From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by

From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies The case of the City of Hoboken, New Jersey Robert Šakić Trogrlić MSc Thesis WSE-FRM.15-11 student no: 41631 September 2015

From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

Master of Science Thesis by Robert Šakić Trogrlić

Supervisors Prof. Chris Zevenbergen, PhD (UNESCO- IHE)

Mentors Jeroen Rijke, PhD (UNESCO- IHE) Nanco Dolman, MSc (Royal HaskoningDHV) Examination committee Prof. Chris Zevenbergen, PhD (UNESCO- IHE) Jeroen Rijke, PhD (UNESCO- IHE) Nanco Dolman, MSc (Royal HaskoningDHV) Gerald Corzo Perez, PhD (UNESCO- IHE) This research is done for the partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Science degree at the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands

Delft September 2015

Illustration on cover page is a part of Rebuild by Design winning proposal Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy for Hoboken. Illustration copyright OMA- 2013.

Although the author and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education have made every effort to ensure that the information in this thesis was correct at press time, the author and UNESCO-IHE do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. ©2015 by Robert Šakić Trogrlić. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract Urban water system arounds the globe are exposed to increased pressures due to climate change, population growth and ageing infrastucture. Despite the present recognition of a need for change in the traditional approach, and awareness of the benefits provided by sustainable urban stormwater systems, there are rare examples of local success in regulating and implementing city wide practices. The aim of this study is to develop an implementation framework for transforming green infrastructure stormwater management strategies into real projects in Hoboken, a highly urbanized city in New Jersey affected by regular pluvial flooding. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, two green infrastructure strategies were developed: (1) Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A comprehensive urban water strategy and (2) Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan. 21 semi structured interviews with core urban water stakeholders were conducted and the research was organized around the previously developed ‘’fit for purpose’’ framework. The available green infrastructure system typology was used to map the current context in Hoboken. Implementation lessons from the ‘’green infrastructure champion cities” across the United States were applied to Hoboken’s situation. The analysis revealed that there are numerous drivers for green infrastructure in Hoboken, mainly the regulatory driver to comply with federal law and to eliminate combined sewer overflows, and the present political buy- in from the local government. However, the drivers were outweighted by the number of barriers, identified in 5 categories: (1) technical, (2) physical, (3) financial, (4) institutional and (5) legal and regulatory. Based on an innovative approach of the interaction between drivers and barriers and their combination with the best practices available, an implementation framework was developed in order to map the future steps needed for implementing a city wide green infrastructure. The framework developed described implementation as a process distinguished in three phases: initation, uptake and standard practice. The framework proved that the implementation is a complex, dynamic, iterative, long lasting process requiring signifficant changes in politics, policy, regulations and tax systems. Hoboken is in the beginning of its efforts, trying to deliver first projects demonstrating the concept of green infrastructure. The individual tools to overcome each barrier and deliver a city wide green infrastructure through implementation framework were proposed and discussed, thus making it a valuable tool to use for the local decision makers. The task to be accomplished in Hoboken is complex. The conclusions of this work indicate the presence of the initial momentum and strong support for green infrastructure. Thus, by following the framework outlined, green infrastructure can become an important constituent of future stormwater management in Hoboken.

Key words: green infrastructure, Hoboken, urban areas, typology, stormwater management, flash flooding, resilience, drivers, barriers, implementation, framework

i

ii

Acknowledgements “Ne mogu ja - kaže - dobri čovječe, ozdraviti, jer ja i nisam bolestan, nego sam ovakav, a od sebe se ne može ozdraviti.” ― Ivo Andrić, Prokleta avlija Writing the acknowledgements gives me mixed feelings. On one hand, I am happy that the challenging, but yet enriching experience of writing the thesis is coming to its end, because it means that the goal I have set to myself when starting the studies is not that far away from being reached. On the other hand, the comprehension that the wonderful two year period of studying across the Europe is coming to an end makes it impossible not to feel overwhelmed and reminded by the journey thus far. The taste is bitter sweet because the realization of the finite nature of life changing experiences kicks in. Firstly, I would like to thank my mentors: Jeroen and Nanco. Jeroen, thank you for supporting me from the moment we first talked about working together. Your clear guidance, critical feedback, tailoring towards the final goal, constant support and advice on the choice of the future career were invaluable in this process. I learned a lot about how to approach the research from you, and I believe that working with you was the best preparation for the upcoming PhD studies. Nanco, thank you for giving me the opportunity to fulfill one of my goals: to experience working in a big consultancy company. Also, I am very grateful for the provided input and advice. My sincere gratitude to Prof. Chris Zevenbergen for revising the draft and giving useful ideas. This research would not have been possible without the input from many people from the US that agreed to be interviewed. Thank you for making space in your busy schedules to talk to me and provide me with your side of the story. Finally, many thanks to Nikeh, Leah, Maarten, Mieke, Marianne, Joanne and Alex for reading my draft and helping me with my everlasting ‘’a/an/the’’ problem. I want to thank Prof. Solomatine, Dr. Bhattacharya, Prof. Bateman, Prof. Bernhofer and Prof. Brilly for giving me the vote of confidence and selecting me as one of the Erasmus Mundus Scholars, that made it possible for me to attend the programme. Thank you for being patient and tolerant towards all the questions I was asking, and for the great management of the studies. Also, thanks to Ineke Melis, for being the helping hand with every day issues. Finally, thanks to the European Commissin for providing me with a scholarship. The last two years have proven me that my decision to join the second masters was correct from the academic point of view. It streghten my decision that I want to have a research career. However, the biggest achievement of the last two years are the people I met on the road. Nikeh, Joanne, Eleftheria and Pin: Charlie was unfortunate to have just three angels, I have four. Thank you for the endless talks and unconditional support while going through not so pleasant periods. I owe you forever. You taught me that it is easier to let go of a human than a hero, and pushed me in the direction of happiness, and today, I can truly say I am happy. Okan, Alex, Tom and Solomon: I am grateful beyond words that we met and had such a blast together. Furthermore, many thanks to each and every single member of the FRM 3.0 Family. I learned a lesson from everyone, and thank you for widening my horizons. As someone from our masters already said: ‘’I will travel the world for you’’. Besides people that I studied with, I want to thank many others I have met all over the Europe. Imra, Andrea and Karlo, it was great to have a ‘’Balkan gang’’ around. In the end, thanks to my fellow interns in Royal HaskoningDHV: you made my internship a very pleasant experience. iii

To my family and friends from back home, for making me feel extatic every time when I am travelling for a visit, because I know I will be overwhelmed by the sweet taste of home. Thanks to my family in the Netherlands, especially to my uncle, aunt and cousins Ana and Marko for taking me in during my semester in Delft and creating my ‘’home away from the home’’. There are few people that deserve special attention. My biggest gratitude goes to my mother Jelena. Mum, the language has not evolved to the point where there is a word that says more. I feel thank you is not enough to express how I feel about everything you have done. Thank you for making my dream to study abroad true and for removing every obstacle I have ever encountered with such easiness that it makes me inspired. To my uncle Boris, for being my role model and support. The thoughts you were sharing created a person I am today. To Davor, for being the best big brother and always reminding me what the true values in life are. And Sonja, thank you for always being my light at the end of the tunnel and the best companion I could ever have. This thesis is dedicated to my grandparents, that I grew up with: Anka and Jakov. Thank you for making your home my safe haven. Robert Šakić Trogrlić Delft, The Netherlands 28-08-2015

iv

Summary Introduction Hydrological features in urban areas have been altered by the process of urbanization and introduction of impervious areas. These areas around the globe are exposed to increased pressures imposed by climate change and growing population. Accordingly, urban water systems need to adapt to these challenges. Management of urban stormwater runoff is being done in an ‘’out of sight, out of mind’’ manner, using traditional engineered conveyance systems. However, ageing drainage systems have demonstrated limitations and proven to be inflexible in light of recent challenges and most likely when facing future challenges. Therefore, urban areas are looking to address current and future issues with using green infrastructure for sustainable stormwater management. Green infrastructure offers a range of environmental, economic and social benefits. The definition depends on the scale of application, but in general, the underlying idea is to mimic the natural hydrological cycle by allowing infiltration into the ground, evapotranspiration and capturing and reusing stormwater (USEPA, 2010). Previous research has stated that even though the benefits of green infrastructure (GI) are understood, urban water managers around the globe continue to support traditional way of dealing with stormwater management, and despite the availability of advanced technologies, implementation remains slow and rather rare at a larger scale (Brown, 2005; Farrelly and Brown, 2011; Gallo et al., 2012; Lee and Yigitcanlar, 2010; Perales-Momparler et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2008; Van de Meene et al., 2011). Hoboken is a small, densely populated city with a high percentage of impervious areas located on the east coast of the United States. At the moment, the drainage system is experiencing severe problems, manifesting in flash flooding on the streets of lowlying areas in the city and the appearance of numerous combined sewer overflows throghout the year. Even though the problems are long lasting, it was not until the devastating impacts of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 that the need for a different approach was fully understood. Since then, there are two comprehensive planning approaches that include green infrastructure, namely: (1) Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy for Hoboken and (2) Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan. The strategies are new and the implementation process is in its roots. Research Question and Objectives The main question that this study offers an answer to is: How can green infrastructure be implemented most effectively in Hoboken urban environment? The research question has supporting questions: what are the main drivers and barriers in the implementation process as well as what are the ways to overcome the identified barriers. Research questions were designed to achieve the overall objective of this study: the design of an implementation framework for transforming green infrastructure stormwater management strategies to real projects in Hoboken, New Jersey. Approach In order to develop the answer to the research question, the research is structured in a way presented in Figure A. This report is following the same structure. The research process undertook an extensive review of the literature on sustainable stormwater management systems with special emphasis on reviewing available reports on the green infrastructure implementation of the ‘’GI champion” cities v

across the US (e.g. Portland, Philadelphia). In order to obtain first hand information on Hoboken, the series of semi structured interviews was conducted with urban stormwater management actors in Hoboken. Literature review & Desk study

Interviews

Flash flooding resiliency challenges

Identification of drivers & barriers

R1

R1

R2

Ways to overcome the barriers R3

Results & Discussion

Design of implementation steps R3 Research Reflection

Conclusions & Recommendations

Figure A: Research process

The research process was organized around three steps ‘’fit for purpose’’ framework adopted and modified from Rijke et al. (2012a). The framework was originally developed for making adaptive governance operational. It was found suitable in the search for an implementation process, since the idea is to establish the process that will faciliate visions (purpose) set through the existing strategies.

2. Mapping the context

3. Implementation Plan

Stakeholders

1. Identifying the purpose

Figure B: Modified three steps fit for purpose framework (modified after Rijke et al. 2012a)

vi

While applying the framework, the research employed a green infrastructure system typology, developed for mainstreaming the urban green infrastructure (Young et al., 2014). The application of typology screened the current situation in Hoboken, drivers and barriers, and outlined the future implementation needs and required steps, that served as a basis of developing case specific and realistic implementation framework. Green infrastructure system typology The application of GI typology, and identification of social and ecological components of GI system placed Hoboken in an unequal development trajectorydue to the obvious discrepancies in the progress of certain parts of the sub systems. All the current GI efforts in the city are exclusively driven by the public sector with no involvement of the private parties. Furthermore, despite many planned projects, there are no major delivered projects on the ground. Typology stated that the biggest beneficiaries of GI system are local government, Hoboken’s residents and local sewerage authority- North Hudson Sewerage Authority. Besides that, application of typology allowed for detailed insight into the planning procedures, stormwater regulations and financing sources currently employed. Most importantly, GI system typology exposed what are the main drivers and barriers for the implementation process. Drivers Following the structure developed in original typology, the drivers were distinguished into three categories: internal social drivers, external social drivers and ecological drivers. It is undisputable that drivers are internaly connected and trigger one another. However, it was observed that some drivers are more crucial than others. The main driver that will be useful in enabling city wide implementation is a presence of strong political buy-in and leadership at the local level. This driver was triggered by the ecological driver of localized flooding. Further roots of this driver are the needs of community for more open space, which green infrastructure can enable. The strong political buy-in is exemplified through approvals of the City Council for applications for low interest loans from the New Jersey Infrastructure Trust, the land acquisition in redevelopment zones, the grants applications and demonstrated cooperation while strategies were being developed. Rather than just a driver created by the willingness of local government, an important and influential force is the regulatory requirement created by the Clean Water Act. The local sewerage authority (NHSA) is required to significantly decrease the number of combined sewer overflows and otherwise, fines for violation apply. Since the separation of the existing combined sewer system is not an option, supplementing the system with green infrastructure is seen as a solution. In the following three years, NHSA is required to develop the Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) through which the future of the drainage system in Hoboken will be determined. Barriers Since the original design of the typology did not offer the explicit identification of the factors hindering the implementation process, the research supplemented and expanded the typology by distinguishing five categories of barriers: (1) technical, (2) physical, (3) financial, (4) institutional and (5) legal and regulatory.

vii

Each barrier contributes in shaping a complex implementation process. Some of the most influencial ones are the lack of experience and technical expertise, the limited space for GI implementation, the complex management system, the outdated zoning codes and the lack of legal requirement in existing ordinances. However, it was found that the biggest impediment is of financial nature. There is no established steady funding source in the form of stormwater fee nor is there support from the State level to create one. It was confirmed that existing funding sources are not sustainable for the long term operation and maintenance of the system. Absence of the stormwater fee is causing a cascading effect of the inability to introduce incentives for the private parties that would foster the adoption of green infrastucture as a part of development or retrofitting. Implementation framework The identification of drivers and barriers called for the further investigation on the ways that barriers should be dealt with. Hence, the implementation framework has been designed starting from the input provided by the interviewed stakeholders and a comprehensive review of available practices from the other cities that are in the more advanced stage of implementation (Figure C). TIME

Capacity Building

Regulations, Policies, Finances

Opportunities, Priorities, Facilities

Capacity Building

Regulations, Policies, Finances Strategy

Demonstration Phase

Evaluation Utilize opportunities, rank priorities, build facilities

Operation and Maintenance

GI mainstreamed

Evaluation

Evaluation

Initiation Phase

Uptake Phase

Standard Practice Phase

Figure C: Implementation framework for green infrastructure in Hoboken

City wide implementation of GI in Hoboken is seen as a long term process, distinguished in three phases: (1) initatiation phase, (2) uptake phase and (3) standard practice phase. Phases indicate high level of interconnection and advancement to the next stage is a subject of success achieved during the previous phase. Based on the inputs from the stakeholders and previously proposed timeframe in the RDSD proposal (TeamOMA, 2013) the whole process is expected to last for 50 years. At the moment, Hoboken is in the initiation phase, preparing the ground for the delivery of the first demonstration projects. It has been observed that the City is going for ‘’low hanging fruits’’, thus solving multiple issues. This phase is expected to last for the following 3-5 years, in parallel with the development of the LTCP and next stage of RDSD project. Demonstration projects are the opportunity to deliver proof of concept for green infrastructure, and present an important learning opportunity and chance for data collection. Actions taken through the demonstration phase can directly influence the uptake phase, through several aspects:

viii





 



Creation of the Green Infrastructure Task Force Committee (GITFC) to institutionalize cooperation between the core stakeholders: City and NHSA. The GITFC would play important role in presenting public and private interests, build strategic partnerships, overlook GI efforts in the City and negotiate political buy in from the State level. Already in this stage, try to introduce the series of regulatory changes such as mandating retention standards for new development and redevelopments, redefine minimum area needed for stormwater management, update zoning codes and ask for performance based zoning. Furthermore, in parallel with the demonstration phase, the City should explore possibilities of introducing incentives through zoning. Work on restructuring of the Municipal Open Space Tax, in order to secure steady funding source for the future projects and operation and maintenance. Get accustomed to the operation and maintenance requirements of green infrastructure and explore the options for the introduction of the the Stewardship Program through which local community would be involved in maintaining the system. Set implementation targets and metrics for evaluation through the creation of milestones. Evaluate demonstration projects to determine if the targets were met.

In the uptake phase, leaning on the experiences gathered through piloting, the program should be expanded and upscaled. In this stage, further improvements to policy should be introduced, through creation of the sustainability credits, further refinements of stormwater ordinances and inclusion of GI to long term planning facilitated through the Green Building and Environmental Sustainability Elements of Master Plan. Furthermore, counting on created political buy-in and explicit approval for the introduction of stormwater fee, the City should introduce a fee and create an enterprise fund with the NHSA. This would allow the development of incentive policies, hence motivating retrofitting on the private properties. Another important factor is that in this stage green infrastructure should be already included in all aspects of urban development, and as such, integrated in any capital improvement project and projects in redevelopment areas. The moment when green infrastructure is already a constitutive part of the system is a standard practice phase. Throughout this phase, the main emphasis is to put into long term operation and maintenance (facilitated through the existance of procedures and protocols), development of guidance documents in completed Green Infrastructure Start Up Kit, and maintenance responsibilities and tasks being already derived in the design phase of the project. At this point, there is a wide network of volunteers and citizens taking part in the maintenance process. Furthermore, a tracking and monitoring system exists through a GIS database as well as hydrological and hydraulic models. These systems are used to evaluate the overall success of implementation, through meeting implementation targets, that can be set through % of converted impervious area and evaluated in progress reports. The implementation framework exhibits a dynamic character. The dynamics are seen as internal and external. The external dynamics are dependant on the uncertainties brought by the unknown future and climate change. The internal dynamics are determined by the developments in several sectors, such as: politics, financial climate, legislation and institutions. Thus, the dynamics are taken into account through the evaluation process present in all the phases. The main objective of evaluation is to provide a stage for the refinement of the managerial approach and allow for the establishment of the adaptive management, based on the learning by doing and experience.

ix

The implementation framework of Hoboken has been designed based on the methodology of mapping the local context by identifiying drivers and barriers for GI implementation. Balancing between them has created a thought process through which the ways to implement have been designed. The importance of learning from the other cities has been noted, since it was found that many cities previously encountered similar obstacles and removed them effectively. Thus, the applicability of developed framework for the other cities has been discussed. It was shown that the general outline of the framework is applicable elsewhere, whereas further specifications of the phases asks for the consideration of the local context. The generalized steps for the cities to follow when implementing green infrastructure have been developed and presented in Chapter 7. Research Reflection The research reflection placed the findings of this thesis in the context of the currently available scientific literature and practical guidance documents. Firstly, it was confirmed that the barriers to GI implementation are location and context specific. The uniqueness of the situation places some barriers in an ‘’impediments hierarchy’’ higher than others. Furthermore, it was stated that the added value of the research is through the methodological approach used, application for practice and science. The methodological approach created by identifying drivers and barriers, balancing between them and learning from other cities, created a diagnostic procedure for the cities to use prior to the implemenation of GI. The practical application of the research is in providing the set of steps for the local decision makers to convert their strategies into real life projects. Furthermore, the results can be used in the next phases of the RDSD project. Finally, the scientific contribution is given through placing recommendations and enabling pathways for the GI uptake in the form of the process, thus providing an overview of the process requirements for operationalizing the strategic planning. Even though this research made progress in trying to provide a process of recommended actions for green infrastructure implementation, there are several important questions that this work did not consider and that need to be further researched. Firstly, the framework was developed based on a specific case study. Thus, further investigation of the generic nature of the framework is needed. Secondly, the dynamics of the process and investigation on the ways through which adaptive management can be created most effectively need to be considered. Conclusions Hoboken has set comprehensive and ambitious green infrastructure strategies. To facilitate city wide implementation there is a need to deliver significant changes in policy, politics, regulations and the tax system. Besides these more extensive programs, a series of smaller interventions can be introduced. The implementation framework developed in this work offers a series of steps to follow and tools to be used. Despite all the challenges of the implementation process, based on the initial momentum and commitment created, it can be concluded that, with strong dedication and development of proposed steps, green infrastructure can realistically be an important constituent of the future stormwater management in Hoboken.

x

Table of Contents Abstract

i

Acknowledgements

iii

Summary

v

List of Figures

xiv

List of Tables

xvi

Abbreviations

xvii

1.

Introduction 1.1. Background 1.2. Problem Statement 1.3. Research Objectives 1.4. Research Questions 1.5. Innovation, practical value and final outputs 1.6. Thesis outline

1 1 5 5 6 7 7

2.

Literature review 2.1. Pressures on urban water systems, need for change and the role of green infrastructure in the process 2.2. Place of green infrastructure in various sustainable stormwater system definitions 2.3. Rise of green infrastructure in USA 2.4. Hindering factors in green infrastructure implementation 2.5. Implementation process

9 9 12 14 16 18

3.

Methodology 3.1. Research design 3.2. Data collection methods 3.2.1. Primary sources 3.2.2. Secondary sources 3.2.3. Limitations of data collection methods 3.3. Data management 3.3.1. Data from primary sources 3.3.2. Data from secondary sources 3.4. Research framework 3.4.1. Identifying the purpose 3.4.2. Mapping the context 3.4.3. Implementation Plan

22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 28 28 29

4.

Hoboken and flash flooding resiliency challenges 4.1. Image of Hoboken

31 31

xi

4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6.

Description of the drainage system Flooding sources Existing green infrastructure strategies Facilitators of change Chapter summary

32 34 36 38 39

5.

Green infrastructure system typology and barriers to implementation 5.1. Social System 5.1.1. Settings 5.1.2. Drivers 5.1.3. Social Production System 5.1.4. External relationships 5.2. Ecological system 5.3. Barriers to green infrastructure implementation 5.3.1. Technical barriers 5.3.2. Physical barriers 5.3.3. Financial barriers 5.3.4. Institutional barriers 5.3.5. Legal and regulatory barriers 5.4. Hoboken’s GI system development trajectory 5.5. Chapter summary

41 41 41 43 47 51 53 55 56 58 59 61 62 63 64

6.

Overcoming the barriers to green infrastructure 6.1. Tactics for way forward 6.1.1. Recommendations technical barriers 6.1.2. Recommendations physical barriers 6.1.3. Recommendations financial barriers 6.1.4. Recommendations institutional barriers 6.1.5. Recommendations legal and regulatory barriers 6.2. Towards implementation plan

66 66 67 76 79 87 88 91

7.

Design of implementation process 7.1. Implementation framework 7.1.1. Specifications initiation phase 7.1.2. Specifications uptake phase 7.1.3. Specifications standard practice phase 7.2. Discussion on the interconnections between the phases 7.3. Key lessons for GI implementation in Hoboken/ Course of action 7.3.1. On the dynamic nature of the proposed framework 7.4. Towards a generic framework for implementing green infrastructure 7.4.1. Applicability of the selected methodology to other cities 7.4.2. Applicability of the designed implementation framework to other cities 7.4.3. Conclusions on the applicability of the developed framework to other cities

93 93 95 99 103 105 106 108 109 109 110 112

8.

Research reflection 8.1. Barriers in Hoboken vs barriers in the literature 8.1.1. Comparison of the barriers 8.1.2. Conclusions

114 114 114 115

xii

8.2.

8.3. 8.4. 9.

10.

Comparison with EPA’s implementation wheel and evaluation criterias for Emerald Cities 8.2.1. GI Implementation framework and EPA’s implementation wheel 8.2.2. GI implementation framework and Emerald Cities evaluation criteria 8.2.3. Conclusions Comparison with previous research Research application/ Conclusion on the added value

Conclusions and recommendations 9.1. Limitations of the study 9.2. Conclusions 9.2.1. Conclusions on the drivers and barriers for green infrastructure 9.2.2. Conclusions on the options to move forward/ How can green infrastructure be implemented most effectively? 9.3. Recommendations for further research

120 120 121 121

References

127

Appendices Appendix A Description of individual green stormwater infrastructure measures Appendix B Cover Letter for the Interviews Appendix C Interview Questions Appendix D Hoboken Zoning Map Appendix E Nine Minimum Controls and contents of the Long Term Control Plan Appendix F Green Infrastructure in Hoboken’s Master Plan Appendix G Description of planned projects in Hoboken 11.

