Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia.Urban streams are the confluence of human activity and natural system processes, oftentimes revealing the conflicting objectives of both.  Ramifications of poor stream condition have not gone unnoticed as nationwide stream restoration efforts focus on restoring natural conditions based on criteria for ecological health and integrity. Urban watersheds suffer from poor water quality, degraded physical habitat and excessive stormwater runoff as a result of stream channelization, stream bank armoring and a high percentage of impervious landscape within the catchment. The objectives of this paper are to present current efforts in developing a framework for urban watershed management by integrating the concepts and principles of three design paradigms: 1) environmental design, 2) ecological design and 3) engineering design. The focus is to integrate the stream with its urban landscape through long-term management

Collins, J. Victoria

Gattie, David K.

Tollner, E. W.

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech

INTEGRATING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MANAGEMENTOF URBAN ECOSYSTEMSDavid K. Gattie1, Earnest W. Tollner2 and J. Victoria Collins3AUTHORS:  1Assistant Professor, 2Professor, and 3Research Technician, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, TheUniversity of Georgia, Athens, GA  30602-4435.REFERENCE:  Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia.  Kathryn J.Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.    Abstract.  Urban streams are the confluence ofhuman activity and natural system processes,oftentimes revealing the conflicting objectives of both.Ramifications of poor stream condition have not goneunnoticed as nationwide stream restoration efforts focuson restoring natural conditions based on criteria forecological health and integrity.  Urban watershedssuffer from poor water quality, degraded physicalhabitat and excessive stormwater runoff as a result ofstream channelization, stream bank armoring and a highpercentage of impervious landscape within thecatchment.  The objectives of this paper are to presentcurrent efforts in developing a framework for urbanwatershed management by integrating the concepts andprinciples of three design paradigms: 1) environmentaldesign, 2) ecological design and 3) engineering design.The focus is to integrate the stream with its urbanlandscape through long-term management.INTRODUCTION    Urban streams are an artifact of human society andnot a product of natural processes.  As such, thesestreams possess natural tendencies and haverequirements for sustainability that may not becompatible with an urban landscape.  Flooding,meandering, riparian integrity and suitable base floware not necessarily accommodated by the builtenvironment.  Urban stream projects take on variousdescriptors based on project goals and objectives thatare governed by the scope of the project and/or theclientele being served; e.g. restoration, rehabilitation,protection and management (Niemczynowicz, 1999;He, et al., 2000; Wali, et al., 2003).  This papersummarizes recent efforts and the overall approachbeing taken for a small urban stream that has beensignificantly altered by landscape development.APPROACHBackgroundTanyard Creek is a small urban stream located onproperty owned primarily by The University ofGeorgia, Athens-Clarke County and privatelandowners.  Considerable effort has been devoted tounderstanding and improving the hydrological, andecological condition of the stream for environmentaland societal reasons, particularly through themonitoring and public education efforts of SEEDS (aUGA group of Students and Educators for EcologicalDesign and Sustainability).  A design studio in UGA’sCollege of the Environment and Design was held in thesummer 2002 session to develop environmental designoptions for improving the integrity of the Tanyarddrainage area.  Students and faculty from UGA’sEnvironmental Design, Ecology and Engineeringprovided input on constraints that are of particularconcern to each discipline.  Emerging from the debatesand discussions fostered by this session, coupled withextensive literature reviews and research experiences ofcontributing faculty, it was concluded that some of thebasic concepts of environmental, ecological andengineering design were not fundamentallycontradictory but were certainly disconnected.Data CollectionHydrological, biological and land use data havebeen collected in the Tanyard drainage area for anumber of years and indicate concerns: 1) water qualityhas been severely impaired, 2) physical habitat of thestream has been considerably altered, 3) biologicaldiversity is absent, and 4) the stream functionsprimarily as a hydraulic channel for stormwater routingwith pronounced incising and scouring.  Preliminaryanalysis of existing data suggest that the drainage areahas been developed with minimal consideration givento the hydroecological needs of the stream and that thestream network affords little, if any, aesthetic socialvalue to residents within the drainage area.  