Wikienfk5 - User contributions [en]

File:Folie3b.jpg

2009-01-20T08:48:33Z

Barbarabirli:

Working Group Nature Conservation

2009-01-20T08:48:07Z

Barbarabirli: /* Synthesis */

== Case Studies of this working group ==
The list includes all case studies categorised in this group and the respective answers to the first question "Rationale:Why is this case study interesting?"

''Attention: this is a dynamic page list, do not edit this paragraph!''
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?
</DPL>

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Core Questions of this Working Group ==

'''Core themes'''
(as identified on 3rd of December 2008):

*User group
*City
*Urban nature
*Interaction
*Water

'''Core questions'''

#What is the role of user groups? (Emel)
#What is the role of the city? (Virpi)
#How do urban and natural structures interact? (Urban nature interaction, Daliborka and Jovana)
#What is the role of water? (Barbara)

'''Notes:'''
* The names behind the questions identify those people that take up a kind of editor's responsibility for the questions. All group members are asked to integrate all questions into their case study report. The respective question editors will then compile the different answers and report back to the group plenary on December 19th.

* People who did not attend the session on 3rd of December may have additional proposals for core questions. Feel free to add these questions as proposals to the list above and discuss it via e-mail or using the discussion page.

* Please integrate the questions soon and try to deliver some draft answers before December 15th - otherwise it will become difficult to create a synthesis report for December 17th.

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Synthesis of Core Questions ==

=== What is the role of user groups? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Emel

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of user groups?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]
=== What is the role of the city? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of the city?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Virpi

I was comparing case studies from the point of view of the city:

- How the nature area is located to the densely built city environment?

- Is the city affecting to the status of the nature area? Is the area protected or is there some uncertainty with the status and the future of the nature area?

There were a lot of similarities with the location of the case study areas: most of them were under strong influence of built environment and human in the city structure. Usually there were still quite good ecological connections left to the other surrounding nature areas. In many cases the ecological connection was water related: a river or a lake environment.

The closeness of the city was affecting to all of the case study areas: in most of the cases there exists for example recreational use, littering and pollution, which are affecting to the nature and landscape values of the area. There was no high pressure of housing to spread to the nature areas: the reason for that may be that the case study areas were usually not that favourable land for building.

The values of the nature areas were mostly recognised and the status of the area were usually somehow protected. In many cases national legislation and/or town planning is protecting the nature areas, but there might still be problems with inadequate supervision or lack of control or irresponsible use of the area. The recreational or economical use of the area is in many cases too strong and that causes disadvantages for organisms of nature.

In most of the cases it seems that the process of protecting and recognising nature area is still on its way and the authorities are still trying to find better balance between the protection and the use. Tools to prevent harms for nature caused by human are in many cases inadequate. As a conclusion one important method to save the nature area with values could probably be the combination of at least regionally recognised status by city plan and the appreciation of the area gained by informing people – the city has the most important role in that work (if the area is administered by the city, and in most of these case studies it probably is so). That combination would provide continuous, strong status of the area and responsible use of the area.

[[Image:THE_ROLE_OF_THE_CITY.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== How do urban and natural structures interact? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered

include = #How do urban and natural structures interact?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
'''Chinyi''' and (Daliborka and Jovana)

From Chinyi

A conflict can be always found in the relationship of urban and natural structure, either spatially or functionally.However, nearly all the projects here are trying to mitigate the confilit.

In the case of great wall island, We observed a asymmetric influence imposed by the natual structure to the urban area and vice versa. The natural structure release always beneficial influence to the city while the urban space affect the island mainly in a negative manner(pollution, reduced biodiversity).

Next come to the example of Westlake, '''Hangzhou''', who has a long-term close co-existence state with urban space. The peculiarity of the interaction here should be the phenomenon of symbiosis between natural and urban structure. Conflicts can be after all found but seldom change the balance between them.( To some extent, the aesthetic and recreational need of residents in Hangzhou, which finally result in the artificial measures taken to prevent the extinction of Westlake , counteract the negative effect imposed by human activities.

As for '''Lake Morgan''',the factor of urban structures extremely overstand the other elements in this fragile relationship.To fulfill the need of daily urban life, all natural structures have been sacrificed and seems to be hardly recalled.

Instead of exploiting more virgin territory, the reversible version in the case of '''Parque de Educacao'''.trys to integrate more space into natural domain. Since the living stress here is so fierce, people can sacrifice certain space to accommodate more natural elements, and on the contrary, push their life more close to the nature

Harmonious interactions were found both functionally and ecologically in the case of '''Vikki'''. A finger like morphology increases the length of edge, which in a matter of fact mitigate the conflict in between. Various of plants also boost the biodiversity.

Working group: Nature conservation

Core question '''How do urban and natural structures interact?''' (from Chinyi)
{| border="1" cellpadding="1"
!width="300"|CASE
!width="400"|2-D SPATIALLY
!width="400"|FUNCTIONALLY and NATURE CONSERVATIONALLY

|-valign="top"
|
*Great War Island
||
*The change from Natural to urban structures is designed in a gradient manner.
*the border of tourism zone was cutted evenly while the border to recreational zone and protection zone express a finger like form.
*Reference illustration(http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/Image:ZONES_AND_BORDERS.jpg )
||
*The gradient arrangement make natural and urban structure gradually join together
*From tourism zone to natural protection zone, from open to close,the design creatively satisfy the need of fucntion and extensively decrease the danger the urban structure can probably made.
|-valign="top"
|
*Hangzhou
||
*No arbitrary border or territory was set to separate the natural and urban structure
*The urban structure and natural structure were merged in the whole “Westlake” area.
||
*Due to the historical reason, and the coexistence of nature and urban structure, the interaction between natural and urban structure are more itimate and harmonious than other case
|-valign="top"
|
*High island
||
*Natural and urban structures seperated due to historical reason
*the abyss between natural and urban structure are hardly overcome

|-valign="top"
|
*Lake Morgan
||
*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
||
*Urban structure negatively affect the natural structure

|-valign="top"
|
*Parque de Educação Ambiental Professor Mello Barreto
||*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
*restored area was integrated to the nature that surrounds the city of Rio de Janeiro.
||
*The natural structure was restored to some extend
*The urban structure was created for education and instruction purpose in order to ease its negative impact to natural structure
|-valign="top"
|
*River Liesing, Vienna
||
*Natural and urban structure interacted in a linear way (waterfront)
||
*The recreational purpose is maximize in the premise of natrual conservation

|}
From Daliborka and Jovana

[[Image:Urban_vs.natural_table.jpg|left|thumb]] [[Image:Graphic.jpg|center|thumb]]

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== What is the role of water? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Barbara
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of water?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
Barbara
[[Image:Folie1.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie2.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie3b.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie4.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

===What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ===
==== Anwers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Lolita & Chinyi
The relationship between nature and human can be always described either harmonious or conflicted.

The nature, exist as the fundamental base for human activity,always follow its own biological evolutional step in absence of the effect from human. However, since human beging initialized the dominant status among all the "organisms" live in the globe. The activities significantly affected the nature, either in a positive way, or reverserly, negative way.

In all case studies, attempts were made to soften the relationship between nature and human given that our era just located in the very moment, when nature system (ecological system) has been broken extensively. Anyway, since the close attachment of city, the city, the population explosion, the conflict between nature and human is more and more severe. We tried to use relativly mild measure,make it possible for the nature to survive its evolution, meanwhile also serve as a functional (recreational or productive) site for human being.

As a part of the process of relation between humans and Nature, we can see in all these case studies that we have three great ways of treating it in the landscape projects:
'''First''' we have the relation with the huge elements of nature: Lake, mountain, rivers, forests... (Great war Island, Hangzhou, High Island, Lake Morgan, River Liesing)
The answers in these cases are often first to use it as a resource item, then to include it as a part of the city and finally to restore its ecological value (due to the actual politics).

Often, we have the case of a natural element part of a urban process (High Island, Lake Mogan, Parque de Educaçao Ambiental Mello Barreto, River Liesing). These projects are often seen as recreational system, as well as a biodiversity item. We can see here the difficulties of the cohabitation, as reported by the Lake Mogan experience. High Island could be one of these not successful experience, as the politics's aims were too numerous (recreational, esthetical, ecological...)

Then we have the example of Viikki, which is the typical example of the Nature seen as an element of construction of the project. This modern way of built is a new form of the garden-cities, with an ecological politic. This conception of relation between nature and humans is full of technical solutions, presented as perfect answers to ecological problems. However, we still have few reports back from these experiences, and as an experience, we can't really say that is the miracle system to use every time.

In the case of Hangzhou,which the interaction between human and nature was comparatively detailed record,we can observe all kinds of measure taken to improve the relationship between city, human, and nature( lake).However, up to now,the traditional technique maintain the most fequently used measure in this project. The ultimate goal, in which people and nature can coexist without frequently amendation and restoration, remains pending.

