Sustainable Drainage System Site Assessment Method Using Urban Ecosystem Services Mak, C, Scholz, M and James, P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sustainable drainage system site assessment method using urban ecosystem services Mak, C, Scholz, M and James, P http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0593-6 Title Sustainable drainage system site assessment method using urban ecosystem services Authors Mak, C, Scholz, M and James, P Type Article URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/40014/ Published Date 2016 USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non-commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. Urban Ecosyst DOI 10.1007/s11252-016-0593-6 Sustainable drainage system site assessment method using urban ecosystem services Chunglim Mak1 & Miklas Scholz2,3 & Philip James1 # The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract The United Kingdom’s recently updated approach scores were produced, which will support SuDS retrofit de- to sustainable drainage enhanced biodiversity and amenity sign decision-making. Large vegetated SuDS sites with per- objectives by incorporating the ecosystem approach and the manent aquatic features were found to be most capable of ecosystem services concept. However, cost-effective and reli- enhancing biodiversity- and amenity-related ecosystem ser- able methods to appraise the biodiversity and amenity values vices. Habitat for species and recreation ecosystem services of potential sustainable drainage system (SuDS) sites and their were also found to be positively linked to each other. Finally, surrounding areas are still lacking, as is a method to enable waste bins on site were found to help reduce dog faeces and designers to distinguish and link the amenity and biodiversity litter coverage. Overall, the findings presented here enable benefits that SuDS schemes can offer. In this paper, therefore, future SuDS retrofit designs to be more wildlife friendly and the authors propose two ecosystem services- and disservices- socially inclusive. based methods (i.e. vegetation structure cover-abundance ex- amination and cultural ecosystem services and disservices var- Keywords Best management practice . Biodiversity . Carbon iables appraisal) to aid SuDS designers to distinguish and link sequestration . Culture . Habitat for species . Vegetation amenity and biodiversity benefits, and allow initial site assess- structure ments to be performed in a cost-effective and reliable fashion. Forty-nine representative sites within Greater Manchester were selected to test the two methods. Amenity and biodiver- Introduction sity were successfully assessed and habitat for species, carbon sequestration, recreation and education ecosystem services The SuDS approach is deemed to be an important tool to enable the UK and other signatory countries to achieve the Water Framework Directive’s good surface water status by Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article 2021 for interim targets or 2027 for full compliance (doi:10.1007/s11252-016-0593-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. (Environment Agency 2014).Sustainabledrainageisanap- proach that facilitates surface waterbodies to achieve the ’ * Miklas Scholz Water Framework Directive s good surface water status by [email protected]; [email protected] offering various storm water management and treatment ser- vices via a set of storm water best management practise tech- niques (e.g., rainwater harvesting, pervious pavements, filter 1 School of Environment and Life Science, Peel Building, The University of Salford, Greater Manchester M5, 4WT, strips, swales, green roofs, ponds, infiltration devices, wet- Salford, England, UK lands, below-ground storage and bio-retention) according to 2 Division of Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Scholz (2015). These techniques can facilitate four ecosystem Lund University, P.O. Box 118, 22100 Lund, Sweden protection activities (1) to combat the changing rainfall pat- 3 School of Computing, Science and Engineering, The University of terns caused by climate change by promoting a more natural Salford, Newton Building, Salford Greater Manchester M5 4WT, way of draining surface runoff (Carter et al. 2015); (2) to Salford, England, UK compensate the loss of permeable land due to increased Urban Ecosyst urbanisation by providing extra capacity to temporary store natural limits and function of the ecosystems (Maltby 2010). storm water runoff and release the water gradually in a con- The approach has twelve principles, and they collectively aim trolled manner (Woods-Ballard et al. 2007; Dickie et al. 2010; to