Udale-Clarke, H, Illman, S, Scott, T, Ashley, R, Kellagher, R(2015). The SUDS manual (C753, version 5). London: CIRIA.

Pollutant Removal Efficacies of Permeable Pavements Comprising Recycled Concrete Aggregates John J. Monrose PhD student, University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol, UK Civil Engineer, AECOM, Trinidad and Tobago Dr Kiran Tota-Maharaj Associate Head of Department and Head of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol, UK Dr A. Mwasha Senior Lecturer, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad and Tobago

Introduction

Experimental Methods &Materials

Presentation Outline

Results

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Introduction Objective Compare the pollutant removal efficacy of a pilot-scale permeable pavement comprising recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) to that comprising traditional materials of basalt or limestone

Consideration for use of RCA in PPS • Conservation of rapidly diminishing natural aggregates • Reduction in volume of material landfilled as well as the rate of consumption of landfill space

• Save money

Introduction Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) Overview

Conceptual Model

Inflow

• Dates back to the early 1970s • Provides structural pavements, whilst

Runoff Surface Zone

promoting infiltration • Mimics the natural soil environment

Infiltration

• Reduces runoff • Improves stormwater quality • Reduces urban heat island effect • Typically used for parking lots, driveways, pedestrian access (light traffic areas)

Outflow through underdrain

Aggregate/ Storage Zone Infiltration Soil

Introduction Typical structure of Permeable Pavement System (PPS) • Subgrade – natural or existing soil • Subbase – Typically crushed aggregates, gradation 19 to 63 mm. Depth dependent on structural and/or storage requirements • Base – Typically crushed aggregates, gradation 5 to 25 mm.

Depth dependent on structural and/or storage requirements • Bedding – Typically 30-50mm deep comprising aggregate with gradation ranging from 2 to 5 mm. • Pavement surface – typically used to describe the type of PPS (eg. PC, PA, PICP, CGP)

Experimental Methods & Materials Aggregate Types

Basalt

Limestone gravel

RCA

Experimental Methods & Materials Permeable Pavement Rig Structure

Experimental Methods & Materials

Grab samples collected during rainfall events; 7-10 minutes simulated rainfall @ intensities â&#x2030;¤ 2.0 L/min

Experimental Methods & Materials Laboratory Analysis Method

Water Quality Parameter pH COD (mg/l) DO (mg/l) NO3-N (mg/l) PO43- (mg/l) SO4 (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU)

SM 4500-H+B HACH TNT 822 SM 4500-O HACH Cadmium Reduction Method HACH Amino Acid Method HACH SulfaVer 4 Method HACH Absorptometric Method

TDS (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) Conductivity (ÂµS/cm)

SM 2540C SM 2540D SM 2510B

Experimental Methods & Materials Data Analysis

â&#x20AC;˘ SPSS v.20 o Test for normality - one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk goodness-of-fit measures o One way ANOVA o Standard descriptive statistics

RESULTS Influent Characteristics (n = 30) Parameter pH COD (mg/l) DO (mg/l) NO3-N (mg/l)

Minimum 6.69 35.1 5.67 0.0

Maximum 10.12 119.0 8.46 6.5

Mean 8.08 71.98 7.18 1.47

Standard Error of Mean 0.20 4.50 0.23 0.31

Standard Deviation 0.95 21.59 0.80 1.48

PO43- (mg/l) SO4- (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU)

0.9 0.0 3.0

4.9 77.0 184.0

1.97 18.26 51.22

0.23 4.43 10.68

1.10 21.25 51.24

TDS (mg/l)

22.0

400.0

197.81

24.28

111.27

TSS (mg/l)

18.0

386.0

131.25

26.24

117.36

Conductivity (ÂµS/cm)

43.3

477.0

165.29

21.90

105.05

RESULTS Test for normality. Normal distribution (α > 0.05) in red Water Quality Parameters pH COD (mg/L) DO (mg/L) NO3-N (mg/L) PO43- (mg/L) SO4- (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) TDS (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Conductivity (µS/cm) K-S: Kolmogorov-Smirnov S-W: Shapiro-Wilk

Influent K-S 0.200 0.047 0.200 0.001 0.001 0.018 0.060 0.200 0.040 0.016

S-W 0.783 0.053 0.750 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.002 0.950 0.016 0.053

Permeable Pavement Rig Rig1 Rig2 K-S S-W K-S S-W 0.200 0.359 0.200 0.618 0.200 0.615 0.200 0.659 0.200 0.298 0.093 0.103 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.108 0.033 0.075 0.050 0.051 0.007 0.030 0.002 0.044 0.036 0.084 0.212 0.200 0.319 0.200 0.736 0.200 0.306 0.200 0.275 0.091 0.050

Rig3 K-S 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.020 0.066 0.106 0.055 0.178 0.156 0.200

S-W 0.129 0.963 0.814 0.010 0.012 0.034 0.004 0.200 0.168 0.697

RESULTS One way Anova (p < 0.05) in red

Water Quality Parameters pH COD (mg/L) DO (mg/L) NO3-N (mg/L) PO43- (mg/L) SO4- (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) TDS (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Conductivity (ÂµS/cm)

Sum of Squares 287.08 631.50 1.83 1.52 5.36 3.080E+03 8.261E+03 7.316E+05 7.269E+04 1.884E+07

F 221.81 0.56 2.39 0.28 2.16 3.02 1.79 15.52 3.67 192.13

Sig. 0.000 0.646 0.083 0.841 0.099 0.034 0.155 0.000 0.016 0.000

100%

RESULTS

90% 80%

Mean effluent characteristics per Rig (n = 30)

70% 60% 50%

Water Quality Parameters pH COD (mg/l) DO (mg/l) NO3-N (mg/l) PO4 (mg/l) SO4 (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) TDS (mg/l)

40%

1 7.8 65.51 7.06 1.48 2.20 27.13 29.22 235.50

Rig No. 2 7.9 69.11 7.04 1.50 1.95 23.87 31.74 215.30

3 12.0 66.98 7.55 1.19 1.53 11.91 47.00 431.70

TSS (mg/l)

395.80 185.85

187.40

173.71

Conductivity (ÂµS/cm)

165.29 196.73

184.64 1227.09

Influent 8.1 71.98 7.18 1.47 1.97 18.26 51.22 194.90

30% 20% 10%

Influent

Rig No. 1

Rig No. 2

Rig No. 3

48.2

RESULTS

-2.4

Mean pollutant removal efficacies per Rig (n = 30)

-24.7

2 -2.4

3 48.2

8.0

4.0

5.0

DO (%)

10.7

4.3

NO3-N (%)

-30.6

-24.7

18.3

pH (%) COD (%)

PO4 (%) SO4 (%)

-23.7

-7.5

-30.6

-7.5

1 -4.1

-71.3

35.7

Turbidity (%)

26.4

14.8

-16.2

TDS (%)

-46.3

-31.0

-196.0

TSS (%)

52.0

54.0

59.0

Conductivity (%)

-36.8

-19.7

-947.9

4.0

-71.3

-132.0

10.7

4.3

SO4 (%) 26.4

Turbidity (%)

14.8

TDS (%)

-46.3 -19.7

52.0

54.0

59.0

-36.8

-947.9 Rig No. 1

DO (%)

PO4 (%)

35.7

-31.0

COD (%)

NO3-N (%)

20.9

-16.2 -196.0

5.0

18.3

-23.7

20.9

-132.0

8.0

10.7

Rig No. Water Quality Parameters

-4.1

Rig No. 2

TSS (%) Conductivity (%)

Rig No. 3

Conclusions • Permeable Pavement Systems (PPS) can alter the concentrations of pollutants in stormwater runoff • PPS with basalt or limestone aggregates in the sub-base produce similar results in terms of pollutant removal efficiencies. • The use of RCA presents opportunities for savings in the quantities of natural material quarried and the amount of material landfilled.

• RCA can be used as a suitable subbase material in PPS for the removal of certain stormwater pollutants • The permeable pavement comprising RCA removed on average, COD by 5%, NO3-N by 18%, PO4- by 21%, SO4 by 36% and TSS by 59%. Further research is required regarding the high pH, TDS and conductivity results obtained.

Acknowledgements This research is being supported by the University of Trinidad and Tobago, Point Lisas Campus, Trinidad, West Indies; The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, Trinidad as well Engineering Consulting firm AECOM.

We wish to express our thanks and appreciation to Mr. Terry Buckley (Senior Engineer, AECOM) for his support as well as the technical and laboratory staff within the Department of Utilities Engineering, University of Trinidad & Tobago and the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,

University of the West Indies.

Thank you for your attention

Validating a SuDS tree pit for the Scottish Climate Alison Duffy UWTC Abertay University a.duffy@abertay.ac.uk

SUDSnet 2018 30th August 2018

School of Science Engineering and Technology, Division of Built and Natural Environment

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit - Arborflow • Arborflow developed by Green Blue Urban – retrofitted to a Dundee leisure centre car park in 2012 • Principal aim of the study - assess unit for application as SuDS and comply with SEPA WAT-RM-08 • Also monitor tree health

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quality â&#x20AC;˘ System modified to enable collection of in / out flows for water quality / quantity monitoring â&#x20AC;˘ ACO drain connected to inlet manhole to distribute flow into the system. Perforated pipe at bottom of system connected to outlet manhole to capture outflow.

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quality • SEPA WAT-RM-08 - fulfil the following functions:

Treat runoff; Infiltrate (where suitable); Attenuate

• Water quality Monitoring parameters (FT = System Flush Through with potable water). Samples (n)

Samples (n)

All events

No Flush Through (FT)

Unit

Inlet

Outlet

Inlet

Outlet

pH Unit

Conductivity

uS/cm

Total Suspended Solids

mg/l

Biological Oxygen Demand

mg/l

Nitrogen

mg/l

Phosphorous

mg/l

Chloride

mg/l

Arsenic

ug/l

Cadmium

ug/l

Nickel

ug/l

Chromium

ug/l

Copper

ug/l

Zinc

ug/l

Lead

ug/l

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Oil)

mg/l

Parameter

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quality • Water quality guidelines / standards used: • SEPA groundwater assessment criteria for pollutant input using the Water Framework Directive River Chemistry (RCS) and River Nutrient Standards (RNS). Concentrations are considered to exceed thresholds if they fall at or above the Poor / Bad category. •

[SEPA (2011). Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01, Version 2.1. Assigning groundwater assessment criteria for pollutant inputs]

• Water Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) was used to assess Oil. (Directive 2005/105/EC). • Water Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for Priority and Dangerous Substances was used to assess heavy metals (Directive 2006/11/EC)

• Discharge Standards for Urban Waste Water Treatment Standards (Directive 91/271/EE) was used to assess TSS

Parameter mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l µg/l µg/l

Ammoniacal (N) Orthophosphate (P) SS BOD5 Arsenic Cadmium

µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l

Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Zinc PAH (Oil) Naphthalene Anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene* Benzo(k)fluoranthene* Benzo(ghi)perylene* Indeno(1,2,3 -cd)pyrene* Cl

SEPA WFD River Stds (mg/l)

EU EQS (µg/l) Water hardness Class 1-5 AA = Annual Av, MAC = Max Allowable Conc

<0.3, <0.6, <1.1, <2.5, >2.5 <0.05, <0.12, <0.25, <1, >1 35 <4, <5, <6.5, <9, >9

50 <0.08, 0.08, 0.09, 0.15, 0.25 (AA) <0.45, 0.45, 0.6, 0.9, 1.5 (MAC) (VI) 3.4 (III) 4.7 1, 6, 10, 28 1.2 (AA), 1.4 (MAC) 4 (AA), 34 (MAC) <8, 8, 50, 75, 125 [11.9 (AA)] 0.002-0.5 2 (AA), 130 (MAC) 0.1 (AA and MAC) 0.00017 (AA), 0.27 (MAC) 0.017 (MAC) 0.017 (MAC) 0.0082 (MAC) n/a 250000 (non statutory)

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quality TSS All events 2013 - 2016

TSS No FT 2013 - 2016

(n_in = 26, n_out = 23)

(n_in = 26, n_out = 15)

BOD, N, P, Oil All events 2013 - 2016

BOD, N, P, Oil No FT 2013 - 2016

(n_in = 19, n_out = 23)

(n_in = 19, n_out = 15)

7.00

90.00

4.00 3.00

mg/l

120.00

2.00 1.00

60.00

0.00

30.00

BOD

0.00

Inlet Average

Outlet Average

Inlet Average

Heavy Metals All events 2013 - 2016

Heavy Metals No FT 2013 - 2016

(n_in = 19, n_out = 15)

(n_in = 19, n_out = 6)