So we see that the recent ecological politics can, on one hand, take part to re-structuralism of natural sites in urban process, with the difficulties about sharing uses and objectives. On the other hand, these politics are motors of natural planning in urban process, showed by the Eco-district system, as the one of Viikki, and use nature as an element of construction, seen as a recreational and ecological item.
[[Image:Nature Concervation Core Question HumanNature.jpg]]

<gallery caption=" " widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="5">
Image:Evolution_of_Viikki_copy.jpg|Evolution of Viikki
Image:Evolution_of_great_war_island_copy.jpg|Evolution of Great War Island
Image:Evolution_of_highisland_copy.jpg|Evolution of High Island
</gallery>
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Working Group Minutes==

=== First Meeting ===

* [[Minutes First Meeting WG 2]], 3rd of December 2008
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

File:Folie3b.JPG

2009-01-20T08:47:38Z

Barbarabirli:

File:Folie3.JPG

2009-01-20T08:44:13Z

Barbarabirli: uploaded a new version of "Image:Folie3.JPG"

Working Group Nature Conservation

2009-01-20T08:31:51Z

Barbarabirli: /* Synthesis */

== Case Studies of this working group ==
The list includes all case studies categorised in this group and the respective answers to the first question "Rationale:Why is this case study interesting?"

''Attention: this is a dynamic page list, do not edit this paragraph!''
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?
</DPL>

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Core Questions of this Working Group ==

'''Core themes'''
(as identified on 3rd of December 2008):

*User group
*City
*Urban nature
*Interaction
*Water

'''Core questions'''

#What is the role of user groups? (Emel)
#What is the role of the city? (Virpi)
#How do urban and natural structures interact? (Urban nature interaction, Daliborka and Jovana)
#What is the role of water? (Barbara)

'''Notes:'''
* The names behind the questions identify those people that take up a kind of editor's responsibility for the questions. All group members are asked to integrate all questions into their case study report. The respective question editors will then compile the different answers and report back to the group plenary on December 19th.

* People who did not attend the session on 3rd of December may have additional proposals for core questions. Feel free to add these questions as proposals to the list above and discuss it via e-mail or using the discussion page.

* Please integrate the questions soon and try to deliver some draft answers before December 15th - otherwise it will become difficult to create a synthesis report for December 17th.

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Synthesis of Core Questions ==

=== What is the role of user groups? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Emel

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of user groups?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]
=== What is the role of the city? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of the city?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Virpi

I was comparing case studies from the point of view of the city:

- How the nature area is located to the densely built city environment?

- Is the city affecting to the status of the nature area? Is the area protected or is there some uncertainty with the status and the future of the nature area?

There were a lot of similarities with the location of the case study areas: most of them were under strong influence of built environment and human in the city structure. Usually there were still quite good ecological connections left to the other surrounding nature areas. In many cases the ecological connection was water related: a river or a lake environment.

The closeness of the city was affecting to all of the case study areas: in most of the cases there exists for example recreational use, littering and pollution, which are affecting to the nature and landscape values of the area. There was no high pressure of housing to spread to the nature areas: the reason for that may be that the case study areas were usually not that favourable land for building.

The values of the nature areas were mostly recognised and the status of the area were usually somehow protected. In many cases national legislation and/or town planning is protecting the nature areas, but there might still be problems with inadequate supervision or lack of control or irresponsible use of the area. The recreational or economical use of the area is in many cases too strong and that causes disadvantages for organisms of nature.

In most of the cases it seems that the process of protecting and recognising nature area is still on its way and the authorities are still trying to find better balance between the protection and the use. Tools to prevent harms for nature caused by human are in many cases inadequate. As a conclusion one important method to save the nature area with values could probably be the combination of at least regionally recognised status by city plan and the appreciation of the area gained by informing people – the city has the most important role in that work (if the area is administered by the city, and in most of these case studies it probably is so). That combination would provide continuous, strong status of the area and responsible use of the area.

[[Image:THE_ROLE_OF_THE_CITY.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== How do urban and natural structures interact? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered

include = #How do urban and natural structures interact?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
'''Chinyi''' and (Daliborka and Jovana)

From Chinyi

A conflict can be always found in the relationship of urban and natural structure, either spatially or functionally.However, nearly all the projects here are trying to mitigate the confilit.

In the case of great wall island, We observed a asymmetric influence imposed by the natual structure to the urban area and vice versa. The natural structure release always beneficial influence to the city while the urban space affect the island mainly in a negative manner(pollution, reduced biodiversity).

Next come to the example of Westlake, '''Hangzhou''', who has a long-term close co-existence state with urban space. The peculiarity of the interaction here should be the phenomenon of symbiosis between natural and urban structure. Conflicts can be after all found but seldom change the balance between them.( To some extent, the aesthetic and recreational need of residents in Hangzhou, which finally result in the artificial measures taken to prevent the extinction of Westlake , counteract the negative effect imposed by human activities.

As for '''Lake Morgan''',the factor of urban structures extremely overstand the other elements in this fragile relationship.To fulfill the need of daily urban life, all natural structures have been sacrificed and seems to be hardly recalled.

Instead of exploiting more virgin territory, the reversible version in the case of '''Parque de Educacao'''.trys to integrate more space into natural domain. Since the living stress here is so fierce, people can sacrifice certain space to accommodate more natural elements, and on the contrary, push their life more close to the nature

Harmonious interactions were found both functionally and ecologically in the case of '''Vikki'''. A finger like morphology increases the length of edge, which in a matter of fact mitigate the conflict in between. Various of plants also boost the biodiversity.

Working group: Nature conservation

Core question '''How do urban and natural structures interact?''' (from Chinyi)
{| border="1" cellpadding="1"
!width="300"|CASE
!width="400"|2-D SPATIALLY
!width="400"|FUNCTIONALLY and NATURE CONSERVATIONALLY

|-valign="top"
|
*Great War Island
||
*The change from Natural to urban structures is designed in a gradient manner.
*the border of tourism zone was cutted evenly while the border to recreational zone and protection zone express a finger like form.
*Reference illustration(http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/Image:ZONES_AND_BORDERS.jpg )
||
*The gradient arrangement make natural and urban structure gradually join together
*From tourism zone to natural protection zone, from open to close,the design creatively satisfy the need of fucntion and extensively decrease the danger the urban structure can probably made.
|-valign="top"
|
*Hangzhou
||
*No arbitrary border or territory was set to separate the natural and urban structure
*The urban structure and natural structure were merged in the whole “Westlake” area.
||
*Due to the historical reason, and the coexistence of nature and urban structure, the interaction between natural and urban structure are more itimate and harmonious than other case
|-valign="top"
|
*High island
||
*Natural and urban structures seperated due to historical reason
*the abyss between natural and urban structure are hardly overcome

|-valign="top"
|
*Lake Morgan
||
*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
||
*Urban structure negatively affect the natural structure

|-valign="top"
|
*Parque de Educação Ambiental Professor Mello Barreto
||*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
*restored area was integrated to the nature that surrounds the city of Rio de Janeiro.
||
*The natural structure was restored to some extend
*The urban structure was created for education and instruction purpose in order to ease its negative impact to natural structure
|-valign="top"
|
*River Liesing, Vienna
||
*Natural and urban structure interacted in a linear way (waterfront)
||
*The recreational purpose is maximize in the premise of natrual conservation

|}
From Daliborka and Jovana

[[Image:Urban_vs.natural_table.jpg|left|thumb]] [[Image:Graphic.jpg|center|thumb]]

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== What is the role of water? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Barbara
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of water?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
Barbara
[[Image:Folie1.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie2.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie3.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie4.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

===What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ===
==== Anwers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Lolita & Chinyi
The relationship between nature and human can be always described either harmonious or conflicted.

The nature, exist as the fundamental base for human activity,always follow its own biological evolutional step in absence of the effect from human. However, since human beging initialized the dominant status among all the "organisms" live in the globe. The activities significantly affected the nature, either in a positive way, or reverserly, negative way.

In all case studies, attempts were made to soften the relationship between nature and human given that our era just located in the very moment, when nature system (ecological system) has been broken extensively. Anyway, since the close attachment of city, the city, the population explosion, the conflict between nature and human is more and more severe. We tried to use relativly mild measure,make it possible for the nature to survive its evolution, meanwhile also serve as a functional (recreational or productive) site for human being.

As a part of the process of relation between humans and Nature, we can see in all these case studies that we have three great ways of treating it in the landscape projects:
'''First''' we have the relation with the huge elements of nature: Lake, mountain, rivers, forests... (Great war Island, Hangzhou, High Island, Lake Morgan, River Liesing)
The answers in these cases are often first to use it as a resource item, then to include it as a part of the city and finally to restore its ecological value (due to the actual politics).

Often, we have the case of a natural element part of a urban process (High Island, Lake Mogan, Parque de Educaçao Ambiental Mello Barreto, River Liesing). These projects are often seen as recreational system, as well as a biodiversity item. We can see here the difficulties of the cohabitation, as reported by the Lake Mogan experience. High Island could be one of these not successful experience, as the politics's aims were too numerous (recreational, esthetical, ecological...)

Then we have the example of Viikki, which is the typical example of the Nature seen as an element of construction of the project. This modern way of built is a new form of the garden-cities, with an ecological politic. This conception of relation between nature and humans is full of technical solutions, presented as perfect answers to ecological problems. However, we still have few reports back from these experiences, and as an experience, we can't really say that is the miracle system to use every time.

In the case of Hangzhou,which the interaction between human and nature was comparatively detailed record,we can observe all kinds of measure taken to improve the relationship between city, human, and nature( lake).However, up to now,the traditional technique maintain the most fequently used measure in this project. The ultimate goal, in which people and nature can coexist without frequently amendation and restoration, remains pending.