Essentially,very few residents are even aware of the stream’sexistence - which may be attributed to the fact that overhalf of the stream is underground.Scope, Goals and ObjectivesInitially the focus was on stream restoration andrehabilitation, common terminology for similar effortsworldwide.  However, from a science standpoint thisseemed implausible for at least three reasons: 1) nohydroecological data exist on original streamconditions, 2) the landscape draining into Tanyard is“built”, so goals of restoring the stream to originalconditions are unrealistic, 3) the terms restoration andrehabilitation connote a terminus to the project, and 4)landscape alteration will continue. With this in mind,urban ecosystem management has been adopted as theproject focus along with the following scope, goals andobjectives.Scope – the hydroecological, environmental andsociopolitical components within the Tanyard Creekdrainage networkGoals – 1) ultimately preclude non-remediatedstormwater routing to the stream 2) establish a rainfallwater management paradigm rather than stormwatermanagement 3) install monitoring facilities for rainfall,water quality and stream flows 4) develop a protocolfor biological and ecological monitoring, and 5)establish a functional framework for stakeholders toprovide input, guidance and alternatives to localgovernment and University decision makers well inadvance of landscape alteration---the process will likelybe iterative.Objectives - integrate the Tanyard stream network withits built landscape using an adaptive urban ecosystemmanagement schema that formally integratesengineering, ecological and environmental designprinciples into planning and development.DESIGN ISSUESAn urban ecosystem represents the interface ofthree design paradigms, wherein natural systems self-organize under the influence of landscape alteration bysociety.  At issue are the fundamental principlesgoverning the design process within each paradigm,and the integration of these principles as constraintsacross paradigm boundaries.  A general description ofthe three is given as:Environmental Design (Landscape Architecture)• the art and science of analysis, planning,design, management, preservation andrehabilitation of the landEcological Design• designing to meet human needs whilepreserving the health of planetary lifeEngineering Design• application of the principles of basic andengineering sciences to generate, organize andmanage forces, energy and natural resources inthe design of systems beneficial to society.Engineering may be described as takingavailable natural resources and reorganizingthem at various scales into new structures toperform pre-determined functions.It is the contention of the authors that, as a system,Tanyard is dominated by the engineering designparadigm.  However, it is further contended thatengineering should not be the focus of “blame”; rather,its dominance reflects the lack of integration and thedisconnect of all three paradigms in the planning,development and overall management of Tanyard as asystem.A case in point –Tanyard ecohydrologyAs development and alteration of the Tanyardlandscape have continued, stormwater runoff associatedwith impervious surfaces has increased.  The immediatefocus has been to ensure that flooding of thetransportation system (e.g. roads, parking lots) isprevented, with the solution trending toward routingadditional stormwater directly to Tanyard stream.While the safety issues associated with street floodinghave been accommodated, ecohydrological issues aretypically relegated to “indicator” status; i.e. after anengineering design has been developed andimplemented, the ecological consequences of an alteredhydrology emerge, indicating problems associated withthe initial design.  In this approach, ecosystem functionand structure are relegated to the output phase of thedesign process as indicators rather than constraints inthe initial concept and design phase.The constraint of principles on conceptsWith engineering and ecological design constraintsas necessary elements of urban ecosystem management,alternative stormwater technologies that are structurallyand ecologically functional are necessary.  Moreover,these alternative technologies must be economicallyfeasible and socially acceptable – else they will not beembraced by the human residents of the ecosystem.This introduces the need for the third design paradigm –environmental design (landscape architecture).The concept and design of systems are constrainedby fundamental principles based on specified goals andobjectives.  