03
Critical study
Critical Study “The Effect Of Climate Change On The Aesthetics Of Water Management In The Urban and Designed Landscape” This 9,500 word study was designed to explore and analyse the effect of climate change on the aesthetics of water management in the urban and designed landscape. The paper identifies problems caused by climate change, looks at ways to deal with issues with current water management, and then assesses solutions, presenting future improvements or possibilities. Water management is critically analysed and reviewed in urban situations, from intricate detail at site level to more holistic systems at city scale, examining a range of examples and case studies to illustrate concepts, with supporting cases in rural and agricultural environments. In particular, the study focuses on Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) and the future of urban development, in Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). The opposite page offers a short excerpt from the paper, from chapter 6, “Discussion: The Future of Water Management & Aesthetic Implications.”
“How could I look my grandchildren in the eye
and say I knew what was happening in the world and did nothing?
”
David Attenborough, from Sunday Times
“ “Ignoring climate change will be the
most costly of all possible choices, for us and our children.
”
Peter Ewins, British Meteorological Office
relatively slow, although increasing government action, which is filtered down to regional and local councils, is improving awareness and recommending best practice. SUDS are encouraged in new builds where possible, though this could be reinforced with law. GI is also on the rise, which compliments SUDS and the use of permeable materials and vegetation for stormwater management. The combination of the two presents a vision of a much greener, attractive future, which tackles climate change and improves society as a whole. Current drainage systems are outdated and insufficient, are not attractive in appearance and lack the capacity to manage the huge volumes of precipitation we are experiencing more regularly. However, this is not just a problem, this is an opportunity. The human impact on climate change suggests we need to review our way of living. Burning fossil fuels, deforestation and using non-renewable energy sources are creating an issue. The impact of these actions is causing extreme weather conditions, which are severely damaging the surroundings we have become accustomed to. Perhaps this should be taken as an opportunity, to start again and build a clean, sustainable, ecologically viable way of living. Shaffer (2012, p.8) suggest that we need to “protect and improve the quality of our watercourses, or improve the natural and built environment.” SUDS offer the chance to begin this process of improving and protecting our environment, yet they are just the first step. SUDS provide solutions to manage water sustainably and improve water quality. They are accessible to all, relatively easy to create and maintain and economically viable. These technologies allow local, on-site management of water, which implement natural resources and exploit their innate processes, to filtrate and recycle water back to the atmosphere. SUDS provide irrigation for surrounding areas, and create attractive spaces, which can improve the character and quality of a site. However, these systems are generally independently installed, and appear more of an afterthought than in an initial design consideration. As Shaffer (2012, p.8) advises, “While SuDS focuses on managing flood risk and water quality, as well as making improvements to biodiversity, it does not necessarily exploit broader water-management opportunities.” Though they offer substantial benefits, if a more organised, focused design process was followed, which based designs around the concept of sustainable water management, could coordinated, well-designed water management networks be created? The future of SUDS is already being explored, in the form of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). This approach, which originates from Australia, offers a broader, more encompassing attitude to water management, which not only focuses on managing runoff and recycling water, but also in creating better quality places, which interact with users and wildlife. The methodology seeks to incorporate the public in the design process, to “increase public perception and acceptance” (Dickhaut and Hoyer, 2011) and moderate costs to avoid alienation. Dickhaut and Hoyer (2011) identify six fundamental facts for successful WSUDs. Firstly, solutions should be water sensitive; they should be aesthetically pleasing; they should function well, with appropriate design and maintenance, with possibility to adapt to future change; they should be usable for recreation and nature conservation; costs should be acceptable, with public involvement to improve acceptance; and all demands should be integrated. These ideals offer the opportunity to create beautiful, functional spaces, which incorporate greenery and wildlife into the cityscape, while convalescing public awareness of sustainable water management. Melbourne Docklands Park in Australia is a prime example, which embodies WSUD principles (Figure 22). The park uses three wetlands to manage stormwater, with a series of storage tanksaround the site, artfully designed to blend into the landscape. “Specifically planted natives and drought tolerant species in the wetlands filter the pollutants from the stormwater” (VicUrban, 2009). The treated water is used for the irrigation of the park, saving “10 million litres of potable water a year” (ibid, 2009). The site is made
”