So we see that the recent ecological politics can, on one hand, take part to re-structuralism of natural sites in urban process, with the difficulties about sharing uses and objectives. On the other hand, these politics are motors of natural planning in urban process, showed by the Eco-district system, as the one of Viikki, and use nature as an element of construction, seen as a recreational and ecological item.
[[Image:Nature Concervation Core Question HumanNature.jpg]]

<gallery caption=" " widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="5">
Image:Evolution_of_Viikki_copy.jpg|Evolution of Viikki
Image:Evolution_of_great_war_island_copy.jpg|Evolution of Great War Island
Image:Evolution_of_highisland_copy.jpg|Evolution of High Island
</gallery>
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Working Group Minutes==

=== First Meeting ===

* [[Minutes First Meeting WG 2]], 3rd of December 2008
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

File:Folie2.jpg

2009-01-20T08:31:04Z

Barbarabirli:

File:Folie1.jpg

2009-01-20T08:30:35Z

Barbarabirli:

Working Group Nature Conservation

2009-01-20T08:30:08Z

Barbarabirli: /* Synthesis */

== Case Studies of this working group ==
The list includes all case studies categorised in this group and the respective answers to the first question "Rationale:Why is this case study interesting?"

''Attention: this is a dynamic page list, do not edit this paragraph!''
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?
</DPL>

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Core Questions of this Working Group ==

'''Core themes'''
(as identified on 3rd of December 2008):

*User group
*City
*Urban nature
*Interaction
*Water

'''Core questions'''

#What is the role of user groups? (Emel)
#What is the role of the city? (Virpi)
#How do urban and natural structures interact? (Urban nature interaction, Daliborka and Jovana)
#What is the role of water? (Barbara)

'''Notes:'''
* The names behind the questions identify those people that take up a kind of editor's responsibility for the questions. All group members are asked to integrate all questions into their case study report. The respective question editors will then compile the different answers and report back to the group plenary on December 19th.

* People who did not attend the session on 3rd of December may have additional proposals for core questions. Feel free to add these questions as proposals to the list above and discuss it via e-mail or using the discussion page.

* Please integrate the questions soon and try to deliver some draft answers before December 15th - otherwise it will become difficult to create a synthesis report for December 17th.

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Synthesis of Core Questions ==

=== What is the role of user groups? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Emel

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of user groups?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]
=== What is the role of the city? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of the city?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Virpi

I was comparing case studies from the point of view of the city:

- How the nature area is located to the densely built city environment?

- Is the city affecting to the status of the nature area? Is the area protected or is there some uncertainty with the status and the future of the nature area?

There were a lot of similarities with the location of the case study areas: most of them were under strong influence of built environment and human in the city structure. Usually there were still quite good ecological connections left to the other surrounding nature areas. In many cases the ecological connection was water related: a river or a lake environment.

The closeness of the city was affecting to all of the case study areas: in most of the cases there exists for example recreational use, littering and pollution, which are affecting to the nature and landscape values of the area. There was no high pressure of housing to spread to the nature areas: the reason for that may be that the case study areas were usually not that favourable land for building.

The values of the nature areas were mostly recognised and the status of the area were usually somehow protected. In many cases national legislation and/or town planning is protecting the nature areas, but there might still be problems with inadequate supervision or lack of control or irresponsible use of the area. The recreational or economical use of the area is in many cases too strong and that causes disadvantages for organisms of nature.

In most of the cases it seems that the process of protecting and recognising nature area is still on its way and the authorities are still trying to find better balance between the protection and the use. Tools to prevent harms for nature caused by human are in many cases inadequate. As a conclusion one important method to save the nature area with values could probably be the combination of at least regionally recognised status by city plan and the appreciation of the area gained by informing people – the city has the most important role in that work (if the area is administered by the city, and in most of these case studies it probably is so). That combination would provide continuous, strong status of the area and responsible use of the area.

[[Image:THE_ROLE_OF_THE_CITY.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== How do urban and natural structures interact? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered

include = #How do urban and natural structures interact?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
'''Chinyi''' and (Daliborka and Jovana)

From Chinyi

A conflict can be always found in the relationship of urban and natural structure, either spatially or functionally.However, nearly all the projects here are trying to mitigate the confilit.

In the case of great wall island, We observed a asymmetric influence imposed by the natual structure to the urban area and vice versa. The natural structure release always beneficial influence to the city while the urban space affect the island mainly in a negative manner(pollution, reduced biodiversity).

Next come to the example of Westlake, '''Hangzhou''', who has a long-term close co-existence state with urban space. The peculiarity of the interaction here should be the phenomenon of symbiosis between natural and urban structure. Conflicts can be after all found but seldom change the balance between them.( To some extent, the aesthetic and recreational need of residents in Hangzhou, which finally result in the artificial measures taken to prevent the extinction of Westlake , counteract the negative effect imposed by human activities.

As for '''Lake Morgan''',the factor of urban structures extremely overstand the other elements in this fragile relationship.To fulfill the need of daily urban life, all natural structures have been sacrificed and seems to be hardly recalled.

Instead of exploiting more virgin territory, the reversible version in the case of '''Parque de Educacao'''.trys to integrate more space into natural domain. Since the living stress here is so fierce, people can sacrifice certain space to accommodate more natural elements, and on the contrary, push their life more close to the nature

Harmonious interactions were found both functionally and ecologically in the case of '''Vikki'''. A finger like morphology increases the length of edge, which in a matter of fact mitigate the conflict in between. Various of plants also boost the biodiversity.

Working group: Nature conservation

Core question '''How do urban and natural structures interact?''' (from Chinyi)
{| border="1" cellpadding="1"
!width="300"|CASE
!width="400"|2-D SPATIALLY
!width="400"|FUNCTIONALLY and NATURE CONSERVATIONALLY

|-valign="top"
|
*Great War Island
||
*The change from Natural to urban structures is designed in a gradient manner.
*the border of tourism zone was cutted evenly while the border to recreational zone and protection zone express a finger like form.
*Reference illustration(http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/Image:ZONES_AND_BORDERS.jpg )
||
*The gradient arrangement make natural and urban structure gradually join together
*From tourism zone to natural protection zone, from open to close,the design creatively satisfy the need of fucntion and extensively decrease the danger the urban structure can probably made.
|-valign="top"
|
*Hangzhou
||
*No arbitrary border or territory was set to separate the natural and urban structure
*The urban structure and natural structure were merged in the whole “Westlake” area.
||
*Due to the historical reason, and the coexistence of nature and urban structure, the interaction between natural and urban structure are more itimate and harmonious than other case
|-valign="top"
|
*High island
||
*Natural and urban structures seperated due to historical reason
*the abyss between natural and urban structure are hardly overcome

|-valign="top"
|
*Lake Morgan
||
*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
||
*Urban structure negatively affect the natural structure

|-valign="top"
|
*Parque de Educação Ambiental Professor Mello Barreto
||*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
*restored area was integrated to the nature that surrounds the city of Rio de Janeiro.
||
*The natural structure was restored to some extend
*The urban structure was created for education and instruction purpose in order to ease its negative impact to natural structure
|-valign="top"
|
*River Liesing, Vienna
||
*Natural and urban structure interacted in a linear way (waterfront)
||
*The recreational purpose is maximize in the premise of natrual conservation

|}
From Daliborka and Jovana

[[Image:Urban_vs.natural_table.jpg|left|thumb]] [[Image:Graphic.jpg|center|thumb]]

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== What is the role of water? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Barbara
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of water?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
Barbara
[[Image:Folie3.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie4.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie1.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[Image:Folie2.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

===What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ===
==== Anwers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Lolita & Chinyi
The relationship between nature and human can be always described either harmonious or conflicted.

The nature, exist as the fundamental base for human activity,always follow its own biological evolutional step in absence of the effect from human. However, since human beging initialized the dominant status among all the "organisms" live in the globe. The activities significantly affected the nature, either in a positive way, or reverserly, negative way.

In all case studies, attempts were made to soften the relationship between nature and human given that our era just located in the very moment, when nature system (ecological system) has been broken extensively. Anyway, since the close attachment of city, the city, the population explosion, the conflict between nature and human is more and more severe. We tried to use relativly mild measure,make it possible for the nature to survive its evolution, meanwhile also serve as a functional (recreational or productive) site for human being.

As a part of the process of relation between humans and Nature, we can see in all these case studies that we have three great ways of treating it in the landscape projects:
'''First''' we have the relation with the huge elements of nature: Lake, mountain, rivers, forests... (Great war Island, Hangzhou, High Island, Lake Morgan, River Liesing)
The answers in these cases are often first to use it as a resource item, then to include it as a part of the city and finally to restore its ecological value (due to the actual politics).

Often, we have the case of a natural element part of a urban process (High Island, Lake Mogan, Parque de Educaçao Ambiental Mello Barreto, River Liesing). These projects are often seen as recreational system, as well as a biodiversity item. We can see here the difficulties of the cohabitation, as reported by the Lake Mogan experience. High Island could be one of these not successful experience, as the politics's aims were too numerous (recreational, esthetical, ecological...)