Management of urban ecosystems forecological function, engineering infrastructure andarchitectural essence necessitate the integration of thedesign principles and concepts inherent to all three, aseach serves to constrain the other to a certain extent.The conceptual design process for planning anddeveloping should then be a concurrent process of thethree paradigms rather than sequential where one isused merely as an indicator of another. The relationshipbetween design principles across the three paradigms issummarized as,Engineering design principles serve to:• constrain environmental and ecological designconcepts to be safe, as well as structurallyfunctional and accommodating (tolerant) ofnature’s forces and the physical and chemicalproperties of natural resourcesEcological design principles serve to:• constrain engineering design concepts torestore/maintain/enhance the health andintegrity of ecosystem function, structure andstability• constrain environmental design concepts toincorporate into the landscape biota that isecologically functional within this settingEnvironmental design principles serve to:• constrain engineering and ecological designconcepts to preserve an aesthetic essence-of-place for the residents of the landscapeCONCLUSIONSThe complexity of urban ecosystems can be attributedto the wide ranging gradient of issues affecting urbanecosystem function - social, political, environmentaland technical.  As with any holistic system, a singlechange propagates throughout the system, ultimatelyaffecting its overall function.  Changes to thefundamental blueprint of the system should then besubject to a concurrent, iterative design process withengineering, ecological and environmental designprinciples serving as fundamental constraints one to theother.  The Tanyard urban ecosystem does not reflect asystem constrained by engineering, ecological andenvironmental design principles; rather it is the result ofthe failure to integrate the three. Tanyard has notnecessarily been over-engineered so much as it lacksecological and environmental design principles andconcepts in its long history of development.FUTURE DIRECTIONThe conceptual approach of integrating threetraditionally disconnected design paradigms remains adaunting challenge.  One difficulty lies with thedifficulty of implementing change while measuringecological and hydrological response within thepolitical confines of an urban ecosystem.  Clearly,experimental change requires crossing politicalboundaries and overcoming geopolitical conflicts.Within the past 2-3 decades urban watersheds havegained attention in research and academia.  In general,efforts focus on stormwater quality, the ripariancorridor, stream banks and physical habitat (U.S. Dept.of Commerce).  While these remain concerns forTanyard Creek, water volume is considered to be themost immediate as the stream is subjected to frequentflooding beyond bankfull flows.  The authors argue thatefforts in-stream and within the corridor will remainhigh maintenance and temporary if not accompanied byefforts to preclude or at least significantly reduce thegeneration of stormwater associated with buildings andhighly impervious landscapes.  We propose thatstormwater be the initial focus of the project.Excessive stormwater is an outcome of thedominance of the engineering design paradigm.  Thephilosophical thrust for future work will be to shiftfrom stormwater management to water/natural resourcemanagement.  The success of this approach is enhancedby the fact that a significant portion of the land isowned by The University of Georgia, who is workingdiligently with faculty and students to integrate thethree design paradigms through education and researchefforts.  This venture will facilitate a much neededstudy of a small urban ecosystem as a joint effortbetween research and a governing body to implementchange coincident with appropriate monitoring tomeasure ecological and hydrological response.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS    The authors would like to thank Jack Crowley, Deanof The College of the Environment and Design, forholding the summer studio on Tanyard and providingthe academic arena for concepts discussed in this paper;SEEDS, which continues to provide much neededinformation on Tanyard; and Danny Sniff, KevinKirsche and Cameron Teeter of The University ofGeorgia’s Facilities Planning Office and Dexter Adamsof The University of Georgia’s Grounds Department fortheir expertise and vision for the Tanyard ecosystem.REFERENCESHe, Chansheng, S. B. Malcolm, K. A. Dahlberg and Fu,  B, 2000. A conceptual framework for integrating  hydrological and biological indicators into watershed  management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49:25-  34.Niemczynowicz, J, 1999. Urban hydrology and water  management – present and future challenges. Urban  Water, 1:1-14.Wali, A, G. Darlow, C. Fialkowski, M. Tudor, H. del  Campo and D. Stotz, 2003. New methodologies for  interdisciplinary research and action in an urban  ecosystem in Chicago. Conservation Ecology, 7(3):2.  U.S. Dept. Commerce, NTIS.  1998. Stream Corridor  Restoration: Principles, Practices and Processes.

Integrating Design Criteria for Management of Urban Ecosystems

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/48288/1/Gattie_4.4.4.PDF

Integrating Design Criteria for Management of Urban Ecosystems

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarly Materials And Research @ Georgia Tech