incorporate the economy, society and environment within Moore and Hunt 2012; Scholz et al. 2013); (3) to tackle the three integrated objectives: (1) to fairly and equally share the three urban runoff activities (road run-off, discharge from benefits generated by nature; (2) to sustainably use resources surface water drains and foul waste pipes being wrongly generated by nature; and (3) to conserve nature for the benefits connected with surface water drains) that contribute to urban of future generations (Secretariat of the Convention on diffuse pollution by utilising the treatment train concept (pre- Biological Diversity 2004). vention as well as source, site and regional control (Woods- The ecosystem services are defined as the benefits gener- Ballard et al. 2015)); and (4) to promote the increasing popular ated by nature that are beneficial to human well-being; phys- vegetated SuDS techniques, which contribute to reversing ically, mentally and socially (Daily et al. 1997;Costanzaetal. habitat fragmentation by acting as wildlife corridors and buff- 1998;deGrootetal.2002; Millennium Ecosystem er zones to connect and protect separated and isolated habitats Assessment 2005; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Wallace 2007; due to urbanisation (Kim 2004; Brenneisen 2006; Fisher et al. 2009; The Economics of Ecosystems and Oberndorfer et al. 2007; Jackson and Boutle 2008;Viol Biodiversity 2010;UKNationalEcosystemAssessment et al. 2009; Tonietto et al. 2011; Ksiazek et al. 2012;Moore 2011;Haines-Youngetal.2012;Hansonetal.2012; Bastian and Hunt 2012; Bates et al. 2013;Briers2014). et al. 2013; Scholz and Uzomah 2013). The ecosystem ser- The SuDS approach, therefore, can be used to com- vices concept stems from the ecosystem approach, and is jus- bat increased flood risk, amplified diffuse pollution and tified to be one of the many tools in the management of nature enhanced habitat fragmentation caused by increased ur- to protect the structures and functions of various ecosystems banisation and climate change, which is causing capac- (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004). ity stress and overtaxing of existing urban drainage in- With the new SuDS approach actively recommending the in- frastructure (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; tegration of (predominately vegetated) SuDS techniques with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007;Pitt other green infrastructures such as parks, nature reserves and 2007; Woods-Ballard et al. 2007; Semadeni-Davies gardens (Woods-Ballard et al. 2015), storm water manage- et al. 2008; Astaraie-Imani et al. 2012; Department of ment design, therefore, can now be undertaken both sus- Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2012;UK tainably and also make active improvements to the eco- National Ecosystem Assessment 2011, 2014). system of the entire catchment area, whilst offering social There are many similar storm water management ap- benefits to people living within the catchment (Woods- proaches elsewhere in the world. The low impact development Ballard et al. 2015). This improvement to the SuDS ap- (LID) and the water sensitive urban design (WSUD) concepts proach is a substantial improvement compared to both the are the most prominent in the English-speaking world LIDandtheWSUDapproaches. (Fletcher et al. 2014). All these approaches, however, place However, the new SuDS approach lacks cost-effective, rap- the most emphasis on managing the quantity and controlling id, simple and reliable methods to appraise the biodiversity the quality of storm water, whereas biodiversity improvements and amenity values of potential SuDS sites and their surround- and amenity provisions are of secondary considerations ing areas. This work is a requirement for the initial site and (Woods-Ballard et al. 2007;Fletcheretal.2014). This leads development characteristics surveys to support the planning to sustainable storm water management design and planning and design of SuDS systems in accordance with the updated practises being site-specific and engineering-focused (Jackson SuDS manual (Woods-Ballard et al. 2015). The new SuDS and Boutle 2008; Ashton et al. 2010; Wise et al. 2010; Natural approach also lacks ways to appraise ecosystem disservices, England 2011; Moore and Hunt 2012;Ellis2013;Graham which are end-products generated by the natural environment 3et al. 201 ; Scholz et al. 2013; Scholz and Uzomah 2013; that have negative effects, or costs, to human beings Uzomah et al. 2014; Woods-Ballard et al. 2015). (Lyytimaki et al. 2008; Lyytimaki and Sipila 2009; Dunn In order to address the biodiversity and amenity short-com- 2010; Limburg