An Integrated Plan to Sustainably Enable the City of Riohacha (Colombia) to Cope with Increasing Urban Flooding, while Improving Its Environmental Setting
Abstract
:1. Riohacha: An Emblematic Developing Coastal Town in Colombia
1.1. Context, Strengths and Weaknesses of the Case
1.2. Critical Issues
2. The Riohacha Project: Methodology and Contribution
2.1. The Project “Green Urban Adaptation” in Riohacha
- (1)
- Territorial-hydraulic characterization with specific surveys.
- (2)
- Detailed inquiry of the local population to obtain data on actual flood depths to calibrate the proposed model—MODCEL [20,21]—(basically searching for flood marks in each house inquired); this step together with the previous one, allowed us to overcome the lack of data and to fill gaps about system topography and geometry.
- (3)
- Prediction of future conditions related to climate change (both precipitation events and sea level rise) and population development.
- (4)
- Systematic review of existing studies/projects to create, together with people inputs, a portfolio of “solution options” and then, with these, a number of solution alternatives (denoted “ALTs”); notice that “solution options” refer to single measures, while a “solution alternative (ALT)” is indeed a full plan and has a specific meaning, being an organized package of solution options to be applied in particular locations and with specified characteristics. This is the term we adopt in the following.
- (5)
- GIS algorithms to support database preparation and to estimate impacts (e.g., flooded areas and affected houses).
- (6)
- Application of the MODCEL hydrodynamic simulation model for exploring system responses to alternative solutions.
- (7)
- Integrated multicriteria evaluation of solution alternatives to assess their relative performance under different criteria considering the environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The evaluation was then complemented by a simplified but sensible Cost–Benefit analysis of the candidate alternative.
- (8)
- Highly participatory process at both inter-institutional and community levels with a series of workshops and the conduction of an info point.
- (9)
- Production of technical and educational informative material; and several dissemination, training and capacity-building events and publications.
2.2. Evolving Paradigms to Address Urban Drainage and Flood Management
3. The Supporting Tools: GIS and MODCEL
3.1. Role of GIS in Capturing Information from the Inquiry
3.2. MODCEL
3.2.1. Model Calibration and Validation
4. Multi-Objective Participatory Framework
4.1. Participatory Process
- The “inquiry”, a structured survey carried out in approximately 450 households with a detailed, pre-defined form in order to: (i) obtain the most reliable data on historical flood levels to calibrate the simulation model (as discussed previously); (ii) improve knowledge about the local water paths during flooding (as shown in Figure 7); (iii) gather information for empirical estimation of flood damages (or at least a comparison with technical estimates); and (iv) assess people’s attitude towards possible solutions. This four-month phase proved to be indispensable and the information obtained was stored in an Access® Data Base (DB) designed ad hoc through which it is possible to create output report tables for the different purposes. This DB has the potential to become an operational tool in the future to register in a systematic fashion the information concerning future events.
- Public events, beginning with the project kick-off in March 2014, where people expressed deep disappointment due to longstanding promises followed by little concrete action.
- Several local workshops to cover all the urban districts, to present the project to the people and thus obtain information about local problems, identify local solution proposals (to be considered and tested), present the partial conclusions from the study and openly discuss pros and cons of the options for inclusion in the solution plan. A key result was the engagement of people, overcoming the first negative impressions (highlighted in the previous item), and also a first step of education about key behavior of possible solution options.
- A permanent information point (“Casa abierta”—Open house) where information concerning the development of the project was progressively updated and put in front of people with the presence of project staff twice a week, to provide explanations and gather comments and suggestions.
- Educational tools to be brought to schools and to the families through children, namely a booklet (“Cartilla”) on typical wrong and right behaviors concerning floods; and a social game (a bit like Monopoly) called “Construye tu casa” (Build your house) through which again typical behaviors can be tested versus the possible hazards while going through the bureaucracy, corruption and technicalities in order to build a new house in a growing town (both tools are available at the project web page: http://modcelrhcdatos.wix.com/modcel-riohacha).
