IntroductionWater sensitive planning, It’s an approach towardssustainable development that incorporates water requirements and itsconsiderations into the urban as well as regional planning. WSM aims ofimproving the water quality and also improves the planned environment for itsusers and raising the water resources.WSM gives special attention towards stormwater management and reduces the negative impacts of storm water , preservingecosystems and it achieves all these into a very effective way and with theinvolvement of the society. Thus, WSP serves simultaneously andsynergistically social, environmental and economic goals and objectives. (R.
Y.G.Andoh, K.O. Iwugo, 2002)International approaches towards storm watermanagement have been developed in last 20 years and they all are focused onsustainable development.· Argue & Bekele (1994) connected stormwater management with urban and regional planning in order to protect groundwater inaquifers· Wong & Taylor (2002) publishedmanagement practices for treating stormwater quality· Fletcher et al. (2004) dealt with floodprotection and environmental objectives on the regional and national scale· Van Roon et al. 2005; van Roon 2007strives to go beyond alternative stormwater management to an integrated urbanand rural design and development process, studying the various relevant issues,including barriers to implementation Principles(a) Multiplegoals and common means – WSP’s goals encompass preservation of water resources– groundwater, streams, etc.
– quality and quantity; preventing – or at leastdecreasing – flooding, while reducing drainage costs; protection of ecologicalsystems; using runoff water to reduce use from conventional sources; improvedurban quality of life, in terms of green and healthy environment. Frequently,the goals include also promotion of social capital, through peoples’ contactsto advance joint objectives, and interagency cooperation. Each of the WSPmeans/practices, such as detention, retention and infiltration facilities, canpotentially serve several goals simultaneously, thus promoting integration andsynergy in goals achievement.
(b) Integratingresearch approaches and methods – We combined critical reviews of theinternational literature with our own studies, covering a variety of methods:field measurements, simulation with hydrological models, workshops ofbrainstorming with practitioners in various professions, some economicanalysis, social and administrative feasibility study; all these together arethe basis of WSP policy and its principles.(c) Interdisciplinarily– Not only multidisciplinary but also interdisciplinary work of planning anddesign, landscaping, hydrology and water resources management, ecology,economics and sociology. The various disciplinary professionals work togetherand are required to cooperate and integrate their work, starting from theinitial stages of every planning project.(d) Integrationalong levels of planning – Identifying common principles for planning at alllevels, from the private yard to the neighbourhood, city and catchment area(see below ‘The 3Ms of stormwater management’).(e) Integration between research andimplementation aspects – Two-way flow of knowledge, insights and conclusionsbetween researchers and practitioners RegionalWSPThe framework for regional WSP is the drainagebasin, the area from which runoff flows to a single outlet, such as a river, alake or the sea. In recent years, with the trend towards sustainabledevelopment, the term used is: integrated catchment management (ICM). Thisconcept is central in the European Union’s Water Framework Directive (Thornes& Rowntree 2006) that calls for ICM plans for each European river basinwithin the next 15 years.
Yet in most countries, even those that have partlyadopted urban WSP practices, the implementation of regional WSP – or ICM –suffers from lack of appropriate data and cooperative work of scientists anddevelopers (Bowden 1999), and in general is rare (Roy et al. 2008). Some of theliterature on ICM is strictly ecological: ‘Integrated catchment managementseeks to take into account complex relationships within ecosystems: Betweenflora and fauna, between geology and hydrology, between soils and thebiosphere, and between the biosphere and the atmosphere’ (Bowden 1999). Othersare interested in modelling the relationships between surface water andgroundwater (Wheater & Peach 2004). Our work belongs to the group thattries to connect the various aspects and stakeholders: Scientists,professionals, policy makers and the public (Johnson et al. 1996). LikeFalkenmark (2004) we search for the balance between humans and nature. Thecatchment area links two mosaics, one of human water-related activities and theother of water-dependent ecosystems, terrestrial as well as aquatic.