Then we have the example of Viikki, which is the typical example of the Nature seen as an element of construction of the project. This modern way of built is a new form of the garden-cities, with an ecological politic. This conception of relation between nature and humans is full of technical solutions, presented as perfect answers to ecological problems. However, we still have few reports back from these experiences, and as an experience, we can't really say that is the miracle system to use every time.

In the case of Hangzhou,which the interaction between human and nature was comparatively detailed record,we can observe all kinds of measure taken to improve the relationship between city, human, and nature( lake).However, up to now,the traditional technique maintain the most fequently used measure in this project. The ultimate goal, in which people and nature can coexist without frequently amendation and restoration, remains pending.

So we see that the recent ecological politics can, on one hand, take part to re-structuralism of natural sites in urban process, with the difficulties about sharing uses and objectives. On the other hand, these politics are motors of natural planning in urban process, showed by the Eco-district system, as the one of Viikki, and use nature as an element of construction, seen as a recreational and ecological item.
[[Image:Nature Concervation Core Question HumanNature.jpg]]

<gallery caption=" " widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="5">
Image:Evolution_of_Viikki_copy.jpg|Evolution of Viikki
Image:Evolution_of_great_war_island_copy.jpg|Evolution of Great War Island
Image:Evolution_of_highisland_copy.jpg|Evolution of High Island
</gallery>
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Working Group Minutes==

=== First Meeting ===

* [[Minutes First Meeting WG 2]], 3rd of December 2008
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

Working Group Nature Conservation

2009-01-20T08:28:42Z

Barbarabirli: /* Synthesis */

== Case Studies of this working group ==
The list includes all case studies categorised in this group and the respective answers to the first question "Rationale:Why is this case study interesting?"

''Attention: this is a dynamic page list, do not edit this paragraph!''
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?
</DPL>

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Core Questions of this Working Group ==

'''Core themes'''
(as identified on 3rd of December 2008):

*User group
*City
*Urban nature
*Interaction
*Water

'''Core questions'''

#What is the role of user groups? (Emel)
#What is the role of the city? (Virpi)
#How do urban and natural structures interact? (Urban nature interaction, Daliborka and Jovana)
#What is the role of water? (Barbara)

'''Notes:'''
* The names behind the questions identify those people that take up a kind of editor's responsibility for the questions. All group members are asked to integrate all questions into their case study report. The respective question editors will then compile the different answers and report back to the group plenary on December 19th.

* People who did not attend the session on 3rd of December may have additional proposals for core questions. Feel free to add these questions as proposals to the list above and discuss it via e-mail or using the discussion page.

* Please integrate the questions soon and try to deliver some draft answers before December 15th - otherwise it will become difficult to create a synthesis report for December 17th.

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Synthesis of Core Questions ==

=== What is the role of user groups? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Emel

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of user groups?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]
=== What is the role of the city? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of the city?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Virpi

I was comparing case studies from the point of view of the city:

- How the nature area is located to the densely built city environment?

- Is the city affecting to the status of the nature area? Is the area protected or is there some uncertainty with the status and the future of the nature area?

There were a lot of similarities with the location of the case study areas: most of them were under strong influence of built environment and human in the city structure. Usually there were still quite good ecological connections left to the other surrounding nature areas. In many cases the ecological connection was water related: a river or a lake environment.

The closeness of the city was affecting to all of the case study areas: in most of the cases there exists for example recreational use, littering and pollution, which are affecting to the nature and landscape values of the area. There was no high pressure of housing to spread to the nature areas: the reason for that may be that the case study areas were usually not that favourable land for building.

The values of the nature areas were mostly recognised and the status of the area were usually somehow protected. In many cases national legislation and/or town planning is protecting the nature areas, but there might still be problems with inadequate supervision or lack of control or irresponsible use of the area. The recreational or economical use of the area is in many cases too strong and that causes disadvantages for organisms of nature.

In most of the cases it seems that the process of protecting and recognising nature area is still on its way and the authorities are still trying to find better balance between the protection and the use. Tools to prevent harms for nature caused by human are in many cases inadequate. As a conclusion one important method to save the nature area with values could probably be the combination of at least regionally recognised status by city plan and the appreciation of the area gained by informing people – the city has the most important role in that work (if the area is administered by the city, and in most of these case studies it probably is so). That combination would provide continuous, strong status of the area and responsible use of the area.

[[Image:THE_ROLE_OF_THE_CITY.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== How do urban and natural structures interact? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered

include = #How do urban and natural structures interact?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
'''Chinyi''' and (Daliborka and Jovana)

From Chinyi

A conflict can be always found in the relationship of urban and natural structure, either spatially or functionally.However, nearly all the projects here are trying to mitigate the confilit.

In the case of great wall island, We observed a asymmetric influence imposed by the natual structure to the urban area and vice versa. The natural structure release always beneficial influence to the city while the urban space affect the island mainly in a negative manner(pollution, reduced biodiversity).

Next come to the example of Westlake, '''Hangzhou''', who has a long-term close co-existence state with urban space. The peculiarity of the interaction here should be the phenomenon of symbiosis between natural and urban structure. Conflicts can be after all found but seldom change the balance between them.( To some extent, the aesthetic and recreational need of residents in Hangzhou, which finally result in the artificial measures taken to prevent the extinction of Westlake , counteract the negative effect imposed by human activities.

As for '''Lake Morgan''',the factor of urban structures extremely overstand the other elements in this fragile relationship.To fulfill the need of daily urban life, all natural structures have been sacrificed and seems to be hardly recalled.

Instead of exploiting more virgin territory, the reversible version in the case of '''Parque de Educacao'''.trys to integrate more space into natural domain. Since the living stress here is so fierce, people can sacrifice certain space to accommodate more natural elements, and on the contrary, push their life more close to the nature

Harmonious interactions were found both functionally and ecologically in the case of '''Vikki'''. A finger like morphology increases the length of edge, which in a matter of fact mitigate the conflict in between. Various of plants also boost the biodiversity.

Working group: Nature conservation

Core question '''How do urban and natural structures interact?''' (from Chinyi)
{| border="1" cellpadding="1"
!width="300"|CASE
!width="400"|2-D SPATIALLY
!width="400"|FUNCTIONALLY and NATURE CONSERVATIONALLY

|-valign="top"
|
*Great War Island
||
*The change from Natural to urban structures is designed in a gradient manner.
*the border of tourism zone was cutted evenly while the border to recreational zone and protection zone express a finger like form.
*Reference illustration(http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/Image:ZONES_AND_BORDERS.jpg )
||
*The gradient arrangement make natural and urban structure gradually join together
*From tourism zone to natural protection zone, from open to close,the design creatively satisfy the need of fucntion and extensively decrease the danger the urban structure can probably made.
|-valign="top"
|
*Hangzhou
||
*No arbitrary border or territory was set to separate the natural and urban structure
*The urban structure and natural structure were merged in the whole “Westlake” area.
||
*Due to the historical reason, and the coexistence of nature and urban structure, the interaction between natural and urban structure are more itimate and harmonious than other case
|-valign="top"
|
*High island
||
*Natural and urban structures seperated due to historical reason
*the abyss between natural and urban structure are hardly overcome

|-valign="top"
|
*Lake Morgan
||
*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
||
*Urban structure negatively affect the natural structure

|-valign="top"
|
*Parque de Educação Ambiental Professor Mello Barreto
||*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
*restored area was integrated to the nature that surrounds the city of Rio de Janeiro.
||
*The natural structure was restored to some extend
*The urban structure was created for education and instruction purpose in order to ease its negative impact to natural structure
|-valign="top"
|
*River Liesing, Vienna
||
*Natural and urban structure interacted in a linear way (waterfront)
||
*The recreational purpose is maximize in the premise of natrual conservation

|}
From Daliborka and Jovana

[[Image:Urban_vs.natural_table.jpg|left|thumb]] [[Image:Graphic.jpg|center|thumb]]

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== What is the role of water? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Barbara
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of water?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
Barbara
Image:Folie3.jpg|thumb|none|400px
Image:Folie4.jpg|thumb|none|400px
Image:Folie1.jpg|thumb|none|400px
Image:Folie2.jpg|thumb|none|400px
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

===What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ===
==== Anwers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Lolita & Chinyi
The relationship between nature and human can be always described either harmonious or conflicted.

The nature, exist as the fundamental base for human activity,always follow its own biological evolutional step in absence of the effect from human. However, since human beging initialized the dominant status among all the "organisms" live in the globe. The activities significantly affected the nature, either in a positive way, or reverserly, negative way.

In all case studies, attempts were made to soften the relationship between nature and human given that our era just located in the very moment, when nature system (ecological system) has been broken extensively. Anyway, since the close attachment of city, the city, the population explosion, the conflict between nature and human is more and more severe. We tried to use relativly mild measure,make it possible for the nature to survive its evolution, meanwhile also serve as a functional (recreational or productive) site for human being.

As a part of the process of relation between humans and Nature, we can see in all these case studies that we have three great ways of treating it in the landscape projects:
'''First''' we have the relation with the huge elements of nature: Lake, mountain, rivers, forests... (Great war Island, Hangzhou, High Island, Lake Morgan, River Liesing)
The answers in these cases are often first to use it as a resource item, then to include it as a part of the city and finally to restore its ecological value (due to the actual politics).