TPH Outlet Average

4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

BOD

N Inlet Average

TPH

Outlet Average

Problem with turbidity at outflow

25.00

18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00

20.00 15.00

ug/l

u/l

5.00

150.00

mg/l

6.00

160.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00

10.00 5.00

Inlet Average

0.00

Outlet Average

Inlet Average

Pb Zn

Outlet Average

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quality System Flush Through as suspected blockage = opportunity to take system apart and analyse leca clay balls, membrane and trough supernatant / sediments in solution as these pre-treat prior to flow through system Special Analysis Leca + Membrane Heavy Metals 9th July 2014 2500 2000

As Cd

mg/lkg

1500

Cr Cu

1000

500

Ni Pb

Leca (clay) Balls

Membrane Loose Material

Membrane Filter

abertay.ac.uk

Special Analysis Leca + Membrane TPH 9th July 2014

250

2500 2000

200 As

mg/kg

150

100

1000 500

Cu 0

Leca (clay) Balls

Membrane Loose Material

Special Analysis Trough Water Heavy Metals 9th July 2014

Membrane Loose Material Membrane Filter

Special Analysis Trough Water Oil, BOD, TSS, N 9th July 2014 TPH

BOD

TSS

300

400 300 ug/l

Leca (clay) Balls

Membrane Filter

mg/l

mg/kg

1500

200

100

0 Trough 3 Supernatant

Trough 3 Base sediments in solution

Trough 3 Supernatant Trough 3 Base sediments in solution

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quality The percent reduction in pollutant loading from inlet to outlet and increase for several parameters is provided in the first Chart. As Ni increases by 751%, it was removed in order to better observe results - second Chart. If all events taken into account (including FT), BOD and all heavy metals except Zinc exceed guidelines. If FT events are excluded Chromium and Zinc marginally exceed guidelines. FT would have re-suspended / mobilised parameters captured / retained by the system

Reduction / increase in pollutant loading based on average results for inlet and outlet no Ni

Reduction / increase in pollutant loading based on average results for inlet and outlet Increase

600 400

% Increase

800

0 -200

TSS BOD

All events

TPH

Excluding FT events (x2)

Reduction

200

150

100 50 0 -50 -100

-150

TSS BOD

All events

TPH

Excluding FT events (x2) abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quantity Flow readings - every 2 mins Oct 2013 - March 2015. Tot vol attenuated / month provided below. Table = summary of hydraulic data with average 93.7% reduction in runoff volume. Outlet values not recorded for several events due to equipment error / blocks?

Total Monthly Flow Readings

Inlet Outlet

8000 7000 6000 Volume (L)

Total Monthly Flow Readings Month Inlet Volume (L) Outlet Volume (L) Oct-13 7160 3569 Nov-13 1129 0 Dec-13 2530 0 Jan-14 1843 20 Feb-14 2856 0 Mar-14 463 0 Apr-14 1780 0 May-14 5971 0 Jun-14 1854 0 Jul-14 3318 1306 Aug-14 3868 6493 Sep-14 890 2294 Oct-14 5722 26 Nov-14 5633 283 Dec-14 837 0 Jan-15 711 0 Feb-15 272 0 Mar-15 758 0

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Month

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Water Quantity • Greenfield runoff car park (area 1309.1m2) = 5 l/s = min flow rate = Dundee CC attenuation criteria.

• Estimated design peak runoff 1 in 30 yr, 1 hr event = 8.54 l/s using SOIL value for bioretention unit. • Thus to reduce to equivalent 1 in 5 yr greenfield event, unit must provide 41.5% reduction in flow rate. • One unit provides attenuation from a catchment 148.5 m2 = 11.34% of car park with average flow reduction 88% = greater than that required. • If flow reduction is assumed to be directly linked to area of discharge then one unit attenuates approx 218 m2. Thus 6 units required to drain the entire car park. abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Tree Health Tree health measurements for height, girth, canopy and foliar chlorophyll content were collected between January 2013 and January 2016 for Arborflow and control tree.

Height

Girth

60 6 mm

40 4 2

Control Tree

0 8.1.13

24.9.13

8.8.14 17.10.14 6.4.15 12.11.15

Arborflow

Contol Tree

Arborflow

Contol Tree

Arborflow abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit Conclusions • System treats water to an acceptable level (on average Cr and Zn marginally exceeded guidelines) Brownfield site – old textile mills and

Cr probably historical. Zn (aq) most reactive and high concentrations from vehicle related runoff. • System attenuates to above acceptable level for DCC criteria.

• Elements of pre-treatment provided by ACO drain, leca balls, membrane and trough. All components that need to be maintained in the long-term (removal / replacement).

• Still a problem with turbidity despite eliminating leca balls etc. • New system developed by GBU – no leca balls, membrane or troughs. Troughs replaced by much smaller reservoirs resembling ACO drain.

abertay.ac.uk

Assessment of a New Bioretention Unit

Acknowledgements Kirsten Clarke, BA Hons Forensic Science Student, Abertay University.

Josh Mills, BEng Hons Civil Engineering student, Abertay University. Kevin Pratt, BEng Hons Civil Engineering student, Abertay University. Beth Prosser, BSc Hons Geography Student, Edinburgh University.

abertay.ac.uk

Rainwater Articulation in Cities Bruce K. Ferguson SUDSNet Coventry, August 2018

What Makes Amenity A definition of amenity: • A quality of place experience • Attractive, pleasant, fulfilling • Psychologically restorative

We can tell where amenity exists • Use & activity monitoring • Surveys, visual preferences, brain monitors

SUDS amenity is produced: • By and with stormwater • In reference to stormwater Gehl & Svarre 2013, Kaplan & Kaplan 1994 Scopelliti & Giuliana 2004, Staas, Jahncke, Herzog & Hartig 2016, Herzog, Chen & Primeau 2002

Three contributors to place experience Self

Environ

Others Gustafson 2001

Amenity exciting or relaxing Arousing Distressing

Exciting

Unpleasant

Pleasant Gloomy

Relaxing Sleepy Russell & Pratt 1980

Relaxing amenity:

Exciting amenity:

• Ground vegetated • Trees important • Water quiet • Few other people • Peaceful, relaxing

• Ground paved • Contrasts, complexities • Built structures • Public, active, busy • Interesting, stimulating

Kaplan & Kaplan 1996, Roe & Aspinall 2011, Russell & Pratt 1998 Gustafson 2001, Staats & Hartig 2004, Scopelliti & Giuliana 2004

Gehl 2010, Whyte 1980, Scopelliti & Giuliana 2004 Karmanov & Hamel 2008, Gustafson 2001

Place Legibility Improves Amenity Legibility enables people to: • Recognize features & activities • Navigate & function • Stay & participate • Explore, learn more

“Articulation” makes features readable • Refinement or augmentation of forms & materials • To convey information: - Structure, function • To convey meanings: - Cultural, environment Berleant 2013; Gifford 2013; Kaplan & Kaplan 1996 Ferguson 2015; Ferguson “Vision...” in press

Legible process underlies SUDS amenity City-dwellers know intuitively: • Natural phenomena are everywhere • Water is important for their lives

People look for nature around them • Correspondence between place and mind

Articulation of SUDS process • Explains what distinctive features are for • Environment connected, controlled, cared for

Blanc 2013, Wu 2008, Ferguson 1998

Legible meaning extends SUDS amenity

Physical process • Gathering of roof runoff

Cultural meaning • Earth beckons for water like Adam beckons for life • Narrative makes SUDS process relevant Schama 1995, Scruton 2011, Peterson 1999

Experience

Physical features

Others Self

Articulation

Urban design

Stormwater features Stormwater mgt processes

SUDS in Range of Settings Perimeter & downstream • Receive & manage runoff • Specialized stormwater facilities • Swales, wetlands, basins • Open, natural landscapes • Few people, passive, quiet

Source area • Urban buildings & pavements • Origin of runoff & pollution • Shops, residences, roadways • Dense, busy, stimulating • Cisterns, pavements, green roofs, rain gardens Ferguson 2016

Perimeter & downstream successes

Source-area successes

Swales

Rain gardens

• Roof scuppers • Alluvial rocks • Distinctive shrubs

• Downspout splash boxes • Plaza materials follow flow • Set apart with curbs • Distinctive plants Suppakittpaisarn, JIang & Sullivan 2017 Kondo et al. 2015; Wolf 2004

But Source Area Less Understood More challenging • Dense, busy environments • Space constrained • SUDS features usually dry

Addressing amenity is needed • Half of human eperience & potential amenity

Backhaus & Fryd 2013, Ferguson 2016

Images call in meanings

Historical image â&#x20AC;˘ Cultural development with natural resource

Construction recalling nature â&#x20AC;˘ Blending into human life

Dynamic images call attention in real time Drums

Fountains

Lights Echols & Pennypacker 2015

Permeable pavement Distinctive • Patterns & materials

But no signal of SUDS process • Mystery of purpose

Artistic challenge • Same surface infiltrates water • And bears human traffic

Ferguson (in press)

Permeable pavement: Surface images?

â&#x20AC;˘ Raindrop-shaped depressions â&#x20AC;˘ Draining toward joints

Conclusion: Amenity Production In SUDS Generic amenity definition • Enabling connection to geography, psychology, philosophy

All watershed settings deserve amenity • Including dense, busy, stimulating source area

A part of amenity is perception of natural process • SUDS presence, control, care • Meaning in human culture

Big ‘toolbox’ for articulation • Water process, natural & cultural associations • Multiple sensory signals

Much remains to be discovered & evaluated

SuDS and Raingarden Education in Schools Alison Duffy UWTC Abertay University Rebecca Wade Abertay University Neil Berwick UWTC Abertay University Patsy Dello Sterpaio a.duffy@abertay.ac.uk r.wade@abertay.ac.uk n.berwick@abertay.ac.uk

SUDSnet 2018 30th August 2018

School of Science Engineering and Technology, Division of Built and Natural Environment

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project How do we increase public understanding of the benefits provided by SUDS? • Objectives - increases public understanding of the benefits water (b) increase science engagement through community outreach/public education (c) support Scottish water policy. • Public outreach activity that targeted primary school children in Dundee where there are excellent examples of SUDS.

• The scope was twofold: to explain the urban water cycle; and promote awareness and understanding of their local SUDSand benefits. • Key to achieving this was to align with the Curriculum for Excellence and contribute to literacy and numeracy skills including general science Experiences and Outcomes (Es&Os). • This project provided a unique opportunity for the school children and the local community group to engage with water professionals / researchers.

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project How do we increase public understanding of the benefits provided by SUDS? • Framework for science communication (Varner, 2013). • Collaboration with Dundee CC Schools Development Officers to align with the science, engineering, environmental and social aspects related to the SUDS concept and utilise their knowledge and relationships developed with local schools. • The Abertay team – 2 SUDS researchers and STEM Coordinator

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project The Audience

• 4 primary schools and a nursery near Ardler and Mill O’ Mains SUDS

Ardler ‘showcase’ SUDS abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project Developing a SUDS Learning Package for schoolchildren

• Include STEM topics and as many Es&Os as possible e.g. • People, place and the environment – exploring features of the local environment to develop an

awareness of the world around me (SOC 0-07a) • Earth’s materials – understanding the characteristics and uses of soil (SCN 3-17a) • Chemical changes – monitoring the environment by analysing samples (SCN 4-18a) • Topical Science – how scientists from Scotland contribute to innovative research (SCN 4-20a) • Planet Earth – learning about climate change, human activities and the dynamic nature of earth

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project Developing a SUDS Learning Package for schoolchildren Lesson plans for schools and the Community Group: HN = Hydro Nation, HWC = Hydrological Water Cycle, Urb = Urbanisation, F&P = Flooding and Pollution, S&T = show and tell (study tour), TD = Turf / concrete demonstration, VG = Video Game, Ex = TSS (Total Suspended Solids) Experiment, MB = Model Building.

Public Outreach CREW HN HWC Happy Days Nursery X Mill O' Mains Primary School P3 X Ardler Primary School P3 X Craigowl PS P6A X X X Craigowl PS P6B X X X Whitfield Community Group X X

Urb UWC F&P SUDS S&T TD VG Ex X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

MB X X X

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project

Results

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project Feedback Teachers Question 1

N/A

no/inadequate yes/excellent 1 2 3 4 5

Did you feel you were given adequate information about the learning package?

2 Were you kept informed of progress in the lead up to the visit? 3 Were your questions answered prior to the visit?

  

4 Was the visit well planned? 5 Did your children seem to enjoy the sessions overall? 6 Did your children learn new things today? Have you heard of Hydro Nation before you received the 7 learning package? Will you use materials created for today's visit in future 8 lesson plans? Would you be interested in future visits from the Water & 9 Environmental Scientists? 10

Would you be interested in other learning packages from Abertay's Outreach Office?

