D.T3.1.6 Comparative Study Analysing the Local Sq And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
D.T3.1.6 COMPARATIVE STUDY ANALYSING THE LOCAL SQ AND PP ASSESSMENTS RESULTS & DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ON OVERALL GAPS Version 1 12 2020 Content A. INTRODUCTION 3 B. FUA’s SELF ASSESSMENTS SYNTESIS .................................................................. 3 B.1.Population growth trend .............................................................................................. 4 B.2.Sealed soil trend ........................................................................................................ 5 B.3.Monthly precipitation ................................................................................................. 6 B.4.Trend of annual precipitation ....................................................................................... 7 B.5.List of main rivers and channels within the FUA, and their flow rate ..................................... 9 B.6.Synthetic water quality evaluation of rivers .................................................................... 10 B.7.Percentage of population with access to the water supply network ...................................... 11 B.8.What kind of water purification/treatment are in use, what is planned? ................................ 12 B.9.Tap water quality - lab test results ............................................................................... 15 B.10.Percentage of loss in the water supply network ............................................................. 16 B.11.Description of eventual dual system wastewater collection network within the FUA ............... 18 B.12.Qualitative description of the first flush rainwater collection technique implemented, if any ... 19 B.13.List of wastewater treatment plants and their population equivalent capacity ...................... 20 B.14.Annual volume of waste water treated by the wastewater plants ....................................... 21 B.15.Annual volume of freshwater extracted from the ground, surface water, other sources. ......... 22 B.16.Daily volume of freshwater used by each person for civil uses ........................................... 23 B.17.Percentages of water used by the civil, industry, and agriculture sectors ............................. 24 B.18.Description of the issues, if any, raised by climate change ................................................ 25 C. FUA’s PUBLIC PERCEPTION SYNTESIS ............................................................... 27 C.1. Habits ................................................................................................................... 27 C.2. Facilities ................................................................................................................ 28 C.3. Water footprint ....................................................................................................... 29 C.4. Rainwater use, greywater and green roofs ..................................................................... 30 C.5. Effects of climate change: are you afraid? ..................................................................... 31 D. CONCLUSIONS 32 Page 1 Page 2 A. Introduction The present report is a comparative study of the main results of the preliminary self- assessments and public perception surveys carried out in the five CWC FUAs. Each paragraph synthesizes and compares the specific results of the different involved FUAs, while conclusions point out the overall gaps, challenges, good practices and potentials related to circular water use. B. FUA’s self assessments syntesis Each assessment is based on 44 indicators revealing the status quo at the FUA level regarding six main topics: Population and territorial configuration Natural water resources Infrastructures enabling the anthropic water cycle Water consumption Potential issues arising due to climate change Local laws and rules regulating the anthropic and natural water cycle and good practices. The assessment required both quantitative and qualitative baseline information that help in understanding local critical issues and opportunities. Indicators always refer to the FUA level. However, FUAs are usually not the territorial units for monitoring activities and data collection, since most of the existing data collected and published by various sources (e.g. environmental agencies and public administrations) refer to different territorial units, such as administrative areas, or areas served by a single service provider (e.g. sewage and water treatment companies). When calculating a quantitative indicator at the FUA level was too difficult or too costly given the available time and budget, i.e. the data could not be retrieved or easily reconstructed, each FUA was using an alternative procedure (described in the FUA level self assessment Manual D.T3.1.1) to get an estimate of the FUA level indicator. Page 3 In this synthesis, a sub set of 18 indicators was selected to present a general overview of the results. The selection process was based mainly on data availability and their significance for benchmarking. B.1.Population growth trend CWC FUAs are much heterogeneous in term of population: three clusters can be identified: - Budapest and Turin FUAs have more than 1.5 million inhabitant - Bydgoszcz FUA has nearly 1 million inhabitants - Maribor and split FUAs have less than 200 thousand inhabitants The most significant rate of increase in a recent 16 years time span was in Turin FUA (+ 6.5%) and in Bydgoszcz FUA (+ 2.9%). Split FUA had the highest population reduction, nearly 10% in 16 years. % growth (2002- 2002 (2011) 2018 2018) Bydgoszcz 830,537 852,265 854,766 + 2.9 % Budapest 1,739,569 1,733,685 1,749,731 + 0.6 % Maribor (*) 111,730 110,871 - 1.9 % Split 189,000 178,000 170,419 - 9.8 % Turin 1,675,419 (*) 1,784,754 + 6.5 % (*) NA, in the chart missing data are estimated with linear trends. Page 4 B.2.Sealed soil trend Data on sealed soil are not available for Maribor FUA while for other FUAs they are available for different years. An homogenous trend comparison is then not possible but some information can be retrieved anyway: - Highest soil sealing: Budapest FUA, close to 50% - Lowest soil sealing: Bydgoszcz FUA, below 10% - Highest soil sealing increase is in recent years:Split FUA, 15% in 5 years - Budapest and Turin FUAs had a low (below 1%) soil sealing increase in a recent 7 years time span 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % change Bydgoszcz - - - 8% - - - - - Budapest - 48.04 - - - - - 48.39 + 0.7% (2012-2018) Maribor - - - - - - - - - Split 24.63 - - - - 28.46 - - +15 % (2011-2016) Turin - 34.15 34.31 34.37 34.50 34.50 + 1.0 % (2012-2018) Page 5 B.3.Monthly precipitation Each FUA provided data about average monthly precipitation. Bydgoszcz and Budapest FUAs have in general the lowest rainfall that is nearly half of the annual rainfall in Turin and Maribor. In Maribor FUA a peak of more than 200 mm is highlighted in May, The months with lowest precipitations are February in Bydgoszcz and Budapest FUAs, December in Maribor FUA, August in Split FUA and January in Turin FUA. Summer in Split FUA has an overall low precipitation, while in the rest of the year precipitation are quite abundant. jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec Bydgoszcz 51 2 28 30 29 32 85 26 17 39 11 62 Budapest 34 28 31 38 59 64 45 52 41 35 49 40 Maribor 32 108 61 67 221 103 81 93 49 53 46 8 Split 76 119 145 57 65 51 14 11 21 97 121 92 Turin 40 43 59 91 124 102 73 83 77 81 106 48 Page 6 B.4.Trend of annual precipitation The trends shows that Bydgoszcz and Budapest FUAs have an average low yearly rainfall. In some years the total rainfall is below 400 mm per year, and in 2011 the precipitation in Budapest was below 300 mm. Turin FU has the highest peaks of yearly rainfall, with 1352 mm in 2010 and 1309 mm in 2014. The precipitation in general have a 400 mm maximum variability form year to year, while in Turin this variability can be also above 600 mm. Historical trend of yearly rainfall is not available for the Split FUA. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Bydgoszcz 459 503 666 512 527 832 467 521 602 452 379 680 751 411 - Budapest 696 464 472 565 479 815 291 384 588 665 599 569 579 493 Maribor 959 903 982 944 1078 986 730 929 924 1238 846 1006 961 926 Split Turin 591 655 704 1166 904 1352 1196 881 1096 1309 962 1054 544 1080 1231 Page 7 The data shows a stable trend in Budapest and Maribor FUAs, while in Bydgoszcz FUA a decreasing trend is happening and in Turin a general increase of yearly rainfall in recorded. Page 8 B.5.List of main rivers and channels within the FUA, and their flow rate Very important rivers run through the Bydgoszcz, Budapest and Maribor FUAs. Also Turin have many significant rivers, even though the Po river, the main Italian river, is in its initial stage in Turin. Split has much lower water flows in rivers: the most important river in Split is the Jadro, with an average 8 m3/s flow rate. Bydgoszcz Wisła NA Toruń 771 m3/s Bydgoszcz Fordon 830 m3/s Brda 49 m3/s Budapest Danube 1837 m3/s other <1 m3/s Maribor Drava 670 m3/s Split River Jadro 8.18 m3/s (peak in March 21.21 m3/s) Turin Po (Torino) 94.39 m3/s Canale Cavour 87.60 m3/s Orco 26.28 m3/s Stura di Lanzo 25.59 m3/s Dora Riparia 24.83 m3/s Page 9 B.6.Synthetic water quality evaluation of rivers The quality of the water in the rivers is generally good in Bydgoszcz and Maribor FUAs. In Turin, each river has different water quality status; in general, the quality is quite good. The Danube in Budapest has a Poor chemical and ecological water quality. Chemical Ecological