Often, we have the case of a natural element part of a urban process (High Island, Lake Mogan, Parque de Educaçao Ambiental Mello Barreto, River Liesing). These projects are often seen as recreational system, as well as a biodiversity item. We can see here the difficulties of the cohabitation, as reported by the Lake Mogan experience. High Island could be one of these not successful experience, as the politics's aims were too numerous (recreational, esthetical, ecological...)

Then we have the example of Viikki, which is the typical example of the Nature seen as an element of construction of the project. This modern way of built is a new form of the garden-cities, with an ecological politic. This conception of relation between nature and humans is full of technical solutions, presented as perfect answers to ecological problems. However, we still have few reports back from these experiences, and as an experience, we can't really say that is the miracle system to use every time.

In the case of Hangzhou,which the interaction between human and nature was comparatively detailed record,we can observe all kinds of measure taken to improve the relationship between city, human, and nature( lake).However, up to now,the traditional technique maintain the most fequently used measure in this project. The ultimate goal, in which people and nature can coexist without frequently amendation and restoration, remains pending.

So we see that the recent ecological politics can, on one hand, take part to re-structuralism of natural sites in urban process, with the difficulties about sharing uses and objectives. On the other hand, these politics are motors of natural planning in urban process, showed by the Eco-district system, as the one of Viikki, and use nature as an element of construction, seen as a recreational and ecological item.
[[Image:Nature Concervation Core Question HumanNature.jpg]]

<gallery caption=" " widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="5">
Image:Evolution_of_Viikki_copy.jpg|Evolution of Viikki
Image:Evolution_of_great_war_island_copy.jpg|Evolution of Great War Island
Image:Evolution_of_highisland_copy.jpg|Evolution of High Island
</gallery>
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Working Group Minutes==

=== First Meeting ===

* [[Minutes First Meeting WG 2]], 3rd of December 2008
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

File:Folie4.jpg

2009-01-20T08:26:10Z

Barbarabirli:

File:Folie3.jpg

2009-01-20T08:25:27Z

Barbarabirli:

Working Group Nature Conservation

2009-01-20T08:24:48Z

Barbarabirli: /* Synthesis */

== Case Studies of this working group ==
The list includes all case studies categorised in this group and the respective answers to the first question "Rationale:Why is this case study interesting?"

''Attention: this is a dynamic page list, do not edit this paragraph!''
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?
</DPL>

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Core Questions of this Working Group ==

'''Core themes'''
(as identified on 3rd of December 2008):

*User group
*City
*Urban nature
*Interaction
*Water

'''Core questions'''

#What is the role of user groups? (Emel)
#What is the role of the city? (Virpi)
#How do urban and natural structures interact? (Urban nature interaction, Daliborka and Jovana)
#What is the role of water? (Barbara)

'''Notes:'''
* The names behind the questions identify those people that take up a kind of editor's responsibility for the questions. All group members are asked to integrate all questions into their case study report. The respective question editors will then compile the different answers and report back to the group plenary on December 19th.

* People who did not attend the session on 3rd of December may have additional proposals for core questions. Feel free to add these questions as proposals to the list above and discuss it via e-mail or using the discussion page.

* Please integrate the questions soon and try to deliver some draft answers before December 15th - otherwise it will become difficult to create a synthesis report for December 17th.

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Synthesis of Core Questions ==

=== What is the role of user groups? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Emel

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of user groups?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]
=== What is the role of the city? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of the city?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Virpi

I was comparing case studies from the point of view of the city:

- How the nature area is located to the densely built city environment?

- Is the city affecting to the status of the nature area? Is the area protected or is there some uncertainty with the status and the future of the nature area?

There were a lot of similarities with the location of the case study areas: most of them were under strong influence of built environment and human in the city structure. Usually there were still quite good ecological connections left to the other surrounding nature areas. In many cases the ecological connection was water related: a river or a lake environment.

The closeness of the city was affecting to all of the case study areas: in most of the cases there exists for example recreational use, littering and pollution, which are affecting to the nature and landscape values of the area. There was no high pressure of housing to spread to the nature areas: the reason for that may be that the case study areas were usually not that favourable land for building.

The values of the nature areas were mostly recognised and the status of the area were usually somehow protected. In many cases national legislation and/or town planning is protecting the nature areas, but there might still be problems with inadequate supervision or lack of control or irresponsible use of the area. The recreational or economical use of the area is in many cases too strong and that causes disadvantages for organisms of nature.

In most of the cases it seems that the process of protecting and recognising nature area is still on its way and the authorities are still trying to find better balance between the protection and the use. Tools to prevent harms for nature caused by human are in many cases inadequate. As a conclusion one important method to save the nature area with values could probably be the combination of at least regionally recognised status by city plan and the appreciation of the area gained by informing people – the city has the most important role in that work (if the area is administered by the city, and in most of these case studies it probably is so). That combination would provide continuous, strong status of the area and responsible use of the area.

[[Image:THE_ROLE_OF_THE_CITY.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== How do urban and natural structures interact? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered

include = #How do urban and natural structures interact?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
'''Chinyi''' and (Daliborka and Jovana)

From Chinyi

A conflict can be always found in the relationship of urban and natural structure, either spatially or functionally.However, nearly all the projects here are trying to mitigate the confilit.

In the case of great wall island, We observed a asymmetric influence imposed by the natual structure to the urban area and vice versa. The natural structure release always beneficial influence to the city while the urban space affect the island mainly in a negative manner(pollution, reduced biodiversity).

Next come to the example of Westlake, '''Hangzhou''', who has a long-term close co-existence state with urban space. The peculiarity of the interaction here should be the phenomenon of symbiosis between natural and urban structure. Conflicts can be after all found but seldom change the balance between them.( To some extent, the aesthetic and recreational need of residents in Hangzhou, which finally result in the artificial measures taken to prevent the extinction of Westlake , counteract the negative effect imposed by human activities.

As for '''Lake Morgan''',the factor of urban structures extremely overstand the other elements in this fragile relationship.To fulfill the need of daily urban life, all natural structures have been sacrificed and seems to be hardly recalled.

Instead of exploiting more virgin territory, the reversible version in the case of '''Parque de Educacao'''.trys to integrate more space into natural domain. Since the living stress here is so fierce, people can sacrifice certain space to accommodate more natural elements, and on the contrary, push their life more close to the nature

Harmonious interactions were found both functionally and ecologically in the case of '''Vikki'''. A finger like morphology increases the length of edge, which in a matter of fact mitigate the conflict in between. Various of plants also boost the biodiversity.

Working group: Nature conservation

Core question '''How do urban and natural structures interact?''' (from Chinyi)
{| border="1" cellpadding="1"
!width="300"|CASE
!width="400"|2-D SPATIALLY
!width="400"|FUNCTIONALLY and NATURE CONSERVATIONALLY

|-valign="top"
|
*Great War Island
||
*The change from Natural to urban structures is designed in a gradient manner.
*the border of tourism zone was cutted evenly while the border to recreational zone and protection zone express a finger like form.
*Reference illustration(http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/Image:ZONES_AND_BORDERS.jpg )
||
*The gradient arrangement make natural and urban structure gradually join together
*From tourism zone to natural protection zone, from open to close,the design creatively satisfy the need of fucntion and extensively decrease the danger the urban structure can probably made.
|-valign="top"
|
*Hangzhou
||
*No arbitrary border or territory was set to separate the natural and urban structure
*The urban structure and natural structure were merged in the whole “Westlake” area.
||
*Due to the historical reason, and the coexistence of nature and urban structure, the interaction between natural and urban structure are more itimate and harmonious than other case
|-valign="top"
|
*High island
||
*Natural and urban structures seperated due to historical reason
*the abyss between natural and urban structure are hardly overcome

|-valign="top"
|
*Lake Morgan
||
*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
||
*Urban structure negatively affect the natural structure

|-valign="top"
|
*Parque de Educação Ambiental Professor Mello Barreto
||*Natural structure overlapped with urban structure
*restored area was integrated to the nature that surrounds the city of Rio de Janeiro.
||
*The natural structure was restored to some extend
*The urban structure was created for education and instruction purpose in order to ease its negative impact to natural structure
|-valign="top"
|
*River Liesing, Vienna
||
*Natural and urban structure interacted in a linear way (waterfront)
||
*The recreational purpose is maximize in the premise of natrual conservation

|}
From Daliborka and Jovana

[[Image:Urban_vs.natural_table.jpg|left|thumb]] [[Image:Graphic.jpg|center|thumb]]

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== What is the role of water? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Barbara
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of water?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
Barbara
[[Image:Folie3.jpg]]
[[Image:Folie4.jpg]]
[[Image:Folie2.jpg]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

===What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ===
==== Anwers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Lolita & Chinyi
The relationship between nature and human can be always described either harmonious or conflicted.

The nature, exist as the fundamental base for human activity,always follow its own biological evolutional step in absence of the effect from human. However, since human beging initialized the dominant status among all the "organisms" live in the globe. The activities significantly affected the nature, either in a positive way, or reverserly, negative way.

In all case studies, attempts were made to soften the relationship between nature and human given that our era just located in the very moment, when nature system (ecological system) has been broken extensively. Anyway, since the close attachment of city, the city, the population explosion, the conflict between nature and human is more and more severe. We tried to use relativly mild measure,make it possible for the nature to survive its evolution, meanwhile also serve as a functional (recreational or productive) site for human being.