116 116 116 117 117 118

123 126

136 137 142 143 144 145 146 148

xiii

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Impact of urbanization on hydrological cycle (source: FISRWG, 2008) ................................... 2 Figure 1.2 Combined Sewer Overflow (source: Rodriguez, 2011) ........................................................... 2 Figure 1.3 Primary focus and specificity of different terms surrounding urban drainage (adopted from Fletcher et al., 2014) ................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1.4 Multiple benefits of green infrastructure (modified from USEPA, 2010) ................................ 4 Figure 2.1 Urban Water Management Transition Framework (source: Brown et al, 2009)................... 10 Figure 2.2 Green infrastructure and created ecosystem services and benefits (source: Demuzere et al., 2014) .......................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2.3 Link between the resilience and added values (source: Salinas Rodriguez et at., 2014) ...... 11 Figure 2.4 Scales of green infrastructure planning (source: Allen, 2012) .............................................. 12 Figure 2.5 Empirical evidence of GI benefits on different scales (source: Demuzere et al., 2014) ........ 13 Figure 2.6 Portland's first Green Street Project (source: USEPA, 2010)................................................. 14 Figure 2.7 Vision of Philadelphia 2030 (source: Philadephia Water Department, 2011; Hammit, 2010) ................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 2.8 Steps to implement green infrastructure (source: USEPA, 2015) ......................................... 18 Figure 2.9 SWITCH sustainable transition management cycle (source: Perales- Momparler et al., 2015- based on Duffy and Jefferries, 2011) ..................................................................... 20 Figure 3.1 Research process and connection with research questions ................................................. 22 Figure 3.2 Background of the interviewees ........................................................................................... 23 Figure 3.3 Management of data collected through semi structured interviews.................................... 25 Figure 3.4 Fit for purpose framework (source: Rijke et al. 2012)........................................................... 26 Figure 3.5 Three steps fit for purpose framework adapted for the research (modifed after Rijke et al. 2012) ........................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3.6 Connections between adapted research framework and research questions ...................... 27 Figure 3.7 Process of designing implementation plan ........................................................................... 30 Figure 4.1 Location of the case study (original ortophoto from NJDEP) ................................................ 31 Figure 4.2 Hoboken´s topography (source: Cruijsen, 2015)................................................................... 32 Figure 4.3 Hoboken's land use (source: Cruijsen, 2015) ........................................................................ 32 Figure 4.4 Sewersheds in Hoboken (source: Team OMA, 2013) ............................................................ 33 Figure 4.5 Combined Sewer System municipalities in New Jersey (source: NJDEP, 2015) .................... 33 Figure 4.6 FEMA flood zones in Hoboken (source: Bykowski, 2013) ..................................................... 34 Figure 4.7 Observed increase in extreme precipitation across US (source: Melillo et al. 2014) ............ 34 Figure 4.8 Hoboken during Hurricane Sandy (source: CNN, 2012) ........................................................ 35 Figure 4.9 May 2015 floods in Hoboken (source: Brenzel, 2015) .......................................................... 35 Figure 4.10 Flood maps for T10 rainfall event for current situation and situation in which GI is introduced (source: TeamOMA 2013) ............................................................................. 36 Figure 4.11 Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy (source: TeamOMA,2013) .............................................................................................................. 37 Figure 4.12 Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan (source: Together North Jersey, 2013) ....................... 37 Figure 4.13 Core urban stormwater management stakeholders in Hoboken and their motivation for introducing green infrastructure...................................................................................... 38 Figure 5.1 Internal social drivers for green infrastructure ..................................................................... 45 Figure 5.2 Planned projects with incorporated green infrastructure ( ortophotos retrieved from NJDEP) .............................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 5.3 Climate characteristcs of Hoboken (source: Climate Data, 2015)......................................... 54 xiv

Figure 5.4 Barriers to green infrastructure implementation in Hoboken .............................................. 55 Figure 5.5 Drivers for green infrastructure implementation ................................................................. 64 Figure 6.1 Usefulness of demonstration projects .................................................................................. 71 Figure 6.2 Green infrastructure providing new visual identity (adapted from www.epa.gov) .............. 72 Figure 6.3 Green Infrastructure in New Jersey web site (source www.nj.gov/dep/gi) .......................... 73 Figure 6.4 NJDEP's Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual ................................................... 75 Figure 6.5 Incremental Cost of Green Infrastructure per Gallon of Storage (source: CH2MHILL, 2013) ................................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 6.6 BMP's cost effectivness per cubic foot of implementation (source: Together North Jersey, 2013) .................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 6.7 Stormwater fees in the US (source: Campbell, 2014) ........................................................... 83 Figure 7.1 Theoretical implementation framework for Hoboken .......................................................... 93 Figure 7.2 The four phases of transition (source: Rotmans et al, 2001) ................................................ 94 Figure 7.3 Components of initiation phase ............................................................................................ 95 Figure 7.4 Components of uptake phase ............................................................................................... 99 Figure 7.5 Standard practice phase ..................................................................................................... 103 Figure 7.6 Interconnections between the phases................................................................................ 105 Figure 7.7 Course of action for GI implementation in Hoboken .......................................................... 107 Figure 7.8 Steps for the cities to take prior to the development of the implementation plan ............ 110 Figure 7.9 General steps to follow when implementing green infrastructure ..................................... 113 Figure 8.1 Connection between the EPA's implementation wheel and the GI framework developed in the thesis .................................................................................................................... 116 Figure A.1 Permeable pavement (www.pathwaycaffee.com) ............................................................. 137 Figure A.2 Stormwater tree planter (www.phillywatersheds.org) ....................................................... 138 Figure A.3 Vegetated swale (www.watershedmanagement.vt.org) .................................................... 138 Figure A.4 Rain barrel (www.rv-orchidworks.com) .............................................................................. 139 Figure A.5 Rain garden (www.apwa.net) ............................................................................................. 139 Figure A.6 Green roof (www.greencitygrowers.com) .......................................................................... 140 Figure A.7 Urban constructed wetland (www.domusweb.it) .............................................................. 140 Figure A.8 Bioswale (www.water.epa.gov) .......................................................................................... 141 Figure D.1 Hoboken’s Zoning Map (source: www.hobokennj.org) ...................................................... 144 Figure G.1 Design of Southwest Resiliency Park (source: Starr Whitehouse, 2014) ............................ 148 Figure G.2 Green Infrastructure around the City Hall (source: Bykowski et al, 2013) ......................... 149 Figure G.3 Proposed stormwater delay pit in Washington Street (source: City of Hoboken, 2014) .... 150

xv

List of Tables Table 2.1 Barriers to GI implementation as identified by various authors ............................................. 17 Table 2.2 Evaluation criteria for Emerald Cities (source: Garrison et al, 2011)...................................... 19 Table 3.1 Green infrastructure system typology (adopted from Young et al. 2014) ............................. 28 Table 3.2 Green infrastructure system development trajectory (adopted from Young et al. 2014) ..... 29 Table 4.1 Other GI facilitators in Hoboken............................................................................................. 39 Table 5.1 Departments and agencies in the City connected with connection to green infrastructure . 42 Table 5.2 Grants received for flood resiliency planning after the Hurricane Sandy .............................. 44 Table 5.3 Intended NJEIT loans application (modified from Zimmer, 2015) .......................................... 51 Table 5.4 Summary of technical barriers ............................................................................................... 56 Table 5.5 Summary of physical barriers ................................................................................................. 58 Table 5.6 Summary of financial barriers ................................................................................................ 59 Table 5.7 Summary of institutional barriers .......................................................................................... 61 Table 5.8 Summary of legal and regulatory barriers.............................................................................. 62 Table 6.1 Summary of Triple Bottom Line analysis for Philadelphia (modified from Philadelphia Water Department, 2012) ............................................................................................... 80 Table 6.2 Possible incentives for Hoboken and timeframe for implementation.................................... 85 Table 6.3 Some existing incentives in the cities across US (based on Garrison et al. 2011) .................. 86 Table 6.4 Link between drivers and barriers .......................................................................................... 91 Table 7.1 Specifications demonstration phase ...................................................................................... 97 Table 7.2 Specifications evaluation ....................................................................................................... 98 Table 7.3 Specifications of capacity building ....................................................................................... 100 Table 7.4 Regulations, Policies, Finances specification ........................................................................ 101 Table 7.5 Utilize, rank and build specification ..................................................................................... 102 Table 7.6 Specification evaluation phase ............................................................................................. 102 Table 7.7 Operation and Maintenance Specifications ......................................................................... 104 Table 7.8 Applicabilty of the developed implementation framework to other cities .......................... 112 Table E.1 Nine Minimum Controls and contects of Long Term Control Plan (adapted from USEA, 1995 and NJDEP, 2015) .................................................................................................. 145 Table F.1 Green Infrastructure in Hoboken’s Master Plan (2004) and Master Plan Reexamination Report (2010) ................................................................................................................. 146

xvi

Abbreviations BMP- Best Management Practice CSO- Combined Sewer Overflow CSS- Combined Sewer System CWA- Clean Water Act FEMA- Federal Emergency Management Agency GI- Green Infrastructure HUD- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development LEED- Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LiD- Low Impact Development LTCP- Long Term Control Plan NHSA- North Hudson Sewerage Authority NJDEP- New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJEIT- New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust NMC- Nine Minimum Controls NPDES- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System RDSD- Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A comprehensive urban water strategy WSUD- Water Sensitive Urban Design WWTP- Waste Water Treatment Plant

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction In this chapter, the reader is introduced to the motivation for the research and the rationale behind the project. A short description of the challenges facing urban water systems and comparison between traditional and green infrastructure are given. Furthermore, a short introduction of the case study is provided, followed by the identification of the problem to be researched, objectives to be achieved and research questions to be answered. At the end, the outline of the thesis is provided.

1.1. Background Many cities around the globe need to deal with the impacts and adapt their water systems to the increased pressures imposed by climate change and population growth. The dangers of climate change for cities are exemplified in the impact on infrastructure systems, livability and on entire urban systems (Hoornweg et al., 2010). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that “global sea levels will continue to rise’’ and that changes in global precipitation patters will not be uniform (with a projected increase in avarage precipitation in the temperate zone) (IPCC, 2013). Furthermore, the risks of flooding are expected to increase in urban areas (Pachauri et al., 2014). Inevitably, all of this will lead to even greater pressures imposed on urban water systems. The scope of this thesis research is flood resilience in highly dense urban areas. Resilience is defined as ‘ability of a system to recover from a response to disturbance’, and in light of flood risk management, as the ‘ability of a system to recover from floods in the area’ (De Bruijn, 2005). Liao (2012) states that the resiliency ‘’can be conceptualized as the capacity to remain in a desireable regime while experiencing a flood’’, thus adding the characteristic of withstanding the disturbance. Salinas Rodriguez et al. (2014) add that the term of flood resilience also includes social resilience, institutional resilience and economic resilience. This vision of urban resilience is therefore not easy to achieve, and there are many challenges. This research sees resilience in the latter context, as an integrated term, having a final goal not just in flood resilience, but also incorporating above mentioned types of resilience. In cities worldwide, the processes of urbanization and urban growth have altered the natural hydrological cycle by introducing impervious surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots etc.). As a response to such development, rainfall cannot infiltrate in the ground and surface runoff component of the urban water cycle is much higher when compared to the natural state. It was estimated that


1

typical block of impervious surface will result in approximatelly 5 times more runoff than a natural area of the same size (USEPA, 2003), depending on the climate characteristics in the area and soil type (Zevenbergen et al., 2012). The significancy of impact that the increase of impervious area has on components of the hydrological cycle is depicted in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Impact of urbanization on hydrological cycle (source: FISRWG, 2008)

Traditionally, the approach to stormwater management in the cities is through grey infrastructureseries of underground pipes designed to move water away from the city in a quick manner (Abhold et al., 2011). There are two basic types of stormwater conveyance systems: separate and combined. While separate systems convey stormwater and sewerage in separate pipes, combined sewer system (CSS) collects both and transmits it to the waste water treatmant plant. Serious issue of the CSS are combined sewer overflows (CSO’s), where during the rainfall events, considerable amounts of untreated water are conveyed directly to the receiving water bodies (Garrison et al., 2011). Nowdays, around 860 communities across the US are served by the combined sewer system (van Abs, 2014), representing serious environmental issue and public health threat.

Figure 1.2 Combined Sewer Overflow (source: Rodriguez, 2011)

With limitations of grey infrastructure (that are to be discussed in the further chapters of this work), urban areas are looking to address current and future issues with using green infrastructure for sustainable water management. As presented in Figure 1.3, green infrastructure, best management practices, low impact development, sustainable urban drainage systems and water sensitive urban design are just some of the names used for the set of measures and new paradigm in urban water management with the similar logic behind (Fletcher et al., 2014). Due to the location of case study, this thesis will use the term green infrastructure.

Introduction

2

Whole of Urban Water Management Cycle

Integrated Urban Water Management Water Sensitive Cities

Water Sensitive Urban Design Low Impact Design

Urban Stormwater Management

Primary focus

Green Infrastructure

Alternative Techniques Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

Source Control Best Management Practices Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices Stormwater Control Measures

Specific techniques (structural or non structural)

Concepts

Broad Principles

Specificity

Figure 1.3 Primary focus and specificity of different terms surrounding urban drainage (adopted from Fletcher et al., 2014)

The definition of green infrastructure depends on the scale of the implementation. With respect to this research, the scales of interests are community scale and site scale. EPA defines green infrastructure at community scale as ‘’planning and design approaches such as compact, mixed- use development, parking reduction strategies and urban forestry that reduces impervious surfaces and creates walkable, attractive communities’’ (USEPA, 2010). At the site scale, the aim of the green infrastructure is to mimic natural hydrological cycle by allowing infiltration in the ground, evapotranspiration and capturing and reusing stormwater (USEPA, 2010). The standard green infrastructure are: infiltration trenches, rain barrels, bioswales, constructed wetlands, green streets, vegetated swales, green roofs etc. Basically, using green infrastructure means managing stormwater at its source. Benefits of green infrastructure are presented in Figure 1.4, with highlighted benefits important for stormwater management and realization of flood resilient urban area idea. The advantages of green infrastructure have been realized on a global scale, so the concept has been exemplified in many countries worldwide (however, mainly in developed countries). There are several important advantages of green infrastructure over conventional stormwater systems. Firstly, using green infrastructure can be more financially viable than building or retrofitting grey infrastructure. In 2007, EPA reports how in the most of the analyzed case studies there were significant cost savings, and the ‘’total capital costs savings ranged from 15 to 80 percent”(USEPA, 2007). However, Roy et al. (2008) stress out that there is a lack of comprehensive economic analysis to give sound evidence for green infrastructure (GI) economic viability. An additional challenge when assessing economic benefits of GI is that there is a lack of data from the practice on the costs of operation and maintenance and the available findings are mainly based on engineering estimates (USEPA, 2013a). Furthermore, there is a lack of data on long term effectiveness of these measures (City of Chicago, 2014). Still, from a financial point of view, in the cities with combined sewer systems the costs of separating the system can be reduced by introduction of green infrastructure. However, implementation of these types of facilities on larger scale still requires significant spending, that is at the moment being done mainy by public sector. It is therefore important to derive the ways of attracting private sector investments (Valderrama et al, 2012). Continuing the comparison between green and grey infrastructure, green infrastructure gives a range of possibilities to developers, planners and owners, based on their financial and technical capacity (Hammit, 2010). In addition to From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

3

- improve air quality - additional recreational space - efficient land use - improve human health - flood protection - drinking water soruce protection

- reduce hard infrastructure construction costs - maintain ageing infrastructure - increase land values - encourage economic development

- replenish groundwater

- reduce energy consumption and costs

- improve watershed health

- increase life cycle savings

- protect or restore wildlife habitats

SOCIAL

- increase carbon sequestrattion

ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENTAL

that, all of the benefits presented in Figure 1.4 cannot be provided by grey infrastructure alone (e.g establishing of urban greenways, enhancing livability and urban green space, educating the public). The predicted benefits of green infrastructure over grey infrastructure are increasing over time (Economides, 2014), and the benefits can be experienced immediately and gradually, unlike with grey infrastructure, where due to the long construction process the provided benefit is slow. Another important advantage of green infrastructure is that it is ‘’visible, above ground and it has accessible qualities’’ (USEPA, 2015a). - establish urban greenways - provide pedestrian and bicycle access - create attractive streetscapes and rooftops that enhance livability and urban green space - educate the public about their role in stormwater management - urban heat island mitigation

- reduce sewer overflow events - restore impaired waters - meet regulatory requirements for receiving water

Figure 1.4 Multiple benefits of green infrastructure (modified from USEPA, 2010)

However, besides of proven benefits of green infrastructure and presence of the concept for more decades, still there are many barriers experienced when trying to implement the strategies. Even though there are many initiatives in making cities greener and more resilient, such as Making Cities Resilient campaign run by UNISDR, 100 Water Resilient Cities run by Rockefeller Foundation, presence and development of different green infrastructure design guidance documents at local, regional, countries level (CIRIA Guidance for UK), the concept is still seen as new and not implemented as a regular tool, rather as an exception. The common barriers to GI implementation will be discussed in detail in this work, some of them being resistance to change, public awareness and motivation, maintenance, site suitability (Hammitt, 2010), technical, physical, legal, regulatory, financial, community and institutional barriers (Abhold et al., 2011). The case study for this research is Hoboken, small, densely populated city in the State of New Jersey, United States. This city is particular in sense that it is widely recognized for its efforts to reduce flooding, occurring from different sources, as it will be described in this thesis. Currently, Hoboken is an often mentioned example of striving for flood resiliency, driven by being one of the winning case studies of Rebuild by Design (RBD) competition, initiated after devastating impact that Hurricane Sandy had on the eastern coast of US. Frequent flooding, ageing combined sewer system and occurrence of numerous CSOs, resulted in Hoboken considering application of green infrastructure to manage stormwater, together with providing additional amenities to its residents. This City is seen as an appropriate case study for this research, since the thesis is being done with Royal HaskoningDHV, Dutch- British engineering consultancy company which, as a part of TeamOMA, developed one of the 6 winning proposals of RBD, entitled Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy. Next to RBD project, Hoboken has a city wide green infrastructure strategy that has been

Introduction

4

developed in 2013, and received recognition for its approach. However, Hoboken is still in the starting point, with few delivered projects in place, and since the magnitude of the intervention is significant, there is an obvious need in having a closer look on how the actual implementation process could be advanced. The aim of this research is to discuss the problem of the lack of implementation of green infrastructure strategies in urban areas by designing an implementation strategy for green infrastructure in the City of Hoboken, New Jersey. The research is aimed at city planners, landscape architects, engineers, policy and decision makers, local and regional authorities that are involved in stormwater management solutions in urban areas, together with anyone interested in sustainable urban stormwater management.

1.2. Problem Statement The presented background information provided a glance in what are the modern challenges in managing urban stormwater and why traditional grey infrastructure is not a stand alone solution for the future challenges, due to its high capital and maintenance costs and inflexibility in sense of upcoming challnges. Rather, grey infrastructure should be combined with innovative stormwater green infrastructure solutions which provide ecosystem services and multiple benefits than merely stormwater management (e.g. improved air quality, watershed health, biodiversity, increased property values). However, there are many perceived and experienced barriers in doing so. The short glimpse provided in background information on the case of the City of Hoboken demonstrates the highly urbanized community experiencing the need in changing their approach in managing stormwater, and how there is a significant movement in developing strategies for making urban areas more flood resilient. However, despite the presence of strategies and plans for introducing green infrastructure, there is a lack of implemented examples. In the US, there are several frontrunners in management of urban runoff using green infrastructure, such as Portland, Philadelphia and Seatlle. These cities demonstrate how implementing green infrastructure to the city wide scale is possible, though it is iterative and demanding process (USEPA, 2010). However, these examples are rare ‘’champions’’ and there is a need for transforming examples like this in business as usual scenario, by moving from planning and making strategies to real world, executed projects. In their GI strategic plan, City of Chicago (2014) states that ‘’no city in the United States has yet fully implemented a citywide, largescale green stormwater infrastructure program’’. Thus, the problem statement is as follows: A lack of upscaling and city wide implementation of strategies presenting sustainable solutions for stormwater management due to obvious and perceived barriers: regulatory, institutional, financial, lack of knowledge, governance, political and community buy in and insufficiency of data; in addition to lack of opportunities in existing built environment with high percentage of impervious areas.

1.3. Research Objectives The overall objective of this study is to propose a design of implementation plan for transforming green infrastructure stormwater management strategies to real projects in Hoboken, New Jersey, with special emphasis on Rebuild by Design winning proposal Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge:


5

Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy, for which Royal HaskoningDHV was in charge of water management part of the proposal. The specific research objectives are as following: -

Having an overview of flooding problems and current situation of drainage system in Hoboken Understanding core actors for successful green infrastructure implementation in Hoboken Identify enabling and hindering factors in the green infrastructure planning in Hoboken Develop tactics for mainstreaming green infrastructure in Hoboken Identify policy implications and develop recommendations for the relavant actors directly connected to stormwater management in Hoboken

1.4. Research Questions The research questions are set up and formulated in regard to overall objective of this study, which is the contribution in GI strategy implementation. Once when the main research question has been established, sub research questions and operational research questions have been identified, based on the case study and literature review. The idea is to use the bottom up approach in answering research questions. By answering operational research questions, the sub research questions will be answered which will lead to the answer of the main research question. The main question is formulated as: How can green infrastructure be implemented most effectively in Hoboken urban environment? The sub research and operational research questions are as following: 1. What are the drivers for change in stormwater management in Hoboken?    

What are the current bottlenecks in stormwater management in Hoboken? What are the current programs, policies, regulations, funding sources concerned with GI available on local, state and federal level? What are the main drivers for GI implementation for different stakeholders? To which extent is green infrastructure employed in Hoboken?

2. What are the main barriers for green infrastructure implementation in Hoboken?   

Who are the relevant stakeholders needed for successful implementation? What are the main barriers stakeholders see in the process of implementing GI strategies in Hoboken? How do barriers in Hoboken match with barriers experienced in other US cities?

3. What are the ways to overcome the barriers and mainstream green infrastructure as a part of critical urban infrastructure?    Introduction

What is the choice of solutions for each of the barriers? How can the drivers be used to overcome the barriers? Which steps should be included in GI implementation plan? 6

1.5. Innovation, practical value and final outputs The main innovation of this study lays in contributing to the idea of flood resilient cities by developing a set of implementation steps that will facilitate transformation from strategies to real projects. In order to achieve this, the detailed insight into main driving and hindering factors is provided, followed by best approaches to overcome the problem. The presented approach is specific, but yet easily translated to other case studies, which presents valuable contribution to the literature on change management in sustainable stormwater management systems. The research results will have practical implications, since the problem emerged from the practice. Hence, the findings can be used by organizations and individuals involved in urban stormwater management practice: starting from organizations officially in charge of managing urban runoff to individuals willing to introduce green infrastructure on the private properties. This is especially true for stakeholders in Hoboken, since the results are based on the particularities of this case study. However, the author’s aspiration was to create a generic approach, which can be modified and used for other cities that are in the same planning stage as Hoboken. Next to the practical value of the research, results are valuable contribution to the scientific literature on the paradigm shift in a way urban stormwater is being managed. The scientific innovation this thesis will be emphasized in the chapter on research reflection. The expected final outputs of this work are an implementation plan for green infrastructure in Hoboken and a publication (conference and/ or journal paper). The publication aims in contributing to the field of sustainable urban water systems and to the knowledge about the ways of enabling transitions in urban water systems, on the case of Hoboken. Next to the literature review, the paper will include description of specific Hoboken situation, explain the methodology and provide the results of the interviews on specific challenges and barriers Hoboken is experiencing in its transition to decentralized stormwater system. Furthermore, the expected deliverable of this work: model for implementation of GI infrastructure will be presented and the applicability and comparison with the other cities experiencing same problems will be discussed. The framework will aim in bridging the identified barriers and in providing model of effective solution. The recommendation part will aim in identifying future steps and limitations of the presented research. The implementation plan describes the sequence of steps that should be undertaken in order to implement RDSD: Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy for Hoboken, with focusing on parts of the proposal dealing with green infrastructure: Store and Delay. This implementation plan provides a path that needs to be followed to go from few scattered projects to city wide application, and can be used by Royal HaskoningDHV in the case of further consultancy on RDSD.

1.6. Thesis outline This research is structured in 9 chapters, following the research methodology. The short description of the chapters is presented below. Chapter 1 offered introduction to the research topic.


7

In Chapter 2, the reader is is introduced to the overview of available literature related to the posed problem. Literature review was aimed in setting the context for the research and outlining the need for it. Chapter 3 explains the methods used to achieve the objectives and answer research questions, covering wide range of topics, from data collection and management methods to selection and explanation of research framework. In Chapters 4,5,6 and 7 the results of this research are presented and discussed. Chapter 4 gives general overview of selected case study by explaining the current stormwater management system in Hoboken and identifying its pitfalls, followed by description of available green infrastructure strategies. In Chapter 5, the green infrastructure system typology is applied in order to map and describe the current system in details. Enabling factors for GI implementation are presented, together with implementation impediments. Based on the findings in this chapter, Chapter 6 offeres a range of possible solutions and ways to facilitate the implementation. Final chapter presenting the results is Chapter 7, where implementation framework was designed based on findings from Chapter 6. The different phases of the framework are described and discussed. Chapter 8 places the research results in the context of available literature and previous findings, hence emphasising scientific contributions achieved. Finally, Chapter 9 presents the conclusions of the study, together with recommendations for the future research and discusses what are the limitations enconutered.