4.2. Key Objectives and the Need for an Integrated Evaluation Framework
4.3. Solution Options: Systematisation of Proposed Options
- (1)
- Floodable urban parks and recreation areas/fields
- (2)
- Storage measures: rain collecting roofs with cisterns
- (3)
- Infiltration measures: permeable parking areas
- (4)
- Connectivity improvement of the wetlands (recovering natural thalweg continuity)
- (5)
- Morphological modification of wetlands (increasing volume and optimizing outlets)
- (6)
- Artificial surface and subterranean drainage canals and pipes
- (7)
- Artificial subterranean storage tanks
- (8)
- Pumping stations
- (9)
- Defense works (like dikes to protect particular areas or assets)
- (10)
- Change of land use (constraints for future urbanization)
- (11)
- Adaptation in situ or removal of houses (to avoid flooding by eliminating exposure) and their reconstruction elsewhere.
4.4. Linking Solution Options to Effects
5. The Solution Alternatives (ALTs) and Their Evaluation
5.1. Conception of Solution Alternatives
5.2. Synthetic Presentation of the ALT_R: the Proposed Plan for Flood Risk Control
- (1)
- Adaptation zones—where existing houses have to be adapted to face harsher hydrological events with no or much less damages. It is determined by merging:
- floodable zones with T10 for ALT_R: although the philosophy is to establish safety against a T10 event, it is not ensured that no floodable zones remain; it is there that adaptation is most needed.
- topographic low zones with affected houses: local low zones that naturally tend to be flooded due to rainfall where some houses have already been affected (there may be other low zones where no damages have been reported because local natural or artificial drainages do work). Such zones are determined through a GIS operation on the DTM (hydrological analysis and intersection with the shapefile of affected houses, identified in the inquiry).
- (2)
- Non-urbanization zones—where further urbanization has to be prevented. These are determined by merging:
- floodable zones with T100CC for ALT_R: it is always possible that an event harsher than the design occurs; thus, it does not make sense to increase the exposed values where such an events would flood.
- floodable zones with T100CC for ALT_Base: this measure would not make sense if the solution ALT_R is implemented; however, moving from current situation to the planned ALT_R will take years if not decades and during all this time the risk will remain and it would be wrong to increase it. Such zones will be freed only after ALT_R is fully implemented. It is a precautionary measure.
- topographic low zones: it would be unwise to foster urbanization there (only suitable constructions can be allowed, like those on piles).
- (3)
- Delocalization zones—houses present in these zones have to be removed, and then reconstructed elsewhere in safe zones. These delocalization zones are determined by merging all zones where structural interventions incompatible with the presence of houses are foreseen within the solution ALT_R. In particular:
- morphological modification of wetlands;
- re-connection of wetlands (green corridor);
- (some of the) floodable parks; and
- surface drainage system.
5.3. Synthesizing the Evaluation: Cases, Effect Table and Evaluation Matrix
- Environmental value: on the one hand, a holistic, subjective judgment is given concerning the continuity of the natural hydraulic system. On the other hand, the net green area created by the considered alternative, with respect to ALT_Base, is determined. This requires the following GIS: (i) create the potential new green area with a “merge” function between the solution option shapefiles for green corridors, morphological modification of “humedales”, interconnection of “humedales”, and floodable parks; (ii) erase the zones already green (as identified from a supervised classification of the satellite image available); (iii) merge the zones that will not experience urbanization, given the no-urbanization measure (a land-use constraint), minus those zones already urbanized; and (iv) erase from the resulting zones those in which just adaptation of houses is foreseen (no removal), because those areas will not become green, but rather just resilient (while greening is assumed to be a natural consequence where removal occurs).
- Risk: the fragility (proxy for residual risk) is simply determined by counting the artificial works related to flood control (assuming that 100 m of a linear structure counts as one work). The number of affected houses is simply determined by applying the scheme already presented in Figure 13.
- Disturbance: it is the number of houses to be removed (only the existing ones falling in removal zones) and the number of those to be adapted (existing ones falling in adaptation zones).
- Feasibility: this is the area where the POT (land use and urbanization plan) has to be modified, determined as the intersection between the urbanizable area according to the POT and the no-urbanization area from the shapefile of the corresponding measure.