As a part of the process of relation between humans and Nature, we can see in all these case studies that we have three great ways of treating it in the landscape projects:
'''First''' we have the relation with the huge elements of nature: Lake, mountain, rivers, forests... (Great war Island, Hangzhou, High Island, Lake Morgan, River Liesing)
The answers in these cases are often first to use it as a resource item, then to include it as a part of the city and finally to restore its ecological value (due to the actual politics).

Often, we have the case of a natural element part of a urban process (High Island, Lake Mogan, Parque de Educaçao Ambiental Mello Barreto, River Liesing). These projects are often seen as recreational system, as well as a biodiversity item. We can see here the difficulties of the cohabitation, as reported by the Lake Mogan experience. High Island could be one of these not successful experience, as the politics's aims were too numerous (recreational, esthetical, ecological...)

Then we have the example of Viikki, which is the typical example of the Nature seen as an element of construction of the project. This modern way of built is a new form of the garden-cities, with an ecological politic. This conception of relation between nature and humans is full of technical solutions, presented as perfect answers to ecological problems. However, we still have few reports back from these experiences, and as an experience, we can't really say that is the miracle system to use every time.

In the case of Hangzhou,which the interaction between human and nature was comparatively detailed record,we can observe all kinds of measure taken to improve the relationship between city, human, and nature( lake).However, up to now,the traditional technique maintain the most fequently used measure in this project. The ultimate goal, in which people and nature can coexist without frequently amendation and restoration, remains pending.

So we see that the recent ecological politics can, on one hand, take part to re-structuralism of natural sites in urban process, with the difficulties about sharing uses and objectives. On the other hand, these politics are motors of natural planning in urban process, showed by the Eco-district system, as the one of Viikki, and use nature as an element of construction, seen as a recreational and ecological item.
[[Image:Nature Concervation Core Question HumanNature.jpg]]

<gallery caption=" " widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="5">
Image:Evolution_of_Viikki_copy.jpg|Evolution of Viikki
Image:Evolution_of_great_war_island_copy.jpg|Evolution of Great War Island
Image:Evolution_of_highisland_copy.jpg|Evolution of High Island
</gallery>
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Working Group Minutes==

=== First Meeting ===

* [[Minutes First Meeting WG 2]], 3rd of December 2008
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

File:Folie4.JPG

2009-01-20T08:23:47Z

Barbarabirli:

File:Folie3.JPG

2009-01-20T08:23:32Z

Barbarabirli:

File:Folie2.JPG

2009-01-20T08:23:14Z

Barbarabirli:

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T12:03:30Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of use/users */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Project tasks/Büro Knoll]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.

*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.

*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.

*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).

*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg|thumb|300px|left|River quality according to Water Directive]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg|thumb|300px|left|The 4 Phases for Construction]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png|thumb|left|300px|wastewater channel below river bed, picture by Fa.Porr]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px|User at River Liesing]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

[[Image:b-a.jpg|thumb|left|300px]]

*Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
*A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
*The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
*Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
*Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Liesingsmall1.jpg|river liesing
Image:Liesingsmall2.jpg|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===

*DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

*http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm

*Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt, Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T12:02:44Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of program/function */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Project tasks/Büro Knoll]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.

*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.

*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.

*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).

*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg|thumb|300px|left|River quality according to Water Directive]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg|thumb|300px|left|The 4 Phases for Construction]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png|thumb|left|300px|wastewater channel below river bed, picture by Fa.Porr]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px|add subtitle here]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

[[Image:b-a.jpg|thumb|left|300px]]

*Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
*A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
*The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
*Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
*Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Liesingsmall1.jpg|river liesing
Image:Liesingsmall2.jpg|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===

*DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

*http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm

*Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt, Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T12:01:39Z

Barbarabirli: /* Spatial analysis of area/project/plan */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Project tasks/Büro Knoll]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.

*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.

*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.

*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).

*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg|thumb|300px|left|River quality according to Water Directive]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg|thumb|300px|left|The 4 Phases for Construction]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png|thumb|left|300px|add subtitle here]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px|add subtitle here]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

[[Image:b-a.jpg|thumb|left|300px]]

*Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
*A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
*The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
*Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
*Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Liesingsmall1.jpg|river liesing
Image:Liesingsmall2.jpg|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===

*DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

*http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm

*Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt, Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T12:00:37Z

Barbarabirli: /* The specific aims of the projects were: */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Project tasks/Büro Knoll]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.

*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.

*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.

*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).

*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg|thumb|300px|left|add subtitle here]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg|thumb|300px|left|add subtitle here]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png|thumb|left|300px|add subtitle here]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px|add subtitle here]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

[[Image:b-a.jpg|thumb|left|300px]]

*Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
*A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
*The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
*Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
*Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Liesingsmall1.jpg|river liesing
Image:Liesingsmall2.jpg|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===

*DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

*http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm

*Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt, Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T12:00:00Z

Barbarabirli: /* The specific aims of the projects were: */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Project steps]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.

*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.

*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.

*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).

*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg|thumb|300px|left|add subtitle here]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg|thumb|300px|left|add subtitle here]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png|thumb|left|300px|add subtitle here]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px|add subtitle here]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

[[Image:b-a.jpg|thumb|left|300px]]

*Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
*A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
*The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
*Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
*Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:Liesingsmall1.jpg|river liesing
Image:Liesingsmall2.jpg|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===

*DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

*http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm

*Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt, Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

File:Liesingsmall2.jpg

2009-01-19T11:58:36Z

Barbarabirli: trees

trees

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:39:29Z

Barbarabirli: /* Image Gallery */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
[[Liesingsmall1.jpg]]|river liesing
[[Liesingsmall2.jpg]]|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:39:03Z

Barbarabirli: /* Image Gallery */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
[[Liesingsmall1.jpg]]|river liesing
[[Image:Liesingsmall2.jpg]]|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:37:18Z

Barbarabirli: /* Image Gallery */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Liesingsmall1.jpg|river liesing
Liesingsmall2.jpg|more trees for the banks
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

File:Liesingsmall1.jpg

2009-01-19T10:36:16Z

Barbarabirli:

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:32:35Z

Barbarabirli: /* What can be generalized from this case study? */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

River liesing is a broad project including various aspects of the profession of landscape architecture.

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:30:07Z

Barbarabirli: /* Which research questions does it generate? */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

necessary further research proposals:
_concerning long therm sustainability of the new habitats.
_concerning the change in user activities before and after the reconstruction
_concerning the varieties of the still non reconstructed parts of the river compared to the renewed

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:27:07Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of design/planning process */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see http://draco.hfwu.de/~wikienfk5/index.php/River_Liesing%2C_Vienna#Analysis_of_design.2Fplanning_process
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
The public participation process was amngst the most important consultation activities.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:24:13Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of design/planning process */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
As this was ahige project there were various parties involved.
see
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:23:09Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of program/function */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
----
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
This was done by creating a slow flowing river, creating different river banks and bringing in animals and plants.
----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)
This was done by offering various play zones, a cycling path, and planting numerous trees.
----

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:19:54Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of program/function */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
----
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)

----

Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)

----

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]

Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:18:32Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of program/function */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
This was done by opening up the old concrete river bed and constructing a new improved waste water channel.
[[Image:wastewaterChannel.png]]

Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-19T10:17:04Z

Barbarabirli: /* Analysis of program/function */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
Reconstruction of the waste water channel below the old river bed (by City of Vienna)
Improvement of the habitats in and next to the river (through LIFE project)
Creation of a renewed recreation zone for various user groups (through LIFE project)

* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories

File:WastewaterChannel.png

2009-01-19T10:15:04Z

Barbarabirli:

Working Group Nature Conservation

2009-01-14T09:17:07Z

Barbarabirli: /* Synthesis */

== Case Studies of this working group ==
The list includes all case studies categorised in this group and the respective answers to the first question "Rationale:Why is this case study interesting?"

''Attention: this is a dynamic page list, do not edit this paragraph!''
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #Rationale: Why is this case study interesting?
</DPL>

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Core Questions of this Working Group ==

'''Core themes'''
(as identified on 3rd of December 2008):

*User group
*City
*Urban nature
*Interaction
*Water

'''Core questions'''

#What is the role of user groups? (Emel)
#What is the role of the city? (Virpi)
#How do urban and natural structures interact? (Urban nature interaction, Daliborka and Jovana)
#What is the role of water? (Barbara)

'''Notes:'''
* The names behind the questions identify those people that take up a kind of editor's responsibility for the questions. All group members are asked to integrate all questions into their case study report. The respective question editors will then compile the different answers and report back to the group plenary on December 19th.

* People who did not attend the session on 3rd of December may have additional proposals for core questions. Feel free to add these questions as proposals to the list above and discuss it via e-mail or using the discussion page.

* Please integrate the questions soon and try to deliver some draft answers before December 15th - otherwise it will become difficult to create a synthesis report for December 17th.

[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Synthesis of Core Questions ==

=== What is the role of user groups? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Emel

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of user groups?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]
=== What is the role of the city? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====

<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of the city?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Virpi

I was comparing case studies from the point of view of the city:

- How the nature area is located to the densely built city environment?

- Is the city affecting to the status of the nature area? Is the area protected or is there some uncertainty with the status and the future of the nature area?

There were a lot of similarities with the location of the case study areas: most of them were under strong influence of built environment and human in the city structure. Usually there were still quite good ecological connections left to the other surrounding nature areas. In many cases the ecological connection was water related: a river or a lake environment.