Introduction

8

CHAPTER 2

Literature review This chapter provides an overview and evaluation of existing literature and studies regarding the posed research problem. First, the recent research about pressures on urban water systems is presented, followed by the discussion on the definition of green infrastructure and its position in similar approaches. Furthermore, the rise of green infrastructure as alternative stormwater management technique is explained, followed by a review on impediments to the implementation and some present implementation strategies. The literature review was based on the experiences from the USA, with some addition of international experiences.

2.1. Pressures on urban water systems, need for change and the role of green infrastructure in the process At present, it is widely acknowledged that urban water systems are under increasing threat due to several factors, such as: climate change, urban population growth, pollution, limited resources and ageing infrastructure (Ferguson et al., 2013; Perales-Momparler et al., 2015). In the context of this research, these pressures are expected to increase flood risk in urban areas and further degrade health of the open water ways around the globe (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010). Even though there is a rising recognition for a change in paradigm, decision makers across the globe continue to support traditional ways of dealing with stormwater management, rather than promoting approaches (Farrelly and Brown, 2011). In the last few decades, significant improvement has been made in the availability of advanced technologies for sustainable urban water management, but still the transition to actual implementation hinders (Van de Meene et al., 2011). The main reasons for this will be discussed in the following chapters of the literature review. The transition of cities towards more sustainable future was researched by Brown et al. (2009) and presented in the form of transition framework in Figure 2.1. Sustainable management of urban stormwater, together with the whole urban water cycle would move towards water sensitive city (Ashley et al., 2013). As discussed by Salinas Rodriguez et al. (2014) the evolution of cities through difference stages is not a linear process. In todays practice, the state of waterways, water cycle and water sensitive cities has seldom been accomplished (de Haan et al., 2015). No example of a city that has reached the Water Sensitive City can be found, and rare champions can be qualified as Water Cycle City (e.g Singapore).


9

The sustainable stormwater management in this work focusses mainly on addressing the quantity and quality of urban runoff, with looking at additional benefits provided by the implementation of green infrastructure, such as social, economic and aesthetics benefits. Even though it was noted that meeting multiple- objectives can lead to stormwater solutions that are mutually exclusive, it does not need to be a case, if objectives are formulated in an early stage of a planning process (Wong, 2000). Barbosa et al. (2012) argue that the rainfall extremes caused by climate change will present not just problems with water quantity in urban areas, but also in water quality. Farrelly and Brown (2011) state that ´´traditional urban water systems can be characterized as largescale, centralized and mechanized systems operating within a management regime of expansion and efficiency, facilitated by technical, professional elites, who in turn operate in a rigid regulatory framework’’. Centralized infrastructure for stormwater management follows the approach ´óut of sight, out of mind´´, with conveying stormwater to receiving bodies through a network of pipes, channels and storages. In the light of increased pressures, this system has shown to be insufficient and often led to environmental degradation (Wong, 2000). Next to merely flooding issues due to insufficient capacity, there is a series of issues traditional grey infrastructure fails to address, such as: pollution reduction, water conservation and provision of non water related benefits (Garrison et al., 2011). Besides the inability of grey systems to meet its original purpose during storm events and obvious inflexibility, capital and maintenance costs are high. Furthermore, in the past few decades, federal funding for water infrastructure has been decreasing (Tian, 2011). As opposed to that, green infrastructure solutions for sustainable urban water management offers decentralized approach, matching the scale of management action with scale of disturbance, by combining structural measures (e.g., rain barrels, vegetation swales’ and nonstructural measures (e.g., community educational campaigns) (Wong, 2000). Despite many advantages green infrastructure offers, very few cities in the US made significant investments in it (Madden, 2010).

Figure 2.1 Urban Water Management Transition Framework (source: Brown et al, 2009)

Switching to more sustainable urban drainage systems is seen as opportunity for advancement of urban area, spatially, but also with additional social, educational, economic and environmental improvements (Barbosa et al., 2012). Green infrastructure serves larger sustainability goals than stormwater management alone. The range of benefits provided by GI was presented in Figure 1.4 inthe Introduction. For instance, the much mentioned additional benefits are urban heat island Literature review

10

mitigation and livability enhancement. Emmanuel and Loconsole (2015) show how an increase of 20% in green infrastructure for Glasgow could lead to the a third to a half reduction of anticipated urban heat island effect in 2050 and to reduction of surface temperature by 2◦. Cities in the US that are increasingly implementing GI do so with an idea of quality of life improvement (USEPA, 2010). A study conducted by Madureira et al. (2015) for four cities in France and Portugal indicated that citizens were well aware of the importance of urban green spaces for personal health and recreational purposes, as well as for overall well- being. An important advantage of GI over traditional underground conveyance pipe system is that GI systems are visible and contribute to the aesthetics of the area (Netusil et al., 2014). Furthermore, same authors find that in Portland, the market value of the private property is a function of the vicinity of a GI facility. USEPA (2014a) quantifies the GI benefits for Lancaster, Pennsylvania with following figures: annual saving of $2.8 million in energy, air quality and climate related issues, reduction of traditional infrastructure capital costs of $120 million and $661.000 of reduction in waste water treatment related costs. Demuzere et al. (2014) argue that green infrastructure, as a part of green space within urban areas is a powerful tool in climate change mitigation, adaptation process and overall urban resiliency (Figure 2.2), and develop a framework created based on empirical evidence that connects GI with ecosystem services (ecosystems contribution to livability) and benefits it provides. If combined appropriately, green infrastructure measures contribute to the creation of urban resilience (Perales- Figure 2.2 Green infrastructure and created ecosystem services and benefits (source: Demuzere et al., 2014) Momparler et al., 2015; Voskamp and Van de Ven, 2015). Salinas Rodriguez et al. (2014) look at incorporating resilience in the context of sustainable urban water management and present how urban flood resilience is interlinked with urban planning and design while providing additional benefits (Figure 2.3). From the ideas presented above, it is clear that there is a wide recognition for a change in the way urban runoff is being managed. However, that is a complex task to accomplish. As Carlet (2015) states, ‘’the transition from Figure 2.3 Link between the resilience and added values traditional runoff controls practices to (source: Salinas Rodriguez et at., 2014) system integrating green infrastructure design requires action on many fronts, including social, economic and political- legislative sphere’’.


11

2.2. Place of green infrastructure in various sustainable stormwater system definitions With the vast amount of literature available on sustainable urban stormwater management, it is important to distinguish between different terminologies used interchangeably in this work. Fletcher et al. (2014) discuss how this terminology evolutioned and what are the applications. Because the case study of this research is located in the USA, the emphasis will be on the term green infrastructure and its connection with related terminology: Low Impact Development (North America), Water Sensitive Urban Design (Australia), and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (United Kingdom). The term green infrastructure appeared in the USA in the 1990s (Fletcher et al., 2014). USEPA (2015b) states that “green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create healthier urban environments. At the scale of a city or county, green infrastructure refers to the patchwork of natural areas that provides habitat, flood protection, cleaner air and cleaner water. At the scale of a neighborhood or site, green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic nature by soaking up and storing water”. Next to being one of the main buzz words in sustainable urban stormwater management in the recent years, green infrastructure has a wide range of social, economic and environmental benefits (USEPA, 2010). As stated before, the definition of green infrastructure varies based on the scale it was applied (site, regional, landscape), Allen (2012) presents an explanation in Figure 2.4. The scale of interest for this research, when based on the definition presented in Figure 2.4, is site scale, since it relates to stormwater management in urban areas.

Figure 2.4 Scales of green infrastructure planning (source: Allen, 2012)

The correlation between the definition of green infrastructure and the spatial scale (Allen, 2012; USEPA, 2010) is interesting from a perspective of provided benefits at different scales. Based on empirical evidence Demuzere et al. (2014) explore what type of benefits are offered on different scale (Figure 2.5). Important to notice is that on all considered scales (site, neighboorhood and city) benefits of reduced flood peaks and improved water quality are empirically proven.

Literature review

12

Figure 2.5 Empirical evidence of GI benefits on different scales (source: Demuzere et al., 2014)

Low Impact Development is a term used mainly in North America and New Zealand, representing measures that aim to mimic the predevelopment hydrology of a site (Fletcher et al., 2014). Shuster et al. (2008) define LiD as ‘’set of techniques that typically operates at small scales… and articulates a decentralized approach to linking site design and stormwater management objectives across larger spatial scales’. Water Sensitive Urban Design is a concept which emerged in Australia in 1990s. With this concept, urban water systems are managed in a comprehensive way and included as a part of urban planning and design (Ashley et al., 2013). Lloyd et al. (2002) define WSUD as a “philosophical approach to urban planning and design that aims to minimize the hydrological impacts of urban development on the surrounding environment. Stormwater management is a subset of WSUD directed at providing flood control, flow management, water quality improvements and opportunities to harvest stormwater to supplement mains water for non- potable uses.” (Fletcher et al., 2014). Even though the definition of WSUD represents the concept as comprehensive approach, in current practice it is still targeting mainly stormwater management (Salinas Rodriguez et al., 2014). Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems is a practice emerged in the UK in 1980s. SEPA (2015) defines SUDS as ´´sequence of water management practices and facilities designed to drain surface water in a manner that will provide a more sustainable approach than what has been the conventional practice of routing runoff through a pipe to a watercourse´. All the terms presented above are representing decentralized solutions for stormwater management, and their denomination depends on the area where the measures were being developed and applied (Barbosa et al., 2012). However, some differences in the scope of the terms can be observed. Green infrastructure and Water Sensitive Urban Design have the widest scope, since they support broad principles and call for inclusion of stormwater management in urban design and planning. Therefore, literature review is mainly based on these two approaches, but not neglecting the other techniques, such as LiD´s, due to their widespread application in the USA. Furthermore, the interest for sustainable stormwater practices varies according to the region, thus being more used in Australia and USA than Europe (Brown, 2005).


13

The list and description of individual GI measures is presented in Appendix A.

2.3. Rise of green infrastructure in USA Traditionally, US cities are drained using grey infrastructure, and many older towns in 32 states are managing stormwater using combined system (Madden 2010, Barbosa et al. 2012). It is estimated that drinking water and wastewater infrastructure will need approximately $448- 944$ billion to adapt to climate change through 2050 (Freas et al., 2011; NACWA, 2009). Hence, green infrastructure is an option to consider, since next to additional benefits than merely stormwater drainage, it offers economic savings when compared to conventional grey systems (Allen, 2012). The two main drivers for the introduction of green infrastructure in the US are to effectively manage water runoff and to improve water quality. Potential of green infrastructure to solve the problem of Figure 2.6 Portland's first Green Street environmental pollution of receiving water bodies is emphasized Project (source: USEPA, 2010) after the legislative establishment of Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 (Barbosa et al., 2012). To be in compliance with CWA, the cities are obliged to obtain permits for point source discharges through National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (Hammitt, 2010; Roy et al., 2008). This was further specified by the NPDES Stormwater Program in 1987 and the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program in 1997, in which the requirement to use BMP’s in new development and redevelopment was set (Roy et al., 2008). The cities are obliged to tackle the problems of CSO outfalls through the development of long term control plans, or they are to be a subject of fines (Hammitt, 2010). Green infrastructure also has a potential to alleviate the consequences of urban flooding that occurs due to overloaded grey infrastructure and it was proven by models that small scale interventions can have influence on flooding in urban areas (Shuster et al., 2008). In early 1990’s, GI for stormwater management was pioneered by Prince George’s Conty in Maryland (LaBadie, 2010) and nowadays, EPA is increasingly promoting green infrastructure through regulation (Abhold et al., 2011). Next to management of water quality and water quantity, drivers for the introduction of GI can be the improvement of air quality, urban heat island mitigation, cost reduction and many more, but the emphasis in this research has been put on previously mentioned two drivers, since they are connected with the management of urban stormwater. In the follow up, several frontrunners for the adoption and implementation of green infrastructure are presented. In Portland, Oregon, the main driver for adoption of green infrastructure practices was to comply with CWA and reduce CSO’s, together with compliance with Endangered Species Act and Safe Drinking Water Act (Hammitt, 2010). Nowadays, Portland is often referred as best example of green stormwater management (USEPA, 2010). The City is encouraging application of green infrastructure at small scales for stormwater management (Gallo et al., 2012), and the investment of $9 million up to 2010 saved taxpayers $224 million in CSO, reparation and maintenance costs (USEPA, 2010). Many programs and practices have been used to make Portland an example for other cities, such as: requirement of on- site stormwater management for new development and redevelopment, incentives, Downspout Disconnection program, stormwater charge discount program, deployment of local codes and ordinances, grants and the presence of demonstration projects (USEPA, 2010). In 2007, City has adopted Green Streets Program as a city wide priority for the inclusion of green infrastructure in new streets and retrofits, with significant public participation that was critical for Literature review

14

success (Shuster et al., 2008; USEPA, 2010). It is emphasized that crucial aspect for success in Portland was presence of demonstration projects (USEPA, 2010). Even though Portland is seen as a leader in sustainable urban stormwater practices, it should be borne in mind that Portland’s rain events are smaller and less intense when compared to other parts of USA, and therefore it is easier to use small scale green infrastructure to manage water quantity and quality (Gallo et al., 2012). It is important to notice that the effectiveness of the GI measures for stormwater management depends on local rainfall distribution and intensity, soil hydrology and geology (Shuster et al., 2008). For Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the main driver for green infrastructure is compliance with Phase II NPDES requirements under Clean Water Act (USEPA, 2010). In 2009, the City proposed Green City, Clean Waters: The City of Philadelphia’s Program for Combined Sewer Overflow Control, developed by Philadelphia Water Department with the aim of providing sustainable and resilient future by reducing investments in grey infrastructure and investing in green infrastructure for stormwater management (The Philadelphia Water Department, 2012). The programs and tactics to make the plan reality are: policies, Green Plan Philadelphia, Green Roof Tax Credit, Green Streets Program, parcel based stormwater billing system, stormwater fee discount, financial incentives, progressive stormwater regulation at municipal level (Featherstone et al., 2011; USEPA, 2010). It is estimated that the benefits of using green infrastructure to control CSO’s is around $3 billion (Ashley et al., 2013; The Philadelphia Water Department, 2012).

Figure 2.7 Vision of Philadelphia 2030 (source: Philadephia Water Department, 2011; Hammit, 2010)

For New York City, New York the main driver to meet the requirements of Clean Water Act in reducing CSO’s into water bodies, through using alternative approach of green infrastructure, with a goal of managing runoff from 10% of impermeable areas by 2030 (NYC Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). Under Mayor Bloomberg, the City initiated ‘’plaNYC” in 2007 and the Green Infrastructure Plan in 2010. Green infrastructure is currently being implemented at neighborhood scale and many programs are available: NYC Million Tree, Neighborhood Demonstration Areas, Stewardship Corps, regulations and grant programs, increasing green streets, constructing wetlands and new bio swales (Bloomberg, 2011; Young et al., 2014). The City has developed a Green Infrastructure Fund and plans to allocate $1.5 billion until 2030 for GI, but at the current state, the private sector involvement is not so significant (Young et al., 2014). Additional driver for GI in New York was floods caused by Sandy in 2012 and the current availability of funds (Young et al., 2014). Even though New York City is in a stage of developing GI, it was presented here as an example of


15

strong will and actions for sustainable urban water management (mainly triggered by the need to comply with CSO regulations).

2.4. Hindering factors in green infrastructure implementation Even though the above presented examples show that implementation of GI is possible with strong commitment, the implementation on the larger scale is still slow (Lee and Yigitcanlar, 2010). While knowledge of advanced technologies is there and literature is overwhelmed with benefits provided by implementing GI solutions for stormwater management, rare examples of local success in regulating and implementing widespread stormwater practices exist (Brown, 2005; Gallo et al., 2012; PeralesMomparler et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2008). Still, traditional practices are dominating the urban stormwater management (Lee and Yigitcanlar, 2010) and the favored approach to urban drainage is still pure conveyance to the nearest water body or pond (Roy et al., 2008). Jeffrey and Gearey (2006) state that ‘’substantial changes to the way in which any resource is managed are risky (particular where the transition costs and implications are largely unknown)’’. In the recent years, lot of research has been done on the possible impediments and barriers to implementation of green infrastructure and innovative water technologies for sustainable management. A summary of some of the findings is presented below. In the comparative analysis between Australia and USA conducted by Roy et al. (2008) 7 major hindering factors in enabling wider implementation of sustainable stormwater practices have been identified: (1) lack of empirical data on performance and costs of measures, (2) deficiency in technical standardization and guidances, (3) unclear and fragmented responsibilities, (4) lack of institutional capacity, (5) lack of legislative mandate, (6) lack of funding and effective market incentives and (7) resistance to change. Their research indicates that the barriers are of different origin: institutional, engineering, economic, regulatory. Even though their analysis is not based on a specific case study, rather on a complete overview of transition to more sustainable urban water systems in the US and Australia, the conclusion is that barriers to implementation as well as solutions depend on the specific location of interest (Roy et al., 2008). Based on experiences from Australia, Lee and Yigitcanlar (2010) group impediments in the following manner: (1) lack of understanding among stakeholders, (2) lack of common standards, guidelines and technical skills, (3) limited research and knowledge, (4) fragmented stormwater management institutions, (5) lack of institutional provision and (6) economic cost. Their main conclusions are that amount of drivers outweights the amoung of barriers in Australian context and they indicate the lack of empirical studies done on barriers, that are mainly socio- institutional (Lee and Yigitcanlar, 2010). While researching the reasons why implementation of green stormwater infrastructure remains slow and often is just on the rhetorical level, Brown and Farrelly (2009) conducted a comprehesive study covering 53 cases and developed a typology of institutional barriers, covering: (1) uncoordinated institutional framework, (2) limited community engagement, empowerement & participation, (3) limits of regulatory framework, (4) insufficient resources (capital & human), (5) unclear, fragmented roles & responsibilities, (6) poor organizational commitment, (7) lack of information, knowledge and understanding in applying integrated, adaptive forms of management, (8) poor communication, (9) no long term vision- strategy, (10) technocratic path dependencies, (11) little or no monitoring and evaluation and (12) lack of political and public will. The study revealed that impediments to innovative urban water management are of socio- institutional character, rathern than technical (Brown and

Literature review

16

Farrelly, 2009). Farrelly and Brown (2008), again based on Australian experience, by appliying receptivity framework identify similar barriers: stakeholders commitment, technical feasibility, professional knowledge, government policy, regulations and approval, institutional arrangements, property access, costs, project implementation timeframes. All the above mentioned findings are in accordance to previous conclusions drawn by Brown et al. (2005), where it is stated that ‘’impediments are located within the technocratic culture and structure of the system which includes the institutions, organizations and professions that currently support urban water management’’. Drawing on experience from Sweden, Cettner et al. (2014) recognize several impediments: (1) insufficent practical knowledge, (2) missing support (organizational, scientifc, local community), (3) lack of resources and knowledge, (4) ineffective relations and networks and (5) discrepanices between interest groups. Just as the authors above, the conclusion is that the slow uptake in innovative stormwater management is mainly due to institutional barriers, and although there is a positive attitude for a change towards more sustainable water systems, there are many barriers that make mainstreaming of solutions slow (Cettner et al., 2014). Based on a web survey with urban stormwater professionals across US, Abhold et al. (2011) offera rather general categorization of barriers, identifying (1) technical and physical, (2) legal and regulatory, (3) financial, (4) community and institutional barriers. Still, they conclude that the pattern in barriers is connected with two main terms: uncertainty and risk. Main conclusion is that ‘’barriers can appear in various shapes and sizes, depending on the watershed, community and socio- economic context’’ (Abhold et al., 2011). Table 2.1 Barriers to GI implementation as identified by various authors

Author Roy et al (2008)

Lee at al (2010)

Brown et al (2009), Brown (2005)

Cettner et al (2014)

Abhold et al (2011)

Barriers (1) lack of empirical data on performance and costs of measures, (2) deficiency in technical standardization and guidances, (3) unclear and fragmented responsibilities, (4) lack of institutional capacity, (5) lack of legislative mandate, (6) lack of funding and effective market incentives and (7) resistance to change (1) lack of understanding among stakeholders, (2) lack of common standards, guidelines and technical skills, (3) limited research and knowledge, (4) fragmented stormwater management institutions, (5) lack of institutional provision and (6) economic cost (1) uncoordinated institutional framework, (2) limited community engagement, empowerement & participation, (3) limits of regulatory framework, (4) insufficient resources (capital & human), (5) unclear, fragmented roles & responsibilities, (6) poor organizational commitment, (7) lack of information, knowledge and understanding in applying integrated, adaptive forms of management, (8) poor communication, (9) no long term vision- strategy, (10) technocratic path dependencies, (11) little or no monitoring and evaluation and (12) lack of political and public will (1) insufficent practical knowledge, (2) missing support (organizational, scientific, local community), (3) lack of resources and knowledge, (4) ineffective relations and networks and (5) discrepancies between interest groups 1) technical and physical, (2) legal and regulatory, (3) financial, (4) community and institutional barriers

The reviewed literature on hindering factors in GI implementation (summary Table 2.1) offered an interesting lesson for this research. Barriers are numerous and of different origin. However, they are mainly of socio institutional nature, since innovative stormwater management presents an alternative to traditional way of managing. Even though each of the researchers tried to offer a categorization of From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

17

the barrieries, the conveyed message is that barriers are indeed case specific and depending on various local characteristics. Thus, the barriers underpinning implementation for Hoboken need to be explored, since no previous research was conducted. Furthermore, the literature review revealed that most of the research on impediments has been done for Australia, hence leaving this topic still under researched in the US.

2.5. Implementation process There is a lack of detailed, structured implementation process in reviewed literature. Ferguson et al. (2013) recognize that research up to date is limited in proposing how to make strategic planning operational. Cities that are in more advanced implementation phase when compared to Hoboken mainly offer strategies, without structured pathways in which implemetation is to be done. However, some implementation plans have been revised as it will be presented below. In 2011, The Philadelphia Water Department released the Green City, Clean Waters Implementation and Adaptive Management Plan. The Plan covers different steps of proposed LTCP implementation, starting with defining adaptive management process and continuing with particularities of including GI in capital projects, streamlining with policies and regulations, operation and maintenance, types of data to be collected and methods of data analysis and public outreach and participation (The Philadelphia Water Department, 2011). The implementation plan explores different options for making GI city wide approach to decrease CSO’s. It can be concluded that the advanced stage of GI implementation in Philadelphia is in direct correlation with such a comprehensive planning approach. However, even though this implementation plan offers a range of implementation possibilities and gives basic elements, it lacks a systematisation that would make it easier to apply for other cities. USEPA (2015a) goes a step further and an offers implementation wheel (Figure 2.8), systematic sequence of steps municipalities should follow while trying to include GI as a part of their stormwater system. The wheel puts steps in order and sees implementation as a continuous, iterative process. Municipalities are advised to put significant efforts related to capacity building through staff training, planning for maintenance, single out funding opportunities, build pilot projects and evaluate current planning practice and zoning codes (USEPA, 2015a). However, the plan is too generic which makes it difficult to be an effective tool for municipalities to use while finding the ways to move from planning to realization stage. There are many steps in between the proposed ones that need to be taken into consideration while delivering projects. Still, Figure 2.8 Steps to implement green infrastructure (source: USEPA, 2015) the wheel can be seen as a good starting point, putting focus on the primary steps to be considered.