- Cost and financial sustainability: a parametric, unit estimation of construction and Operation and Management (OM) costs was previously estimated for each solution option; so that for each alternative, we just multiplied and summed the magnitudes (areas, lengths, number,etc.) of the corresponding option times the corresponding unit costs. Additionally, a specific estimate of Replacement costs (R) was carried out considering the typical expected life of each option and assuming that after each such period, a reconstruction cost will be incurred, although weighted by the adopted discount factor raised to the corresponding time index, during the planning interval of 50 years. The (un)sustainability is hence expressed as the OMR capitalized cost, reconverted into constant annuities.
- The business-as-usual (ALT_Base) alternative is indeed not acceptable because of the high number of houses affected by flooding.
- None of the considered alternatives actually dominates any other, as there always is at least one criterion under which another alternative is preferable.
- ALT_VIVIENDAS seems quite interesting since it is almost equivalent to the R alternatives, and even slightly better from a stand point of risk because it establishes safe conditions against a T10 event, is just slightly less robust for T100, but less fragile (fewer elements sensitive to failure). It costs slightly less than R3 overall and implies much lower OMR costs. However, its disturbance is high because it requires adapting a large number of houses. It also performs decidedly worse environmentally since it does not recover the hydraulic continuity of the system of wetlands and brings just half the new green area (thanks to avoided urbanization) compared to the R alternatives.
- the permeable parking areas; and
- the rainfall gathering roofs (and associated tanks).
5.4. Relative Importance Judgments and Choice
- the flood risk is indeed a significant problem that cannot be ignored;
- the town suffers from a limited presence of green areas and the abandonment of the wetlands system; and
- for the municipal government, the maintenance cost (OMR) is clearly more important than the investment cost because of the higher chance of covering a large portion of the latter through outside money (cooperation arrangements, governmental support, etc.), while the OMR cost has to be covered yearly through revenues that eventually the same municipal government has to ensure and disburse (endogenous resources).
- The economically most efficient alternative is “ALT_VIVIENDAS” (which does not foresee any hydraulic intervention and just adapts the affected houses and imposes a land use constraint for the future).
- In order to show a non-negative CBA balance of such an alternative, the parameter c must assume at least the value of 17.2 M$/house/event; this is a relatively high value, approximating half the average cost of full adaptation of a house in the same place, but does not seem to be that far from reality.
- In order for the ALT_R3 to be viable (even if not the best one), the unit damage c must assume at least the value 19.9 M$/house/event, which is almost coincident with the ALT_VIVIENDAS’ value.
- This is a simplified evaluation because the damage in reality does depend on the hydraulic characteristics of the event and on the type of house.
- It does not consider the residual risk associated with the failure of works (which would add advantages with respect to the ALT_VIVIENDAS).
- It does not include the loss of land value because of land use development constraints (larger area for ALT_VIVIENDAS than others).
- The actual damage (and the risk) also includes the indirect and the intangible components (e.g., the disturbance and suffering associated with being flooded even if the house is adapted and is not susceptible to losses, including sickness and lost working days), and as such the benefit from “risk reduction” is certainly larger than the one estimated here.
- Moreover, the analysis does not include the benefit (associated with the R ALTs) of increasing the green corridor and improving the hydraulic continuity of the wetlands system.
- Furthermore, it does not consider the drawback associated with the disturbance to people because of adaptation of such a large number of houses (much larger for ALT_VIVIENDAS than for the other alternatives), which would certainly be a social issue and bring opposition.