The closeness of the city was affecting to all of the case study areas: in most of the cases there exists for example recreational use, littering and pollution, which are affecting to the nature and landscape values of the area. There was no high pressure of housing to spread to the nature areas: the reason for that may be that the case study areas were usually not that favourable land for building.

The values of the nature areas were mostly recognised and the status of the area were usually somehow protected. In many cases national legislation and/or town planning is protecting the nature areas, but there might still be problems with inadequate supervision or lack of control or irresponsible use of the area. The recreational or economical use of the area is in many cases too strong and that causes disadvantages for organisms of nature.

In most of the cases it seems that the process of protecting and recognising nature area is still on its way and the authorities are still trying to find better balance between the protection and the use. Tools to prevent harms for nature caused by human are in many cases inadequate. As a conclusion one important method to save the nature area with values could probably be the combination of at least regionally recognised status by city plan and the appreciation of the area gained by informing people – the city has the most important role in that work (if the area is administered by the city, and in most of these case studies it probably is so). That combination would provide continuous, strong status of the area and responsible use of the area.

[[Image:THE_ROLE_OF_THE_CITY.jpg|thumb|none|400px]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== How do urban and natural structures interact? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered

include = #How do urban and natural structures interact?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
Chinyi and '''Daliborka and Jovana'''

A conflict can be always found in the relationship of urban and natural structure, either spatially or functionally.

In the case of great wall island, We observed a asymmetric influence imposed by the natual structure to the urban area and vice versa. The natural structure release always beneficial influence to the city while the urban space affect the island mainly in a negative manner(pollution, reduced biodiversity).

Next come to the example of Westlake, '''Hangzhou''', who has a long-term close co-existence state with urban space. The peculiarity of the interaction here should be the phenomenon of symbiosis between natural and urban structure. Conflicts can be after all found but seldom change the balance between them.( To some extent, the aesthetic and recreational need of residents in Hangzhou, which finally result in the artificial measures taken to prevent the extinction of Westlake , counteract the negative effect imposed by human activities.

As for '''Lake Morgan''',the factor of urban structures extremely overstand the other elements in this fragile relationship.To fulfill the need of daily urban life, all natural structures have been sacrificed and seems to be hardly recalled.

Harmonious interactions were found both functionally and ecologically in the case of '''Vikki'''. A finger like morphology increases the length of edge, which in a matter of fact mitigate the conflict in between. Various of plants also boost the biodiversity.
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

=== What is the role of water? ===
==== Answers of the Case Studies ====
Barbara
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the role of water?
</DPL>
==== Synthesis ====
Barbara
[[Image:Synthesis_RoleofwaterV2.png]]
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

===What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ===
==== Anwers of the Case Studies ====
<DPL>
category=Working Group Nature Conservation
mode=ordered
include = #What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature?
</DPL>

==== Synthesis ====
Lolita & Chinyi
The relationship between nature and human can be always described either harmonious or conflicted.

The nature, exist as the fundamental base for human activity,always follow its own biological evolutional step in absence of the effect from human. However, since human beging initialized the dominant status among all the "organisms" live in the globe. The activities significantly affected the nature, either in a positive way, or reverserly, negative way.

In all case studies, attempts were made to soften the relationship between nature and human given that our era just located in the very moment, when nature system (ecological system) has been broken extensively. Anyway, since the close attachment of city, the city, the population explosion, the conflict between nature and human is more and more severe. We tried to use relativly mild measure,make it possible for the nature to survive its evolution, meanwhile also serve as a functional (recreational or productive) site for human being.

As a part of the process of relation between humans and Nature, we can see in all these case studies that we have three great ways of treating it in the landscape projects:
'''First''' we have the relation with the huge elements of nature: Lake, mountain, rivers, forests... (Great war Island, Hangzhou, High Island, Lake Morgan, River Liesing)
The answers in these cases are often first to use it as a resource item, then to include it as a part of the city and finally to restore its ecological value (due to the actual politics).

Often, we have the case of a natural element part of a urban process (High Island, Lake Mogan, Parque de Educaçao Ambiental Mello Barreto, River Liesing). These projects are often seen as recreational system, as well as a biodiversity item. We can see here the difficulties of the cohabitation, as reported by the Lake Mogan experience. High Island could be one of these not successful experience, as the politics's aims were too numerous (recreational, esthetical, ecological...)

Then we have the example of Viikki, which is the typical example of the Nature seen as an element of construction of the project. This modern way of built is a new form of the garden-cities, with an ecological politic. This conception of relation between nature and humans is full of technical solutions, presented as perfect answers to ecological problems. However, we still have few reports back from these experiences, and as an experience, we can't really say that is the miracle system to use every time.

In the case of Hangzhou,which the interaction between human and nature was comparatively detailed record,we can observe all kinds of measure taken to improve the relationship between city, human, and nature( lake).However, up to now,the traditional technique maintain the most fequently used measure in this project. The ultimate goal, in which people and nature can coexist without frequently amendation and restoration, remains pending.

So we see that the recent ecological politics can, on one hand, take part to re-structuralism of natural sites in urban process, with the difficulties about sharing uses and objectives. On the other hand, these politics are motors of natural planning in urban process, showed by the Eco-district system, as the one of Viikki, and use nature as an element of construction, seen as a recreational and ecological item.

<gallery caption=" " widths="300px" heights="300px" perrow="5">
Image:Evolution_of_Viikki_copy.jpg|Evolution of Viikki
Image:Evolution_of_great_war_island_copy.jpg|Evolution of Great War Island
Image:Evolution_of_highisland_copy.jpg|Evolution of High Island
</gallery>
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

== Working Group Minutes==

=== First Meeting ===

* [[Minutes First Meeting WG 2]], 3rd of December 2008
[[#toc|'''Back to top''']]

File:Synthesis RoleofwaterV2.png

2009-01-14T09:16:23Z

Barbarabirli:

River Liesing, Vienna

2009-01-14T09:10:54Z

Barbarabirli: /* What is the role of water? */

'''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive'''
{| align="right" width="300pt" style="background:Gainsboro; color:black"
|-
| '''Name''' ||style="background:Lavender"| ''Liesing River''
|-
| '''Place''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Vienna''
|-
| '''Country''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Austria''
|-
| '''Topic''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Restructuring and renaturalisation of a former 70ies "Concrete bed river" in the City of Vienna according to the European water directive''
|-
| '''Author(s)''' || style="background:Lavender"|''Barbara Birli''
|-
| '''Completion''' || style="background:Lavender"|''2005''
|-
| '''Client''' || style="background:Lavender"|''City of Vienna''
|-
| '''Project costs''' || style="background:Lavender"|''about 50 Millionen Euro ''
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| [[Image:Liesing_projectimage.jpg|300px]]
|-
| ||style="background:Lavender"|
|-
| colspan="3" align="center" style="background:silver"| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="48.204998" lon="16.246719" type="satellite" zoom="11" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap>
|}

=== Rationale: Why is this case study interesting? ===

The river liesing project is not only a project about the revitalisation and about improving the habitats of a small river in a European capital, it is also a good example of how to fund such a big construction. It is a project with various landscape architecture offices involved and public participation played an important role, it was co-funded by the European Union. The river Liesing project includes various aspects of the profession landscape architecture, it is regarded as a sucessful project, although it is a pity that not the whole river within Vienna was subject to revitalisation, but only a certain part, where the reconstruction of the canal system below the river bed was necessary.

=== Author's perspective ===
I choose this example personally because I know the area very well, I liked it when I was a child myself and I like to go there today with my family.
My approach is also to present a sucessful project which involves so many parts of the broad spectrum of landscape architecture specialist knowledge - from water managamenent, over design of the area around the river to project management including EU funding and public participation to actually politics - making such a big project happen at all.

=== Landscape and/or urban context===
*Biogeography, cultural features, overall character, history and dynamics

Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna. It has two souces, the “Dürre Liesing” and the “Reiche Liesing”. While the Dürre Liesing arises from a limestone area, the Reiche Liesing arisies from the flysch limbestone area of the Wienerwald, which makes the river grow rapidly in case of heavy rainfall, this lead despite the strict regulation in a concrete river bed to the river bursting its banks.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly.
After housing development in the areas around the river, mainly in the 90ies, first attempts to rearrange the surrounding and to adapt it to the new user needs were started, after two major fluds in the 90ies, and the implementation of the European Water Directive the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised.

=== Cultural/social/political context I European Water Directive===
The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive [[1]]
The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which:

(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems;
(b) promotes sustainable water use based on a long-term protection of available water resources;
(c) aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment, inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances and the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of the priority hazardous substances;
(d) ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution, and
(e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts

Government bodies of the EC member states are requested to implement the directive into national law and to identify river basin districts and responsible authorities (Art. 23, Art. 3) until 2003. The basic units of the directive have to be defined until end of 2004 (Art. 5). A monitoring network has to be established and accompanied by public relations work until 2006. In 2008 draft river management plans have to be in a form to be presented to the public. For 2009, the finalised river management plans should include milestones and an implementation plan to achieve the specific objectives (Art. 13, Art 11). Following this timetable it is expected that member states of the European Union will meet the environmental objectives in 2015.
____
====Cultural/social/political context II LIFE-Environment ====

The specific objective of LIFE-Environment is to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and methods by co-financing projects. 4 areas are eligible for funding through the European Union:
• land-use development and planning;
• water management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of economic activities;
• waste management;
• reduction of the environmental impact of products through an integrated product policy.
LIFE is divided into LIFE-Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. 47% of the total budget of the LIFE programme (€ 640 million) is spent for LIFE-environment.