     



Primary 3s Primary 3 School children

Pre visit not sure

yes

% yes not sure no

yes

%yes

I know about the water cycle

48%

100%

I have heard of Hydro Nation

10%

71%

I have heard of a SUDS pond

98%

I know what a SUDS pond is for

12%

83%

Building houses can cause flooding

43%

98%

90%

95%

I think water is important



Post visit

I know what pollutes water

12%

I know where there is a SUDS pond in my community

7 3

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project Feedback - children

abertay.ac.uk

Raingardens in Schools â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Holytown, Motherwell

http://www.centralscotlandgreennetwork.org/campaigns/greener-gardens

abertay.ac.uk

Multiple modes of learning: observing, experimentation, technology-based scenario testing

abertay.ac.uk

Raingardens in Schools â&#x20AC;&#x201C; at Holytown: involving the community, raising awareness

abertay.ac.uk

Public Outreach CREW funded project

Conclusions and Recommendations Our approach facilitated engagement with SUDS in the context of Scotland: the Hydro Nation, and fostered enthusiasm, knowledge retention and empowerment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; learning whilst also having fun! The outreach programme was flexible to fit time available and suit knowledge level. The programme was deemed an unquestionable success by LA, teachers, and school children. This was attributed to a strategic approach taken in developing and delivering a SUDS learning package. Timing is crucial to ensure alignment with the curriculum. Hands on sessions, including experiments and digital technology related to local real world issues combined with local walks, were powerful strategies. They provided a direct and personal connection that engaged, promoted and embedded learning concepts and new terminology. The SUDS learning package materials fit the curriculum for excellence and the learning package developed is a valuable teaching asset that could be up-scaled and rolled out across Scotland.

abertay.ac.uk

SUDSnet International Conference 2018

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies Authors Luis A. Sañudo-Fontaneda*, Felipe P. Alvarez-Rabanal, Mar Alonso-Martinez, Angel Martin-Rodriguez, Zenaida A. Hernandez Garrastacho y Juan J. del Coz-Diaz *Presenter author

University of Oviedo Department of Construcción and Manufacturing Engineering Construction Engineering Area Polytechnic School of Mieres Calle Gonzalo Gutiérrez Quirós s/n, Campus of Mieres Email: sanudoluis@uniovi.es

2 Session 4 – SuDS Education and Articulation

Introduction – Societal requirement

“It is an approach that can bring improvements to a number of policy areas, including regional development, climate change, agriculture, forestry, urban planning, nature protection, water management and disaster prevention” Source: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/efe/themes/movinggrey-green-infrastructure_en

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

3 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Introduction â&#x20AC;&#x201C; New water management paradigm New fields of development in engineering

Society demands a Sustainable and efficient management of water in cities and urban environments

Source: https://es.pinterest.com/pin/329818372698534942/

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

4 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Background

Source: http://www.bibliotecaspublicas.es/mieres/bpes_colaborar.htm

Civil Engineering (2011)

Source: http://www.uniovi.es/-/la-escuela-politecnica-de-mieres-participa-enla-campana-nacional-de-promocion-de-la-geomatica

Master in Civil Engineering (2016)

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

5 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Teaching Scheme History of Civil Engineering

Civil Engineering

Urban & Environmental services Highway Engineering Building Engineering

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

6 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Teaching Scheme

Master in Civil Engineering

Digital Cartography, Urbanism and Land Planning Building and Civil Engineering Structures

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

7 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Teaching Scheme

University of Oviedo

PhD Programme in Natural Resources

Universities abroad

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

8 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Teaching Scheme International Course on Green Infrastructure & SUDS: Present and Future of Urban Water Management

Extension courses

Permeable Pavement Systems BIM in Transport Infrastructures

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

9 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Teaching tools and resources Project Based Learning (PBL) and Flipped Classroom (FC) Theoretical and practical lessons Conferences and workshops Teaching tools

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

10 Session 4 – SuDS Education and Articulation

Methodology – Teaching tools and resources Teaching tools: self-learning resources o Moodle (virtual campus). o Design and calculation Software (AutoCAD Civil 3D, ISTRAM, Microsoft Excel, EPA SWMM 5.1, …). o ResearchGate and Scopus (scientific sources). o YouTube (demonstrative videos about WSUD philosophy and SUDS design and construction. Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

11 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Teaching tools and resources Teaching tools: Communication

o LinkedIn (profesional network). o SUDS Spanish profesional network (RedSUDS 2017). o CUIEET 2017 and 2018 (initial results obtained from the programme). o UK SUDSnet Conference 2018 (presenting initial impacts from this programme). o Local Press.

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

12 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Academic results Increment in number for final dissertations in SUDS Competences and skills developed within the framework of several subjects Highest valued subjects by students in both titles Pioneering experience in education

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

13 Session 4 – SuDS Education and Articulation

Academic results – Student’s survey  Academic courses: 2016-2017, 2017-2018  Number of students: 51 Quality of the Programme 92% Academic Guidance 95% Practical activities 90% Satisfaction 91% Quality of the lecturers 95%

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

14 Session 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Education and Articulation

Academic results - Publications

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

15 Session 4 – SuDS Education and Articulation

Impact & Dissemination  Innovation Award in SUDS at the University of Oviedo.  Participation of students in international ideas competition.  Local press following the outcomes from the programme.  Interest from Public Administrations and industry to develop extension courses for practitioners and the general public.  Dissemination at national and international conferences.  Reads and downloads of the publicly available materials.

Source: La Nueva España

Source: Spanish ICE meeting

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

16 Session 4 – SuDS Education and Articulation

Conclusions The programme has helped to increase student’s KNOWLEDGE, contributing to develop general and specialised competences and skills. The INTEGRATIVE AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY vision of this programme allows to develop students’ training under different levels of specialty depending upon the needs from society and industry.

The programme has INCREASED THE LEVEL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITHIN THE STUDENTS.

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

17 Session 4 – SuDS Education and Articulation

Acknowledgements Project UOStormwater with reference PAPI-17PEMERG-22

Project IDea_SuDS with reference SV-18GIJÓN-1-23

Inspiring the New Generations: Introducing SUDS at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies

Thanks for your attention! Follow us on Twitter:

@UOStormwater #SUDSnet CONTACT Dr. Luis A. SaĂąudo-Fontaneda University of Oviedo Email: sanudoluis@uniovi.es

Optimising Pervious Pavement Systems (PPS): A laboratory-based investigation of novel materials as water barrier/ treatment systems Natasa Tziampou, Dr. Stephen J. Coupe, Dr. Luis A. SaĂąudo-Fontaneda, Prof. Alan P. Newman, Prof. Daniel Castro-Fresno

(Susdrain 2008)

Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the problem? Why do we need to optimise PPS? Warmer temperatures Climate change

Pervious surface

Higher rain totals and intensities

Laying course Upper geotextile Subbase

Increased surface imperviousness Urbanisation

Lower geotextile Subgrade

Non-point source pollution

Coventry University Patent ( US 8,104,990 B2) “This invention relates to a paving system comprising of a substrate layer of a bearing particulate material, wherein particles of a nonload bearing porous, water retentive material in the interstitial spaces between the load bearing particulate material and laying above the substrate layer an upper layer permeable to liquid…” “…The porous material may be an open-celled phenolic foam such as foamed phenol formaldehyde resin.”

(Left) OASIS in blocks (Right) Cellular structure (OASIS floral products 2016)

“The foam can also be applied in larger blocks or sheets as desired” “A system in accordance with the invention can dry out readily, so that in non- rainfall conditions the system can carry out pollutant degradation and prepare itself for the next rain event” (Lowe 2006)

OASIS®

Conventional Geotextiles (Terram n.d)

Three dimensional structure Open-cell phenolic foam Highly porous Any hydraulic benefit ? Any impact on water quality ? How does it affect the structural integrity? How could it possibly be incorporated in PPS? 4

Thin, flexible permeable sheets of synthetic material

Woven or Non-woven Act as separation layer

Filter pollutants and sediments (Coupe et al. 2006; Gomez- Ullate et al. 2010; Newman et al. 2002)

Provide structural reinforcement (Sañudo –Fontaneda et al. 2015)

Laboratory investigation of hydraulic behaviour of PPS incorporating OASIS and Inbitex as barrier systems Objectives To identify appropriate rainfall regime representing West Midlands To identify and design a rainfall delivery system To compare water storage capacity, lag times and discharge rates and duration of PPS designs incorporating OASIS and Inbitex under variety of rainfall regimes

Laboratory investigation of hydraulic behaviour of PPS incorporating OASIS and Inbitex as barrier systems Subbase crushed limestone 250mm

OASIS 20mm Inbitex

3a Laying course crushed limestone 50mm

(Tziampou 2018)

Formpave Red brindle blocks

Rainfall regime and delivery system Previously tested under 100mm/hr, 200mm/hr and 400mm/hr (Nnadi et al. 2014) OASIS® VS Inbitex® Rainfall intensity – Probability of NonExceedance Tested under high and low rainfall (Analysis of hourly rainfall data from Church intensities using a rainfall simulator Lawford weather station 1992-2017) Water storage capacity 10mm/hr - 99.8% non-Exceedance 45mm/hr – 1 in 5 years Delay in peak flow 1 in 500 years event – 124mm/hr (Estimated from Church Lawford weather station data) (MetOffice 2017) 7

Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 10mm/hr 7000

6000

OASIS cumulative discharge

Inbitex cumulative discharge

Control cumulative discharge

Cumulative rainfall input

% Cumulative retained volume

Cumulative water volume (ml)

5000

Control 76% 4000

3000

Inbitex 86%

2000

1000

OASIS 98%

0 1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 45mm/hr

Hydrographs of 1st and 10th rain event of 45mm/hr

â&#x20AC;&#x153;A paving system wherein the water retentive material retains between thirteen and fifty times its own mass of waterâ&#x20AC;? (Lowe 2006)

đ?&#x2018;´đ?&#x2019;&#x201A;đ?&#x2019;&#x201D;đ?&#x2019;&#x201D;đ?&#x2019;&#x2026;đ?&#x2019;&#x201C;đ?&#x2019;&#x161; (g)

OASIS 1

OASIS 2

OASIS 3

60.2

60.1

đ?&#x2018;´đ?&#x2019;&#x201A;đ?&#x2019;&#x201D;đ?&#x2019;&#x201D;đ?&#x2019;&#x201D;đ?&#x2019;&#x201A;đ?&#x2019;&#x2022; (g)

2572.5

đ?&#x2018;´đ?&#x2019;&#x201A;đ?&#x2019;&#x201D;đ?&#x2019;&#x201D;đ?&#x2019;&#x2DC;đ?&#x2019;&#x2020;đ?&#x2019;&#x2022; (g)

2565.2

2500.8

2421.8

% saturated during disassembly

99.7%

97%

94%

Water contained in times of its own mass

41.6

40.5

39.3

Summary OASIS has the potential to provide extra storage capacity in PPS to improve retention performance and delay the peak flow In 26 out of 28 rain events of 10mm/hr, OASIS absorbed 100% of the rainfall volume leaving behind Inbitex which retained fully only the first 4 rain events. Inbitex exhibits delay in peak flow. In 21 out of 28 rain events, Inbitex attenuated the total rainfall volume before discharging any water in a very slow rate of <1ml/min compared to the inflow rate of 15ml/min Inbitex exhibits high variability on water retention % and lag times among specimens 45mm/hr rain events acted as stress tests/indication of the maximum water capacity when responding to extreme events. Further tests will be performed using moderate intensity and medium duration events.