6. Conclusions and Lessons Learnt
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). Valoración de daños y pérdidas. Ola invernal en Colombia 2010–2011; Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL): Bogotá, Colombi, 2012. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras (INVEMAR). Programa Holandés de asistencia para estudios en Cambio Climático: Colombia. Definición de la vulnerabilidad de los sistemas bio-geofisicos y socioeconómicos debido a un cambio en el nivel del mar en la zona costera colombiana (Caribe, Insular y Pacifica) y medidas para su adaptación. Available online: http://www.eco-index.org/search/pdfs/colombia.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2016). (In Spanish)
- Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM). Vulnerabilidad y adaptación de la zona costera colombiana al ascenso acelerado del nivel del mar. Available online: http://www.ops.org.bo/textocompleto/iam21406.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2016). (In Spanish)
- Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). Estudio regional de los efectos del cambio climático en la costa de América Latina y el Caribe (ALyC). Available online: http://www.lariocc.es/es/reuniones-documentos/reuniones/2._RESUMEN_PROYECTO_COSTAS_ALYC_UC_tcm25-224239.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2016). (In Spanish)
- Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Estrategia Colombiana de Desarrollo Bajo en Carbono. Available online: https://www.minambiente.gov.co/index.php/component/content/article/469-plantilla-cambio-climatico-25#documentos (accessed on 8 January 2016). (In Spanish)
- Miguez, M.G.; Mascarenhas, F.C.B.; Magalhães, L.P.C. Multifunctional landscapes for urban flood control in developing countries. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2007, 2, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, T.; Pomeroy, C. Decentralization of LID (e.g. Municipal Rainwater Harvesting Program) for Reducing Stormwater Runoff. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012: Crossing Boundaries, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 20–24 May 2012.
- Fassman, E.A.; Blackbourn, S. Urban runoff mitigation by a permeable pavement system over impermeable soils. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2010, 15, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregoire, B.G.; Clausen, J.C. Effect of a modular extensive green roof on stormwater runoff and water quality. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahiablame, L.M.; Engel, B.A.; Chaubey, I. Effectiveness of Low Impact Development Practices: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 4253–4273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miguez, M.G.; Bahiense, J.M.; Rezende, O.M.; Veról, A.P. Sustainable Urban Drainage Approach, Focusing on LID Techniques, Applied to the Design of New Housing Subdivisions in the Context of a Growing City. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2014, 9, 538–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binder, W. Restoration of rivers and floodplains in Bavaria. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on River Restoration, Zagreb, Croatia, 17–21 May 2004.
- Centro Italiano per la Riqualificazione Fluviale (CIRF). La riqualificazione fluviale in Italia: linee guida, strumenti ed esperienze per gestire i corsi d'a cqua e il territorio, 1st ed.; Nardini, A., Sansoni, G., Eds.; Mazzanti: Venezia, Italy, 2006. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
- Dufour, S.E.; Piégay, H. From the Myth of a Lost Paradise to Targeted River Restoration: Forget Natural References and Focus on Human Benefits. River Resear. Appl. 2009, 25, 568–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González Del Tánago, M.; García De Jalón, D. Restauración de ríos. Guía metodológica para la elaboración de proyectos; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente: Madrid, Spain, 2007. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Gusmaroli, G.; Bizzi, S.; Lafratta, R. L’approccio della Riqualificazione Fluviale in Ambito Urbano: Esperienze e Opportunittà. In Proceedings of the 4° Convegno Nazionale di Idraulica Urbana, Venezia, Italy, 21–24 June 2011. (In Italian)
- Leummens, H.; Menke, U. ECRR Addressing Practitioners; Every Child Ready to Read (ECRR) Productions: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kibel, P.S. Rivertown: Rethinking Urban Rivers; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Mascarenhas, F.C.B.; Miguez, M.G. Urban flood control through a mathematical flow cell model. Water Int. 2002, 27, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascarenhas, F.C.B.; Toda, K.; Miguez, M.G.; Inoue, K. Flood Risk Simulation; Wessex Institute (WIT): Southampton, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lasage, R.; Muis, S.; Sardella, C.; van Drunen, M.A.; Verburg, P.H.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. A stepwise, Participatory Approach to Design and Implement Community Based Adaptation to Droughts in the Peruvian Andes. Sustainability 2015, 7, 1742–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andoh, R.Y.G.; Iwugo, K.O. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: A UK Perspective. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Portland, OR, USA, 4–6 September 2002.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds; Muthukrishnan, S., Madge, B., Selvakumar, A., Field, R., Sullivan, D., Eds.; Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Elliott, A.H.; Trowsdale, S.A. A review of models for low impact urban stormwater drainage. Environ.l Model. Software 2007, 22, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coffman, L.S.; Cheng, M.; Weinstein, N.; Clar, M. Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis and Design; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Chicago, IL, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Woods-Ballard, B.; Kellagher, R.; Martin, P.; Bray, R.; Shaffer, P. The SUDS Manual; Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) C697; CIRIA: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Argue, J.R. WSUD: Basic Procedures for ‘Source Control’ of Stormwater—A Handbook for Australian Practice. Available online: http://www.waterbucket.ca/rm/sites/wbcrm/documents/media/55.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2016).
