1. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses URBAN STREAM REHABILITATION

2. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES & IMPACTS INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES & IMPACTS INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES & IMPACTS INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES & IMPACTS BENEFITS / IMPACTS BENEFITS / IMPACTS BENEFITS / IMPACTS BENEFITS / IMPACTS CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES CASE STUDIES SITE MONITORING SITE MONITORING SITE MONITORING SITE MONITORING INDICATORS OF SUCCESS INDICATORS OF SUCCESS INDICATORS OF SUCCESS INDICATORS OF SUCCESS SOCIAL APPRAISAL SOCIAL APPRAISAL SOCIAL APPRAISAL SOCIAL APPRAISAL AESTHETICS AAAA EEEE SSSS TTTT HHHH EEEE TTTT IIII CCCC SSSS REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES THE URBEM FRAMEWORK THE URBEM FRAMEWORK THE URBEM FRAMEWORK THE URBEM FRAMEWORK

3. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses AESTHETIC EVALUATION of URBAN WATERCOURSES

4. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Many communities are now using river rehabilitation projects to improve the quality of life in their neighbourhoods and cities. Landscape aesthetical evaluation has been recognized as a key aspect in these projects. Although several European policy documents encourage/require the inclusion of aesthetical considerations and assessment procedures in the urban planning process, this has oftenbeen found difficult to accomplish (especially due to the inherent complexity and subjective nature of the issues involved). Although several European policy documents encourage/require the inclusion of aesthetical considerations and assessment procedures in the urban planning process, this has often been found difficult to accomplish (especially due to the inherent complexity and subjective nature of the issues involved). Urban riverfront areas can show an enormous potential for recovery and rehabilitation, bringing together programmes of urban regeneration with environmental, socioeconomic and aesthetical improvement (Petts et al, 2002; Riley, 1998) Aesthetical evaluation

5. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses URBEM has developed a methodology to evaluate urban rivers as to their the aesthetic values in order to guide rehabilitation interventions to make the most of their potential. URBEM adopts a to explore and structure the main types of evaluative dimensions – the river, city and people dimensions. URBEM adopts a tri-dimensional framework to explore and structure the main types of evaluative dimensions – the river, city and people dimensions. The methodology is based on a multi-criteria approach to model and operationalize the evaluation process, including both expert assessments and public surveys. The assessment leads to the establishment of profiles of aesthetical performance of urban rivers or streams. Aesthetical evaluation

6. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Gain a better understanding of the different dimensions and characteristics that can be improved through a river rehabilitation scheme: the River, or natural dimension the City, or social dimension the People, or public perception dimension Compare performances between different sites, different alternatives, and different dimensions. Choose rehabilitation projects that will best improve the quality of the urban environment. Aesthetical evaluation methodology Allows us to…

7. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses The aesthetic quality of an urban watercourse depends on several attributes that relate to each one of the three dimensions (and its relationships): The system City-River-People PEOPLE CITY RIVER Material World Objectivity Observation, material and physical attributes and processes, natural laws, requires care Our Social World Intersubjectivity Participation, language meaning, social practices, culture and power relations, rules, resources, constraints Personal World Subjectivity Experiences, individual thoughts, emotions, values, beliefs

8. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Aesthetical Value of Watercourses RIVER CITY Progress PEOPLE (Public Perception) A tri-dimensional approach

9. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Aesthetical Value of Watercourses RIVER Biological Components River Morphology Natural Techno-Hazards Progress main natural features that can influence rivers aesthetics are considered River Typology

10. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Aesthetical Value of Watercourses RIVER Progress for example Flood Vulnerability Erosion and Landslide Risk Biological Components River Morphology Natural Techno-Hazards River Typology

11. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Aesthetical Value of Watercourses RIVER Biological Components River Morphology Natural Techno-Hazards Progress for example Flood Vulnerability Erosion and Landslide Risk River Typology

12. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Aesthetical Value of Watercourses CITY Urban Space Quality Activities of Riverfront Cultural Heritage Pollution Accessibility Progress main issues that describe and influence the aesthetic value of a city-river landscape

13. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses

14. Aesthetical Value of Watercourses Progress PEOPLE Public perception of river landscape Place identity Restorative capacity

15. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Relationship between River and People

16. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses The result – profiling aesthetical characteristics RIVER CITY PEOPLE profiles help show how the different characteristics score and can help guide urban river rehabilitation interventions in order to maximize the aesthetic value of a city-river landscape

17. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Performances of each dimension are measured through a set of chosen indicators or descriptors, using standardized measurement scales. Measuring performances a higher numerical score represents a preferable performance in terms of aesthetics

18. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Measuring performances Dimensions or Fundamental viewpoints -... Elementary viewpoints -... Quantitative and qualitative measurement

19. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Measuring performances plausible minimum and maximum score Descriptors (sets of classes always ordered) and the counter-domain of indicators (expressed in an cardinal scale) are always bounded by a lower- and a upper-limit Extreme points of the scale should be set in such a way that partial performance of all watercourses should fall within the scale. Scale bounding to know current performance to know what we can still achieve (i.e. the performance increase we can expect for each viewpoint when a river rehabilitation process takes place IMPORTANT

20. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses plausible minimum and maximum scores Plausible Maximum Plausible minimum 0 100 Standardized value scale (using Linear value functions) score Measuring performances

21. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Measuring performances 0 100 Aestheticvalue River ARiver B Actual score Future score Plausible maximum Plausible minimum Potential of rehabilitation Morphology Urban space quality Identity Sensorial fruition Natural components Restorative capacity Some sets of rivers might reveal aesthetic value patterns “value profiles” profile of aesthetical values

22. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Aesthetical characteristics - Descriptors:

23. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses JARDAS Stream – Barcarena / Cacém J JJADRASADRAS STREAM STREAM~~PPOORRTTUUGGAALLJJADRASADRAS STREAM STREAM~~PPOORRTTUUGGAALL~PORTUGAL Example: the Jardas stream More info…

24. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Jardas stream – studying the different indicators.. JARDAS Accessibility e.g.

25. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Jardas stream – quantifying the different indicators.. JARDAS Accessibility e.g.

26. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Jardas stream – profile of aesthetical performance PEOPLE RIVER CITY The Jardas profile shows which indicators score poorly, pointing to possible areas of rehabilitation intervention, and which characteristics contribute the most to the aesthetic value of the Jardas city-river landscape

27. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Jardas stream – profile of aesthetical performance PEOPLE RIVER CITY Parking Public transports Walkways Building density Bridges Landmarks Belvederes Cultural Heritage Diversity activ. Attractiveness activ. Crossings by foot Anchorage places Density of boats

28. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses Evaluation of urban rivers as to their aesthetical values can be used to guide rehabilitation interventions to make the most of their potential. The methodology integrates expert assessments and public surveys into a multi-criteria decision analysis to assess the aesthetic performance of urban rivers. It reveals the diversity of characteristics of each urban river and their potential for rehabilitation – in some rivers they could be more related with the social and cultural context, in others with a more natural landscape. It has been tested in different European settings – Portugal, Slovenia, the UK, France. It is a powerful means of communicating & evaluating proposals of river rehabilitation projects, as well as other interventions in urban waterfronts. Summarizing considerations

29. 4. Aesthetic Evaluation of Urban Watercourses For further information Link to -Link to - Methodology of aesthetic evaluation of rivers… aesthetic… Link to -aesthetic… Link to – Aesthetics,_Additional Info_Jardas… Link to – Aesthetics,_Additional Info_Jardas… Link to – River, City, People… Link to – River, City, People…