Progress and What’s next? Water treatment Structural integrity Hydraulic performance • Hydraulic performance under low and high rainfall intensities as part of PPS in comparison with Inbitex systems • Water storage capacity • Evaporation rates • Pore size/ pore distribution • Permeability

• Static load tests • Dynamic load tests • Alternative ways of incorporating it (not as a sheet between layers)

References References

Coupe, S., Newman, A., Davies, J. and Robinson, K. (2006) "PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS FOR WATER RECYCLING AND RESUSE: INITIAL RESULTS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS". in 8Th International Conference On Concrete Block Paving [online] held 2006. available from https://www.icpi.org/sites/default/files/resources/technicalpapers/1298_0.pdf

Gomez-Ullate, E., Castillo-Lopez, E., Castro-Fresno, D. and Bayon, J. (2010) "Analysis And Contrast Of Different Pervious Pavements For Management Of Storm-Water In A Parking Area In Northern Spain". Water Resour Manage 25 (6), 1525-1535 Lowe, T. (2006) Paving System. US 8,104,990 B2. US Met Office (2017): Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS) Land and Marine Surface Stations Data (1853-current). NCAS British Atmospheric Data Centre. http://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/220a65615218d5c9cc9e4785a3234bd0 Newman, A., Pratt, C., Coupe, S. and Cresswell, N. (2002) "Oil Biodegradation In Permeable Pavements By Microbial Communities". Water Science Technology 45 (7), 51–56 Nnadi, E., Coupe, S., Sañudo-Fontaneda, L. and Rodriguez-Hernandez, J. (2014). An evaluation of enhanced geotextile layer in permeable pavement to improve stormwater infiltration and attenuation. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 15(10), pp.925-932. OASIS Floral products (2016) OASIS Bricks And Blocks [online] available from <http://oasisfloralproducts.com/e2wShoppingCatalog.aspx?parentId=3100003044&parentLink=2100001003:3100003026:3100003044> Terram (n.d.) Inbitex Geotextile [online] available from <http://www.terram.com/products/geotextiles/inbitex-geotextile.html> [3 August 2018] Woods Ballard, B., Wilson, S., Illman, S., Scott, T., Ashley, R. and Kellagher, R. (2015) The SuDS Manual C753. CIRIA, London Sanudo-Fontaneda, L., Blanco-Fernandez, E., Coupe, S., Carpio-Garcia, J., Newman, A. and Castro-Fresno, D. (2015) The Use Of Geosynthetics In SUDS. Sustainable surface water management susdrain (2008) Susdrain - Ipswich Image_4 [online] available from <https://www.flickr.com/photos/139555361@N08/28186633609/in/album72157692773891495/> [20 August 2018]

Thanks for your attention

SUDSnet International Conference 2018

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain Authors 1,2*Luis

A. Sañudo-Fontaneda, 3Valerio C. Andres-Valeri, 4Jorge RodriguezHernandez, 1Carlos Costales-Campa, 1Fernando Cadenas-Fernandez *Presenter author 1 University

of Oviedo 2 Coventry University 3 Austral University of Chile 4 University of Cantabria Email: sanudoluis@uniovi.es

2 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Research Background – 1984-2014 Reinforced Grass 4.69% Porous blocks Porous Asphalt 0.36% 16.25%

Interlocking Concrete Blocks 17.33%

Porous Concrete 61.37%

Study of 229 publications on Permeable Pavements using the Scopus database between 1984 and 2014. Source: Sañudo Fontaneda 2014, PhD thesis, University of Cantabria. Shttps://repositorio.unican.es/xmlui/handle/10902/5053 The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

3 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Research Background – 1984-2014 45 40

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Year Source: Sañudo Fontaneda 2014. https://repositorio.unican.es/xmlui/handle/10902/5053 The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

Number of publications

4 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Research Background – 2000-2017

Source: Jato-Espino et al. 2017 The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

5 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Location & Climatic Conditions – North Spain

Source: Sañudo-Fontaneda et al. 2014a.

– Temperate climate without a dry season and with temperate-warm summers. Cfb climate (KöppenGeiger climatic classification). – Average temperature: 14-15ºC (year), 10ºC (winter), 20ºC (summer). – Average precipitation: 1,136 mm per annum (fourth highest annual average precipitation in Spain). – 125-150 days per year with precipitation above 1 mm.

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

6 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Methodology – Experimental Car Park General data / ‘Las Llamas’ - Santander Date of construction: 2008. Surface: 1,086 m2. Parking bays: 45. Monitored parking bays: 45. Types of surface: Interlocking Concrete Block Pavement (ICBP), and Porous Asphalt (PA), Polymer Modified Porous Concrete (PMPC), reinforced grass with concrete cells and reinforced grass with plastic cells.

2.4 m

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

7 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Methodology – Experimental Car Park  37 car park bays were monitored o 9 Polymer-Modified Porous Concrete. o 9 Porous Asphalt (Spanish Standard PA-16). o 17 Interlocking Concrete Blocks Pavement (ICBP) of 2 kinds.

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

8 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Methodology – Infiltration Capacity Tests NLT-327/00 test on porous-mixture surfaces

ASTM C1701/C1701M-09 test on porous-mixture surfaces

ASTM C1781/C1781M-15 test on the ICBP surfaces

Source: Sañudo-Fontaneda et al. 2018 http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/4/497 The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

9 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Methodology – Infiltration Capacity Tests

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

10 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Results from the field tests

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

11 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Results and Discussions - Comparison

Source: Bean, E.Z.; Hunt, W.F.; Bidelspach, D.A. Field survey of permeable pavement surface infiltration rates. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2007, 133, 249–255

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

12 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Results and Discussions - Impact INTRODUCING DISCUSSION ON PPS “END-OF-LIFE” INTERNATIONALLY

Source: Sañudo-Fontaneda et al. 2018 http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/4/497 The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

13 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Results and Discussions - Impact INITIAL RESULTS ON POROUS PAVEMENTS - 2014

Source: Sañudo-Fontaneda et al. 2014 http://www.mdpi.com/207 3-4441/6/3/661

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

14 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Conclusions – Important details  PMPC and PA surfaces entirely lost their infiltration capacity after 10 years due to a combination of sediment clogging, traffic load, and design-related decisions (impervious surfaces within the car park did not contribute runoff to the permeable pavement).  A sediment ratio can be estimated to be around 200 g/m2year for this experimental site.  ICBP shows a different hydrological performance than the porous mixtures. ICBP-1 lost 69% of its infiltration capacity over 10 years (2,872 mm/h). HOWEVER… The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

15 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Conclusions – Important details  ICBP shows a different hydrological performance than the porous mixtures. ICBP-2 kept >10,000 mm/h. This scenario can be explained due to the fact that ICBP-2 can cope with 4000 g/m2.  Furthermore, grass growth was observed to occur in the joints between impervious and permeable areas when using ICBP surfaces, marking areas with lesser permeability in those surfaces. Nevertheless, the main reason for clogging near these areas is traffic load and the metallic plate used in the joints between car park bays and impervious and permeable areas with produced visible steps. The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

16 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Conclusions – Bullet Points Permeable Pavements DO WORK in the long term, but they need appropriate MAINTENANCE operations.

Research is key to find out WHEN TO MAINTAIN PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, depending upon local conditions (topography, sediments load, etc.), type of surface, runon vs runoff ratio... Field and laboratory tests should be reliable in order to develop maintenance programmes. IT IS KEY TO PICK THE RIGHT ONES.

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

17 Session 5 – Permeable Pavements and Filter Media

Acknowledgements Project UOStormwater with reference PAPI-17PEMERG-22 Project IDea_SuDS with reference SV-18GIJÓN-1-23

The Hydrological “end-of-life” concept for Permeable Pavement Systems: A Case Study from Northern Spain

Thanks for your attention! Follow us on Twitter:

@UOStormwater #SUDSnet CONTACT Dr. Luis A. SaĂąudo-Fontaneda University of Oviedo Email: sanudoluis@uniovi.es

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

Filter drains redesigned for the 21st Century Jo Bradley â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SDS Limited Twitter @SDSJo_B

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

Filter drains have been around for awhile

â&#x20AC;˘ By Norbert Nagel - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28315330

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

But since then we have introduced a cocktail of pollutants

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

But the concept of filter drains remains sound • Conveys water away from the developed area • Allows clean water (if it is really clean) to soak back into the ground and recharge aquifers and soils • Takes up little space at the side or edge of the development • Provides capacity for attenuation and temporary storage of stormwater • Can fulfil all these roles and yet is easy to design & construct • For linear developments, linear treatment devices such as filter drains give you an impressive capacity for water treatment, flow attenuation and temporary storage for flood risk management. And all that can be delivered in a strip only 500 or 600mm wide at the side of the development

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

But hang on a minute, what about all those pollutants?

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

Where do the suspended solids go?

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

But what about the other pollutants? The soluble ones?

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

So what is in that layer?

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

So where can we use these 21st Century filter drains? • Residential developments – they will cope with the pollutant load from residential parking, pedestrian areas and low trafficked roads. • Commercial & retail developments – they can deal with all the pedestrian areas and low trafficked roads and some car-parks • BUT, as with all discharges to ground, the protection of groundwater must be considered, and if there is any residual risk to the groundwater, the filter drain must be lined and the water taken forward for further treatment, or into a surface water.

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

But what about high risk sites with higher pollution levels?

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

Collection, treatment, storage and release

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last Removes gross suspended solids Removes soluble metals and some more of the solids Can temporarily store stormwater

Lined to protect groundwater when necessary

Water conveyed forward to discharge

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

So they can be used on high risk sites…. • They remove suspended solids and soluble pollutants • They can temporarily store stormwater • They can be made safe in case vehicles drive over them • They provide an impressive capacity for stormwater treatment and detention • BUT groundwater protection remains essential and a full risk assessment must be completed

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

They can be better at pollution control than this:

Innovators in water technology Optimised design, engineered to last

Conclusion • Filter drains are relatively simple but they can also be very effective • They don’t provide all the benefits of vegetative SuDS but they are a useful tool in a good SuDS design • There are new filter materials coming onto the market all the time that can remove a variety of pollutants • They certainly have a role to play in 21st Century drainage design

• Thank you for listening.

Stormwater management in United Kingdom, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Sweden and Netherlands: A comparative study of legislation, methods and systems utilised. Lukasz Koziel Sara Egemose

â&#x20AC;˘ Denmark, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom

Countries chosen

https://mapchart.net/europe.html

• Compare utilised methods for stormwater management

Goal of the study

• Analyze legislations • Find Best Management Practices (BMP) in particular countries • Create a list of lessons learned based on each country

Denmark

• Municipalities responsible for local water action plans • Limitations for usage of SUDS • Stormwater ponds have to have a minimal capacity of 150-250m3/red.ha • Guidelines suggest 1-2 L/s/red.ha – simulate natural runoff • Stormwater ponds are a favored method • Legislation defines stormwater separately from wastewater

(Ovesen et al. 2000; Vollertsen et al. 2012)

Germany

• Clearly defined roles • Two types of runoff: groundwater and stormwater • Groundwater runoff – infiltrates into soil and groundwater • Stormwater runoff – discharged into recipients – no legislation as of 2015 • Flexibility of the federal law allows cooperation between Lands´ • Some Lands are introducing their own – stricter laws

(Dierkes et al. 2015; Nickel et al. 2013)

England

• Non – statutory standards for SUDS • New approach – matching greenfield discharge rates • Drainage system must be robust enough to withstand 1 in 100 year event

(Rouillard et al. 2015, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2015)

• Policies already adapting to the heavier rain – catchment area and sub-area blueprints

Netherlands

• Give space to water instead of holding it back • District water boards

(Hooimeijer et al. 2007)

Sweden

â&#x20AC;˘ Law does not state which government body is responsible for the stormwater on municipal level â&#x20AC;˘ Municipalities are allowed to acquire resources and protective measures agains flooding â&#x20AC;˘ Trial and error process between local authorities and utility companies

(Haghighatafshar et al. 2018)

Poland

• Unprecise writing of the law • Duties and financing not clearly specified • Guideline to design - 1 in 10 in the agricultural and for 1 in 30 in urban areas • Municipalities take the matters into their own hands • Lowest GDP – less sophisticated methods utilised

(Bolt et al. 2012; Slys et al. 2015)

What we have learned through the study…

• Best Available Practice – everyone wants it – noone knows what it is • Top down legislative approach • 5/6 countries treat stormwater as wastewater • Municipalities have to create local water action plans

(Koziel et al. 2018 – in preparation)

Summary Denmark

Germany

England

Sweden

Netherlands

Poland

BAP defined



BAP utilised



Stormwater recognised in law



/



Discharge limitations from SUDS









Size restrictions for ponds





/



Limitations

â&#x20AC;˘ Study conducted primarly in English â&#x20AC;&#x201C; translations from source languages which may lead to mistranslations

Useful links:

Thank you!

• www.Sdu.dk • www.Arwos.dk • www.Innovationsfonden.dk

• N.B. Ovesen, H.L. Iversen, S.E. Larsen, D.-I. Müller-Wohlfeil, L.M. Svendsen, A.S. Blicher, P.M. Jensen; 2000. Discharge conditions in Danish streams. The National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark.(In Danish) • J. Vollertsen, A. H.Nielsen, T. Hvitved-Jacobsen; 2012. Det beskidte vejvand. Trafik og Veje. Vol. 89, 43-45.