- Melbourne Water. WSUD Engineering Procedures: Stormwater; Commonwealth Scientific And Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Coombes, P.J.; Argue, J.R.; Kuczera, G. Figtree Place: A Case Study in Water Sensitive Urban Development (WSUD). Urban Water 1999, 1, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, T.D.; Shuster, W.; Hunt, W.F.; Ashley, R.; Butler, D.; Arthur, S.; Trowsdale, S.; Barraud, S.; Semadeni-Davies, A.; Bertrand-Krajewski, J.; et al. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more—The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miguez, M.G.; Rezende, O.M.; Veról, A.P. City Growth and Urban Drainage Alternatives: Sustainability Challenge. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2014, 140, 04014026. [Google Scholar]
- Miguez, M.G.; Mascarenhas, F.C.B.; Magalhães, L.P.C.; D’Alterio, C.F.V. Planning and Design of Urban Flood Control Measures: Assessing Effects Combination. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2009, 135, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanobetti, D.; Lorgeré, H. Le Modele Mathématique du Delta du Mékong. La Houille Blanche 1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abily, M.; Duluc, C.M.; Faes, J.B.; Gourbesville, P. Performance assessment of modelling tools for high resolution runoff simulation over an industrial site. J. Hydroinform. 2013, 15, 1296–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DHI. DHI models. Available online: https://www.dhigroup.com/ (accessed on 29 January 2016).
- Crowder, R.A.; Pepper, A.T.; Whitlow, C.; Sleigh, A.; Wright, N.; Tomlin, C. Benchmarking of Hydraulic River Modelling Software Packages; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Néelz, S.; Pender, G. Benchmarking of 2D Hydraulic Modelling Packages; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mignot, E.; Paquier, A.; Haider, S. Modeling floods in a dense urban area using 2 d shallow water equations. J. Hydrol. 2006, 327, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neal, J.; Bates, P.; Fewtrell, T.; Hunter, N.M.; Wilson, M.; Horritt, M. Distributed whole city water level measurements from the Carlisle 2005 urban flood event and comparison with hydraulic model simulations. J. Hydrol. 2009, 368, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neal, J.; Villanueva, I.; Wright, N.; Willis, T.; Fewtrell, T.; Bates, P. How much physical complexity is needed to model flood inundation? Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26, 2264–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CENTRO DE RECUPERACIÓN DE ECOSISTEMAS ACUÁTICOS (CREACUA). Proyecto: “Adaptación Urbana Verde frente a inundaciones con el soporte de la modelación matemática y del software MODCEL en Riohacha, La Guajira, Colombia”; Convenio de cooperación Nº 9677-04-1047-2013; CREACUA: Riohacha, Colombia, 2015. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
- Nardini, A. A Systematic Approach to Build Evaluation Indices for Environmental Decision Making with Active Public Involvement. Rivista di Economia delle fonti di Energia e dell’Ambiente 2003, 46, 189–215. [Google Scholar]
- Beinat, E. Multiattribute Value Functions for Environmental Management; Springer Netherlands: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, R. Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental Management; Springer Netherlands: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
Alternative | Vision | Objective | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
| Go on without interventions | Perturb the status quo as little as possible | Do nothing. |
| Go on with the approach implemented up to now | Try to make the city safe from flooding | Implement just the specific institutional projects already foreseen and given as “certain” because they are already funded or assigned to a builder (according to our collection of existing proposals). |
| |||
| Safe city. | Resolve the flood problem in the most effective way; disturb as little as possible the population and urban development (i.e., minimize interference with the existing POT, the land use and urbanization plan). | Apply SUDS criteria as far as possible. |
| A town harmonized with its environment. | Reduce risk and maximize resilience; at the same time, recover and enhance the environment and the aesthetic-amenity-recreational value. | Conserve and recover the natural pathways of urban drainage and temporary storage; adapt the urban fabric to the flood phenomenon; take advantage of the valuable environmental assets (wetlands, river). |