Literature review

18

Table 2.2 shows six key steps that cities with (more or less) successful implementation actions found suitable for GI mainstreaming: (1) long term GI plan, (2) water quantity oriented ordinances, (3) decrease in imperviousness, (4) incentives, (5) provided guidance and (6) dedicated funding sources (Garrison et al., 2011). Table 2.2 Evaluation criteria for Emerald Cities (source: Garrison et al, 2011)

Although these indicators are important to understand what are effective tools in enabling wider implementation, the authors conclude that much work is needed on local, state and federal levels to understand ways in which GI can be used (Garrison et al., 2011). Drawing a connection with previously presented research results on slow uptake of GI from planning to practice (Gallo et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2008), the Emerald Cities evaluation critera confirms that rare examples of wide spread GI application are available. The ways of addressing the barriers are discussed in scholary literature as well. For instance, Farrelly and Brown (2008), see opportunity in pilot projects to ‘build greater technical confidence, professional knowledge and improve inter- organizational cooperation’’. In the same work, the authors state the importance of piloting projects in building repository of data and establishment of links with capacity building initiatives (Farrelly and Brown, 2008). Similary, Brown and Farrelly (2009) propose capacity building (both skills based and intra- organizational), advancements in policy and regulations and adaptive management in form of monitoring and evaluation. Even though these findings can be a useful tool in setting the paths to be followed by municipalities willing to introduce GI, they lack explanation of application tools. Another notable contribution on ways to overcome the various barriers to wider scale application of sustainable stormwater practices is offered by Roy et al. (2008), by identifying following course of actions: (1) conduct research on costs and watershed- scale performance, (2) create a model ordinance and guidance documents, (3) integrate management across levels of government and the entire water cycle, (4) develop targeted workshops to educate professional, (5) use grassroots efforts From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

19

to garner support for ordinances and regulations, (6) address hurdles in market approaches to provide funding mechanisms and (7) educate and engage community through demonstration. Limitations of the presented implementation strategies, and above mentioned need for localized approach ask for the development of implementation process that would put all the elements together, in a logical sequence, easily readable by decision makers and other stakeholders included in realizing the idea of GI as a part of critical stormwater infrastructure. This is in line with recommendation by Ferguson et al. (2013), where it is stated that ‘’there is a need for a reliable diagnostic procedure that could assist planners, policy analyst and decision- makers in selecting and designing strategic action initatives that best fit an urban water system’s current conditions to enable desired system change’’. A road from centralized stormwater management to a city wide application of green stormwater infrastructure is a transition process. It isa long- term and non linear, emerging from different processes (Rijke et al., 2012b). Perales-Momparler et al. (2015) state that ‘’transition management emerges as an innovative approach for dealing with the complex, uncertain and multifaceted problems of water management’’. Rijke (2014) identifies factors needed to facilitate transitions in integrated water management as: (1) a narrative, methaphor and image that support a clear vision for change, (2) regulatory and compliance agenda, (3) economic justification, (4) policy and planning frameworks and institutional design, (5) leadership, (6) capacity building and demonstration, (7) public engagement and behaviour change and (8) research and partnership with policy/ practice.

Figure 2.9 SWITCH sustainable transition management cycle (source: Perales- Momparler et al., 2015- based on Duffy and Jefferries, 2011)

Figure 2.9 presents a framework developed within european research project SWITCH (Sustainable Water Improves Tomorrow’s Cities Health). It is interesting in context of this research because it ‘’…indicates a continious cycle of stages or events that should be taken when attempting to resolve the complex or wicked problems of implementing integrated and sustainable urban water management systems’’ (Duffy and Jefferies, 2011). The framework offers 10 elements on three Literature review

20

different levels (strategic, tactical and operational) that were developed while investigating case studies of SWITCH project. The enabling factors for realizing transition proposed by Rijke (2014) and the SWITCH transitioning framework by Duffy and Jefferies (2011) are chosen as a comparision tool for the implementation process framework that will be developed in this research. The aim is to see how components of the developed framework fit into already existing research explaining steps needed to go from traditional urban water system to more innovative one.


21

CHAPTER 3

Methodology This chapter gives information on the methodology applied in conducting this research. The research process, data collection methods, data management and applied research framework are described. The methodology presented in this chapter should provide a clear overview of how the whole research has been managed, and how the process connects with proposed research questions. The chapters in this thesis were structured according to the accepted framework.

3.1. Research design Process and structure to answer the research question are presented in Figure 3.1.

R1

Literature review & Desk study

Interviews

Flash flooding resiliency challenges

Identification of drivers & barriers R1

R2

Ways to overcome the barriers R3

Results & Discussion

Design of implementation steps R3 Research Reflection

Conclusions & Recommendations

Figure 3.1 Research process and connection with research questions Methodology

22

The research started with a literature review on the status of urban stormwater management and a review of documents related to the specific case of Hoboken. That resulted in the problem formulation and the design of research questions. The findings from literature and reports were the foundation for coming up with a list of interview questions. Later on, this process became iterative and interchangeable, where constantly findings from the interviews were shaping the questions, choice of the interviewees and further choice of literature. The literature review, desk study and interviews were the basis for determining the resiliency challenges Hoboken is facing, thus providing the answer to research question 1. Furthermore, those findings, lead by findings from the interviews were a basis for identifying main drivers and barriers for GI in Hoboken, thereby providing answer to research question 2. The research question 3 was answered by providing recommendations for overcoming the barriers, and based on that, the process of implementation was derived. Latter led to answering research question 3. In the research reflection, the critical review of the findigs has been presented. Based on the answers on research questions, main findings and recommendations for future work were drawn.

3.2. Data collection methods Predominant type of data in this research are qualitative data. Two main sources for data are used, as discussed further below. 3.2.1. Primary sources Primary data are collected through semi structured interviews. The idea of semi- structured interviews is to conduct two way communication, with having structure and key questions, but with allowing flexibility in order to discuss specific aspects and provide the interviewer with a new knowledge. The process of arranging the interviews started with sending e- mails to individuals of interest with a cover letter explaining the background and objectives of the research. In the e- mail the option of phone interview or written answer to the questions was offered. After agreeing on the date and time, the interviews were done via phone call (76%) or by respondents providing written answer to the posed questions (24%). While analysing the collected data, many of the interviewees were contacted for the follow up questions. In total, 21 interviews (17 individual and 2 group interviews) were conducted. The pie graph showing the background of the interviewees is presented in Figure 3.2.

Researchers 19%

Developers 5%

State and Federal officials 24%

City officals 9%

Non profit organizations 9% NJ Transit 10%

NHSA 5%

Consultants 19%

Figure 3.2 Background of the interviewees


23

How was the choice of interviewees made? In the beginning, initial list of contacts was developed based on the connection made by Royal HaskoningDHV during Rebuild by Design competition and based on review of documents related to green infrastructure in Hoboken. After the first contacts were made, the rest of the interviewees were identified based on a snowballing technique. The rationale of this method is to ask already identified actors to name further contacts related to the problem of interest. The process ends once when the new proposed contacts are not being identified (Timmermans, 2009). Semi structured interviews have an important advantage in interviewer being able to prepare the questions in advance and appear knowledgeable about the topic during the interview. The phone interviews were chosen as a research instrument mainly due to the reason that it was not possible to visit the case study and organize interviews face to face. Thus, arranging interviews via e –mail and arranging phone calls proved to be effective method in getting fast response and still ensuring high quality data. The cover letter used when establishing initial contact with interviewees and list of interview questions are provided in Appendices B and C, respectively. 3.2.2. Secondary sources Literature review and desk study were carried out to feed in more data for the analysis with focus on finding the following information:        

The state of stormwater management in Hoboken, expected pressures and challenges Current strategies for green infrastructure implementation in Hoboken Screening the initatial interviewees Policies and regulations for stormwater management Opportunities for financing of stormwater management projects Challenges and opportunities in a shift from centrally operated and maintained system to decentralized system Main barriers to changes in stormwater management in US and internationally Successful experiences of GI implementation from national and international level

In order to ensure high quality of data, desired information is extracted from peer reviewed scientific literature, existing legislative documents, guidelines and documents provided by United States Environmental Protection Agency, existing development strategies and information published by local authorities, the State and project developers. The status of the drainage system and flooding situation in Hoboken is well documented in reports previously developed by City and local sewer utility, so these reports were found to be valuable source for this research. 3.2.3. Limitations of data collection methods The main limitations of data collections methods are listed below: 

Some of the stakeholders that author and interviewees found important to be talked to were not answering the e- mails, and therefore it was impossible to organize the phone interviews. These were stakeholders from the County level and Sustainable Jersey non- profit organization. However, the general impression of the author is that the variety of stakeholders interviewed was enough to lead to results generation.

Methodology

24







One of the basic limitations of the phone interviews was the inability to capture the non verbal responses in interviewees (e.g. face expressions and mimic), that might have brought additional inputs for the research. Some of the interviewees had limited time available for the interview. Consequently, the answers to the questions were short and without further explanation. However, this problem was not present during most of the interviews. The duration of the interviews was between 20 to 60 minutes. The amount of reports from different municipalities on green infrastructure planning is vast. Hence, due to time limitations, the choice of the documents to review had to be made. Therefore, only documents coming from EPA and GI champions in US were reviewed.

3.3. Data management In this part, the explanation on how the collected data were organized and how the synthesis was provided. Considering the vast amount of collected data coming from a different sources, this process allowed the author to explore different options of organizing qualitative data. 3.3.1. Data from primary sources The data collected through semi structured interviews were assessed according to the process presented in Figure 3.3. STEP 1

STEP 2

STEP 3

STEP 4

Interview

Interview Transcript

Coding

Analysis

Figure 3.3 Management of data collected through semi structured interviews

During the interviews, the detailed notes on answers were taken. Some of the interviews were recorded or answers were provided in the written form. Directly after the interviews have been done, the interview transcripts were created. Interview transcript was a basis for the process of coding. The process of coding is a standard procedure used in organizing the data collected through interviews. General idea is that code is assigned to the portion of text, in order to detect similar information provided through the interviews. Afterwards, the codes are grouped in categories. Even though there are available softwares for coding the interviews (e.g Nvivo), due to the time constraint, the coding was done manually and by using Microsoft Word. In this work, during the coding process, the author was searching for parts of text that are connected with following meanings:     

Characteristics of Hoboken (stormwater governance, status of drainage system, flooding events, institutional cooperation) Projects and activities related to GI Drivers for GI Hindering factors for GI Recommendations for overcoming the identified barriers (policies, regulations, financing options, general actions)

After the coding process was completed, the data was analyzed according to the framework that will be described later on. Coding is an iterative process, hence it was repeated several times to refine the From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

25

findings. As the research process was developing, new insights and important data were emerging from the interviews. 3.3.2. Data from secondary sources In the context of research process, described in Chapter 3.1, the data from secondary sources were mainly used for the part of Hoboken Resiliency Challenges (Chapter 4), Ways of Overcoming the Barrriers and Design of Implementation Steps (Chapters 6 and 7). Special attention to these data was paid while looking for effective ways to overcome the barriers. Once when all the barriers have been identified based on the interview answers, the reports on how similar barriers are being tackled in other US cities have been revised. Again, the coding process was used to compile all the data and put them together in the same form, to make the later process of analysis more efficient for the author.

3.4. Research framework The adopted framework for this research is a fit for purpose framework developed for making adaptive governance operational (Rijke et al., 2012a). As explained by the authors ‘’fit for purpose governance is specifically considering the (future) functions that the social and physical components of a particular system, such as urban water system, have to fulfil’’ (Rijke et al., 2012a). The original and modified framework are presented in Figures 3.4 and 3.5.

Figure 3.4 Fit for purpose framework (source: Rijke et al. 2012)

The original framework aims to assess whether the governance structures and governance processes are fit for their purpose (Rijke et al., 2012a), by establishing three steps: identifying the purpose, mapping the context and evaluating the outcome of governance strategies. The framework has been found as fitting to provide a clear structure for this thesis, since the idea is to establish implementation process that would be in line with a vision set through existing strategies. The rationale behind choosing this framework is as following: 

The purpose of the research project was to explore how can green infrastructure be implemented in Hoboken. The first step of the framework is used to assess why GI has been considered at all as an option for solving stormwater related problems in Hoboken.

Methodology

26







Since GI system is in a much broader sense than purely constructing the facilities, the second part of the framework has been used to map the current initatives together with regulatory, political and financial characteristics. By setting the context and mapping the current situation, the main impediments will be identified. The third and final step is to design an implementation plan, based on the identified purpose and mapped context. The implementation process is to be reviewed and updated to see if the original purpose has been reached. As in adaptational governence, in the process of GI implementation, stakeholders are taking the lead role in making the realization possible.



Stakeholders


Figure 3.5 Three steps fit for purpose framework adapted for the research (modifed after Rijke et al. 2012)

RQ 1 RQ 2

RQ 3



Stakeholders


RQ 1

Figure 3.6 Connections between adapted research framework and research questions

Figure 3.6 shows the connections between posed the research questions and the part of the framework used in answering them. In the following sub chapters, the individual parts of the framework and how it was used in this research are explained in details.


27

3.4.1. Identifying the purpose The first step was to identify the purpose. In this research, the purpose is quite clear, since it was outlined in the existing green infrastructure strategies for Hoboken. Hence, the first part of the research was dedicated to explain the characteristics of the drainage system in Hoboken, explore flooding sources with emphasis on sources where green infrastructure could have a role in decreasing existing flood risk, ending with the description of the core stakeholders in charge of facilitating the transition to decentralized urban stormwater system. Mainly data from existing planning and technical reports were input for this part of the research, and the results are presented in Chapter 4. 3.4.2. Mapping the context To fully map the context, typology developed by Young et al. (2014) for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure is used. The aim of developing such a typology is to present existing knowledge in a systematic manner and to outline the future steps and missing links. The components of green infrastructure system are social and ecological system, that can be easily described by explaining the components of these subsystems (Table 3.1). Table 3.1 Green infrastructure system typology (adopted from Young et al. 2014) Social System

Ecological System

Setting Type of existing social system Drivers Social components driving the GI system Social production system GI production units - scale - means of production GI social configuration of labor - social status of its labor - status of property ownership - mode of access to the land - hierarchical/ decentralized - community, private sector and public sector roles - institutionalized feedback loops for program recalibration External relationships Upstream (input) relationship analysis - funding - policy - labor Downstream relationship (output) analysis - consumption of ecosystem services - markets of ecosystem services appropriation of value of ecosystem services

Setting type of existing ecological system Drivers Ecological components driving the GI system Cultivated ecosystems - GI subparts - system of management, maintenance, and harvesting - connection of cultivated ecosystems to external ecosystems External relationships - impact of ecosystem services on other GI/ ecological systems

The typology is found to be a valuable and handy tool in explaining current GI system in Hoboken, primarily due to the clear structure it offers in presenting the vast amount of information. Of course, as the GI system is developing, the contents of typology will also be changing. As the authors explain ‘’typology is a complex system encompassing social and ecological elements evolving in response to

Methodology

28

local and general challenges such as flooding, urban heat island effect, climate change and public health issues’’ (Young et al., 2014). The social system description explains the governance in the area, the main social components driving the system (external and internal social system drivers), the type of GI infrastructure employed and the mode of land. Furthermore, it gives the overview of the regulatory and financial mechanisms, and through output relationship analysis it describes the beneficiaries of GI system. While analyzing ecological system, insight into ecological forces driving GI system is given, together with explanation of links of GI system to ecosystems in general. Additonally, description of ways in which GI is being operated and maintained is explained. Application of the typology will result in very useful findings for this research, mainly because drivers and barriers will are outlined, together with a description of all current efforts in the city. Data used to feed in the typology is primarily data from the interviews, supplemented by existing reports and information available from Hoboken’s website. The final output of typology determines the GI system development trajectory. The typology presents four trajectories: general development, unequal, contradictory and in crisis (Young et al., 2014). The description of the development trajectories is presented in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Green infrastructure system development trajectory (adopted from Young et al. 2014) Development stage

General development

Unequal Contradictory

In- crisis

Production unit dynamics Social and ecological production units making progress, by  Acquring new means of production  Developing their operations  Increasing their economic size and income Some units making progress more quickly than others Some units progressing while others are regressing Every type of production unit is in regression and tending towards disappearance

Consequently, Hoboken was put in one of the development trajectories, which will allow for clear description of the system’s components status. 3.4.3. Implementation Plan The final step in the applied framework is the design of an implementation plan. Since there is no straightforward solution for this step, the design of the implementation plan is done in the manner presented in Figure 3.7.


29

The starting point for the design process is EPA’s implementation wheel presented in Chapter 2, Figure 2.8. This plan has been chosen as a starting point for two reasons. First, it is the latest reference from EPA to assist municipalities in the effort to move forward with GI strategies. Secondly, the wheel is a process, which coincides with the envisioned output of this research- implementation process. However, as the research has been developing, the specific characteristics of Hoboken were emerging, resulting from the identified barriers and recommendations provided by the interviewees. To provide a detailed implementation plan, this was coupled with the lessons from champions cities in GI implementation. Creating the final output of this thesis, implementation process, meant analyzing, synthesising and combining information from these three sources. EPA Green Infrastructure wheel

Overcoming the barriers- interviews

Implementation process

Overcoming the barriers- champions

Figure 3.7 Process of designing implementation plan

Methodology

30

CHAPTER 4

Hoboken and flash flooding resiliency challenges The aim of this chapter is to give the reader detailed insight into the City of Hoboken and present sitation. First, the general information about the City is provided, together with the description of the current land use and historical development of the land. After that, Hoboken’s drainage system is presented and decribed, followed by the identification of flooding sources. These steps deal with the first step of the fit for purpose framework: identifying the purpose. Finally, existing green infrastructure strategies are described and the most important actors for urban water management in Hoboken are identified.

4.1. Image of Hoboken Hoboken is a city located in Hudson County, New Jersey on the west bank of the Hudson River, opposite of Manhattan and it is a part of New York City metropolitan area. The estimated population for 2013 is 52. 575 and the population is growing (United States Census Bureau, 2013a). It is the 4th most densely populated city in US (TeamOMA, 2013), with the area of approximately 1 square mile. The city is known as important development hub, with the number of small businesses, and it is important transportation link for the commuters travelling to/ from New York City. Currently, Hoboken is a highly developed urban landscape, with 8090% of impervious surface (EmNET, 2013). However, modern Hoboken has a completely different appearance than it had in not that far past and it has come a long road from being a wetland and tidal marsh to cultivated urban area (NJ Future, 2014). In 1811 Hoboken had 1552 acres of wetlands and 2.5 miles of roads, whereas in 2013 there were zero acres of wetlands and 32 miles of roads (Bykowski, 2013a) which indicates strong Figure 4.1 Location of the case study (original ortophoto from NJDEP)


31

development that started in 19th century by filling in the marshlands for the needs of industrialization, urbanization and infrastructure development (NJ Future, 2014). As presented in Figure 4.2, Hoboken is characterized by low lying topography, especially in the western part of the City. Eastern part of the City is a location of so called ´´Hoboken Island´´, connecting with the previously mentioned historical image of Hoboken. Along the western border of the City are Palisades, creating significant elevation gradient. The current land use is presented in Figure 4.3, showing that Hoboken is a higly built and developed urban area. In his analysis, Bykowski (2013a) provides following areas for the land uses: buildings 256 acres, off- street parking 58 acres, park and vacant land 100 acres and infrastructure 350 acres. There is a profound lack of open space for the residents, that is also seen as an issue. The development stage Hoboken is going through in modern days is being ‘’transformed from an industrial enclave to a Figure 4.2 Hoboken´s topography (source: vibrant, livable, mixed- use community that is increasingly Cruijsen, 2015) popular among people from all walks of life’’ (Hoboken Planning Board, 2004). Hoboken’s citizens earn $3.5 billion in salaries annualy, businesses earn $2.1 billion, and estimated value of assests is around $11 billion (TeamOMA, 2013).

4.2. Description of the drainage system Hoboken experiences severe flooding issues. In order to understand the situation in Hoboken, it is needed to present a short description of the way sewer system functions. The sewer system in Hoboken is combined system, dating back to mid 19th century, and even today some parts of the system are wooden box pipes originally built during that time. Some of the originally wooden pipes haven’t been cleaned for over 50 years (Bailin, 2014). The system is fully owned, operated and maintained by North Hudson Sewerage Authority. The existing drainage system is a gravity discharge driven system, composed of closed interconnected canals. Generated runoff is collected and by gravity and pumps directed towards the waste water treatment plant located in Adams Street in the north west of Hoboken (TeamOMA, 2013). The capacity of WWTP is 24 million gallons per day (Hoboken Planning Board, 2004). Since the capacity of the Figure 4.3 Hoboken's land use (source: Cruijsen, 2015) Hoboken and flash flooding resiliency challenges

32

WWTP has proven to be insufficient, NHSA introduced a wet weather pump in 2011 (EmNET, 2013). The basic parts of the drainage system are: seven trunk lines, seven combines sewer overflows, one wet weather pump and one WWTP (Cruijsen, 2015). Hoboken’s drainage system is divided in seven sewersheds: H1 to H7 (Figure 4.4). The sewersheds are covering the whole area of the City, except of the waterfront, where stormwater is directed towards the Hudson River. All the sewersheds have an outlet valve to Hudson River. These outlets are equipped with weirs, and during wet weather water overflows into the chamber (Cruijsen, 2015). In the condition of low tide in the Hudson River, water can overflow from these chambers to the river. However, during high tides, the water will flow back into the system. There is interconnection between the sewersheds and analysis has shown existence of inflow from neighbouring Figure 4.4 Sewersheds in Hoboken (source: Team cities: Jersey City, Union City and Weehawken (TeamOMA, OMA, 2013) 2013). In the current state of the system, there are around 100 CSO events per year. In the light of new regulations coming from the federal level, NHSA will be asked to bring this number to 4-5 per year (TeamOMA, 2013). CSO’s present serious environmental and public health issue. Hoboken is one of the 21 combined sewer communities in New Jersey, with total of 217 CSO’s (van Abs, 2014). According to report prepared by Natural Resources Defense Council ‘’astonishing 100 percent of New Jersey’s ocean and near coastal waters are not meeting at least one of their designated uses, such as swimming of fishing’’ (NRDC, 2013) Combined sewer overflows occur in Hoboken when excessive rainfall events coincides with high tide. The existing drainage system in Hoboken is aged and incapable of keeping up with the challenges imposed to it. Therefore, it needs an upgrade and a new way of management. As it will be discussed in the following chapters of the thesis, to decrease the burdain on the system, NHSA and the City are looking at the green infrastructure as a supplement to the system.

Figure 4.5 Combined Sewer System municipalities in New Jersey (source: NJDEP, 2015)


33

4.3. Flooding sources According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), approximately 80% of Hoboken is located within the flood zone affected by events with 100 years return period (marked by dark blue colour in Figure 4.6). Previous analyses have shown that two main sources of flooding are coastal flooding from the Hudson River and pluvial flash flooding during excessive rainfall (Cruijsen, 2015; TeamOMA, 2013). For the purpose of this research, only flooding caused by rainfall is considered, since GI is expected to be playing a significant role in dealing with runoff generated by rainfall events. Looking at the past patterns and observed increase in extreme precipitation over eastern part of US, it can be seen that increase in a period between 1958 and 2012 is 71%, for the top 1% of observed precipitation (Melillo et al., 2014). Hence, it can be expected that the pressures on a current system for managing stormwater will just be further increasing.

Figure 4.6 FEMA flood zones in Hoboken (source: Bykowski, 2013)

Figure 4.7 Observed increase in extreme precipitation across US (source: Melillo et al. 2014)

Vulnerabilities in Hoboken are numerous, one of the main being the fact that Hoboken is such an important link in transportation network. Furthermore, previously mentioned number and importance of located bussinesses, most of which are situated in the ground floors contributes to the overall Hoboken and flash flooding resiliency challenges

34

vulnerability. Next to that, Hoboken has a number of valuable and vulnerable assets such as: WWTP, social housing, fire station, hospital, schools etc. Royal HaskoningDHV estimated that the current flood risk in Hoboken is around $750 million (TeamOMA, 2013). The author did not find any source that would indicate how much of this flood risk could be eliminated through GI. Even though flooding is a long lasting problem, the complete vulnerabilities of the City were revealed during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, when Hoboken, in words of Mayor Zimmer was ‘’filled up like a bath tub’’ (Jaffe, 2014). Just in few hours, the damages in Hoboken were enormous, later estimated to be as high as $250 million (TeamOMA, 2013). The analysis only included the direct tangible damages. Electricity cuts and transportation network not being accessible presented a serious issue. The status of Hoboken during Hurricane Sandy is presented in Figure 4.8. The devastation was due to the extreme nature of the event, and such a strong influence on Hoboken is due to combination of storm surge coming from Hudson River and pluvial flooding due to insufficient capacity of drainage system. However, the effect that Sandy had can be seen as a crucial point in City finally taking a strong affirmative position and putting solutions to flooding problems at the top of their agenda.

Figure 4.8 Hoboken during Hurricane Sandy (source: CNN, 2012)

Taking extreme events like Sandy aside, Hoboken streets flood on average once or twice per year (TeamOMA, 2013). The latest known flooding to the author is from May 2015 (Figure 4.9). The flooding in the streets occurs during high precipitation events, in combination with the high tide on the Hudson River. In a situation like this, the 7 outfalls to the Hudson River are closed, so water flows back to drainage system and overflows the streets through manholes. Next to purely flooding problems, the additional issue is the public health concern, since the water overflowing the streets is contaminated. During medium storm events, the flooding occurs mainly in sewershed H1, whereas during large storm events the flooding occurs in sewesheds H1, H4, H5 and H7 (EmNet, 2011). Currently, the safety level in Hoboken to flooding on the streets is T0.5 to T1 (2.86 inch of rain in 24 hours) , and the RDSD project proposed new safety level of Figure 4.9 May 2015 floods in Hoboken (source: Brenzel, 2015) From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

35

T10 (5.22 inch of rain in 24 hours) (TeamOMA, 2013). Green infrastructure, in a combination with pumps is seen as a way to secure the proposed safety level. For the purpose of Rebuild by Design competition, Royal HaskoningDHV developed flood maps, picturing flooding occuring in the current situation, and flooding if green infrastructure (city wide green infrastructure plus storage areas) would be introduced (for return period T10 years) (TeamOMA, 2013).