References

• C. Dierkes, T. Lucke, B. Helmreich; 2015. General Technical Approvals for Decentralised Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)—The Current Situation in Germany. Sustainability 2015, 7(3), 3031-3051 • D.Nickel, W. Schoenfelderb, D. Medearisc, D. P. Dolowitzd , M. Keeleye, W. Shuster; 2014 German experience in managing stormwater with green infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Vol. 57 • J. J.Rouillard, T. Ball, K. V. Heal, A. D. Reeves; 2015. Policy implementation of catchment-scale flood risk management: Learning from Scotland and England. Environmental Science & Policy. Vol. 50, 155-165

• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 2015. Sustainable Drainage Systems Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems

• F. Hooimeijer, W. Toorn Vrijthoff; 2007. More Urban Water: Design and Management of Dutch Water Cities Urban Water Series. Taylor & Francis e-Library

References

• S. Haghighatafshar, B. Nordlöf, M. Roldin, L.-G. Gustafsson, J. la Cour Jansen, K. Jönsson; 2018.Efficiency of blue-green stormwater retrofits for flood mitigation – Conclusions drawn from a case study in Malmö, Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 207, 60-69 • A. Bolt, E. Burszta-Adamiak, K. Gudelis-Taraszkiewicz, Z. Suligowski, A. Tuszyńska; 2012. Sewage: Design, execution, utilisation

• D. Slys, A. Stec, J. Dziopak; 2015.The Analysis of Possibilities of Using the Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Residential Buildings in Poland

SUDSnetInternational Conference 2018 August 30- 31, 2018, Coventry, United Kingdom

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment M. Mobilia1 and A. Longobardi1,2 1) Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano (SA), Italy. 2) LIDAM, Environmental and Maritime Hydraulics Laboratory, University of Salerno, Fisciano (SA), Italy.

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

The Italian context

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

The case study SOLOFRANA RIVER BASIN 2485000

2490000

2495000

2500000

2505000

2510000

N AVELLINO (Genio Civile) x

E S

4525000

endorheic basin LAURO

4525000

SERINO (Sorg.Pelosi)

SERINO (Sorg.Urcioli)

FORINO 4520000

4520000

SARNO x

SOLOFRA MONTORO

x Hystorical rain gauge stations Main stream network

4515000

Endorheic basin Solofrana basin Affected urban areas

MERCATO S.SEVERINO

4515000

Urban areas

4510000

NOCERA INFERIORE

TRAMONTI (Chiunzi) 2490000

BARONISSI 0

5 Kilometers

PELLEZZANO

2485000

2495000

2500000

2505000

2510000

UNISA CAMPUS

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

The case study

an extreme environmental degradation as a result of uncontrolled outflow of industrial waste and an unsustainable drainage network management

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment 7%

percentage of occurred MDHE (%)

MDHE database A number of about 45 MDHEs (Multiple Damaging Hydrogeological Events) have been recorded, occurred during the period 1951-2014

F/L

29%

64% 50 40 30

20 10 0

l = 0.35

n of affected municipalities

l = 0.6

l = 0.28 3

2014

2011

2008

2005

2002

1999

1996

1993

1990

1987

1984

1981

1978

1975

1972

1969

1966

1963

1960

1957

1954

0 1951

number of occurred MDHE

A. Longobardi, N. Diodato, M. Mobilia. (2016). Historical Storminess and HydroGeological Hazard Temporal Evolution in the Solofrana River Basinâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Southern Italy. Water, 8(9), 398.

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

What the reason for that? 5

LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT EVENT OCCURRENCES

number of occurred MDHE

l = 0.35 4

l = 0.6

l = 0.28 3

CLIMATE CHANGE ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT

2014

2011

2008

2005

2002

1999

1996

1993

1990

1987

1984

1981

1978

1975

1972

1969

1966

1963

1960

1957

1954

1951

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

What the reason for that? 5

l = 0.6

l = 0.28 3

CLIMATE CHANGE

M. Mobilia, F. Califano, A. Longobardi (2015). Analysis of Rainfall Events driving MDHEs Occurred In The Solofrana River Basin, Southern Italy. Procedia Engineering, 119, 1139-1146. F. Califano, M. Mobilia, A. Longobardi (2015). Heavy Rainfall Temporal Characterization In The Peri-Urban Solofrana River Basin, Southern Italy. Procedia Engineering, 119, 1129-1138.

2014

2011

2008

2005

2002

1999

1996

1993

1990

1987

1984

1981

1978

1975

1972

1969

1966

1963

1960

1957

0 1954

2. ABOUT 56% and 44% OF RAINFALL EVENTS ARE CHARACTERIZED BY RETURN PERIOD LOWER THAN 10 AND 5 YEARS RESPECTIVELY

1951

1. ONLY 24 HOURS RAINFALL APPEARED TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT TREND OVER THE STUDIED PERIOD

number of occurred MDHE

l = 0.35

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

What the reason for that? 5

number of occurred MDHE

l = 0.35 4

l = 0.6

l = 0.28 3

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT

Basin

Total area

Name

Pixel

Sarno Calvagnola Complementary Solofrana ISPRA (South)

736237 71087 300314 364836 -

1995 Impervious Built-up area (Pixel) area (%) 54494 7,40 7105 9,99 31638 10,53 15751 4,32 5,00

2014

2011

2008

2005

2002

1999

1996

1993

1990

1987

1984

1981

1978

1975

1972

1969

1966

1963

1960

1957

1954

1951

0 The use of high resolution SAR images for flood risk assessment and flood risk c hanges in periâ&#x20AC;?urban Environments (Principal investigators: COSMO-SkyMed Open Call for Science, ASI, 2016)

2016 Impervious Built-up area (Pixel) area (%) 91123 12,38 9203 12,95 55320 18,42 26600 7,29 6,30

BUILD-UP INDEX INCREASED BY 73% M. Mobilia, A. Longobardi, D. Amitrano, G. Ruello (2018). Analisi dei cambiamenti climatici e di uso del suolo in un bacino peri-urbano prono al rischio idrogeologico. In: XXXVI Convegno di Idraulica e Costruzioni Idrauliche, UniversitĂ Politecnica delle Marche, (Ancona, 12-14 Settembre 2018).

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

I started reading and â&#x20AC;Śâ&#x20AC;Ś

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

UNISA experimental GRs site spring blooming

GR LAYERS

GR1 and GR2 M. Mobilia, A. Longobardi (2017). Smart stormwater management in urban areas by roofs greening. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 10406 LNCS, pp. 455-463 (Proceedings of the ICCSA 2017, International Conference on Computational Science and its Applications, Deep City Workshop, Trieste, 3-6-Luglio 2017)).

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

UNISA experimental GRs site GR1 = expanded clay drainage layer conventional ) GR2 = MODI trays filled with expanded clay drainage layer

M. Mobilia, R. Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Ambrosio, A. Longobardi (2018). Climate, soil moisture and drainage layer properties impact on green roofs in a Mediterranean environment. In 2nd WaterEnergyNEXUS International Conference, (Salerno, 14-17 November 2018).

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

UNISA experimental GRs site

Events

SWMM

Hydrus

Nash cascade

GR1

GR2

GR1

GR2

GR1

GR2

15_01_2018

88%

81%

92%

82%

92%

94%

09_02_2018

95%

74%

90%

87%

94%

86%

15_02_2018

87%

89%

92%

80%

99%

98%

90%

82%

91%

83%

95%

93%

Mean

M. Mobilia, A. Longobardi (2018). Event scale modelling of experimental green roofs runoff in a Mediterranean environment. In In 2nd WaterEnergyNEXUS International Conference, (Salerno, 14-17 November 2018).

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

The Sarno river basin

1. RAINFALL PROPERTIES

2. PERCENTAGE OF RETROFITTED AREA WITH GR

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

The rainfall input 1. Rainfall duration (intensity) 2. Rainfall frequency (T) 3. Rainfall shape (rectangular, triangular, Chicago)

Sarno catchment delay time K ď&#x201A;ť 10 hours

d=3h <K

d = 10 h ď&#x201A;ť K

d = 24 h > K

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

SWMM simulation RV  PF  DT 

24H 10H

Duration

Percentage of Greening 0% 20% 0% 20% 0% 20%

Volume (m3) 1809987.00 0.00 7439649.00 4004388.00 14318038.00 10947493.00

RV ,0  RV ,i

100

RV ,0 PF ,0  PF ,i PF ,0

100

DT ,0  DT ,i DT ,0

100

Volume Reduction (%) 100.00 46.18 23.54

Flooded sections (%) 31.25 0.00 37.50 31.25 31.25 25.00

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

Results (I): rainfall properties 1. DURATION: moving from shorter to longer durations the performance reduction is of about 75% 2. RETURN PERIOD: moving from low to high return period the performance reduction is of about 38% 3. RAINFALL SHAPE: compared to the rectangular shape, triangular shape and Chicago shape led to 3% and 8% performance reduction respectively

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

Results (II): retrofitted percentage area

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

A real event

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

The potential for retrofitting

1. Roof slope 2. Number of stories 3. Roof orientation Wilkinson S. J., Reed R. (2009). Green roof retrofit potential in the central business district. Property Management, 27(5): 284-301.

ONLY 7% OF ROOFS CAN BE RETROFITTED

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

The potential for retrofitting Percentage of Greening 0% 7%

Percentage of Greening 0% 7% GR + 15% PP

Volume (m3) 560 421

Volume (m3) 560 241

Volume Reduction (%) 24.82

Volume Reduction (%) 56.96

Flooded sections (%) 91.67 83.33

Flooded sections (%) 91.67 64.90

A catchment scale analysis of green roofs retrofit potential to mitigate hydrological risk in a Mediterranean environment

Conclusions 35 # Scopus articles (mediterranen)

30 25 20 15 10

5 0 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

35 # Scopus articles (mediterranean & retrofit)

30 25

exisisting urban heritage context matters

20 15 10

5 0 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

SUDSnet International Conference 2018

A new freely-available geospatial databased methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM Authors 1Beatriz

I. Mendez-Fernandez, 1Cristina Allende-Prieto, 2Susanne M. Charlesworth, 1,2Luis A. SaĂąudo-Fontaneda 1 University

of Oviedo 2 Coventry University *Corresponding author

Email: sanudoluis@uniovi.es

2 Session 6 – International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Research Background

Source: Allende-Prieto, C.; Méndez-Fernández, B.I.; SañudoFontaneda, L.A.; Charlesworth, S.M. Development of a Geospatial Data-Based Methodology for Stormwater Management in Urban Areas Using FreelyAvailable Software. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1703.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660 -4601/15/8/1703

A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

3 Session 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Introduction Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) Spatial Data Infrastructures appear as evolution

Geographic

Information

Systems (GIS). We can define an SDI like a GIS implemented on Internet. Geospatial Data + Metadata

INSPIRE (Insfrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) INSPIRE Directive aims to create a European Union spatial data infrastructure for the purposes of EU environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

4 Session 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Introduction GEOGRAPHIC INFORMARION SYSTEMS (GIS) - Tools designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyse, manage, and present spatial or geographic data - Layers combined to form a single map with which we can calculate watersheds, drainage network, direction flow, area, slope, landuse,

type

vegetation,

percentage

imperviousness and catchment width. - Open Source Software: QGIS, GRAS GIS, SAGA GIS. A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

5 Session 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Work flow proposed

A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

6 Session 6 – International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Methodology – Work flow proposed SDI Vectorial, ráster and Lidar data from SDI are input data for analysis spatial connected with metadata.

SOFTWARE GIS Hydrological and spatial analysis tools (QGIS, SAGA GIS, GRASS GIS).

DATABASE Output data from hydrological and spatial analysis are stored in database storage (PostgreSQL and PostGIS) with the database structure designed by GISWATER.

WATER FLOW MODELS The stored geospatial output databases are exported by Giswater to water flow modeling software (SWMM, EPANET or HEC-RAS). A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

7 Session 6 – International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Location of the case study – Gijón Study area: 1.08 km2 Development of the area: • • •

Previous stage (before 2010): rural area with land-use based on agriculture. Development stage: increase in population due to an urbanisation process. Final stage (2018): Large commercial and service buildings (the neighbourhood has a commercial centre, several football ﬁelds and tennis courts, nurseries, and greenhouses, as well as multiple green areas and access roads). Source: Allende-Prieto et al. 2018. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1703 A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

8 Session 6 – International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Climatic Conditions – Gijón – Temperate climate without a dry season and with temperate-warm summers. Cfb climate (KöppenGeiger climatic classification). – Average temperature: 14-15ºC (year), 10ºC (winter), 20ºC (summer). – Average precipitation: 1,136 mm per annum (fourth highest annual average precipitation in Spain). – 125-150 days per year with precipitation above 1 mm. A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

9 Session 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Catchment analyses

A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

10 Session 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Methodology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Catchment analyses

A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

11 Session 6 – International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Results – Impact of the rural sub-catchment STORM “ANA” (December 2017) 49.62 mm over a duration of 12 h. Hydraulic and hydrological calculations developed in the SWMM modelling software were divided into two separate analyses in order to show the impact of rural sub-catchments on the urbanised area: o A first scenario, taking into account the urbanised area without the rural subcatchments surrounding it. o A second scenario, considering the catchment as a whole including adjacent rural areas. A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

12 Session 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Impact of the rural sub-catchment Hydraulic and hydrological calculations developed in the SWMM modelling software were divided into two separate analyses in order to show the impact of rural sub-catchments on the urbanised area: o A first scenario, taking into account the urbanised area without the rural subcatchments surrounding it. o A second scenario, considering the catchment as a whole including adjacent rural areas.