To makethe two compatible, a management task is required.Catchmentarea master plan (CAMP)The tool that is suggested for ICM is a statutoryframework of a CAMP, a plan with hydro-geographical rather than politicalboundaries. The CAMP determines the location of new settlements, extension ofexisting ones and ‘large’ land uses, such as parks, industrial zones, shoppingmalls, power and desalination plants, reservoirs and waste disposal sites.While the primary considerations in determining their location are political,economic and social, WSP requires CAMPs to add to their goals also: Preventingor at least reducing substantially flooding and flood damages; protecting thequality and quantity of water in its sources; preserving local fauna and flora;and nurturing water bodies, mainly lakes and streams that create the balancebetween built and open spaces. For promoting these goals, CAMPs should containcore requirements for runoff management, including delineation of flood plainsat prescribed probabilities, location of retention and detention reservoirs,setting low and high flow limits at certain points along streams and flowpaths, and stating runoff quality criteria. The plan may contain ‘protectionzones’ for water sources, such as along lake shores and around principalsprings and wells. Flood prevention (Blaikie et al.
1994) is a central goal ofregional WSP. Instead of merely protecting against flooding, WSP prefers toolsfor averting flooding downstream by reducing flows leaving constructed upstreamareas of the watershed. A major means for reducing the discharge are urban BMPsthroughout the catchment area. Nehrke & Roesner (2004) showed, by simulationswith rainfall data from Denver and Atlanta a significant reduction of peakdischarges for return periods from 1 to 50 years, by placing a detentionreservoir at the outlet from a planned neighbourhood.
Sinai et al. (2006)suggested constructing in upstream open spaces mini detention reservoirs indepressions of the topography and larger ones in the valleys. Such devices havethe potential of serving multiple purposes, in addition to flood control,including: infiltration into the aquifer, direct use of the water forirrigation of agriculture or landscape elements, settling of suspendedmaterials and its appended pollutants from the runoff to improve its qualitybefore it reaches the lower sections of the stream. Certain actions taken inthe catchment area may incur costs to one segment of the population whilebenefiting another. For example, if recharge of runoff from individual lotsinto the aquifer is made mandatory then the cost is imposed on home owners,while the benefit may accrue to the regional water authority that manages theaquifer.
Similarly, retention upstream will benefit downstream dwellers whileimposing a cost upstream. A catchment area authority should hold responsibilityfor instituting regulations and financial instruments that make the catchment-widedevelopment plan efficient and equitable in terms of sharing costs andbenefits.Partialcatchment planWhere political or practical conditions do not allowtaking the catchment area as a single planning entity, then a partial catchmentplan is a practical alternative (Thornes & Rowntree 2006). A partial planshould clearly indicate the ‘boundary conditions’ at its edges with other partsof the watershed: the expected parameters of runoff reaching it from upstream,and its own effect on areas downstream. Many cases of flooding result frominadequate consideration of such ‘boundary conditions’, for example: a newdevelopment upstream that increases flows downstream without consideration ofthe latter area’s capacity. Frequently, the motivation of a watershed plan iscreation of a regional/metropolitan park based on a rehabilitated river(Brandeis 2004; Schanze et al. 2004).
Regional parks may play a verysignificant role in a regional revitalization processes, may enhance economic,social and cultural regeneration in addition to environmental improvement, asis the case of the Emscher river in the Ruhr area in Germany (Londong 1994; European Academy for the Urban Environment 2007).Delineationof floodplainsSpecial attention should be paid to delineation offloodplains – areas along the stream into which water enters when the flow ishigher than can be carried by the stream channel. Water is stored in thefloodplain, some of it evaporates and some infiltrates into the ground, untilthe rest can flow back into the stream as its flow recedes (CaliforniaDepartment of Water Resources 2007). The extent and delineation of thefloodplains and the frequency and depth of their flooding are matters of’floodplain management’, which must be compatible with the land uses in theseareas (see a British approach in Purnell 2002). Human settlement in floodplainsis dangerous, even if the flooding frequency is low. There have been too manycases of casualties and economic losses in floodplains, such as the documentedMidwestern flood of 1993 that caused $12 to $16 billion in damages (Pinter2005). Frequently, such losses are the result of spreading urbanization, as wasthe case in Curitiba, Brazil World Meteorological Organization and the GlobalWater Partnership (WMO/GWP) 2004. This led to a management policy thatprevented construction and settlements in the floodplain.