Figure 4.10 Flood maps for T10 rainfall event for current situation and situation in which GI is introduced (source: TeamOMA 2013)

As it can be observed in flood maps presented in Figure 4.10, flooding in the current situation is occuring in low lying areas of Hoboken (H1, H4, H5, H7). Hence, the flooding can mainly be contributed to low lying topography in combination with sewerage system of insufficient capacity and such a high percentage of imperviousness (i.e altered natural hydrological cycle). Besides that, high groundwater levels and rising sea levels shape the complete image of flooding sources (Cruijsen, 2015). Other observation is that clearly green infrastructure has a potential to reduce Hoboken’s flood risk. However, it is not a stand alone solution, therefore the RDSD project complements it with discharge pumps. Furtheremore, there are no available data on the damages cause by the pluvial flooding in Hoboken. The only data available come from the internal communication between the memers of The OMA Team, where it was estimated that the introduction of green infrastructure would lead to $2 billion of the avoided damages over the period of the next 50 years.

4.4. Existing green infrastructure strategies To adress flooding and environmental problems discussed above, Hoboken is considering green infrastrucuture. Currently, there are two main strategies dealing with green infrastructure in Hoboken.

Hoboken and flash flooding resiliency challenges

36

The short description is provided below. The presence of these strategies opens a window of opportunity for wider green infrastructure implementation due to their nation wide recognition. Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy (RDSD) is one of the 6 winning proposals of Rebuild by Design competition, an initiative that received large attention due to its ‘’pioneering ways to design, fund, and implement a resilient future’’ (Rebuild by Design, 2013). In February 2015 Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan received an Outstanding Plan Award from American Planning Association, for its proposed framework of the city wide green infrastructure strategy (Louis Berger LB, 2015). The comprehensive approach proposed in both of the strategies is seen as a strong foundation and good starting point for making Hoboken a showcase for green infrastructure in densely populated historic urban areas. The RDSD Comprehensive urban water strategy (Figure 4.11) includes green infrastructure in two of its parts: Store and Delay. The stormwater detention is advocated in the Delay part of the strategy, where green infrastructure measures such as green roofs, bioswales, stormwater collection facilities, rain gardens and addition of park space are advocated for slowing down the stormwater runoff. In the Store part, creation of green circuit around Hoboken for Figure 4.11 Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: Comprehensive Urban retention of the water by introducing Water Strategy (source: TeamOMA,2013) bioretention basins and constructed wetlands is proposed. The Strategy sees the City as a complex system and recognizes multiple benefits in approaching the problem by introducing holistic solution. The proposed solution is supposed to handle T10 assignment, with the Store part of the strategy capturing 40% of excessive water, the Delay part 10% and the Discharge part 60%. Solely the implementation of the Resist part of the Strategy would result in decreasing the current flood risk in Hoboken from $750 million to $118 million (TeamOMA, 2013). The Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan proposes a conceptual framework for green infrastructure network by dividing the City into three zones (Figure 4.12), based on the geological characteristics of the area. Taking site consideration into account, the Plan employes different GI measures, for instance: green roofs, rain barrels, constructed wetlands, bioswales, stormwater planters. The special opportunities for incorporating GI measures is seen in designated Figure 4.12 Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan (source: Together North Jersey, 2013) From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

37

redevelopment areas, since they represent larger scales that may capture significant amounts of excess rainfall. Additionally, the Plan identifes priorities and a range of funding possibilities for the projects execution.

4.5. Facilitators of change The status of Hoboken’s outdated drainage system, frequent floodings and expected increase in frequency and duration of preciptation events send a strong message that the status quo way of managing the system is not sastifactory, and change is needed. Promising is that this need is spotted and in the aftermath of Sandy, Hoboken has taken many initatives towards improving the overall living conditions for it’s residents. While transitioning to a system in which stormwater is managed with a decentralized system, many actors will be involved. The stakeholders’s motives to be a part of the process might be different and they are mainly governed by responsibilites. Although detailed explanation and broad discussion will be presented through the rest of this thesis, Figure 4.13 presents the place green infrastructure plays in reaching common goals set by local government and local sewerage authority.

NHSA

City of Hoboken

Flooding Regulatory requirements

Green Infrastructure

Open Space

Figure 4.13 Core urban stormwater management stakeholders in Hoboken and their motivation for introducing green infrastructure

City of Hoboken’s departments and North Hudson Sewerage Authority present core stakeholders in facilitating transition towards mores sustainable stormwater system in Hoboken. Their motives are: 



Local government seeks a way to reduce flooding frequently affecting and disrupting everyday life of local residents. Additionaly, needs of local people for more open space can be met through GI. NHSA needs to comply to Clean Water Act and tackle the problem of CSO discharges.

Next to the City and NHSA, there are many other stakeholders needed to make the change possible. In the follow up, the table (Table 4.1) with stakeholders coming from different levels is provided, supplemented with the short explanation of the role and the connection with green infrastructure. Different stakeholders have different capacities for influencing the implementation. However, each and every has a role in overall change process.


38

As it will be shown through this thesis, next to City and NHSA, members of local community and developers will play a very important role in making green infrastructure strategies work. On one hand, community members are the main beneficiaries. However, they are also facilitators of change, since succes of overall GI implementation will depend also on to which extent the private bodies are ready to introduce it on their own properties. Table 4.1 Other GI facilitators in Hoboken

Stakeholder

Level

Role

Connection to GI

Hoboken Green Team

local

Shade Tree Commission

local

GI as a part of green initative in the City Stormwater trees

Hoboken Housing Authority

local

Supporting sustainable development Increasing the number of trees in the City Provider of affordable housing

Quality of Life Coallition

local

Community organization

Chamber of Commerce United Water

local local

Local residents

local

Local developers

local

Bussiness support organization Owner of the water supply infrastructure Directly affected by the floodings and CSO’s Development/ redevelopment

Hudson County Division Planning Hudson County Parks

of

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection New Jersey Department of Transportation New Jersey Transit

County County State State State

United States Environmental Federal Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Federal Agency Sustainable Jersey Non profit NJ Future Non profit New York/ New Jersey Non Baykeeper profit

Supervising development in the County Management of County’s Park system NPDE program, environmental review, BMPs manual Management of the transportation roots Transportation facilities Measuring, monitoring and management of the environment Flood insurance schemes Support to communities for reaching sustainability goals Supporting sustainable land use policies Conservation and restauration program

Possible implementation opportunity Connection to the community members Connection to the developers GI as a part of water mains improvements GI as a way to decrease the damages GI in new development/ redevelopment Land use decisions and policies GI as a part of new parks Stormwater regulations, guidance, loans GI incorporated in the transportation network GI as a part of the land owner by NJ Transit Compliance with the CWA, assistance, guidance GI as a way to modofy current flood zones Grants, certifications, recognition Policy negotiation, education Education, green activism

4.6. Chapter summary The presented material in this chapter indicated that Hoboken is a vibrant environment gone through several stages of development that created the modern image of the City. Several factors, such as complete change from historical swamp to highly impervious area led to problems with pluvial From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

39

flooding once when excessive rainfall coincides with high tide in the Hudson River. These events affect the life of Hoboken’s residents, especially to the ones located within the affected sewersheds. Besides the flooding issue, a serious problem in status quo is the occurrence of around hundred CSO events per year, which presents environmental and public health issue. Furthermore, it will be a significant burdain on local sewerage authority in the face of upcoming fines for violating federal regulations posed by Clean Water Act. Hence, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, two important actions were taken through which comprehensive urban water strategy (RDSD) and Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan were created. Both strategies propose introduction of green infrastructure (among other) as a supplement to the existing system. To reach that goal, many stakeholders from local to federal level are needed. In the context of overall research framework, this Chapter identified the purpose to be strived for: implementation of green stormwater infrastructure as a part of future, more resilient urban water system in Hoboken.


40

CHAPTER 5

Green infrastructure system typology and barriers to implementation This chapter offers a typology of green infrastructure system, hence contributing to the second part of the applied three steps fit for purpose model. The components of the social and ecological system, together with the identified barriers to GI implementation are explored in details. Accordingly, Hoboken’s GI system is mapped and placed into one of the 4 development trajectories. Identifying the current context, the foundations for creation of the implementation plan have been established, by screening the current situation and outlining the needs for improvement.

5.1. Social System The social system analysis allows for deeper insight into social forces driving the GI system in a certain area. Information on governance settings and description of regulatory climate provides identification of possible political buy- in for green infrastructure implementation. By identifying the means and scale of GI production, it is possible to map all current efforts for mainstreaming GI as a part of urban infrastructure. Furthermore, stormwater policy analysis and funding mechanisms, followed by description of end users and beneficiaries of GI serve as a final piece in locating GI social system level of development (Young et al., 2014). 5.1.1. Settings As noted by Young et al. (2014), mapping the GI social system settings includes identification of the existing social system. Consequently, the governance structure of Hoboken is described, followed by an analysis of leadership potential. Governance structure The City of Hoboken is run under typical strong mayor- council type of governance, where Mayor and members of the City Council are elected by the voters. The Mayor has executive power and the City Council is composed of 9 members, 6 of which represent the City’s wards together with 3 members representing the City at large (Wikipedia, 2015). The main responsibilities of the City Council are: legislative authority, land use decisions, approving the City’s budget and overseeing the work of the City’s agencies (City of Hoboken, 2015a). There are eleven Departments governed by the Mayor and City Council. The Departments and City’s agencies that are directly connected to GI implementation are presented in Table 5.1.


41

Table 5.1 Departments and agencies in the City connected with connection to green infrastructure

Department

Role

Department of Environmental Services (DEP)

Maintenance of publicly owned space and buildings; repairing right of ways; actualizing the municipal code Planning Board and Zoning Board; monitoring of all property development; designation of the redevelopment areas Transportation and parking services; GI engineered in the road improvement projects Under DEP; sustain the current trees, advocate planting more trees, communicate importance of trees Composed of the City’s staff and community members; supporting sustainable development (GI as important part of the discussion)

Community Development Transportation and Parking Shade Tree Commission Green Team

The City’s staff was described by many interviewees as highly competent and coherent, with strong interdepartmental cooperation. Green infrastructure is seen as an opportunity to achieve common goals, while allowing for more sustainable growth. Per contra to the cooperative climate in the City of Hoboken, interdepartmenal coordination is seen as an obstacle in many cities across USA, for it requires cooperation between large number of stakeholders from different departments and agencies (Abhold et al., 2011). The sewerage system in Hoboken is completely owned, operated and maintained by North Hudson Sewerage Authority (NHSA). NHSA is a regional sewerage authority covering four communities (Hoboken, Union City, Weekhawken and West New York). NHSA is authority independent from the City and as such, it has an independent Board of Commisioners of 9 members. The NHSA is a holder of individual CSO permit, issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in March 2015, and is responsible of developing a Long Term Control Plan (LCTP) in next three years. Not owning its infrastructure places Hoboken in a specific position. Both the City and the NHSA have drivers emerging from different reasons for GI mainsteaming, as it will be discussed in the follow up. This creates a nexus between the City and NHSA, in which they are becoming willing partners and stakeholders in an attempt to improve the current situation. Leadership potential The current Mayor of Hoboken is an unspoken advocate for green infrastructure implementation, with a strong support from the City Council and municipal staff. One of the Mayor´s top priorities is improving the quality of life for Hoboken´s residents, and providing more open space, recreation opportunities and dealing with flooding issues is seen as a pathway for reaching that goal. The municipal government revealed strong interest and support for ongoing initiatives as it has been demonstrated through approving the application for New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust and constant willingness for cooperation with external partners in different initiatives (e.g. Rebuild by Design competition, Re Invest Initiative). Furthermore, the current government is seeing an opportunity in taking advantage of various grants (e.g. Sustainable Jersey), fund raising and competitions in order to secure funding for their GI efforts. In the Sandy aftermath, the Mayor put emphasis on developing the Community Resilience Plan, in which the aim is at addressing vulnerabilities and developing long term community resilience to

Green infrastructure system typology and barriers to implementation

42

disastrous events. The plan is concerned with energy resiliency, shoreline protection, flood mitigation, stormwater management, critical facilities/ infrastructure, emergency notification, public information, resilient building codes and a resiliency task force (City of Hoboken, 2015b). During the interviews, strong leadership provided by the Mayor and City Council to municipal staff, together with having a competent and motivated staff has been seen as the crucial enabling factor for mainstreaming and implementing GI. Importance of strong local leadership in implementing GI has been proven in other US City´s which are recognized as national leaders (e.g Philadephia, New York City). 5.1.2. Drivers The main social components driving the GI system in Hoboken can be divided into two categories: internal and external drivers. Identification of main the drivers was based on insights by stakeholders, either directly related to urban stormwater management in Hoboken, consultants which participated in development of specific projects for the City, or stakeholders from the state or federal level. External drivers CSO regulation requirements have been identified by stakeholders and through desk study as a main external driver for GI implementation, followed by funding acquired through different grants. In this section, the background of regulatory requirements is described, followed by a description of acquired grants for green infrastructure implementation. CSO regulatory driver The Clean Water Act (1972) is a basis for the control of polluted discharge into the waters of United States (USEPA, 2015c). CWA made it illegal to discharge pollutants coming from the point source. The program which controls discharges is National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, with the idea that only a permittee is allowed to discharge polluted water into the water bodies. In New Jersey, management of NPDES has been passed on to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and in 2004 the Municipal Stormwater Regulation Program has been created for the regulation of stormwater discharges (Worstell, 2013). NJDEP issues New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permits. The combined sewer system communities (21 in New Jersey) are seen as point source pollution and are regulated on the federal level through NJPDES by Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. It is important to notice that solving the problem of CSO´s and sustainable urban water management is under increased pressure in CSS communities when compared to communities with separate systems, because of the strict requirements by EPA and the fear of lawsuits. The Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy consists of two parts: nine technology based control criteria and development (NMC) of Long Term Control Plans (NJDEP, 2015a; USEPA, 1995). The description and context of the NMC’s and LTCP’s is presented in Appendix E. The goal of NMC´s is to provide municipalities with a range of possible solutions for solving their CSO issues with implementation of site specific, inventive and cost effective measures. Through the development of LCTP´s, the sewage authorities are obliged to evaluate their systems, develop alternatives, plans and implementation schedules for the reduction of CSO´s (NJDEP, 2015). In March 2015, the NJDEP issued 25 final permits for the elimination of 217 CSO´s in New Jersey. The permits require municipalities and/ or other bodies responsible for CSO control to develop LCTP´s in next 3-5 years, in which they are obliged to solve the problem of environmental contamination by requiring grey infrastructure and encouraging green infrastructure (NJDEP, 2015b). The permittee for Hoboken’s CSS is NHSA, which


43

makes it ultimately their responsibility to solve the problem of CSO discharges in Hudson River. The ways in which GI can play a role in LTCP’s and NMC’s is presented in Appendix E. Funding Under the current government, especially after the Superstorm Sandy, the City is taking an aggressive approach in acquiring grants for solving its flooding problems, most of which are taking into account green infrastructure. The overview of the received funds in the post Sandy period is presented in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 Grants received for flood resiliency planning after the Hurricane Sandy

Name Rebuild by Design

Source of funding U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Amount ($) $230 million

Description Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A comprehensive urban water strategy Together North Jersey Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan for Hoboken

Local Demonstration projects

U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

$90.000

Re. Invest Initative

Rockefeller Foundation

$500.000

Technical assistance

Sustainable Jersey Small Grant

Sustainable Jersey

$20.000

2 rain gardens

Post Hurricane Sandy Planning & Disaster Recovery Plan

State of New Jersey and U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

$200.000

For developing Disaster Recovery Plan- part on conservation and reuse of stormwater

Application The grant will be used for the implementation of the Resist part The funds were used for hiring the contractors for the Strategy development Hiring consultants to develop the plan Bids from the contractors much higher than expected, projects needs to be rengineered The plan is still in the development phase

The characteristics of the competitions though which the grants have been acquired is that they were all very competitive, thus requring high quality of the applications. The City put a lot of effort in preparing the applications and cooperating with the partners. Some of the competitions (e.g Rebuild by Deisgn) received international attention, due to their innovative nature, thus creating an image of Hoboken as a city that us striving to solve its flooding issues. Internal Drivers The main internal social drivers for GI implementation in Hoboken, as identified by interviewees are presented in Figure 5.1. Drivers of community, local government, developers and cost savings were identified by stakeholders, whereas drivers of existing strategies have been identified through desk study and reviews of available documents.


44

Community Driver • Add parks and open space • Additional GI benefits

Local Government • Add parks and open space • Additional GI benefits • Continue growth

Developers • Marketing • Negotiation tool

Cost Savings • Long term savings when compared to grey infrastructure upgrade

Existing strategies, Master Plan, Redevelopment Plans • Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge • Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan • Hoboken Master Plan

Figure 5.1 Internal social drivers for green infrastructure

Community driver The Hoboken’s community members are seen by the interviewees as highly educated and aware population. According to the Hoboken Demographic Information by U.S. Census Bureau, 73.5 % of population older than 25 years has a bachelor’s degree or more, which is much higher than New Jersey percentage of 35.8 (United States Census Bureau, 2013b). Residents might not necessarily be aware of CSO issues, but the interest in adding more parks, open space and providing more recreational opportunities is evident. The combination of growing population with the fact that the City is landlocked leads to the conclusion that the pressure on existing parks and open spaces will be higher. Update of the Hoboken’s Master Plan states that in 2010 there were 48 acres of available park land, with a very low ratio of 0.96 acres per 1000 residents (EFB Associates, 2010). So, there is a need to meet current and future population needs for open space. Furthermore, community members are interested in experiencing multiple benefits of GI, mainly economic and environmental. Interviewees stated that Hoboken’s community has a high level of awareness about these extra benefits, which can also be accredited to City Hall’s efforts in organizing public meetings. As stated by Li et al. (2012) involving community members in infrastructure projects is a mean ‘’of improving the openness, transparency and accountability of the decision making process and help improve projects’ long term viability and benefits to the community’’. Multiple public hearings were organized during Rebuild by Design competition and creation of the Green Infrastructure Strategic plan, which makes Hoboken’s residents informed of the existance of sustainable solutions for their stormwater issues. However, as mentioned in the interviews, it is important to bear in mind that the public meetings are attended by the individuals motivated for finding a solution, which still leaves a significant number of community members unaware, uninformed or reluctant to new technolgies.


45

Local government driver The other important internal social driver and as identified by most of the intervieews, the most important and crucial one is local government. This is in accordance with what has been found in the literature (Brown, 2008). As already discussed previously, the Mayor together with the City Hall is giving strong support and putting lot of time, financial and human resources into seeking opportunites, finding available funding and implementing GI. This is enabling factor for GI mainstreaming and it puts Hoboken on a faster pace, compared to communities where strong leadership and political buy- in are not present. Municipal government is interested in meeting the community needs for more parks and open space, as it is evident in Hoboken’s Master Plan and in the ongoing negotiations in land acqusition for providing new parks and open space. Furthermore, the officals are aware of additional benefits of green infrastructure, such as improved environmental quality, increased property values, improved water quality, air quality, enhanced livability. In 2014 Hoboken was named as a most walkable City in the US (Brenzel, 2013) and in accordance with EPA green infrastructure definition presented in the introduction of this thesis, green infrastructure creates walkable communities. It is then justified to assume that the new GI facilities will strenghten the current image of Hoboken. The City of Hoboken is an important place in New Jersey in sense of economic development and the number of bussiness (especially small bussinesses). Therefore, the additional driver for the City government is to continue promoting this appearance. By successfully implemeting GI on a wider scale, the City has the potential of being recognized as a front runner and showcase for other cities. In April 2015, Hoboken was recognized as a Role Model City by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction for its endeavors in resilient flood risk management practices, thus becoming 2nd city in the US receiving the tag of role model (City of Hoboken, 2015c). Being seen in this light and receiving recognition for its previous efforts might be seen as additional motivation and enabling factor for green infrastructure implementation. Developers as a driver for GI The developers recognized green infrastructure as a marketing opportunity and negotiation tool for getting longer timeframes for projects execution. They see it as a way to differentiate their development from the other developments, due to its environmental sustainability. The projects with incorporated GI receive more positive perception. Clements et al. (2013) recognize that ‘’green infrastructure and other green building practices are increasingly becoming a quality benchmark for the private sector, because they illustrate a developer’s commitment to healthier, sustainable communities and place making, while creating measurable value added for property owners and tenants alike’’. By incoporating green infrastructure in their projects, developers can receive certifications such as LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design). One of the interviewed developers stated that adding green infrastructure to new building helps selling and renting the real estate. Cost savings There is a general sense in stakeholders that improving the existing CSS system with green infrastructure creates long term savings when compared to grey infrastructure upgrades. The example of Philadelphia is often being used as a role model, since Philadelphia Water Department estimated that the needed update of grey infrastructure will cost more than 6 billion $, whereas green infrastructure will cost 2.4 billion $ over 25 years (Green, 2013). Other example is Portland, with the cost saving of 250 million $ for grey infrastructure, by investing $8 million in GI (Foster et al., 2011). Hoboken’s City Hall officials see employing green infrastructure in combination with current grey infrastructure system as a cost effective way for solving challenges occurring in the area. Although interviewees perceive that upfront capital costs might be higher in some cases, they see opportunities


46

in lower lifecycle costs and cost/ benefit trade-offs. Houle et al. (2013) conclude that many examples of GI systems for stormwater management have lower annual maintenance costs. Furthermore, savings can be generated in: decrese in heating and cooling energy costs, decrease in urban heat island (that leads to decreased energy costs), reduced costs due to higher life expextancy of certain GI techniques such as green roofs, reduced costs of flooding, reduced water bills (Clements et al., 2013). Existing and ongoing initatives as a driver for GI The existing and ongoing initiatives that are seen as a driver for the GI are: (1) RDSD Strategy, (2) Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan, (3) Hoboken Master Plan and (4) Redevelopment plans. The RDSD and Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan have already been presented in Chapter 4. In 2004, Hoboken Planning Board, under the City of Hoboken issued a comprehensive master plan with the aim of ensuring balanced and sustainable development, improving quality of life for all and incorporating modern technologies while preserving the historical essence of Hoboken. The plan gave the vision of development in transportation, community facilities, parks, housing, economic development, land use, and design (Hoboken Planning Board, 2004). Following the regulatory requirements, the plan was updated and re-examined in 2010. The summary of parts of the original master plan and updated version are presented in Appendix F. The concept of green infrastructure is incorporated to a certain extent in both documents. The lack of parks and open space for recreational opportunities is seen as a major issue, and both plans emphasize is. The Open Space element of a plan maps all the existing and possible new parks in the city area. Furthermore, the Plan sees an opportunity for incorporating sustainable stormwater practices within new parks, publicly owned buildings and new developments. It can be concluded that the Master Plan recognizes the multiple benefits provided by mainstreaming of green infrastructure. Some recommendations on the development of zoning ordinances, stormwater management policies together with innovations in funding schemes have been provided. The Reexamination report also advises the development of the Green Part of the master plan. After Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the City received $200.000 grant from CDBG- DR funds to develop Disaster Recovery Plan of 5 elements, among which is Green Building and Environmental Sustainability Plan Element. In both plans, there was no detailed specifications on the financial resources allocation for the projects. The City of Hoboken has published three Redevelopment Plans: the Hoboken Yard Redevelopment Plan, the Western Edge Redevelopment Plan and the North End Redevelopment Study. It is interesting to see how in the North End Redevelopment Study, published in 2013, green infrastructure is not included and discussed in details. On the other hand, in the Hoboken Yard Redevelopment Plan and the Western Edge Redevelopment Plan, GI is mentioned several times. In both plans, green infrastructure is seen as a mean of stormwater management in redevelopment, and incentives for developers are proposed as a way of awarding for reaching LEED standards (City of Hoboken, 2014d). The Western Edge Redevelopment Plan made a connection with the RDSD project by including in the planning Green Circuit proposed by OMA Team. 5.1.3. Social Production System The social production system is described by the scale and means of GI production units, followed by identification of current property ownership and opportunities for GI implementation. Finally, flow of decision making process on GI is presented. Description of the social production system basically explains how are the current projects being organized and managed, what types of green infrastructure are being employed, who is working on the projet delivery and what is the mode of the


47

land on which GI projects are being built. Later on, understanding the social dynamic of GI system in this manner can serve as a basis for choosing the enabling paths for the uptake of GI towards becoming a common practice, rather than just an exception. GI production units The green infrastructure production units provide information on the scale at which the projects are being implemented and on the specific type of employed measures. Scale (building, block, neighborhood) Even though Hoboken is continuously being mentioned and recognized for its resiliency efforts and plans for the implementation of green infrastructure on a city wide scale, there are still no major delivered projects on the ground. Some of the planned projects are scheduled for the construction phase during 2015. The aim of this section is to present all the planned programs and ongoing initiatives. Figure 5.2 gives an overview of the prospective green infrastructure at the moment of writing this thesis. The main constraint in Hoboken is the available land for green infrastructure. Therefore in planning, public properties, spaces and right of ways are used for the introduction of sustainable stormwater management measures. Being aware of limited land for new parks and open spaces, the City of Hoboken is interested and active in acquiring additional land and making it public property for the construction of new parks and recreation areas. In this effort, the City is using the opportunity and incorporating green infrastructure as a part of the solution of often flash flooding problems, together with providing additional benefits GI offers. Furthermore, the interviewees pinpointed that green infrastructure is planned and incorporated into transportation projects. The designated Redevelopment Areas (Appendix D) are seen as the opportunity for introducing large scale green infrastructure measures in the available literature: Southwest Redevelopment, Western Edge Redevelopment, Northwest Redevelopment and Southwest Redevelopment (Bykowski, 2013a; Together North Jersey, 2013). These areas are located in the parts of Hoboken with the chronic flooding issues. This convenience is seen by the interviewees, who repeatedly mentioned redevelopment areas as Hoboken’s solution for finding adequate space to implement GI. Redevelopment areas are former industrial sites with a layer of contaminated soil, which can be seen as a possible challenge in terms of the construction costs. The detailed description of the projects currently planned in Hoboken (e.g Southwest Resiliency ParkPark 12, Northwest Resiliency Park- BASF) is provided in Appendix G. There are several common characteristics pressent in all the projects. These are:    

All the projects are in the planning stage Community input was taken into account through organizing community meetings New parks are seen as no regret solutions, tackling multifaceted problems Projects are planned on publicly owned land (already in the ownership of the City or the land is planned to be acquired) or publicly owned buildings and right of ways

Besides the planned projects, there are several initatives taken by the Hoboken’s Green Team and Shade Tree Commision.