A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

13 Session 6 – International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Conclusions  The combination of GIS and stormwater management design tools is of great importance when assessing the hydrological performance of urban watersheds, especially those in direct contact with rural areas.  The new methodology presented in this research which is based upon freelyavailable geospatial data provides the user with a POWERFUL TOOL FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN.  This research has shown that the combination of several types of freelyavailable software using GISWATER at its core, linking hydraulic analysis programs (such as SWMM) with geographic information systems (such as QGis or SagaGIS) or spatial database managers (such as PostgreSQL or PostGIS) can improve multi-user interactions. Each of these tools alone cannot provide all the necessary functionalities for large-scale projects, but once linked to GISWATER, a unique, fast, efficient, and accurate work methodology results.  There is a great potential for SUDS to be more accurately designed by USING THE METHODOLOGY PROPOSED IN THIS RESEARCH. A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

14 Session 6 – International SuDS and Stormwater Case studies

Acknowledgements Project UOStormwater with reference PAPI-17PEMERG-22 Project IDea_SuDS with reference SV-18GIJÓN-1-23

A new freely-available geospatial data-based methodology for the implementation and assessment of SUDS: linking GIS tools and SWMM

Thanks for your attention! Follow us on Twitter:

@UOStormwater #SUDSnet CONTACT Dr. Luis A. SaĂąudo-Fontaneda University of Oviedo Email: sanudoluis@uniovi.es

IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSESSING PERFORMANCE OF NATURAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT (NFRM) MEASURES: STOUR VALLEY, WARWICKSHIRE-AVON Tom Lavers (PhD Student), Professor Susanne Charlesworth, Dr. Craig Lashford, Dr. Frank Warwick and Dr. Jana Fried Funders: The Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University and Warwickshire County Council Partners: Warwickshire County Council, Environment Agency, Natural England, National Farmers Union and the National Flood Forum

STUDY CATCHMENT & PROBLEM STATEMENT

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

HYDROLOGICALLY UPSCALING EFFECTS

PARTICIPATORY GIS EXAMPLE

PARTICIPATORY GIS SUMMARY  IN TOTAL – 487 INTERVENTIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CO-DESIGNED OVER 36 FARMS/ESTATES

Percentage of catchment area (%)

Percentage of NFM schemes (%)

Tenant farmers Landowning farmers/estates Others

Tenant farmers

Landowning farmers/estates RAFs

R&FPM

PERFORMANCE MODELLING

Â±

CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH USE OBS. DATA:MAPPING: PARTICIPATORY REFINE & PRIORITISE NFRM OPPORTUNITIES:  EngagementR; is delineated a useful tool to obtain ‘localhigh); knowledge’ and test a ‘realistic scenario’…BUT: Spasmodic & esp. ST compaction; variation & arterial drainage Target further engagementQin(low delineations of greatest potentialLCM benefit  refine model scenario  Highly mixed participation was identified and represented in the NFRM opportunities

Identify the ‘high risk’ tributaries & associated farms  test baseline with prioritised NFRM PERFORMANCE MODELLING:

UNDERTAKE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:  Limited obs. data created challenges in generating a reliably calibrated model

Appraise the costs (inc. do nothing) vs benefits (OM1 & 2s) of catchment based NFRM scheme  Benefits identified, esp. <10km2 – even up to 1%AEP

Consider (maintenance?) vs WLB (imp. efficaciousness?) (+CCA) merging CBA with MCA? 2) to v. large events  Negligible WLC at v. large hydrological scales (>100km  Disbenefits of some scenarios, converging Qp’s (caution required)  enlarged D/S Qp

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING, ANY QUESTIONS?

Â© Defra

Investigating the role of tree planting on sub-catchment level runoff in Warwickshire, England; Preliminarily Findings Craig Lashford, Soroush Abolfathi, Thomas Lavers, Nat Revell Centre for Agroecology, Water & Resilience, Coventry University, Priory Street, CV1 5FB

Presentation Structure • Introduce the site • Methodology • Preliminary findings

Summer 2018â&#x20AC;Ś 140 May â&#x20AC;&#x201C; July total rainfall (mm)

Days with more than 10mm rain

120

2012

314

100

2013

137

2014

176

2015

135

2016

156

2017

171

2018

Rainfall (mm)

Month

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

60 40

20 0

May

Jun

Jul

Presentation Structure • Discuss Heart of England Forest Study Site • Proposed methodology • Challenges with undertaking field research

• Preliminary findings from other research…

Study Site: Heart of England Forest • Located in the catchment of the Rivers Alne, Arrow and Avon • 3,750 acres of planted woodland • Planted 1.7 million trees since 2002

• Aim to cover 30,000 acres • Create a connected native forest

Study Site: Heart of England Forest • • • • • •

Biodiversity Climate change Education People Local economy Health and wellbeing

Proposed methodology • Monitor catchments pre and post afforestation • Install depth sensors along the nearby stream • Monitor multiple sub-catchments with trees at differing stages of maturity • Monitor rainfall

Hamilton Data â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SuDS Management Train

25m

Change in level (mm) per mm rainfall

Results: More than 5 mm Rainfall

â&#x20AC;˘ Trend shows a reduction in runoff, in relation to rainfall, throughout the year â&#x20AC;˘ Low level of confidence in results

Summary: Issues with field research • Need for before/after monitoring • Site suitability • Theft/damage to the equipment • Particularly in urban sites!

• Need for long term datasets

Acknowledgements • Heart of England Forest • Coventry University • Environment Agency • Forestry Research • Environmental Monitoring Solutions

Developing a Design and Build Guide for (Scottish) Rural SuDS Alison Duffy, Neil Berwick, Rebecca Wade UWTC Brian Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy, John Shabashow Abertay University a.duffy@abertay.ac.uk

Stewart Moir MOIR Environmental stewart@moir-environmental.co.uk

SUDSnet 2018 31st August 2018

School of Science Engineering and Technology, Division of Built and Natural Environment

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS Design and Build Guide Content •The team •Design information - rapid review (incl. global) •Site visits in Scotland and review UK sites / literature •Develop Scottish Case Studies •Design and Build Guide in plain English • Maximising benefits • Treatment Train Approach • Assess, Select, Design • Recommendations

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS Design & Build Guide: The Team Researchers and Authors Urban SuDS

Highway SuDS

Advisory Group Industrial SuDS

Rural SuDS James Hutton Institute Dr Andy Vinten

The Grandad of SuDS

WWT Anne Harrison

Abertay University Alison Duffy (Researcher) Moir Environmental Stewart Moir (Consultant)

Abertay University John Shabashow (retired SEPA EPO)

Abertay University Neil Berwick (Researcher)

Abertay University Dr Rebecca Wade (Senior Lecturer) Heriot Watt / nee Abertay Dr Brian Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy (Consultant / retired SEPA)

Edinburgh University Prof Kate Heal

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide – design info review Where it all began – US EPA (319 grant program) – 95 studies • USEPA Rural Clean Water Programme (RCWP, 1980’s)

• Nonpoint Source Management Programme (NPS Pollution program, 1990 – ongoing) •

https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-territories

USA BMPS TREATMENT TRAIN 1997 - 2015

• Move towards sediment traps as the most cost-effective structure in high erosion risk situations. tr/w 1%

• Most recent design info – wetlands (not CFW) 1% catchment size Curent et al. 2016

USEPA Success Stories 1997 Sediment Trap Pond Wetland Swale

USEPA Success Stories 2002

Sediment Trap Pond Wetland Swale Sediment Trap

43%

p/w 3%

w/p 1%

w/w 1% CFW 4%

sw 4%

tr 8%

tr/p 17%

P 4% w 3%

Pond Wetland Swale sw/sw 12%

14% 29%

USEPA Success Stories 2015

p/p 1%

14%

32%

27% 36%

27% 46% 7%

20%

sw/tr/p sw/p 5% 5%

tr/tr 21% sw/tr/p/w sw/tr/p

sw/w 3%

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide – design info review Norway • Braskerud small field pond / wetland studies – hilly landscapes, constrained areas – all incorporated sedimentation basins (2001, 2002, 2005) • Structures varied in size - range from 0.06 – 0.38% of the catchment • Results - av retention of 45-75% for soil particles, 21-44% for particulate P and 3-15% for particulate N. • Retention of P in small wetlands 2 x that of small ponds and retention increased with wetland size.

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide – design info review UK Review • EA RSuDS, Avery publication 2012.

• Ranks 23 RSuDS based on cost, effectiveness, benefits. Technical

performance basis ltd at the time.

• Surprisingly no swales, traps or wetlands for steading runoff nor swales to transfer runoff in-field. abertay.ac.uk

Example

Type

RSuDS

S/ F

Literature

Hillocks of Gourdie Farm Brighouse Bay

Mixed Livestock

CFW

Campbell et al. (2004). Vinten et al. 2004 Vinten 2006

Channel Farm, Kinross

Cropland

trap

Lockett 2014.

Lowland farm, east Borders Upland farm east borders MacMerry, East Lothian

Mixed

CFW

Frost et al. 2002. Frost et al. 2004.

stock arable

CFW CFW

S S

Frost et al. 2002. Frost et al. 2004 Frost et al. 2002. Frost et al. 2004

Arable farm, eastern Fife

arable

CFW

Frost et al. 2002. Frost et al. 2004

Dairy farm, West Scotland Mill of Carden, Aberdeen Oldcastles, Galashiels

Grass dairy Livestock Mixed

CFW CFW CFW

S S S

Kinnetsidehead, Galasheils Balgowan farm, Wigtown

Dairy

CFW

2 Frost et al. 2002. Frost et al. 2004 Frost 2004d. Frost 2004e. Master thesis’ 2006 - 2010. Mackenzie 3 and McIlwraith 2015. CRW2015/2.2B field visits Thain 2006. Milne 2006. Cole 2007. Gouriveau 2009

Livestock

CFW

Frost 2004a.

Greenknowes, Borders. Powhillon, Caerlaverock

Mixed Mixed

trap CFW

F S

Frost 2004b. Mackenzie and McIlwraith 2015.

Barnboard, Castle Douglas Low Holehouse Kilmarnock

Mixed

CFW

Mixed

trap / swale

Press Mains, Coldingham

Mixed

Master thesis’ 2008 - 2015. CRW2015/2.2B field visits. 8

Wemyss Farm, Forfar

Mixed

Pond / 2 swales Wetland

CRW2015/2.2B field visits.

Queenscairn, Kelso

Mixed

CFW

Master thesis’ 2008 - 2010. CRW2015/2.2B field visits.

Coldstream Mains Legars, Greenlaw, Kelso

Arable Dairy

CFW CFW

S S

Master thesis’ 2008 - 2015. CRW2015/2.2B field visits. Master thesis’ 2008 - 2015. CRW2015/2.2B field visits.

Letter Farm, Dunkeld

Mainly grazing

CFW

CRW2015/2.2B field visits.

Wester Gospetry, Kinross

Mainly arable

trap

Wester Upper Urquhart, Kinross Mains of Balgavies, Forfar

Dairy

Mixed - Mainly arable

pond / swale trap / pond

Campbell et al. 2004. Vinten et al. 2004 Vinten 2006. 11 CRW2015/2.2B field visits Campbell et al. 2004. CRW2015/2.2B field visits.

CRW2015/2.2B field visits.

Lochton, Coldstream

Mixed

CFW

Stewart 2008. Hamuda 2010. Norman 2012. Hill 2015.

Loch of Srathbeg, Langside Farm, Ayrshire

Mixed Dairy

F S

Napier et al. 2015. Vinten et al. 2004 Heal et al. 2006. Vinten 2006.

Bee Edge Farm, Eyemouth Sandyknowes farm, Kelso

Mixed

Wetland Pond / wetland CFW

Stewart 2008.

Dairy

CFW

Kittyfield Farm, Melrose

Mixed

CFW

Clakmae farm, Earlston

Dairy

CFW

Stewart 2008.

Selkirk Farm, Oxton

Not known Not known

trap Pond x 6

F F

RPA, 2015. RPA, 2015. http://www.tweedforum.org/

Rural SuDS D&B Guide – design info review Scotland UK Example

Type

RSuDS

S/ F

Literature

Greenmount Campus, Ireland Anne Valley, Waterford, Ireland South Finger, WWT Slimbridge

Dairy

CFW

Forbes et al. 2009 Carty et al. 2008 and 2008b.

Farmyard

12 CFW

Carty et al. 2008a and 2008b.

Waterbirds

CFW

WWT case study. Clerici 2013.