Buying out floodplainproperties and designation of floodplains for recreation or for agriculture aregood practices, as these activities can be suspended temporarily duringflooding with acceptable losses. Where planners cannot stop construction infloodplains, measures such as raising the buildings should be obligatory.Necessaryand supporting conditions for implementing WSPIt has been pointed out by others that there areimpediments to implementation of planning approaches similar to WSP (Goonrey etal. 2003; van Roon et al. 2005, and a comprehensive review by Roy et al. 2008).
Experience in several countries, among them the United States, Japan, Australiaand New Zealand, as well as our own experience in Israel, indicates thatimplementation of WSP requires two necessary prerequisites and promotion ofseveral supporting means. The prerequisites are: Legaland statutory frameworks Laws and regulations should be revised in order toovercome institutional constraints, to create planning zones according to ahydro-geographic delineation, and to consider runoff as a resource, not merelya nuisance. Our experience in Israel indicates that this is possible. Recentlegislation has created 11 Basin Authorities, and in 2006/ 2007 the Governmentapproved a statutory national plan for integrating water considerations intourban and regional planning (TAMA 34 B), which was influenced substantially byour recommendations for policy and planning.
Trainingthe relevant professional cadres in the spirit of WSP and interdisciplinarycooperation Conventional paradigms must be abandoned andreplaced by new water-sensitive ones, and practitioners should be equipped withthe necessary knowledge of the appropriate professional guidelines and tools,including advanced calculation methods (see the Canadian Water Balance Modelonline). A series of supporting means can promote the implementation of WSP,including: Economicincentives Recommended in order to encourage ‘water-sensitivebehaviour’ by developers and home owners, in preference to rules andregulations designed to enforce such behaviour. Public–civic partnerships (PCPs) andpublic–private partnerships (PPPs) In an era of ‘new governance’ (Salamon 2002),partnerships with NGOs and/or private developers can promote effective andefficient implementation. The Spanish city Zaragoza, noted for its successfulwater saving programme, states that its success is due to partnership betweenall sectors of society (Zaragoza web site).
Publicityand education Implementation of WSP, especially at themicrolevel (infiltration of runoff on-site, water conservation), requirescitizen commitment and participation. There is ample evidence from cities inWestern countries that citizens show increasing interest in being ‘green'(‘blue/ green’ in our case), and yet, continuous investment in education andpublicity for all stakeholder, from citizens – adults and children – toprofessionals and public officials, is necessary for sustainable success. Continuousdevelopment of knowledge The integration of water consideration into urbanand regional planning, and the effect of BMPs require further studies andsubstantiation by pilot projects. Validating the 3Ms and other principles ofstormwater management mentioned above requires additional field measurementsand simulations, using both sophisticated (for research) and easy-to-use models(for wide implementation by practitioners). Feasibility studies of thecooperation and organization required for WSP implementation is called for.Last but not least, relevant experiences should be documented and lessonsshould be disseminated.
ConclusionsWorkin progress and its paradigmsThe paper reports on a work in progress. We startedfrom sustainable management of urban runoff, moved to the larger space of theriver catchment and to additional WSP subjects, including flood protection,streams rehabilitation, conservation of urban water and using alternative waterresources (the last two are not detailed in this paper). Other fields are stillwaiting to be added to WSP, including soil conservation on the regional scaleand wastewater management in the urban area. Beside the continuous scientificdevelopment of WSP fields, we pursue an educational effort, directed not onlytowards students in academia but also towards the relevant professionalcommunities. A major difficulty is the need to change work habits and workparadigms. The suggested paradigms include:(a) WSPstates that water considerations are intrinsic to urban and regional planningand should be taken into account from the very beginning of every planningproject.