48

The Hoboken’s Shade Tree Commission started the initiative of planting 4000 trees until 2020, which is increase of 33% when compared to current 3000 trees in 2013. In the web sites of the Commission it is stated that 37 new trees were planted in 2013, with the expected 100 additional trees to be planted in 2014 (City of Hoboken, 2013b). As a part of the Shade Tree Commission, the Street Trees Planting Program is available for individuals to request a tree on their sidewalk tree wells, but not located on their private properties. In May 2015, the Green Team organized a 4th rain barrels workshop in which the interested residents are provided with a free rain barrel, which can then be used for disconnecting the downspouts (City of Hoboken, 2015e). Organizing workshops for the residents is a way of educating about responsibilities and opportunities for individuals in taking active role in stormwater management. The use of rain barrels has been legal in the city as of 2011.

Figure 5.2 Planned projects with incorporated green infrastructure ( ortophotos retrieved from NJDEP) From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

49

The majority of green infrastructure projects in the city is planned on neighborhood/ block scale and on the site scale. The exceptions are the shade tree initiative and the rain barrels program. The City is putting effort mainly in incorporating green infrastructure in planned parks and improvement of streets, which makes group of beneficiaries larger. However, to reach the goal of making the city resilient to flash flooding, the projects need to be scaled up and intensified. Means of production The planned projects presented in Figure 5.2 employ various types of green infrastructure measures, such as porous pavements, street tree pits, rain gardens, green roofs, curb extensions, bio swales, rain barrels, downspout disconnection, subsurface storage, constructed wetlands. The description of the individual green infrastructure practices can be found in Appendix A. Currently, there is no available green infrastructure guidelines on the City level. However, there are technical guidelines provided in the NJDEP’s Best Management Practices Manual and proposed measures in the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan and RDSD proposal. Both the Strategy and RDSD propose similar practices, located in the same zones. What interviewees see as a deficiency of the available proposals is a lack of proven performance of individual practices in their proposed locations. Furthermore, the interviewees agreed on the need for more comprehensive technical guidance for the design engineers, in order to avoid and decrease risk of inappropriate design and performance of the measures. GI social configuration of labor The explanation of the social configuration of labor encompasses the description of the background of parties in charge for the planning of the projects and explanation of the type of the land that projects are planned on. Social status of labor For the design and construction of GI facilities, the city is hiring private design companies and contractors. There are no community groups found involved with the larger projects. However, the Shade Tree Commission is involved in planting new shade trees, whereas Hoboken Green Team is supplying residents with rain barrels during their workshops. Status of property ownership and mode of access to the land Most of the projects City is interested in undertaking are planned on public properties and right of ways. The public sector (City, New Jersey Transit and Board of Education) owns 29.1 acres of land in Hoboken (Together North Jersey, 2013). As mentioned before, since the availability of land is an issue in Hoboken, the properties in redevelopment areas are seen as an opportunity for providing more open space together with incorporating green infrastructure for stormwater management and the City is putting a lot of effort in acquiring this land. There are no major green infrastructure facilities on privately owned land. The regulations require new developments and major redevelopments to manage water on their sites, but not specifically green infrastructure is required, it is rather encouraged. Since there are no major delivered projects on the ground, the presumption is that the public agencies will be accessing the land for delivery and maintenance of the GI facilities, for the projects located on the public grounds. The idea of the Adopt a Rain Garden Program emerged through the interviews, with the concept of private businesses being in charge of maintenance of a rain garden, and getting a


50

free marketing spot in exchange. NHSA, as the owner of the system, reserves the right to inspect the practices installed on private properties. GI social configuration of decision making Green infrastructure in Hoboken is currently planned only on public properties, hence the municipal government is leading the decision making. The particularity in Hoboken is that the system is owned by a private body. Therefore, the local government established good cooperation with the the NHSA. An example of good cooperation is that the City agreed to pay for the second wet weather pump, while the NHSA will be in charge of construction, operation and maintenance. Even though the NHSA is responsible for the compliance with CWA and has a mandate to develop LCTP, decision taken by the City in terms of the regulations and zoning ordinances could still be the main enabling factor. Additionally, all the projects take into account public input provided through community meetings. 5.1.4. External relationships An external relationship analysis offers the understanding of input and output relationships. Input analysis allows for identification of financial sources being used to implement the ongoing initiatives and explores the policy on stormwater management in the State of New Jersey. An output analysis identifies the ways in which provided ecosystem services can benefit local residents and users of GI. Funding The GI efforts are funded through grants, loans and local taxes. In the Sandy aftermath, the City devoted to applying for various disaster relief funds in order to use them for its resiliency planning. The acquired external funds were explained in details in the previous in on external social drivers. The Northwest Resiliency Park, the Southwest Resiliency Park and the Washington Street Redesign project will be funded through low interest loan from the state financing authority New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust (NJEIT). The loan is constructed in a way that 75% of a loan is on 0% interest rate, 25% of the loan is on market rate, and in addition there is a 19% principal forgiveness on the total amount of the loan (Zimmer, 2015). The loan is given to municipal governments in New Jersey for financing the projects of wastewater systems, CSO’s reduction, open space acquisition (New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Fund, 2015). As declared by Mayor Zimmer in memos to City Council from March 2015, there is a possibility of getting principal forgiveness of up to 50% (on a competitive basis) for projects that include green infrastructure (Zimmer, 2015). Important to notice is that interviewees identified NJEIT loans as one of the main ways for the financing of green infrastructure projects on public properties. The overview of the current projects for which the application has been made for NJEIT is provided in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 Intended NJEIT loans application (modified from Zimmer, 2015)

Project Northwest Resiliency Park Southwest Resiliency Park Washington Street H-5 Wet Weather Pump

Loan Application ($ million) 11.99 4.7 7.36 11.7

The City will be paying for the debts through the Open Space Trust Fund, established in 2008 for open space acquisition that will be used for recreation and conservation purposes. The Open Space Trust


51

Fund receives funding stream from Municipal Open Space Tax, and it was estimated at the moment that the Trust Fund is capable of financing up to $42 million in loans (Zimmer, 2015). Policy Along with federal Clean Water Act regulations for CSO reduction, Stormwater Management Rules (SWM Rules) are the core of state driven regulations for stormwater management. These rules present ‘’the regulatory framework for new development and redevelopment and include general requirements for regional and municipal stormwater management plans and stormwater control ordinances, as well as content requirements and procedures for the adoption and implementation of those plans’’ (New Jersey Statuatory Authority, 2010). The SWM Rules are triggered by other regulations, for which a permit is required. For instance, the NJDEP permit will activate the need to conform to SWM Rules and ask for municipal inspection and endorsement process for all major developments and redevelopment proposed projects (Worstell, 2013). All municipalities in New Jersey are required to develop the Municipal Stormwater Management Plan and enact Stormwater Control Ordinances to meet the stormwater requirements for major development and redevelopment projects. When creating local plans, municipalities are expected to meet the minimum requirements set by SWM Rules, but are allowed to propose more strict requirements, in terms of defining major development and redevelopment sites. Stormwater management measures are divided into non structural stormwater management (e.g. source controls, low maintanence landscaping) and structural stormwater management measures (e.g. impervious pavements, rain gardens). SWM Rules advocate usage of non structural stormwater management measure to the ‘’maximum extent possible’’ and promote structural measures in case that standards cannot be met with non structural measures alone. To address the the SWM Rules standards, NJDEP developed a New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. In 9 chapters, the manual describes impacts of development on runoff, low impact development techniques, regional and municipal stormwater management plans, stormwater pollutant removal criteria, computation of stormwater rates and volumes, groundwater recharge, landscaping, maintenance and retrofit of stormwater management measures, structural stormwater management measures (Blick and FredSkupien, 2004). Furthermore, the manual provides model municipal stormwater management plans and ordinances, to assist municipalities and sewarage authorities in developing of local plans and ordinances. Up to date, all 565 municipalities in New Jersey have adopted their stormwater management plans and ordinances (ANJEC, 2014). During one of the interviews, the interviewee stated that Hoboken’s Plan and Ordinances are limited in extent and are currently being revised and updated. Since the drainage system in Hoboken is primary responsibility of the NHSA, the applicants for new stormwater connections are obliged to follow the rules established by the NHSA, which are in compliance with SMW Rules and local plans and ordinances. These rules require stormwater management for i) new development ii) redevelopment that disturbes more than 0.25 acres of land iii) redevelopments that will not decrease the impervious area by at least 25% and iv) sites with already existing stormwater connections that will increase impervious area (North Hudson Sewerage Authority, 2012). The NHSA advises and encourages usage of detention systems, green roofs, rain gardens and any other measure which is in consent with New Jersey BMP’s manual. The NHSA holds the right of inspecting the systems regardless of the ownership and requires operation and maintenance schedules to be created and kept on site for each measure.


52

Output relationship analysis Determining the consumption of ecosystem services in Hoboken, at the moment, is more on a hypothetical level, since there are no delivered projects that could be used for the exact quantification of the benefits. As the green infrastructure system will grow, it is expected that provided ecosystem services could be quantified more in detail, which will provide justification for green infrastructure. However, many benefits of introducing green infrastructure will still remain a challenge in the terms of expressing economic benefit (e.g. enhanced livability, establishment of urban greenways). Based on the insights from the stakeholders, the implementation of green infrastructure in Hoboken will benefit mainly local residents, especially ones living in the wards adjacent to proposed new parks. However, due to Hoboken’s small areal extent, the beneficiaries could be all residents. The benefits to local residents would be through meeting their needs for more open space and avoided costs of flood damages. Since 80% of Hoboken is located within FEMA’s flood zone, residents are obliged to take on flood insurance by the National Flood Insurance Program. An important step forward would be research on the potential of green infrastructure for reducing the flood insurance premiums. Other important beneficiaries are of course the City of Hoboken and the NHSA, as ultimately responsible parties for improving life of residents and complying with legal requirements. As stated in the interview, the NHSA estimated that replacing Hoboken’s combined sewer system would cost from 0.5 to 1 $ billion. Hence, green infrastructure introduction in addition to minor upgrades of the system are seen as a way forward. Furthermore, introduction of GI in the NHSA’s LCTP will lead to the compliance with Clean Water Act and reduction of the number of CSO’s. Although the exact data from Hoboken is not available, examples on savings from other US cities point that significant savings can be achieved. Based on that, it is justified to assume that the exact quantification of the costs of green infrastructure when compared to the estimated value for grey infrastructure upgrade will be in GI favor. Nonetheless, to make the exact quantification and comparison, the LCTP presenting to which extent NHSA plans to include GI to their system needs to be created. Another important additional benefit from green infrastructure seen by stakeholders is increase in the property values due to the creation of new parks and open spaces. For instance, Clements et al. (2013) in report for the Natural Resource Defense Council quanitifed that apartment building with included GI gives property owner a benefit of $37.500 at the time of the sale. Same report presented that the annual energy savings for a same building, due to savings for heating and cooling is $1.780.

5.2. Ecological system As a constituting part of the GI system typology ecological system analysis includes overview of the ecological drivers for GI implementation, type of existing ecological system, planning for operation and maintenance, together with understanding the connection of Hoboken’s ecosystem with the external ecosystems. Settings and drivers Hoboken is located in a temperate forest biome, located on the coast of the Hudson River. The climate is continental, with an average annual precipitation of 1147 mm and an average annual temperature of 12◦ C (Climate Data, 2015). Rainfall and temperature distribution throughout the year is presented in Figure 5.3.


53

Figure 5.3 Climate characteristcs of Hoboken (source: Climate Data, 2015)

As noted, Hoboken suffers from flash flooding due to insufficient capacity of drainage system during high precipitation events. The need for the upgrade of the system is present for a longer period, but it was not until after Sandy in 2012 that the action for solving the problem was taken. Therefore, the flooding impacts experienced on the city wide scale are seen as a biggest ecological driver for acceptance of GI. Another important ecological driver is expected increase in precipitation and extreme precipitation. In New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report, Horton et al (2015) state that the projected increase in precipitation in New York metropolitan area is 1- 8% by 2012, 411% by 2050 and 5- 13% by 2080. The same report indicated that ‘’increases are expected in the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme precipitation”. Green infrastructure might serve as an important link in adapting the city to these expected changes. Another important external ecological driver is managing the environmental impact of CSO discharges to receiving ecosystem. As concluded by the interviewees and stated previously, it is the NHSA’s responsibility to comply with the CWA, but it is ultimate City’s responsibility to solve the flooding problem. These circumstances trigger and create an enabling environment for GI application, since core stakeholders are willing to cooperate in their efforts towards the problem solution. Cultivated ecosystem As noted, the current urban area has been through a development from wetlands to highly urbanized area. The strategies recognized this issue and proposed employment of constructed wetlands. This would connect Hoboken with its historical image and natural state while allowing for additional space for storing the excess water. Available documents do not deal with the issues of long term maintenance of proposed GI facilities. During the interviews, the stakeholders stated that the issue of maintenance is not being considered in details at this moment, the efforts are rather directed exclusively towards the delivery of the first projects. Hence, the maintenance particularities will be looked at afterwards. Since project scheduled to be executed in short term are on public properties, it is anticipated that existing the City’s departments in charge of maintenance will be associated. Excluding the maintenance planning in this part of the process can be seen as an impediment, as it will be discussed in the section on barriers to implementation.


54

The relation of planned facilities to the external ecosystem is driven by the water quality. As mentioned earlier, the receiving ecosystem is the Hudson River, and complying with the CWA directly implies that the impact from polluted runoff to the river is eliminated. Furthermore, strategies propose the creation of a circuit green belt in the city that would not only be used for storing water for the delayed discharge, but would also be a way of connecting the measures introduced in the other parts of the city.

5.3. Barriers to green infrastructure implementation The application of typology to the case of Hoboken allowed for more detailed insight into the programs, projects, funding opportunities and regulations in relation to GI. However, to map the context in its fullest extent, it is of utmost importance to understand the hindering factors in the process. Hence, based on the insights of urban water management stakeholders in Hoboken, the barriers to green infrastructure implementation have been identified and assigned to categories, as presented in Figure 5.4.

Technical

Physical

Operation and maintenance

Available space

Design gudelines

Property ownership

Legal & regulatory

System ownership

High design & construction costs Absence of incentives

Magnitude of intervention

Institutional

Insufficent data avalilability

Land value

Insufficent data availability

Novelty of proposed techniques

Financial

Outdated ordinances

Lack of legal requirements

Education

No steady funding source

No authority for stormwater fee

Figure 5.4 Barriers to green infrastructure implementation in Hoboken

The data collected through interviews were organized in a similar manner according to the categorization proposed by Abhold et al. (2011). The choice was made based on the fact that above mentioned report represents the most comprehensive survey of GI implementation impediments conducted for the US. However, it is important to emphasize that only categories were found as matching, whereas individual barriers are case specific for Hoboken. Even though barriers may occur as generic, they are very site specific, and depend on the local conditions, institutional structure, available funding and regulations. The impediments were assigned in one of the following categories: technical, physical, financial, institutional, legal and regulatory. In the follow up, further explanation of individual barriers is provided. It is important to emphasize at this point that some barriers are overlapping over categories and have a high level of correlation. Therefore, the proposed categories should not be seen as a strict division, but rather as an attempt to provide a clear overview of processes hindering the wider implementation.


55

5.3.1. Technical barriers For the decentralized stormwater management system to function properly, it is important to have a strong technical support, from the design until maintenance stage. However, stakeholders see several technical barriers: operation and maintenance, insufficient data availability, novelty of proposed techniques and design guidelines. The overlapping between different barriers occurs, and therefore the discussion is stretched out in following paragraphs. The summary of the discussion is provided in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 Summary of technical barriers

Barrier

Description   

Lack of O&M planning Unfamiliar & need for different apporach Private properties

  

Performance data O&M Lack of proper hydrological analysis

  

Uncertainty lessens the confidence Lack of technical understanding Contractors with insufficient experience

  

Absence of guidance No standardization State BMP Manual incomplete

Techical Barriers


Insufficient Data Availability

Novelty of the proposed techniques

Design Guidelines

Operation and maintenance Operation and maintenance of GI facilities is not planned for, which can potentially in return hinder the positive effects of these techniques. Since the City is putting so much effort in trying to deliver first projects, other issues such as design and funding solutions are favored over particularities of operation and maintenance. They are rather seen as a challenge that will be solved once the projects are on the ground. While striving for putting the projects in the place is to be complimented for, in order for GI to fully function as a part of stormwater management system, the responsibilities and particularities of operation and maintenance should be accounted for. The maintenance of GI facilities differs largely from the maintenance of traditional grey infrastructure, for which the staff is accustomed and trained. Many interviewees stated that the maintenance issues are unfamiliar and may require different approaches than traditional street or stormwater management. Maintenance of traditional grey infrastructure has an established industry behind, whereas due to the novelty of GI, there is still a lack of such an establishment. Furthermore, maintenance requirements vary according to the GI measure implemented, so the knowledge on particularities of each of the measures defines the quality of the system functioning. Existing green infrastructure strategies propose big part of GI system on private properties, and as such, can present a challenge in a way infrastructure is managed so far. Public agencies which are responsible for the maintenance of parks and other public properties may not necessarily be allowed nor accustomed on maintaining such a decentralized system. On the other hand, private properties owners may not understand that facilities located on their properties


56

are part of a critical infrastructure system, and as such, need to be regularly maintained to achieve a certain function. The additional potential challenge in terms of maintenance responsibilities arises from the fact that the City does not own the system. This calls for coordination between City´s Department in charge of maintaining public properties, NHSA and private property owners. Interviewees also stated that the maintenance responsibilities should be designated during the planning and design stage of the project, since these systems rely on proper and effective maintenance. Insufficient data availability The other identified technical barrier is insufficient availability of data, mainly on performance of these measures and operation and maintenance requirements. The theme of long term performance emerged as a serious obstacle, since there is a lack of data sets on how these measures function in different locations, under different conditions. Adjacent to this is lack of proper hydrological analysis that would prove in which location of the City individual measures would have the biggest influence and capture most of the stormwater. The concern has been raised that the lack of such an analysis could lead to implemented projects not functioning properly, which could undermine the public acceptance of the measures and question the effectiveness of implementing GI on the city wide scale. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on maintenance requirements, which adds on the barrier discussed in the previous paragraph. As opposite to the lack of data on performance and maintenance for the green infrastructure, grey infrastructure has these data available, which can lead to the reluctance of engineers to employ these techniques in order to avoid risk. Additionally, private property owners might be skeptical in introducing GI on their properties without enough data on the performance and maintenance. In addition to this, there is a lack of data on costs and benefits of GI, as it will be presented in the discussion on financial barriers to GI. Finally, there is a lack of proper analysis that would assign the applicability of individual measures to certain parts of the city. For instance, analysis for identifying roof areas which can be used for the installation of green roofs can be carried out. Novelty of proposed techniques Novelty of proposed techniques is a barrier itself. As noted several times, GI measures are innovative technique in stormwater management and as such carry a lot of uncertainty that can lessen a confidence in GI. This can connect primarily to the issue of lack of education in these techniques. Some interviewees pointed out that although it is evident that municipal staff sees GI as a right solution for Hoboken´s flooding problems, lack of technical understanding due to novelty of the technique might impose a significant barrier and lead to implementation of inadequate solutions. Hence, even though Hoboken has a strong will and unlike in many other communities, strong political buy in for GI, inexperience can institute a compelling hindering factor. The innovative nature of GI is strongly connected with the lack of available data. Another important factor is that the City of Hoboken is preselecting the contractors each year, which will be in charge of implementing capital projects. As stated during the interviews, this brings the danger of parties with not enough experience in GI constructing the facilities, and with that increasing the option of improper construction due to inexperience. Improper construction might cause inadequate functioning, followed by decreased aesthetic potential of GI installations that might influence public perception of the techniques. Design gudelines The final identified technical barrier in Hoboken is the lack of design guidance and standardization. At the local level, there is a complete absence of design guidelines for individual measures, which would take into account local soil characteristics and climate. The GI Strategic Plan places adequate


57

measures in the areas of the city based on the depth to impermeable underlying soil layer. However, there is no more specific guidance on how these measures should be designed. At the state level, NJDEP developed the Best Management Practices Manual. Still, some of the stakeholders stated that the manual is not comprehensive enough due to the fact that it is focusing mainly on nonstructural best management practices, while structural green infrastructure measures are not included in a detailed manner. With no clear guidance on how to design these innovative measures, the engineers might feel more comfortable with proposing and designing more traditional solutions, due to familiarity and convenience, and reluctance to change. Grey infrastructure for stormwater management holds an important advantage in being well documented in manuals and guidance. 5.3.2. Physical barriers Physical barriers have been grouped in following three parts: available space, property ownership and magnitude of intervention. The summary, offering a short description of the below discussed characteristics of the physical barriers is presented in Table 5.5. Table 5.5 Summary of physical barriers

Barrier   

No potential for horizontal expansion GI vs Built Land Competing with other public projects

Property Ownership



GI on private properties

Magnitude of Intervention



Considerable amount of GI needed

Available Space

Physical Barriers

Description

Available space & property ownership Available space for the introduction of GI and property ownership can be seen through the same lens. As stated before, the city of Hoboken is landlocked and has no potential for horizontal expansion. The area is almost completely built, with high percentage of impervious zones. As such, the City has limited spatial capacity for acquiring the land for new parks which would include GI. Enabling step towards the implementation is that the City is planning GI as a part of new open space development, therefore using the opportunity. Considering the high cost of land in urban areas, developers might be reluctant to provide space for GI on the expense of more built area. Bearing in mind space limitation while doing capital projects planning is of outmost importance in Hoboken, since including GI in already planned projects provides the option of implementing GI with just an incremental cost, in contrary to if GI project was a goal by itself. Due to the limited available area, green infrastructure included in public projects can be competing with other planned projects in right of ways, such as parking, pedestrian and bicycle safety. Hoboken has a problem with the lack of available parking, so the conflict of interests might be expected. Connecting to the issue of the lack of available space is property ownership, since the City can control only the projects on the public properties. Even though regulations require some level of stormwater management for new development and redevelopments, there is lack of regulation on existing properties. Since existing GI strategies propose significant amount of GI on private properties in order to achieve satisfying flood reduction effect, this Green infrastructure system typology and barriers to implementation