Midloe Grange Farm, Cambridgeshire

Livestock

traps x 4

EA and LEAF 2012.

Church Farm, Somerset

Arable

trap / wetland

EA and LEAF 2012. RPA, 2015.

Agricultural Waste Minimisation case study - No/ 6 6 CRW2015/2.2B field visits. Vinten et al. 2004 Vinten 2006. Vinten et al. 2008. 7 RW2015/2.2B field visits.

Green Hall Farm, Wales

Livestock

CFW

EA and LEAF 2012. Mackenzie and McIlwraith 2015.

Elilaw Farm, Netherton, Northumberland Whinton Hill, Plumpton Cumbria Hall Farm, Loddington, Leicestershire

Livestock

S/F

Mixed

Pond / traps / swale ponds

Mixed

3 ponds

Wilkinson and Quinn 2011. Cheviot Future 2013. Barber 2013 MOPS 2 2012b. Ockenden et al. 2012. Ockenden et al. 2014a. Ockenden et al. 2014b. MOPS 2 2012d. Ockenden et al. 2012. Ockenden et al. 2014a. Ockenden et al. 2014b.

Crake Trees Manor, Crosby, Ravensworth, Cumbria Seborwens Farm, Newton Rigg Cumbria

Mainly grazing, Mixed

3 ponds)

1wetland

Sykeside Farm, Cumbria Nafferton Farm, Northumberland

Mixed Mixed

Wetland trap x 2

F F

Barber 2013. Barber et al. 2011. Palmer 2012. Wilkinson et al. 2013. Wilkinson et al. 2014.

Belford Catchment

Pasture

Stewart 2008.

15 16

River Eye Silt traps Sheepdrove Organic Farm

traps/ ponds/ wetlands/ swales trap x 5 CFW

Wilkinson et al. 2008. Wilkinson et al. 2010a. Wilkinson et al. 2010b. Palmer 2012. Wilkinson et al. 2013. Wilkinson et al. 2014. RPA, 2015. Mackenzie and McIlwraith 2015. Mackenzie and McIlwraith 2015.

Stewart 2008.

North Bellshill Farm. Northumberland

Mixed

traps, CFW

Natural England 2013. Catchment Sensitive Farming video www.wwt.org.uk/farmwetlands

Crows Hole Barn

Mixed

trap x2

Wright, S., 2014.

12 13

F S

MOPS 2 2012a. Ockenden et al. 2012. Ockenden et al. 2014a. Ockenden et al. 2014b. MOPS 2 2012c. Ockenden et al. 2012. Ockenden et al. 2014a. Ockenden et al. 2014b.

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; design info review

Scotland

RURAL SUDS SCOTLAND - TT

RURAL SUDS SCOLAND TT, NO CFW

UK vs Scotland Rural SuDS implementation UK

t/p 11%

Field

t 34%

s/t 11%

Rural SuDS Case Studies UK and Scotland UK 0

Scotland 15

p 19%

p/p 13%

s/w 11%

t 13%

p/w 6%

s/p 11%

Steading

s/p/w 9%

s/t/p 6%

p 11%

w 11%

w 9%

t/p 3% s/w 6%

s/p 13%

s/t 3%

RURAL SUDS ENGLAND IRELAND WALES TT Swale Sediment Trap

p/w 18%

s/t/p 6%

t/p/w 6%

t 29%

Pond

Wetland CFW

t/t 6% s/p 6%

p 17%

w 12%

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide – design info review

DEFRA MOPS Study (Okenden et al. 2014) • 10 small field ponds / wetlands provided quantitative evidence for

effectiveness in UK climate/ landscape. • Range in size 0.03-0.75% catchment. • Sediment accumulation over 3 yrs –

sandy soil 70 t, silty 40 t, clay 2 t.

MOPS 2 study results. After Okenden et al. 2014.

• Nutrient retention dependent on sediment mass.

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide Maximising the benefits Habitat provision Rural SuDS can provide

fantastic habitats for a range of wildlife. There is great opportunity to design your Rural SuDS to not

only treat runoff, but attract wildlife and increase connectivity with local habitats. Wet Rural SuDS are particularly attractive to mammals, amphibians, fish, birds and invertebrates.

Rural SuDS will also help you achieve GAEC. abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Treatment Train Approach AECS funding requirement to use a Treatment Train approach. Example Treatment Train Steading

Example Treatment Train Field

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Case Studies Issues

Solution

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Case Studies Issues

Solution

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Size of structure

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Assess, Select, Design Rural SuDS may be used

Use Other Management Options

Runoff from arable fields

Overland runoff from grass fields

Runoff from farm tracks and gateways

Runoff from poorly sited feed sites

Runoff onto rural public roads

Erosion of watercourse banks

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Assess, Select, Design What is a Sediment Trap Bund? What does a Sediment Trap Bund do? What does a Sediment Trap Bund look like?

Description of Feature

What can I use a Sediment Trap Bund for? Minimum (millimetres)

(feet)

Grass strip width *

1,000

The wider the better

Base Width

2,000

6Â˝

---

Base Length

6,000

Width to Length ratio to be 1:3

Base Fall BUND

Depth of trap TRAP

Excavation of a sediment trap bund

Maximum

Side Slopes

(millimetres)

(feet)

Slight fall towards the outlet pipe 600

2 1 in 2

1,500

5 1 in 4

Sediment trap bund in operation

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Assess, Select, Design What is a Wetland?

What does a Wetland do?

Forebay (inlet) deep water with planted margins

What can I use a Wetland for?

What does a Wetland look like?

Vegetated marsh (outlet) very shallow water with a diverse plant habitat

abertay.ac.uk

Rural SuDS D&B Guide – Recommendations There were many… However, key issues: • First attempt for application in the Scottish setting. We strongly recommended that figures are

revisited in 3-5 years time following performance quantification. Assessment should link to function and how design and management influences delivery of benefits

• We also strongly recommended that a programme similar to USEPA 319 is developed by Government to inform farmers / land owners of best practice case studies where water quality improvement from diffuse pollution is evident and also to disseminate to a wider audience for uptake enhancement. • A final strong recommendation - undertake water quality monitoring in a selection of types to prove continued reduction in pollutant loading. This is vital to provide confidence in the systems. Creating

small wetland, ponds and sediment traps is good for biodiversity / wildlife but counterproductive if water quality deteriorates over time (usually due to poor design or lack of maintenance). abertay.ac.uk

Contents • • • •

Sources of Diffuse Pollution Brief History of Rural SuDS Rural SuDS – Examples of Measures Case Study – Dairy Farm, Ayrshire

Agricultural Sources of Diffuse Pollution Yards & roads

Roofs & gardens

Arable field erosion

Washings

Nutrients

Livestock access

SUDS / Rural SuDS SUDS - British Water Definition A sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion than some conventional measures.

Attenuation

Treatment Treatment

Attenuation

Rural SuDS Measures to protect and improve water quality by reducing diffuse pollution caused by agricultural activity especially pollution caused by rainfall runoff during the winter months

Different Runoffs have Different Characteristics POLLUTANT

ROOFS

URBAN ROADS

FARM YARDS

Suspended Solids

Very low

Low – Med

Med – High

BOD

Very Low

Low – Med

Low – High

Nutrients (NPK)

Very Low

Low

Low – High

Hydrocarbons

None

Low – High

Low

Heavy Metals

None

Med – High

None – Low

Brief History & Background to Rural SuDS Early 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the development of SUDS in the UK 1998 -2002 research at SAC Auchincruive, Ayr using Reedbeds for effluent treatment - but no appetite in Government or SEPA for using constructed wetland systems for effluent or runoff Mid 2000â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attitudes began to change 1st April 2008 legislation was introduced that allowed the use of constructed wetlands to treat agricultural runoff The Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations 2008

Constructed Farm Wetlands (CFW) Design Manual (Nov 2008) Very limited success and only a handful of systems installed

TOO BIG - typically x2 the area drained! TOO EXPENSIVE The origin of Rural SuDS Rural SuDS = RSuDS

Current Guidance on Rural SuDS & CFW’s

EA & LEAF SuDS 2010

EA & NU SuDS 2011

EA RSuDS 2012

ü ü SEPA NFMH 2015

WWT CFWs 2015

CREW 2016

CREW 2016 : Rainfall Runoff Areas R u ra l S u D S

Steading Runoff

Yard (& roof) runoff: Clean & General yards

Field Runoff

Erosion runoff from arable fields: winter cereals & root crops

CREW 2016 : Types of Measures to be Used R u ra l S u D S

Steading Runoff ü ü ü ü ü

Swales Sediment Traps Ponds Wetlands Constructed Farm Wetlands (CFW’s)

Field Runoff ü ü ü ü

Sediment Trap Bunds Ponds Wetlands Swales (for the transfer of runoff between measures)

CREW 2016 : Clarification of Design ü ü ü ü

Swales Sediment Traps / Bunds Ponds Wetlands

ü Constructed Farm Wetlands (CFW’s)

Rural SuDS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Swale

Rural SuDS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sediment Trap

Rural SuDS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Pond

Rural SuDS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Wetland

Rural SuDS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Constructed Farm Wetland

Rural SuDS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sediment Trap Bund

Case Study Dairy Farm, Ayrshire

Runoff from the Roof

Roof runoff to RWHT

Runoff from the Clean Yard

Clean yard runoff to Pond

Runoff from the General Yard

General yard runoff to Swale + Pond

Collection of Clean Yard Runoff

Collection of General Yard Runoff to Swale

Swale - August 2018

Pond - Formation

Pond - August 2018

THANK YOU Acknowledgements

Investigation of the potential for SUDS retrofitting at Houston Industrial Estate

Scott Arthur, Brian Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy, Chris Semple Alejandro Sevilla and Vladimir Krivtsov

Project Objectives 1. Identify the typical barriers to SUDS retrofit. 2. Understand what types of SUDS would be suitable within the risks and any constraints presented at a study site; 3. Assess the willingness to install and evaluate the role incentives can play; 4. Investigate how adequate maintenance plans could be put in place for the long term success of the treatment solutions; and, 5. Produce case studies which allow the project findings to be easily transferred to other sites.

Project methodology 1. Business buy-in via a survey & business breakfast workshop. 2. Co-design of SUDS retrofit options. 3. Identification of barriers, willingness & opportunities. 4. Case Study Development. 5. Outputs & testing.

DB Analysis (n=61): Ownership of premises and awareness of GBR Companies which do not own their premises and do not know about GBR

11.48%

Companies which do not own their premises but know about GBR

22.95% 52.46% 13.11%

Companies which own their premises but were not aware of GBR

Companies which own their premises and were aware of GBR

Claimed familiarity with SUDS features and their ownership 80

Know about (% total)

Claim to have it (% total)

Ground Truthing Summary SUDS Types

No. premises CLAIMED

No. NOTES premises VERIFIED

Green roof

Correct: none seen on visits

Raised bed raingarden

Correct: none seen on visits

Gully or downpipe Disconnection Detention basin Drainage planters Permeable blacktop Grass filter strip Grass swale Gravel filter drain

3 7 7 9 11 14

0 0 0 0 0 4

Permeable block pavement

Two gullies diverted into a man-hole in the road [not into greenspace!] None seen on visits None seen on visits None seen on visits None seen on visits None seen on visits Only 4 real examples found. Others refer to gravel surrounding the base of buildings. Ubiquitous on new & redevelopments (but not always recognised by occupiers).

Presence of SUDS around Houston Industrial Estate New developments & GBR10 •

•

Industrial architects and developers or their contractors must be aware of GBR10, since most of the newer developments or redevelopments involving new units have SUDS (see opposite) That knowledge does not seem always to transfer to the occupying businesses Not seen it apply to redevelopment within individual large owneroccupied factories

Types of SUDS seen at premises on Houston Industrial Estate: • Permeable pavement (blocks on sub-base)

• Gravel filter drains (mainly unmaintained, one in a trench which has been ‘cleaned out and stone fill removed’) • Nothing else.

Filter drain feature at Houston Industrial estate

At the Langstane site, a concrete yard had an over-gown gravel which looked like a neglected gravel filter drain, at the lower end of the yard, close to the boundary railings.

Significantly polluted yard drainage(?)