| |||
| A really safe city. | Reduce risk and take advantage of environmental assets. | Put into place all the means available with no care for costs. |
| |||
| A town harmonized with its environmental assets, adapted to ensure a safe and comfortable life to its citizens and guarantee a resilient future. | Reduce risk and maximize resilience, while recovering and enhancing the environment and the aesthetic-amenity-recreational value. | Conserve and recover the natural pathways of urban drainage and temporary storage; take advantage of the valuable environmental assets (wetlands, river); establish safe conditions in face of the reference event T10 (November 2011), but perform well enough (i.e., be robust) also for the extreme event considered (T100CC). |
| |||
| A safe city (in relation to the reference event), without modifying current hydraulic setting and limiting the urban development foreseen in the POT. | Reduce risk; minimize intervention costs; disturb as little as possible current urban and hydraulic configuration and avoid to increase residual risk. | Eliminate vulnerability by adapting all houses affected by the reference event (T10); do not build works that would alter current hydraulic setting or that may fail in the future; impose land use constraints to future urban development. |
Component | Indicator | Units | BASE | R_1 | R_2 | R_3 | VIVIENDAS | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Environmental value | a | Green area created (or preserved from urbanization) | ha | 0 | 72.9 | 72.5 | 72.5 | 36.5 |
b | Continuity of the “humedales” system | - | very low | high | high | high | very low | ||
2 | Social disturbance | a | Number of houses to be adapted | Units | 0 | 951 | 836 | 836 | 2062 |
b | Number of houses to be removed (and rebuilt) | Units | 0 | 22 | 23 | 23 | 0 | ||
3 | Flood risk | a | Number of houses affected by the design event T10 | Units | 2062 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
b | Number of houses affected by the extreme event T100 with CC | Units | 2808 | 635 | 463 | 463 | 492 | ||
c | Number of sensitive works (prone to failure) | Units | 156 | 326 | 339 | 339 | 156 | ||
4 | Cost | a | Investment cost of interventions | B$ | 0 | 110.2 | 106.7 | 59.5 | 69 |
b | Capitalized OMR cost | B$ | 7.4 | 53.4 | 55.1 | 27.5 | 7.4 | ||
5 | Administrative feasibility | a | Conflict area with respect to POT (urban land use plan) | ha | 0 | 264 | 246 | 246 | 254 |
6 | Financial sustainability | a | Annual OMR cost | M$/year | 385 | 2834 | 2877 | 1432 | 385 |
No. | Component | Priority | Weight | BASE | REAL_1 | REAL_2 | REAL_3 | VIVIENDAS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Environmental value | 2 | 0.238 | 0 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.18 |
2 | Social disturbance | 3 | 0.19 | 1 | 0.46 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.14 |
3 | Flood risk | 1 | 0.286 | 0.28 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.9 |
4 | Cost | 5 | 0.095 | 0.97 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.64 | 0.68 |
5 | Administrative feasibility | 6 | 0.048 | 1 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.15 |
6 | Financial sustainability | 4 | 0.143 | 0.87 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.52 | 0.87 |
Weighted average | 0.54 | 0.6 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.53 | |||
RANKING | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nardini, A.; Gomes Miguez, M. An Integrated Plan to Sustainably Enable the City of Riohacha (Colombia) to Cope with Increasing Urban Flooding, while Improving Its Environmental Setting. Sustainability 2016, 8, 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030198
Nardini A, Gomes Miguez M. An Integrated Plan to Sustainably Enable the City of Riohacha (Colombia) to Cope with Increasing Urban Flooding, while Improving Its Environmental Setting. Sustainability. 2016; 8(3):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030198
Chicago/Turabian StyleNardini, Andrea, and Marcelo Gomes Miguez. 2016. "An Integrated Plan to Sustainably Enable the City of Riohacha (Colombia) to Cope with Increasing Urban Flooding, while Improving Its Environmental Setting" Sustainability 8, no. 3: 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030198