58

emerges like an impediment to implementation. This will be further discussed in following identification of the barriers. The common agreement was reached during the interviews that introducing GI on public properties is much easier to realize when compared to the private land, due to the ownership issues. Magnitude of intervention The third and final physical barrier to GI implementation in Hoboken is the magnitude of the intervention. In order to achieve the objective of reducing flash flooding from excessive rainfall, there is a considerable amount of green infrastructure that needs to be employed. Taking aside other barriers related to such a city wide implementation, spatial dimension of intervention is a barrier in its essence. Reaching the quantifiable influence on a bigger spatial scale will mean introducing the significant number of smaller scale interventions. For this reason, it is a long term issue that needs to be integrated in every aspect of urban development. 5.3.3. Financial barriers The financial impediments are perceived as the biggest barrier to the city wide application and uptake of GI. Insufficient data availability on long term costs of GI, high costs of land in Hoboken, financially demanding design and construction process, lack of incentives for private property owners and absence of steady funding stream are all seen as a crucial factors in the uptake of the strategies. The financial barriers are summarized in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 Summary of financial barriers Barrier

Financial Barriers

Insufficient Data Availability

Land Value

High Design& Construction Costs

Absence of incentives

Description  

Cost of intervention Lack of data on planning, design, installation, O&M

 

Acquiring new properites No willing sellers



More intensive design and construction



No incentives to galvanize GI on private properties Lack of motivation

 

No Steady Funding Source

Absence of stormwater fee for construction and maintainence of GO

Insufficient data availability Due to the relatively recent development and application of sustainable stormwater technologies, the lack of data on the costs of green infrastructure is perceived as a serious hurdle for GI. The approximate data on the costs of separating the CSS in Hoboken are available, as presented in the typology. However, there are no data available on implementing GI on the city wide scale. The interviewees see green infrastructure as possibly having higher upfront costs, but state that lifecycle costs might be lower. Furthermore, it is perceived that higher initial costs are replaced with the cost


59

trade off in a long term. However, there is a chronic deficiency of data on planning, design, installation, operation, maintenance and replacement costs. Even though the awareness that green infrastructure provides economic, social and environmental benefits is present, there is a lack of analysis and quantification of ancillary benefits, which is perceived as a shortcoming, since the cost benefit analysis is incomplete without including provided benefits in monetary terms. Moreover, the costs of maintenance are often overestimated, as stated by some of the interviewed stakeholders, but due to the lack of data presented to the decision makers and private developers, this often stays unknown. Land value High property values exhibit an important barrier for the City to continue acquiring vacant properties. Due to its vicinity to New York City, Hoboken is a popular and desired location for living. This, coupled with the previously mentioned fact that the available not occupied land is very limited, dictates extremely high real estate values. The local government is determined in its intention to buy land for new parks, however, the challenge of non- willingness of owners to sell arises. For instance, while negotiating with the former owners of the Block 12 (Southwest Resiliency Park), the difference in what City was ready to pay for (based on the real estate appraisal) and what the owners were considering is a real value of their property presented a significant constraint. The same experience is in negotiation with BASF property owners. Hence, presence of not willing vacant property sellers makes the process of projects delivery long term and untimely, even though the City is in a position to apply for low interest loans from New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust. As noted above, the NJEIT currently offers additional principal forgiveness on a competitive basis. However, as long as the process of negotiation with the owners takes years, this could create a missed opportunity for the City to get favorable loans. High design& construction costs The interviewees stated that the design and construction costs for the planned GI in Hoboken might be higher, in comparison to costs if GI measures would not be introduced. The example of park design and construction is discussed, since the most significant projects at the moment are connected with introduction of new parks with GI included. Landscaping with addition of GI requires more intensive and complex design, and hence, it is more costly. In the interviews, this difference is perceived by stakeholders to up to 3 times higher for the GI park. Furthermore, construction of a park with addition of sustainable stormwater management facilities requires more investment when compared to traditional construction. Cost difference is due to additional excavations, planting, use of underdrains etc. However, higher initial expenditure presents just an additional incremental cost, and the local government is willing to bear it in order to achieve their long term resiliency goals. The higher construction costs emerge as well from the necessity to clean up contaminated land in former industrial properties. The Re. Invest Initative (2015) report on Hoboken estimated that the needed contaminated soil removal for the BASF site is in arrange from 10 to 22 feet. This is recognized as a cost concern, but also seen as the opportunity to clean up contaminated areas in order to improve environmental quality in the city. Absence of incentives For the green infrastructure to have quantifiable effect on reducing the amount of stormwater in Hoboken, it is necessary that many of these practices are located on the private properties. However, the introduction of green practices on private land should be encouraged. At the moment, there are no available incentives for property owners and developers in Hoboken. Absence of incentive program leads to lack of motivation of private property owners to retrofit their properties with green


60

infrastructure and contribute to an overall stormwater management strategy by dealing with stormwater on site. Many cities across the US have developed various incentive based policies, such as: discounts and credits for stormwater fee, reduced application fee, tradable allowance, development incentives, accelerated application process, rebate/ installation financing (Tian, 2011; USEPA, 2009a). This unavailability can make individuals unwilling to implement green infrastructure on their properties, due to the absence of direct private benefits. No steady funding source The most common financial obstacle identified by stakeholders is the nonexistent steady funding source for green infrastructure. Nearly 1500 municipalities and sewerage authorities across US introduced stormwater fee as a way of charging property owners for the provided management of stormwater generated on the property (Campbell, 2014). Most common, the fee is based on the percentage of impervious areas. Revenues from stormwater utilities are to be used for capital investment in stormwater systems, maintenance and serve as a steady funding source. This way, owners of the properties that contribute a lot to the overtaxing of the drainage system (such as parking lots) are charged accordingly. Even though it became a common practice in many areas across the country, New Jersey is one of the 8 states in US with no established fee. In New Jersey, existing regulations do not directly authorize local authorities or sewerage utilities to charge this fee (MicKenzie Roberts, 2014). Hence, the cities are affraid of possible law suits. Introduction of stormwater fee in New Jersey presents a very sensitive political topic, since the Governor has already vetoed a bill for stormwater on property owners in 2010 for Barnegat Bay, and Senate Budget and Appropriation Committee stopped the decision that municipalities with CSS are allowed to introduce stormwater charge (MicKenzie Roberts, 2014). Additional issue with introducing the stormwater fee in Hoboken is the fact that the system is owned by NHSA. Consequently, the City might have difficulties justifying such a tax. Without having a steady funding source, it is a challenge to introduce financial incentives for private property owners. 5.3.4. Institutional barriers The literature on institutional factors hindering GI implementation identifies certain barriers such as lack of interdepartmental coordination, resistance to change and lack of political leadership that are actually seen as enabling factors for Hoboken, as discussed in detail previously. Still, there are two common themes that emerged through interviews that can be classified as institutional barriers. The summarized information on the institutional barriers is presented in Table 5.7. Table 5.7 Summary of institutional barriers

Institutional Barriers

Barrier

Description 

System Ownership

Education





Inter institutional coordination of activities Complex managerial approach

Lack of technical education within the City

System ownership Firstly, the private ownership of the system and need of coordinating activities represents an additional managerial effort. In the current state, all the GI efforts are taken by the City and as such,


61

make city departments responsible for operation and maintenance of GI facilities planned on public properties. However, a big potential of GI is seen in reducing the negative environmental effects of CSO, and since the regulatory driver of complying with CWA is ultimate responsibility of NHSA, it is expected that GI will constitute crucial link in upcoming LCTP, that NHSA as a CSO permit holder is in charge of creating. The shared responsibility shapes complex management system with multiple actors involved, and can be a significant barrier, especially in terms of operation and maintenance. Additionally, the small spatial scale of Hoboken and high interconnection between the sewersheds calls for coordinated actions between City and NHSA in order to achieve common goals. Education The second identified institutional barrier, education, is to a large extent stretching out throughout all of the assigned categories, and is especially related to the barriers of insufficient data availability. Some interviewees stated that even though Hoboken’s City staff is highly proactive, educated, capable, with the strong sense of GI being the right answer to the problems, the lack of technical education within the City might serve as a barrier. Although this barrier is not seen as such in terms of trying to move forward with the planning, it might become a barrier once when it comes to implementation. The existing plans are on conceptual level, and without more detailed technical explanation could exhibit problems in a long term. 5.3.5. Legal and regulatory barriers Outdated ordinances, lack of legal requirements and inability to introduce stormwater fee create significant barriers to green infrastructure implementation. While local government is playing crucial role in attempt to promote GI, some of the existing ordinances and regulations are impeding the process. The summary of legal and regulatory barriers is provided in Table 5.8. Table 5.8 Summary of legal and regulatory barriers

Legal and Regulatory Barriers

Barrier

Description 

Outdated Ordinances

Lack of Legal Requirement

No Authority for Stormwater Fee



Zoning ordinances not following City’s gentrification Lack of motivation in developers

 

GI encouraged, not required Limited applicability to already developed properties



Lack of support from the State for stormwater fee

Outdated ordinances The current zoning ordinances in Hoboken date from 1979. A few decades ago, Hoboken had an image of an industrial City, which does not coincide with the current representation. However, the zoning ordinances are not following this transformation. The purpose of the land use in redevelopment areas that are seen as a biggest opportunity for GI are not in accordance to developers requests. Current ordinances require development in some of these areas to create urban industrial activity and light manufacturing, which is not representative of the existing demand for residential housing and office areas. Hence, the developers perceive that there is very little or no demand for current zoning, since the city gentrified. Therefore, owners and developers in those designated zones aim in filling this gap. However, due to current zoning, they are unable to do so which causes lack of motivation for Green infrastructure system typology and barriers to implementation

62

investing. In the case of proposing the project that is not in accordance with current zoning, the developers need to ask the approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. However, the interviewees stated that the adjustment requests to designated redevelopment zones are simply not approved in most of the cases. It is widely acknowledged that creation of industrial areas decrease the opportunity to implement GI. Hence, this specific barrier for Hoboken is impending the acceptance and inclusion of GI from the developers side. Lack of legal requirements The lack of legal requirements in the existing regulations emerged as a forceful flaw of the current system. Even though regulations require stormwater management for development and redevelopment projects, as discussed previously, the requirements are not directed specifically towards the introduction of GI. The GI is linguistically encouraged, but still with the lack of encouragement in policy. Even though the CSO communities are obliged to develop LCTP, GI is just advised as an alternative to consider, rather than a demand. The lack of legal enforcement leaves GI as a voluntary activity, and therefore susceptible to possible resistance to change and following of traditional practices. Furthermore, the Stormwater Management Rules advise the inclusion of nonstructural stormwater management practices to the maximum extent possible, without specifically defining the meaning of the maximum extent, hence transferring the responsibility towards the local decision makers. Yet another pitfall in current regulations is their limitation for the already developed properties. Since Hoboken is highly built area, application of GI on existing properties is one of the crucial links in achieving the substantial effect on flood reduction and CSO’s elimination. As noted in the overview of current policies related to stormwater, stormwater management is required only for new development and major redevelopment projects, hence leaving the existing properties unaffected. The relation of this part of the barrier with the heretofore explained lack of incentives for private property owners is evident, since retrofitting existing properties without offering additional benefits in term of economic incentives of development bonuses is not motivating for the owners. No authority for stormwater fee Another legal impediment, as discussed previously, is inability of local authorities/ sewerage utilities to introduce stormwater fee and charge property owners based on the amount of stormwater generated. Worstell (2013) states that introduction of stormwater fees improves equity by transferring the ‘’burden from water consumers (including residences and businesses) to stormwater generators”.

5.4. Hoboken’s GI system development trajectory Based on the analysis of social and ecological parts of GI system, Hoboken can be described with unequal development trajectory. Even though the climate in the City for implementing GI on a wider scale is enabling, some of the components of the social and ecological system are still in the slower development stage than the others. The system is galvanized primarily through regulatory requirements of complying with CWA, coupled with the increased awareness of needed action for reducing the negative flood effects, which emerged after Hurricane Sandy. The main reasoning for placing Hoboken in unequal stage is in the fact that GI efforts are almost exclusively driven by the public sector. Due to the identified strong leadership of the current Mayor and motivated municipal staff, the City is receiving funding from federal and state sources to implement current strategies. Another crucial factor in the process, NHSA is in a stage of developing LCTP. Despite strong commitment from the public sector, private entities are still not involved deeply


63

in the process. As identified in the barriers, private participation is hindered by the lack of incentives. There is a strong need towards attracting more investment from the private sector. In addition, there is a lack of analysis on appropriation of ecosystem services and proper division of maintenance activities. Community involvement is one of the crucial parts for a successful implementation. However, besides the collected information on highly aware and educated citizenry, there is no more detailed information on the status of community involvement in Hoboken. This can be assigned to the limitation with establishing a community survey for the purpose of this research. Furthermore, the original typology proposed Young et al. (2014) is broaden by including the barriers to GI implementation. The general idea was that in order to achieve the aim of the typology, which is systematization of known information and combination with the new knowledge, barriers need to be included to provide a comprehensive mapping of the context. Hence, the addition of barriers to originally proposed GI system typology influenced to a large extent the selection of development trajectory.

5.5. Chapter summary The aim of this chapter was to provide the reader with detailed description of the components establishing a GI system in Hoboken. For reaching the final aim of this thesis, an implementation plan, it was important to map the context in comprehensive way, for which the typology coupled with identified barriers was found matching. Current projects, policies, funding sources, enabling factors and impediments to implementation, in a framework of dynamic interaction of the social and ecological system were analyzed. Lastly, Hoboken is identified as being in unequal development GI system trajectory, which provides useful information on the components of the system that need to be advanced. Further development and work on the issue of GI implementation would place Hoboken in a general development stage, which is more favorable for the implementation of GI on a bigger spatial scale.

Regulations Environmental Impact

Climate Change

Flooding

Funding

Green Infrastructure Drivers

Strategies & Master Plan, Redevelopment Plans

Local Community

Local Government

Developers Cost savings

Figure 5.5 Drivers for green infrastructure implementation


64

The most important information extracted in this chapter were main drivers and barriers identified by stakeholders. For the purpose of having a clear overview all three categories of green infrastructure drivers (external social drivers, internal social drivers and ecological drivers) these are presented in Figure 5.5. It is a challenge to put a weight to any of the drivers and identify the most important ones, but it is evident from this Chapter that the core drivers in Hoboken are: regulatory driver, the reduction of flash flooding and strong local leadership. In relation to overall research design, by compiling all the data for addressing the second step of applied fit for purpose model, this chapter provided answers to sub research questions 1 and 2.


65

CHAPTER 6

Overcoming the barriers to green infrastructure After the context has been mapped with the application of typology and barriers to implementation identified, this Chapter offers a repository of options for addressing the challenges. This Chapter is a transition chapter towards the creation of the implementation plan.

6.1. Tactics for way forward The barriers that have been identified in the previous chapter are presenting a serious challenge to the implementation of a green infrastructure system on a city scale. Still, for the final goal of reducing the flooding due to excessive rainfall in Hoboken and decreasing CSO’s in the Hudson River, ways to overcome the barriers need to be derived. Thus, in the follow up, the discussion on how the identified barriers can be tackled is presented. The analysis is based on the results from the interviews combined with previous research done on the scoping of barriers and solutions in other US cities. The importance of learning from successful examples was described as valuable tool in taking the process forward (Barbosa et al., 2012; Wong, 2000). The City of Hoboken, being in the beginning phase, can use the examples and lessons learned from other cities, and in that way avoid repetition of the, very often, costly mistakes. Since purely results from the interviews were not considered detailed enough to propose the most effective tactics to overcome the barriers, detailed desk study was conducted, and by going through documents and reports from other cities which are putting an effort in transferring to sustainable stormwater management systems, the following recommendations were derived and put specifically in the context of Hoboken. In the follow up, the discussion on the best practices to move forward is given, with an integration of what is proposed by the interviewees and what is found in a literature as a useful advice. The general leading idea is that by identifying the ways to overcome the barriers will set the ground for design of an implementation plan. The recommendations developed in the following chapters are rather general ways to tackle the barriers identified through interviews, and in the follow up, the recommendations will be put specifically in the context of Hoboken, identifying the exact actions to be taken and actors that will facilitate it.

Overcoming the barriers to green infrastructure

66

On the role of tex boxes in this chapter In the following sub chapters, the reader will notice the appearance of the text boxes. The role of these boxes is to give an indication of the stakeholders needed to facilitate the developed recommendations. 6.1.1. Recommendations technical barriers The category of technical barriers encompasses operation and maintenance, insufficient data availability, novelty of proposed techniques and lack of design guidelines. Overcoming these impediments is important for the whole lifecycle of the GI facility. Proper design, construction, operation and maintanence are needed for the measures to serve their purpose and function in a proper manner. Ignoring the threats emerging from technical barriers can diminish the success of green infrastructure in several ways. For instance, improper design and lack of data can cause measures not reaching their expected performance, thus failing to manage excessive water quantity during storms that usually trigger flooding in the street. This would be an unfortunate scenario, because it would mean that the City invested significant resources into something that has no tangible effect. Not planning for maintenance and/ or doing it inproperly could lead to measures being aestheticaly unpleasant, which could further contribute to the lack of public acceptance. Therefore, finding effective solutions for overcoming technical barriers is of utmost importance. This is especially important for the cities that are in the same planning stage as Hoboken, meaning that they are about to deliver the first projects on the ground, but have much more ambitious plans of reaching their sustainability goals with green infrastructure. In order to reach that, significant public acceptance will be needed, thus having successful projects in the beginning of the process is important for the later uptake on a bigger scale. Based on the insights from interviewed stakeholders, the ways to overcome technical barriers are grouped in following recommendations, which will be further explained below:        

Designate responsibilities and procedures for maintenance in the planning and design stage of the projects Community involvement for the maintenance Developing a tracking system and evaluation tool Continue working on demonstration projects for data collection and evaluation Education and marketing campaigns Choosing contractors with proven track of expertize Improving New Jersey’s Best Management Practices Manual and the development of local design guidelines Use available technical assistance

Designate responsibilities and procedures for maintenance in the planning and design stage of the projects In order to avoid the pitfalls of the built projects, it is important to Box 1 Stakeholders have a clear picture of who exactly is in charge of maintenance City of Hoboken (Department of and what are the requirements. Since decentralized drainage Transportation and Parking, system is a new method of dealing with stormwater in Hoboken, Environmental Services, Community already in the early stage and design of the projects, Development), NHSA responsibilities for the maintenance actions need to be divided. Two main actors in charge of this are people from the City’s Departments (Environmental Services and


67

Department of Transportation and Parking) and NHSA. City’s primary responsibility would be maintaining planned facilities located on the public properties (e.g Park 12, City Hall, Washington Street), while NHSA shall come up with a model in which they can cooperate with the City and private property owners. By financing and introducing GI on public properties (e.g rain gardens in curb cuts) the City is directly helping NHSA with their responsibility to comply with legal requirements. Hence, NHSA needs to contribute to the maintainence activities, whether through financial arrangements or by providing the staff. Furthermore, NHSA should be fully responsible for maintaining GI at the WWTP in Adams Street. Having in mind the novelty of the techniques and maintenance requirements being different than those for traditional grey infrastructure, it would be useful to undergo the internal staff assessment, so the state of the knowledge of the current employees regarding GI can be determined. Taking into consideration that during the interviews actors from both sides were receptive and in favour of GI, the conclusion is that they would also be open for this type of intervention. The internal assessment needs to answer the following questions: o o o o

Does the staff have enough technical training to maintain new type of system? What is the needed training and who can provide it? Is it more financially viable in long term to hire an external contractor to maintain the facilities? What is the profile of future employees that needs to be considered when hiring new staff members?

The level of maintenance should be taken into account already in the design stage of the project (Hammitt, 2010; Tian, 2011). This message is especially useful for Hoboken, due to the before mentioned novelty of the approach in the City. Considering the requirements so early in the process allows for including the level of capability within responsible staff in decisions on selection of the measures. This can be proven useful, especially in the long term, when maintenance requirements are aligned with the available staff and their capacity. Hence, while planning the projects with the designers, the City and NHSA need to take a realistic approach and estimate the amount of finances and staff they could possibily secure for these activities. The current NHSA requirements for stormwater connection ask for the creation of Operation and Maintenance schedule and make private entities responsible for maintenance of facilities located at their properties. If the maintenance is not done in a proper manner, the owners can be fined. This model is approporiate, and can be found in other cities as well, such as Portland. The long term schedules and procedures for all the facilities, regardless of their location (private or public) need to be developed, and offer a clear picture of what the exact requirements are and the actions to be followed. Finally, the adequate operation and maintenance is facilitated thorugh development of an operation and maintenance manual, to be used by developers and private property owners retrofitting their properties. For instance, comprehensive maintenance manuals were developed for Philadelphia, Save the Rain program for Onondaga County, District of Columbia etc. Community involvement for the maintenance As emphasized previously, Hoboken’s GI strategies propose a significant amount of the measures located on the private properties. For this reason, it is meaningful to consider community buy in for


68

the maintenance and to terminate the ways in which it could be Box 2 Stakeholders done. Examples for community maintaining the facilities can be City of Hoboken (Department of found across US. For instance, in the city bordering with Transportation and Parking, Hoboken, Weehawken, the community’s initiative was to build a Environmental Services, Community rain garden and the local residents are also maintaining it. In her Development), NHSA, community research, Hammitt (2010) found that in Portland and Seattle, the members, non profit organizations, city agencies in charge of maintaining GI developed a model in external contractors which they maintain the facilities located on the private properties for first few years (2- 3 years) after which the homeowners are in charge of ensuring the proper functioning of GI as a part of drainage infrastructure. This model presents a well-grounded initiative, since during that period, the homeowners will have a chance to learn how to maintain, and on the other hand, the city agencies and NHSA will make sure that the proper maintenance is being done in the beginning, which is very important for the overall performance of the measure (e.g. vegetation strenghtening). Furthermore, the use of this scheme might be a motivating way for homeowners to overcome the doubts of incapability of dealing with the maintenance issue. Additionaly, by organizing various outreach efforts and identifying local environmentally sensitive individuals and groups, the City and on profit agencies such as NJ Future should work on establishing Stewardship Programs, in which local community would maintain facilities sited in their neighboorhods. Of special interest are communities in most affected areas of the City (sewersheds H1, H4, H5). Maintanence of GI can be a valid option for private sector as well. Firstly, it represent a new bussiness branch. Bigger scale GI is just entering New Jersey, and an opportunity for companies to specialize by receiving certifications is created. Secondly, interviewees stated that by creating the Adopt a Sustainable Stormwater Measure Program, private companies have the opportunity to market themselves as being environmentally sensitive businesses. The ways in which this can be organized is that a company receives a free marketing space directly on GI measure, and in return, they oblige on maintaining the measure. Developing an evaluation tool The shift to a more decentralized system implies change in the managerial approach. One of the important ingredients in ensuring the success is developing a system that will allow for easy tracking of facilities and provide input for refining the management approach. The evaluation tool is also important in the light of future challenges for urban water systems, since it will allow for an adaptive approach during the process.