Unfortunately the company have not agreed to talk with us about pollution prevention and SUDS retrofits

Survey Conclusions • Most companies were unaware of the GBRs • The majority of companies which experience flooding did not know the term ‘SUDS’ • Most companies claimed familiarity with some SUDS techniques such as e.g. permeable paving and gravel filter drains • 50 companies claimed familiarity with more than 1 SUDS feature; however, some of that appeared to be ‘wishful thinking’ • Many of the potential plot scale techniques were unfamiliar to most companies • There was a lot of confusion in the companies’ understanding of SUDS features

GBR 10: … runoff from any built developments…after1st April 2007…[is to be] …drained by a SUD system…to avoid pollution

Aerial view of HEI with marked positions for a selection of current study sites

Public SUDS retrofit possibility? • Roadside runoff could be treated in a retrofit swale for at least part of the road up from API Foils towards Langstane • The area of green space apparently available greatly widens prior to the road from Transcal; potential for detention features there • Across that road (would require a large pipe) is a larger extensive area of grass; quite level with slope draining towards the Houston Road: an extended detention basin could receive and treat road and roof drainage from an extensive area

Public SUDS possibility: Firth Road â&#x20AC;˘ The grass area at Firth Road could be a road drainage treatment area, even if the entire network from top of Firth Road and into the grass field at API is not possible

Wyman-Gordon Grass verge could be converted to a swale (Below left)

Car park & approach road could be drained to a series of tree-planters

Many more opportunities on this site for: Retrofit swales; bioretention staff car park features; Gravel filter drains to feed a wide grass filter strip; gully in yard diversions to in-ground biofiltration units; raised bed raingardens, flow attenuation tanks.

DS Smith Packaging and Transcal • Considerable interest and enthusiasm from DS Smith– they even hosted our Breakfast Seminar • Scope for a variety of retrofit SUDS investigations; grass swales; some large downpipe flow attenuation vessels; gravel filter drains; planter hedgerows; • Gully diversions. • One possible locus for a feature in centre of large yard area, & a biofiltration feature in a traffic island. • Abandoned football pitch could be a site feature

• Good co-operation from Transcal • Virtual retrofit possibilities include: – Raised raingarden planters – Swale – Detention basin

• A possibility to link the site to a potential public feature adjacent to API Foils

Breakfast seminar/discussion group • principal barriers for SUDS retrofit were, as anticipated, space, cost and time • Principal opportunities – financial incentives (e.g. from rainwater harvesting or reductions in water charges, in return for provision of retrofit SUDS) – business environment awards – Potential for a ‘Business Forum’

Who is Supportive?

Mibees Naw

Interested

Indifferent

Mibees Aye

Overall Conclusions • Research confirmed that industrial estates are a significant source of pollutants • Hotspots of pollution would be best managed by containment not drainage • Companies have very limited understanding of SUDS techniques • Large areas of contaminated impervious surfaces are present at HIE, exemplifying the need for SUDS • All newer developments have SUDS, but almost always just permeable paving; there is also a need for better maintenance. • Acknowledgements: Funding from Crew & UFR/BGC

DB Analysis (n=61): Experience of flooding and familiarity with the term SUDS 6.56%

24.59%

59.02% 9.84%

Companies which experience flooding and know about SuDS

Companies which experience flooding and do not know about SuDS

Companies which do not experience flooding and know about SuDS

Companies which do not experience flooding and do not know about SuDS

Retrofit opportunities at the smaller premises

Houston Rd Trading Estate is around Napier Square

Only a few have any green space here. But a drain-down flow control vessel could be fitted on a roof downpipe in a corner at more premises

A Communication Tool for Ecosystem Services Associated with Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Dr. Roshni Jose Dr. Rebecca Wade, Prof. David Blackwood

Contents • • • • • • •

Introduction Methodology Case study sites Results Communication Tool Testing of the tool Conclusion

Introduction and Hypothesis • Increased Urbanisation Globally (Urban population predicted to rise from 3.6 billion (2011) to 6.7 billion by 2050 & for the UK from 54 million (2015) to 68 million in 2050 (UN 2018) • Urban green and blue spaces have a crucial role to play in the provision of societal goods and services • A sustainable approach to urban water management offers direct and indirect ecosystem service benefits to people and the environment

Hypothesis: • SUDS provide multi-functional ecosystem services such as cultural and regulating benefits, and there is a value associated with these benefits

Linking SUDS and Ecosystem Services

Woods-Ballard et al 2015

UKNEA 2011

Methodology • Integrated methodology – Physical Sciences and Social Sciences • Methods: • Visual Inspection • Public Participation Survey • Public Participatory GIS • Pond and Wetland Survey

• Case Study sites: • Ardler – Pilot site • Dunfermline Eastern Expansion – Main site • Waterlooville – Test site

Ardler, Dundee Pilot case study site: • Located in north Dundee • Regenerated residential site • SUDS Development started in 2000 • Swales, Detention Basins, Ponds, also: pocket parks, woodland, community garden

Ardler - Cultural Services Perception of Ardler residents - the main features identified at the area

Ecosystem Service benefits provided by SuDS at Ardler

Ardler â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Regulating Services

Secondary data used

Transition from pilot site to main site • Updated greenspace survey • Communication – public survey language • Specific SUDS images added to identify each features • Pond and wetland survey introduced • Air quality data removed • House price valuation data removed

Dunfermline Eastern Expansion (DEX) Main case study site: • Located at east side of Dunfermline • 550ha: new residential development • Previously agricultural / greenfield • Development started in 1994 • Swales, basins, ponds, filter drains, permeable paving and wetland

DEX – Cultural Services

Public perception survey results H- High, M-Medium, L-Low

Public participatory GIS results • Wetland is identified as the most favourite feature • Linburn Pond and basin are the least favourite

DEX – Regulating Services

Scores: H- High, M-Medium, L-Low

Combined results from Primary and Secondary data: • Literature review • Observational data (visual inspection) • Snapshot of experimental data (Pond and wetland survey)

Communication Tool

Waterlooville, Hampshire • Communication Tool - Test site • Berewood homes at West of Waterlooville • 247 ha • Swales, ponds, permeable paving, swales, basins and underground storage • SuDS also incorporate elements of landscaping

Waterlooville results (1) Testing of communication tool: • Respondents: Planners -40% Regulators -15% Designers -15% Researchers -15% Consultants -10%

• Opinion on communication tool: Changed after seeing the tool– 35% Did not change even after seeing the tool- 55% Comparison of scores for pond and swale

Waterlooville results (2) • How to improve the communication tool: • Double counting • Site specific tool • Not a tick box approach for designers • Ecosystem services benefits rated high for SUDS design (85%) • Communication tool rated high for usefulness in SUDS design (30%)

Rating of Communication Tool: Low- 10%, Medium – 45%, High -30% and Missing variables – 15%

Ecosystem Services are important for SUDS: Low – 0, Medium – 15%, High – 85%

Conclusion • SuDS provide multiple benefits to people and the environment • Ecosystem services approach is a useful way to asses and communicate these benefits • The communication tool developed for this work can help to identify the cultural and regulating services provided by SUDS. • The tool can be used by landscape architects, engineers and planners when designing new or retrofit SUDS • More benefits are likely to be gained if ecosystem service benefits are considered at an early stage of the design

Thank you! References: • UN. 2011. World Urbanization Prospects. The 2011 Revision, UN, New York. [Online] Available from: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/pdf/WUP2011_Highlights.pdf [accessed 22 October 2014 • UKNEA 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge. • Woods-Ballard, B. et al. 2015. The SuDS Manual. CIRIA. C753. London. ISBN: 978-0-86017-760-9

Contact info: rjose007@gmail.com or r.wade@abertay.ac.uk

Green Infrastructure Survey on Public Perception of SuDS and the Relationship with the Housing Market PROSuDS - NERC Green Infrastructure Innovation Project Prof. John Williams, Dr. Cletus Moobela, Dr. David Hutchinson, Prof. Mark Gaterall, Mr. Richard Wise and Dr. Roshni Jose

Background to the research • Many calls for the wider use of SuDS, but only about 40% of new developments in England currently include SuDS

• Measures to facilitate SuDS uptake in the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act have not been implemented • SuDS remain desirable, not mandatory, can be omitted if not economically viable.

• Multiple benefits often undervalued in decision making.

Project • NERC Green Infrastructure Innovation Project 2016-2018 • School of Civil Engineering and Surveying • Wide range of partners • Team – Environmental Engineers, Valuation Surveyors, Quantity Surveyors, Ecologists.

Scope of Study Aim • Make recommendations that enable developers to better consider the value of SuDS at the master planning stage

Objectives • To investigate the perceived benefits and problems of living with SuDS and evaluate the willingness of residents to pay for maintenance. • To evaluate the effect of SuDs on property values in housing developments. • To review costing methods and develop a simple tool that can estimate the costs of constructing and maintaining SuDS. • To assess if good quality SuDS have an influence in facilitating planning approvals and the potential savings in design fees.

Case Study Sites • • •

16 housing developments were assessed based on suggestions from the steering group and the wider SuDS community. 6 were selected for further study after site visits. Criteria were: • Exemplar SuDS integrated into development. • Visibility of SuDS • Limited impact of ongoing construction.

• North Hamilton • Hampton • Upton

• Great Western Park (GWP) • Barking Riverside (BkR) • Berewood (Bwd)

Hampton, Peterborough

Upton

North Hamilton

Great Western Park

Barking Riverside

Berewood

Survey response rates and mode of response by site. Site

Code Collection Postal Online Total Response (%) Valid

Berewood Hamptons Great Western Park Riverside North Hamilton Upton Overall

BWd Ham GWP BkR NHa Upt

61 35 39 15 22 45 217

36 36 37 16 22 19 166

5 4 6 3 1 4 23

102 75 82 34 45 68 406

24.5 15.0 16.4 6.8 9.0 13.6 14.0

â&#x20AC;˘ 2916 surveys delivered at six sites (approx. 500 each site)

Reasons for moving to the development as % respondents. 70 60 50

40 30 20 10 0 e n e ls e n e ls e n e ls e n e ls e n e ls e n e ls ut ree Pric oo ut ree Pric o o ut ree Pric o o ut re e Pric o o ut ree Pric o o ut re e Pric oo m m m m m m h h h h h h m G m G m G m G m G m G Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc o o o o o o C C C C C C W Be

R Bk

am H

Ha N

Awareness of SuDS when moving to area as % of respondents

BkR

BWd

GWP

N Y

40.2% 37.8%

38.2%

61.8% 59.8%

Ham

62.2%

NHa

UPt

27.3%

30.3%

36.1%

63.9% 72.7%

69.7%

a) Before Moving

70 60

50 40 30 20 10 0 r s s r r s s r r s s r r s s r r s s r r s s r pe r d nt he pe r d n t he p e r d nt h e pe rd nt he pe r d n t he pe r d nt h e lo oa ge Ot lo oa ge O t lo oa g e O t lo oa ge Ot lo oa ge O t lo oa ge Ot e e e e e e ev B te A ev B t e A ev B t e A ev B t e A ev B t e A ev B t e A D D D D D D ta ta ta ta ta ta s s s s s E E E E E Es R Bk

m Ha

Ha N

b) After Moving

50 40

Residents Awareness of SuDS: Sources of information

30 20 10 0 ds o. p er ar . C t s G t h Bo int en O a id M es R R Bk

ds o. p er ar . C ts G t h Bo int en O a id M es R BW

ds o. p er ar . C ts G t h Bo int en O a id M es R GW

ds o. p er ar . C ts G t h Bo int en O a id M es R m Ha

ds o. p er a r . C ts G t h Bo int en O a id M es R N

ds o. p er ar . C t s G t h Bo int en O a id M es R U

Perceived benefits of SuDS by residents

Perceived problems with SuDS by residents

BkR

Part of £400/a estate charge

80 60

GWP 78

No charge

Residents’ understanding current charges for SuDS

20 1

NHa

No charge

Ham

UPt

~£200/a

~£90/a

60 40

100

150

200 >250

100

150

200 >250

100

150

200 >250

Current Charge, £ BkR

BWd

GWP

80 63

60 42

Willingness to pay more per annum

Frequency

BWd

20 4

Ham

NHa

UPt

80 60 40

49 34

28 19

100

150

200 >250

100

150

Pay More, £

200 >250

100

150

200 >250

Results: SuDS and House prices All Case studies Property Size

6,173

Property Type

37,513

Garage

9,402

Garden

1,919

SuDS value contribution

1,592

• Over all the case studies, the presence of SuDS contributes about £1,600 to a property’s price, just below that of the presence of a garden. • This varied by case study and demonstrated that SuDS had higher contributions to value in areas with prominent green SuDS features

Conclusions • Resident awareness of SuDS was different between the case studies, with developers and information boards the main source of information for house-buyers • SuDS contribution to open space and the benefits for flood management, wildlife habitat and improved urban design were appreciated by residents

• Residents disliked litter/untidy appearance, cost and pests (rats and mosquitos), these related to adoption routes and local conditions • A maintenance regime that emphasised litter removal and providing “cues to care” would mitigate the concerns • Most residents not willing to pay more, older people most willing • Concerns highest when charges were imposed after a period of no charge. • SuDS features are simply subsumed by green spaces and are therefore not a set of systems that are valued independently • Developers need to communicate the benefits of SuDS to residents and provide information boards, emphasising wildlife habitat