This requires all relevant professionals – hydrologists, water systemsengineers, urban and regional planners, landscape architects, road engineersand ecologists – to work together in an integrated team rather thansequentially.(b) Thenatural hydro-geographical structure (slopes, soils, water bodies and streams)should be the starting point for selecting the location and spatial layout ofany built environment and its open spaces, in every location and at everyscale, from a region to a building lot.(c) WSPrequires to treat stormwater runoff as a resource, not merely a nuisance.Instead of removing runoff from the built areas as quickly as possible, as iscommon in conventional practice, WSP guides the planner and engineer how todesign land use and land cover for managing the quantity and quality of runoff,so that it can be used either directly, for improving the landscape, and/orindirectly for recharging the groundwater. These paradigms are proposed foruniversal WSP implementation, while many of the WSP rules and guidelinessuggested above that are place-related, i.
e., their implementation depends onthe specific land and water and other characteristics of each place. Genericprinciples for sustainable developmentWSP is a central partner in afamily of planning approaches that aims to result in sustainable development.While working on WSP for the last 15 years, we have developed a set ofprinciples that are – in our judgment – generic and should characterize anyplanning project for sustainable development. The eight principles are listedbelow with WSP-related illustrations.
· Synergy in attaining environmental,social and economic goals – WSP has the potential of conserving water resourceswhile improving the urban environment, reducing the danger of flooding,increasing opportunities for recreation and leisure activities and reducingcosts of flooding damages and drainage systems. The message is that planningfor achieving multiple objectives within a single framework is more effectiveand efficient than dealing with each separately. · Professional cooperation and developmentof transdisciplinary new fields of research and action – Disciplinaryboundaries are removed, first by joint formulation of the issues, then in thecooperation for addressing them and finally in the development of new paradigmsand models that would not have evolved within the separate disciplines. · Multiple goals achieved by common means– Consider a park, designed according to WSP rules, that provides recreationalservices to the community and serves as an attraction to tourists, while at thesame time filters runoff to improve its quality and also infiltrates some of itto replenish groundwater; or: a detention reservoir designed to reduce flooddischarges and pollutant loadings that also serve as a visual and recreationalamenity. · Anticipatory (rather than reactive)planning – Investment in means that prevent damages, rather than merely copingwith them after they occur.
For example: effective land use regulations, properroad design and BMPs distributed throughout the watershed all help to retainrunoff close to its origin and reduce runoff flows, thereby reducing the needto protect downstream with large drainage systems and dykes. · Common planning principles at allspatial scales – For example: A design that minimizes the volume, discharge andpollution loading of runoff is applied to regional plans as well as to city andneighbourhood, and down to the individual yard. · Work with nature (not against it) – Forexample: Locate open and built areas, the road system and the drainage systemin harmony with the area’s geo-topohydrography, with special attention to thestream network, contrary to the tendency to sculpt the topography artificially.· ‘Small is beautiful’ (as coined bySchumacher 1973) – Experience demonstrates that large projects can lead tolarge and irreversible damages (see the debates regarding big dams), whilesmall-scale development is more adaptable to local needs and wishes, andmistakes can be corrected more easily.
WSP emphasizes micro- and mezzo-level(yard, neighbourhood) activities.· Finally, working with the community (not ‘forthe community’) – WSP is promoted in democratic societies, where civicawareness and civic participation are being advanced. WSP, like otheringredients of sustainable development, has to grow bottom-up, with support andparticipation of stakeholders, and cannot be promoted just top-down. Whilethe examples that demonstrate each principle were drawn from our experiencewith WSP, the set of eight planning principles is suggested for all projectsaimed at sustainable development.
Adopting them is expected to serve theplanning of sustainable housing and sustainable transportation as well as WSP.