The successful proposal for co-funding by the LIFE programme was an important basis for the project.

=== History ===
The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body.

==== The specific aims of the projects were: ====

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Please add subtitle here]]
*Improvement of the water quality to quality class II according to the saprobic system.
*Re-introduction of a diverse macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species into the relevant river section.
*Establishment of a string of aquatic ecosystems with restored ecosystem function and structure which may function as aquatic ecological corridor extending far into the urban area.
*Creation of new habitats for priority species (council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora).
*International exchange of project results.

After valuation of the actual state, a project structure has been developed by the landscape architecture office Knoll and the City of Vienna, Departments 30 and 45.

The area has been divided into 4 sections, the following landscape architecture offices in Vienna were comissioned to design the areas according to the master plan by office Knoll

=== Spatial analysis of area/project/plan===
*What are the main structural features?
*How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?

Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

The project started with the need of the canal system which run below the river bed to be renewed. It was clear, that this needed major financial input from the city of Vienna and it was decided to build a new wastewater treatment plant in the area next to river liesing. It was then decided to apply for additional funding from the EU in order to provide the necessary funding for an appealing and natural design of the river banks and the area close to the river. The application to the LIFE programm was sucessful.
[[Image:1.jpg]]

After an ecological assessment of the actual sitution the area was divided into 4 project areas which were renewed one after the other.

[[Image:2.jpg]]

Copyright of pictures.www.life-liesingbach.at/web site closed after project end

=== Core Questions Working Group Nature Conservation / Water ===
==== What is the role of user groups? ====

There are various user groups. After the reconstruction a survey was done among users, distinguishing in between the users living nearby, the persons working nearby and other users coming to the site.
At two separate places on the project site useres were asked for an interview. Interviews were done also with those persons that were involved in the participation process that accompanied the project.
44% of the users stated to be on the site more often than before the reconstruction. Most users agreed on the necessity of nature protection and that this project was successful in reaching this, although users asked for an interview at the site were less concerned with topics such as nature conservation and flood protection than those involved in the participation process.
A majority of users asked for a revitalisation of the whole river in Vienna.

Although improving the situation for user groups was not the actual reason for the project (but the technical necessity of renewing the canal system below the river) with the sucessful application to the LIFE project an improvement for users and public participation was possible as a "side effect" of renaturalisation.

==== What is the role of the city? ====

The project is on city space. So the city has the role of narroving down the space available for the water and the banks. As in this project high water situations had to be considered and these are often solved nowadays by giving the river the necessary space a real conflict occured.
Also for revitalisation wider banks and more space was planned, but could not be built as the necessary space was not available.

On the other hand the city which is not only the built environment but also city life/city inhabitants benefits from the project. Not only is the risk of high water bursting the banks reduced and thus the city "saved" from the dangers of the river, the site is more appealing better used after the reconstruction than before, it offers more for children (special water playground) for cyclists (more paths) and more space for regeneration.

==== How do urban and natural structures interact? ====

From the spatial perspective, the river is a linear form within the city, is was so before the project and unfortunately still is.
From the social perspective urban citizens use the reconstructed site.
From the perspective of nature conservation habitats are still too small and not well linked to other habitats, although the overall ecological situation has been improved significantly.
From the micro climate perspective the new banks with an increased number of trees and plants improve the micro climate and provide the city with fresh and cool air.

==== What is the role of water? ====

Water bursting its banks and waste water running below the river lising were the driving forces for the actual project. Water is a habitat, and the improvement of the habitats was one of the objectives of the LIFE project.

==== What is the evolution of the urban relation between humans and nature? ====

'''2005 from City of Vienna'''

The river Liesing is located in the South of Vienna.
In Vienna river Lising has shaped the landscape through meanders, deposition of sediments and erosion earlier, but after a havy regulation in the 50ies followed by an even stricter regulation in the 70ies it was forced in the staight river bed, which lead to a low biodiversity and to the river running quickly. After housing development around the river in the 90ies, the City of Vienna decided for the revitalisation of a 5,5 km area of the river to be completely renewed and revitalised. The Policy background of this project is the implementation of the European Water Directive 1 The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. The aim of the project was to improve the situation at the river Liesing according to the EU Water Directive in order to archive “maximum ecological potential” of a heavily modified water body. Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created The area as a whole became an inviting area for users Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years. BUT: The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

=== Analysis of program/function ===
* What are the main functional characteristics?
* How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of design/planning process ===
* How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
*Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes

=== Analysis of use/users ===
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues?

[[Image:xy.jpg|thumb|400px]]
The area around River Liesing used to be an acricultural area in the City of Vienna, the area is/was part of the Vienna Green Belt. Despite all efforts of the department responsible to protect the green belt of Vienna more and more plots are offered to building activities as the area is affordable and since the construction of a new main road in the South of Vienna (S1) very well connected to the road system.
This change from an agricultural area to a housing area lead to new user groups on the river banks. Mainly families with children sometimes elder persons are seen in the area, cycling and running are the most common sports done in the are since a cycling path has been constructed in the early 90ies.
In context of the LIFE project also childrens playgrounds have been built, one, the best known is a water playground, where children can build with mud and water in an area designed to be a pirates place.
There are few user problems in this area, as the area is big and although there is a good number of users on sunny weekends not overrun, mainly due to the fact, that it is hard to reach it using public transport and the housing areas around are not densly build.

Ecological aspects are crucial in this project, it was the aim of the project to improve/ build habitats. So water animals and all kind of macrozoobenthos and river-specific fish species have to be added as "users" in this context as well.
[http://www.wien.gv.at/ma42/parks/unterlaa.htm]

=== Future development directions ===
There are plans to rebuild all 23 km the river is running on City of Vienna area, but up until today no plans were published. After the end of the LIFE project the actual situation is that there is less public relations work, less activity in the area. Before the construction phase little events were organised to include the habitants and to make the project better known. It seems with the end of EU funding and finishing the aim to rebuild the canal below the river bed, the project is in a sleeping phase.

=== Peer reviews or critique ===

Among the scientific monitoring activities of this project is the study MONITORING RESULTS OF REVITALISATION MEASURES
ON AN URBAN LOWLAND RIVER (LIESINGBACH, VIENNA, AUSTRIA) by Panek K., Korner I., Lang H., Markut T., Petz R., Petz W., Siegl W. published at the 4th ECRR Conference on River Restoration Italy, Venice S. Servolo Island 16-21 June 2008

The main conclusions of their work is: (taken from the abstract)
The ecological monitoring commenced at the end of the year 2004 and ended in
2007. Investigated parameters were river morphology, sediment composition,
vegetation ecology, dragonflies, carabids, ciliates, macrozoobenthos and fish. This
showed that the morphological setting has dramatically improved resulting in an
increased variability in water depth, channel width and bank design. Wet and damp
sites with typical plant species developed. Riparian wood was planted in sections but
it still needs time to provide a considerable river shadowing. The species richness of
carabids increased distinctly reflecting an improvement in habitat heterogeneity. In
particular, ripicol carabids, which were rarely found before the revitalisation, appear
in considerable numbers now. Dragonflies were also nearly missing before, but 15
spp., including endangered and protected taxa, occur frequently now. At least 5 spp.
of these are considered autochthonous. While only some young specimens of four
fish species were found prior to the restoration, 16 species were detected afterwards
and the dominant taxa occurred with all age classes. Even some of the less frequent
species are now obviously spawning within the reconstructed river stretch.

Other monitoring activities were done in context of the LIFE project, which contributed significantly to project funding for public participation and public relations work.

=== Points of success and limitations ===
*What do you see as the main points of success and limitations of the area/project/plan?
Illustration: Summary table

Semi-natural riverbanks extend the green belt of Vienna
A comprehensive habitat, offering different flow velocity has been created
The area as a whole became an inviting area for users
Citizens participation played a crucial role in the project
Public Relations work accompanied the project, there were no major disputes despite major changes and a working period of more than 3 years

BUT:
The space between the river and the accompanying street and buildings is still rather small, which gives neither the user much space nor does it offer a habitat without disturbance for animals. More space for the river in case of high water would have improved flood protection.

[[Image:b-a.jpg]]

=== What can be generalized from this case study? ===
*Are there any important theoretical insights?
Short statement plus background notes

=== Which research questions does it generate? ===
Short statement plus background notes

=== Image Gallery ===

<gallery caption=" " widths="150px" heights="150px" perrow="5">
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
Image:yourimage.jpg|your image text
</gallery>

=== References ===
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 23 October 2000, Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/life/environment.htm
Befragung Liesingbach, edited by Department für Wasser – Atmosphäre – Umwelt Institut für Wasserwirtschaft, Hydrologie und konstruktiven Wasserbau, 2004

----
[[Category:Case Study]]
[[Category:Water management and Urban water]]
[[Category:Austria]]
[[Category:Vienna]]
[[Category:Working Group Nature Conservation]]
[[Category:Working Group Urban Water]]

About categories: You can add more categories by copying the tag and filling in your additional categories