Box 3 Stakeholders City of Hoboken, NHSA, academic institutions, external contractors, Office of New Jersey State Climatologist

There are several components that this system needs to contain: tracking system, monitoring system, milestones and data documenting. These components have been noticed as a part of Philadephia’s implementation plan (The Philadelphia Water Department, 2011) and are also emphasized in the research of Hammitt (2010). A tracking system is envisioned as a GIS database containing information on the location of measures, the performance (of the measures equipped with monitoring tools) and the operation and maintanence needs and responsibilities. The development of a GIS database shall be a joint effort of City and NHSA. In the beginning, the tool would be simple, but its complexity would grow as the number of measures is increasing. Hence, for the development, the City should partner with local


69

academic institutions that have the capacity and knowledge to create this (Stevens Institute of Technology, Rutgers University). The primary aim of monitoring system is to track the performance of measures, from individual scale to whole system scale. Hence, monitoring equipment needs to be installed in some of the projects (especially demonstration projects). The main variables to be monitored depend on the type of the measure, but most important variables are site runoff and infiltration. Monitoring equipment can be installed in a cooperation with academic institutions. In that way, both sides would benefit: City and NHSA from having a data for management, and academic institutions having case study for further research. The tracking and monitoring system can be operated and maintained by the joint efforts of the system developers. The people in charge of the system maintenance can be identified through the individual training of some of the existing staff or alternatively, through creating a new job opportunity within the City and/ or NHSA. The additional funding would be needed for the installation of the measuring equipment. However, one of the ways to facilitate that would be through using the existing equipment from the academic institutions. Furthermore, the academic institutions might be interested in using the funds from their research grants. Another way would be using the available funds from the City’s budget in the short term, and in the long term the portion of the funds can be dedicated from the stormwater fee. One of the crucial factors is developing a comprehensive hydrological model for the sewer areas in Hoboken. Some of the interviewees were concerned that the measures might be not meeting the performance requirements due to the improper location. Similar happened in Seattle, where the City, aiming for implementing the Ballard Roadside Rain Gardens pilot project fast, did not do the detailed background analysis of the system, which led to some of the rain gardens not draining properly (Garrison et al., 2011). Consequently, there was a need for additional investment to fix the issue. The latest developed hydrological model that the author is aware of is the SWMM model developed within Royal HaskoningDHV in 2015. However, the recommendations are to build the model that will include all the missing data about the sewer system (Cruijsen, 2015). The main actor in sharing the data would be NHSA, as the operator of the system. The data that will be collected with monitoring are to be used in recalibrating existing hydrological models, thus removing the barrier of performance uncertainty and lack of data. One of the components that existing Strategies are missing is an exact target to be achieved. For example, the goal of NYC’s GI Strategy is to manage first inch of rain from 10% of cities impervious area. In Philadelphia, it is converting one third of impervious areas to green acres. In both cases, there is an exact, quantifiable goal to reach, and that is missing in the case of Hoboken. It is advised to develop it during the next stage and further analysis within RDSD project and LTCP. Once when the exact target has been set, metricts to measure the success can be developed. For instance, the percentage of impervious area converted to pervious can be used as an indicator. This progress can be followed through annual reports (or through reports in equal time steps) depending on the timescale of implementation (that is to be set in LTCP). An evaluation tool needs to be a hub of data. Hence, the database with data on performance, costs (counstruction, design, operation and maintenance) and quanitified ancilliary benefits should be created by the City and NHSA. This would serve as a basis for long term proof of concept. Creation of


70

this data base can start with the implementation of first demonstration projects. Demonstration projects will be further discussed in follow up. Since the planned GI system would be developed for safeguarding Hoboken from future flooding, it would be advisable to take into account projected future rainfalls in the area, and not just to rely on historical data. For this, the partnership with the Office of New Jersey State Climatologist needs to be established. Continue working on demonstration projects for data collection and evaluation The importance of demonstration projects in the implementation process is presented in Figure 6.1. As it was described in Chapter 5, currently there are many planned demonstration projects in Hoboken, mainly taking place in public spaces and acquired land. Data Collection    

Technical data Cost data Performance data Demonstrating benefits

Demonstration Projects Learning Opportunity   

Raising awareness Gathering support Input to future designs

Figure 6.1 Usefulness of demonstration projects

The question is how these demonstration projects can be useful for the overall implementation process? The findings of this study indicate that it is mainly in two ways: data collection and learning opportunity. Cities across the US that are in the more advanced stage of the implementation have understood the positive impacts demonstration projects have in creating a robust green infrastructure system. Some examples are the two green streets pilot projects in Portland, 5 permeable pavements pilot projects in Chicago, over 30 demonstration projects in New York City (Garrison et al., 2011). Most of the pilot projects were delivered on the publicly owned land or public buildings. In the grey to green transformation process, the first few years in which demonstration projects are constructed represent opportunity to build the momentum. Demonstration projects are useful from a data collection point of view as there are several important types of data that could be gathered, such as technical, cost and performance data. Collecting the data is a link in establishing an adaptive management process, in which lessons from past are used to improve the future actions. The City of Philadelphia is collecting data on stormwater inflow, soil moisture storage, storage, evapotranspiration and infiltration rate (The Philadelphia Water Department, 2012). Furthermore, Portland, based on the flow measurements on pilot projects, after evaluating the

Box 4 Stakeholders City of Hoboken (Department of Transportation and Parking, Environmental Services, Community Development) , NHSA, community members, academic institutions, private companies, GITFC, Hoboken Quality of Life Coallition, Hoboken Green Team


71

effectiveness, developed a Green Street Policy (Garrison et al., 2011). Other important data to be collected are data on costs of design, construction and maintenance. For instance, collecting the data on costs of maintenance can be used for determining annual budgets for maintenance within the municipalities (Hammitt, 2010). Next to that, it is an effective way in breaking down the barrier of cost uncertainty. Gathering of the data provides an inventory that can be used for refining the techniques and creating different types of guidance. Finally, the multiple benefits delivered by the GI can be shown. Hoboken is in the starting stage, so it is advisable to start collecting data and build the inventory. For the beginning, following the recommendation from Tian (2011), the effort in collecting the data from cities with similar climate and soil characteristics should be made. Furthermore, the City needs to consider including the monitoring equipment in planned projects, such as Block 12 and the City Hall. For the projects planned at the public properties, the responsible entity for the data collection is the City. As recommended in the interviews, the possibility of partnering with private entitites for doing the metrics shall be considered. The private market has the resources and measuring equipment. As for the data collection from the practices which are installed on private properties, NHSA is a key player. The arrangement can be made in which NHSA has specific agreements with individuals, according to which they are allowed to install monitoring equipment and access it, in exchange of maintaining it for a specific period of time or giving some kind of grants for installing the measures in order to get the data. As discussed previously, data collection can be done in establishing partnerships with local academic insitutions. Demonstration projects present a learning opportunity for the core stakeholders directly included in project delivery, as well as for the community. A direct learning opportunity for City and NHSA lies in getting aaccustomed to a new type of maintenance, and seeing what are the required skills, funds and time resources needed. USEPA (2015a) states that demonstration, high visibility projects “educate the community about the particular green infrastructure practice while garnering support for future projects”. Hence, in the context of Hoboken, demonstration projects that they are undertaking, such as a City Hall Block, is an opportunity to demonstrate to the public how this type of intervention can make a difference at the level of their own block. Furthermore, it can demonstrate the additional benefits of GI, such as giving new aesthetic identity to the area. The public can be made aware of ongoing demonstration projects by intensive outreach campaign, through organizing public meetings and disperison of various types of information material. Additionally, education tables can be located in the locations of the projects that are currently being planned. In a pilot phase, the City can explore different arrangements through which a community can be involved in maintaining the projects (previously mentioned Stewardship Programs).

Figure 6.2 Green infrastructure providing new visual identity (adapted from www.epa.gov) Overcoming the barriers to green infrastructure

72

Further specifications on what the meaning of demonstration projects is and how they can be used as an enabling factor for wider application will be presented in the chapter on implementation plan. Finally, in this learning process, experience gained through planning, delivery, operation and maintenance of demonstration project creates skills that will be valuable as the transformation process is accelerating to the point it becomes a standard. Main lesson for the City to take is that demonstration projects have to be executed and managed very effectively, since they are the first point in the technical proof of concept for green infrastructure. Education and marketing campaigns In the transition towards a system wide application of green infrastructure education holds an important place, since it is one of the main factors in creating long term buy in from local officials, the drainage utility and community members. In the context of Hoboken, education needs to be tailored towards following groups: o o o

Box 5 Stakeholders City of Hoboken (Department of Transportation and Parking, Environmental Services, Community Development), NHSA, Hoboken Green Team, EPA, NJ Future, NY/ NJ Baykeeper, community members

Local officials NHSA staff Local community

Different ways and means of education are effective for different audiences. Hence, when deciding on an educational tool, it is important to bear in mind the group that it is aimed at, so that the benefits of the educational campaign can be maximized. There is a strong link between education and internal staff assessment. Local officials need to receive education especially in the sense of long term system management, focusing on the operation and maintenance particularities, as it has been discussed previously. A useful tool for that would be to organize workshops held by professionals from cities that have more experience in green infrastructure (e.g professionals from Philadelphia Water Department). This type of interaction would result in an exchange of experiences, and the City could benefit from it by avoiding the mistakes that possibly occurred in other areas due to unfamiliarity. The employees can also be encouraged and supported financially to attend different certification programs on GI, through which they would receive needed knowledge. NHSA employees can benefit from the education mainly through enhanced engineering and design training. The utility is acustomed to maintenance of the existing system, however for the proposed system that would combine grey and green infrastructure, additional training is needed. There is a range of opportunities in creating the ways to educate the local residents. It can be facilitated through representatives in the City Council, environmentally aware citizens, the Hoboken Green Team and other stakeholders. Figure 6.3 Green Infrastructure in New Jersey web site (source Education should be focused on putting GI in a www.nj.gov/dep/gi) larger context and raising awareness on the


73

multiple benefits green infrastructure provides to local community, as well as showing the options residents have in contributing to operation and maintenance of GI. Taking into consideration interviews, where stakeholders were describing Hoboken’s residents as aware and willing to take on a role in the process, it is reasonable to conclude that overall GI management should consider community based green infrastructure interventions. Furthermore, as the program develops incentives for private property owners become available, it is important to inform citizens about it. This, together with the educational materials can be facilitated through the creation of Green Hoboken Site, a web page jointly launched by the City and NHSA. The role model for this web site can be the Green Infrastructure in New Jersey web site, run and administered by NJDEP (Figure 6.3). As discussed by Hammitt (2010) and Tian (2011) the cities like Portland, Seattle, and Philadelphia have used a number of outreach tools, such as: focus groups, telephone surveys, direct mailings, different types of workshops (knowledge on practical skills, support creative thinking, topics of design, maintenance, available incentive mechanisms, funding opportunities), social media, internet web sites etc. As a part of the Save the Rain project in Onondaga County, the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Centre is leading a campaign on educating the citizens, by using similar aforementioned outreach tools (Syracuse University, 2015). The City of Hoboken already started with several rainbarell installation workshops, as mentioned in the typology, so the conclusion is that the City officials are already aware of the importance of community education and involvement. While deriving the ways in which lack of knowledge on GI impediment can be tackled, Tian (2011) proposes the creation of green infrastructure curricula’s at all levels of education. This is a first step in enabling long term capacity building. Providing appropriate education for groups and individuals coming from different level of involvement presents a complex task, and requires an approach which is modified based on who is the receiver of education. The City and NHSA should examine the educational options provded by non profits such as NJ Future, New York/ New Jersey Baykeeper and federal agencies such as EPA. Chosing contractors with proven track of expertize During the interviews it was stated that each year Hoboken Box 6 Stakeholders preselects engineering firms for capital projects. The concern City of Hoboken, external contractors was raised that selected companies might not necessarily have required skills and experience to deliver high quality GI projects. For instance, the company specialized in road improvement projects can have difficulties in including GI as a part of the improvement. Furthermore, it emerged that costs of the projects can be higher, because contractors want to cover the risks due to unfamiliarity. In research on barriers for the GI uptake in Auckland, Olorunkiya et al (2012) state that risks and concern for contractual liabilities are crucial hindering factors. Their findings indicate that the implementation is higher in a case when contractors have hands on practical experience, and that perception of risk, together with the project costs overrun is decreasing as contractors accumulate more experience over the years (Olorunkiya et al., 2012). There are approximately 18 certifications programs across the US, through which individuals and companies can gain experitize in green infrastructure (Emmet Environmental Law & Policy Clinic and the Environmental Policy Initiative, 2014). This present an opportunity for the local contractors to attend the programs and receive market recognition. When choosing the contractors for projects that include green infrastructure (e.g. Block 12) the City should strengthen the requirements in the bidding


74

process and ask for contractors with accumulated experience. Thereby, two important barriers will be addressed: the probability of constructing non-functional drainage facilities will be minimized, and high design and construction cost due to risk perception will be lessen. Improving the New Jersey Best Management Practices Manual and development of local design guidelines As described in the typology, NJDEP developed the Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (Figure 6.4), and in Stormwater Rules, developers are reffered to follow the rules set in this manual. However, interviews indicated that the Manual is outdated and it lacks specification for structural green infrastructure measures. The Manual is being updated at the moment and some additional chapters are being added (e.g. vegetated filters strips, grass swales). It is advised to do the update in a way that various measures are covered. Furthermore, the NJDEP should develop different typologies for different areas of New Jersey, based on the soil characteristics and local climate. This type of standardization is expected to ease the burden on the municipalities, since the guidance from the State would be provided. Figure 6.4 NJDEP's Stormwater Best

If the high quality technical manuals are provided from the State level, Management Practices Manual municipality and NHSA can focus on development of local guidances. These guidances should focus primarily on developers and private property owners. Some of the developed guidances could be: Box 7 Stakeholders opportunities for developers, operation & maintenance guidance, City of Hoboken, NHSA, NJDEP permitting procedures etc. Advice is to create a Green Infrastructure Start Up Kit, that could be a hub of information for interested parties, and could be included as a part of Green Hoboken Site. The example can be found in New York City, where a non profit organization GrowNYC is running a web site which contains multiple materials on green infrastructure. What is seen as an enabling factor in other cities that are implementing GI is that there are strong resources offered in order to assist private parties. Use available technical assistance As mentioned in the typology, there is a cooperative environment between two core stakeholders: NHSA and the City. Supporting evidence is that the North Hudson Sewerage Authority is providing technical assistance in the area of GI to its municipalities. Since most of the planned projects in the coming period are planned on public land, assistance needs to be utilized to the maximum. Another source of technical assistance which the City can Technical Assistance Program.

Box 8 Stakeholders NHSA, EPA, Hoboken Green Team, Shade Tree Commission

use is through EPA’s

For the long term success of green practices, it is advised that NHSA extends their programs and provides technical help also to private entities. To design these programs, examples from other cities can be used. In Philadelphia, home owners can ask for a consultation from Philadelphia’s Water Department, through which they will receive free design assistance and site evaluation (The Philadelphia Water Department, 2012). In Portland, eligible homeowners receive work assistance to disconnect the downspouts through the Downspout Disconnection Program (Garrison et al., 2011).


75

Another example is Washington DC, where technical assistance is provided through the RiverSmart Homes program (Garrison et al., 2011). To conclude, examples from the front runner cities indicate that providing technical assistance accelerates the installation process of GI measures. For the case of Hoboken, NHSA is a key player in this effort, both for the City and for the private property owners. 6.1.2. Recommendations physical barriers The main themes that emerged during the interviews and were later on classified as physical barriers are space availability, property ownership and magnitude of the needed intervention. To overcome these impediments, planning of green infrastructure should be integrated in every part of urban development, from projects on site scale to larger spatial interventions. Many cities across the US have demonstrated that even though spatial constraints make the implementation more difficult, by taking the more adaptive and creative approach it is possible to reach identified objectives. Following recommendations are made:    

Mainstreaming green infrastructure as a part of redevelopment projects Utilize opportunities for GI on public properties and public right of ways and mainstream it in all capital improvement projects Inform developers on space opportunities Including sustainable stormwater management practices in the new Green Element of Master Plan to maximum extent possible

Mainstreaming green infrastructure as a part of redevelopment projects The description in the typology already set out that the biggest opportunities for large scale green infrastructure implementation are in the redevelopment areas: the North End Rehabilitation area, Western Edge Redevelopment area, Soutwest Redevelopment area and the Northwest Redevelopment, Hoboken Yard Redevelopment area . Having a short glimpse at the Zoning Map (Appendix D) and flood extent map (presented in Chapter 4) is enough to understand that a big portion of the area affected by flooding is located within the redevelopment zones.

Box 9 Stakeholders City of Hoboken (Planning Board, Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment), NHSA, Hudson County, NJDEP, Hoboken Chamber of Commerce, NJ Transit

Previous engineering analyses for Hoboken understood this opportunity and the proposed bigger scale projects were advised in this area (Bykowski, 2013a; Re. Invest Initative, 2015; TeamOMA, 2013; Together North Jersey, 2013). The City is trying to acquire land in the redevelopment zones, and this effort should be continued, primarily because of the presence of low interest loans by the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust. Furthermore, forecasting redevelopment rate and developing realistic different scenarios of possible constructions would be of interest. Therefore, it is advised for the City and NHSA to investigate what is the extent to which GI can be introduced, and in which areas its performance would be maximum. In order to achieve this, various types of hydrological, hydraulic and optimization models need to be utilized. NHSA started with a process of developing LTCP and the detailed proposal for CSO control will be developed. Hence, during 3 years of LTCP development, there is a great opportunity to understand to what exact extent GI can be employed in redevelopment zones.


76

In the recent years, the City’s Planning Board has been working on the development of redevelopment studies, resulting in three found reports: the Redevelopment Plan for Western Edge Redevelopment Area from 2015, the Hoboken Yard Redevelopment Plan from 2014 and the North End Area Redevelopment Study from 2009. The first two mentioned reports have a strong established link with green infrastructure, through proposing GI as a mean of reaching sustainability building requirements. Also, the Western Edge Redevelopment Area takes into account the green circuit proposed by RDSD project, and further elaborates on the idea. To reach a point in which GI is included significantly in redevelopment projects, there are significant changes that need to be done in for instance, current zoning or incentive system (or nonexistence of the same). These will be discussed further in following chapters. Utilize opportunities for GI on public properties and public right of ways and mainstream it in all capital improvement projects Urban areas like Hoboken, with a high percentage of Box 10 Stakeholders impervious coverage, have a spatial constraint that can turn City of Hoboken (Environmental Services, out to be a very limiting factor in GI implementation on a Department of Transportation and Parking), wider scale. This constraint has been seen in other cities as NHSA, NJ Department of Transportation, well, and one of the main tactics to overcome this was to Hudson County, Hoboken Housing Authority, include GI as a part of all capital improvement projects and Board of Education, United Water, external showcase it on public buildings. Besides providing much contractors needed space for GI, mainstreaming in capital projects means that GI is being introduced with only incremental cost, which in return significantly decreases the costs of action. Led by the examples, it seems like Hoboken is taking this lesson, proved by the fact that GI is incorporated as a part of Washington Street renewal project and City Hall. Two planned rain gardens, financed by the grant provided by Sustainable Jersey, will be included as a part of curb extension project. The literature (USEPA, 2015a) recognized many opportunities to incorporate GI, such as: o o o o o

street improvements parking improvements park improvements projects on public sites water/ sewerage pipes replacement

Missing out on introducing GI during capital improvements means losing the opportunity to implement GI with just incremental cost. Therefore, good interdepartmental and inter- institutional coordination is a crucial factor in a way of going for ‘’low hanging fruits’’. Within the City and between the City and NHSA, the cooperation is excellent, as judged by the interviewees. Still, there are important partnerships that the City needs to establish, especially with United Water (in charge of water supply for the area). Further partnerships of interest are with local schools, hospitals, religious institutions and the social housing organization. These partnerships can be beneficial in the times when these institutions are planning on improving their facilities (changing roofs, parking improvements, replacing water mains etc.).


77

In their green infrastructure strategy, the City of Chicago sees capital projects as number 1 initiative for introducing GI, especially through the implementation on the right of ways and main replacement projects etc. (City of Chicago, 2014). Many other cities understand the importance of GI in capital planning, such as Philadelphia, Portland, Washington DC, Seattle (Garrison et al., 2011). The pattern that can be detected is that the opportunities are seen in the improvement projects listed above. The biggest advantage in introducing GI to already planned projects that some of the interviewees have seen is that the costs are only incremental. For example, if the municipality is planning on repaving some of the sidewalks, instead of repaving it back with the impervious cover, the option can be pervious material. The costs will be higher than originally planned, but considerably lower compared to the case when green infrastructure would be a separate project. Also, when giving the judgement on costs, it is always important to keep in mind that not only capital costs shall be considered, but also lifecycle costs, together with additional benefits that are not so easily quantified. There have been creative ways designed in which the City can motivate developers to decide for the green option. In Portland, the City will pay up to $5 / m2 for the installation of green roof through Ecoroof Grant Program (Garrison et al., 2011). The example of incremental costs of green infrastructure for Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is given in Figure 6.5. The incremental cost is defined as the difference in cost between traditional construction and construction containing GI elements. The analysis concluded that incremental costs will decrease as GI becomes a standard practice. The stunning finding of this study is that by incorporating GI as a part of capital improvement projects, the savings of $850 million can be made when compared to the situation in which GI would be considered as an Figure 6.5 Incremental Cost of Green Infrastructure per Gallon of Storage (source: CH2MHILL, 2013) individual project (CH2MHILL, 2013). The City of Hoboken should focus on amending GI in planned projects that are primarily located within sewersheds heavily affected by flooding. Mainstreaming green infrastructure in capital projects- scientific justification Veerbeek et al. (2012) state that ‘’there is an urgent need to begin to incorporate flexible, adaptable and more resilient measures by synergistic inclusion within refubrishment and renovation programmes’’. They state that flood risk in the cities can be reduced by including site scale measures while doing standard renewals, and that it leads to cost reductions (Veerbeek et al., 2012). However, there are many open questions. It is not widely researched how these opportunities can be used in an effective manner and how green infrastructure can be included in the best way. There is an ongoing research within Flood Resilience Group at UNESCO IHE (Delft, the Netherlands) on assessing the feasibility of mainstreaming opportunities and as a result, the six steps mainstreaming framework is being developed. However, this is a work in progress, which results are still not published and thus, not used in this research. Finally, there is an additional link with projects on public properties and previously mentioned demonstration projects. For instance, introducing GI on public buildings showcase an aesthetic Overcoming the barriers to green infrastructure

78

potential and it is a direct demonstration on how GI functions (USEPA, 2015a). Consequently, showcasing on public properties is a way of conveying the message and creating motivation in developers and general public. Inform developers on space opportunities The concern raised in one of the interviews was that Box 11 Stakeholders developers might find that decentralized stormwater City of Hoboken (Planning Board, Zoning system also means more space. Hence, the message needs Board), Hoboken Chamber of Commerce, to be that developers does not need to loose lots/ units. A Hudson County similar footprint can be achieved by using areas that were originally assigned for landscaping. Hereby, the theme of importance of conveying right information emerges. This can be facilitated through providing information via the Green Hoboken Site, clarifying the requirements of the existing codes, developing guidances and fact sheets. Secondly, an important factor to be considered is that by developing creative designs for GI, the space constraints can be eliminated. Furthermore, many cities have applied density bonus incentives to provide developers that incorporate green infrastructure with additional floors or floor area ratio (FAR). This side of motivating the private developer story will be further looked at in following chapters of this work. Including sustainable stormwater management practices in the new Green Element of Master Plan to maximum extent possible The City was awarded funding to develop the Green Building and Environmental Sustainability Element of the Master Plan, in which stormwater management is one of the key aspects. While working on this new element, it is important to develop a long term vision on how green actually Hoboken can be and to which extent green stormwater infrastructure can be included. Even though it is the City´s Planning Board main responsibility, strong cooperation should be developed with NHSA, since the LTCP is being developed at the moment.

Box 12 Stakeholders City of Hoboken (Planning Board, Zoning Board), NHSA, Hudson County

The element should include different scenarios of GI in the City, putting it in the time frame and assign priorities. Publicly owned areas together with the private properties and planned future development shall be covered. This is an additional supporting reason for the intergration of the process with the development of the LCTP. 6.1.3. Recommendations financial barriers The financial constraints for the uptake of green infrastructure practices were biggest concern in the interviews. Since these practices are relatively new and not well documented when compared to grey infrastructure, these doubts are understandable. However, during the conversation with stakeholders and detailed desk study, many gateaways to these barriers have been noticed and proposed in the follow up. The following actions were recommended for eliminating financial constraints and the fostering of wider application of green infrastructure: 

Quantify ancilliary long term benefits of green infrastructure and life cycle costs


79

    

Develop more detailed cost benefit analysis for the existing plans Gather and share data on costs and benefits Impose stormwater fee and structure it in incentivizing way to enable retrofitting on private properties Develop incentives for private developers to incorporate green infrastructure into their projects Communicate stormwater fee in a way to make it more acceptable for the public

Quantify ancilliary long term benefits of green infrastructure and life cycle costs The interviewees had a clear attitude: having more data on long term Box 13 Stakeholders benefits could change the perception of green infrastructure and make it NHSA, academic institutions, more favourable option. There is a complete absence of this kind of external consultants and analysis for Hoboken, therefore the literature has been consulted. contractors In the most comprehensive LTCP available, the Philadelphia Water Department conducted a Triple Bottom Line benefits analysis, where they quantified various economic, social and environmental benefits, in order to evaluate it against the actual financial commitment. The summary of this approach is provided in Table 6.1. In New York City, estimated additional benefits of GI are between $139 and $418 million (NYC Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). Even though it is challenging to quantify some of the benefits, especially in traditional non sensitive cost benefit analysis, this type of analysis streghtents the business case for green infrastructure and places it in a much larger context. Having a clear overview of what can be achieved might be one of the factors influencing such a strong commitment in Philadelphia and New York City. Following this example, NHSA should conduct a similar analysis for Hoboken in the next three years, while developing their LTCP. Surely, this would be a strong tool in presenting the green stormwater infrastructure solutions to various stakeholders. The scientific literature, by using the life cycle assessment method, reaches the conclusion that decentralized stormwater system offer significant energy savings and lesses the carbon footprint, when compared to traditional grey infrastructure (Spatari et al., 2011). Table 6.1 Summary of Triple Bottom Line analysis for Philadelphia (modified from Philadelphia Water Department, 2012)

Economic Benefits

Social Benefits

• creation of 250 green jobs

• recreational visits increase of

annualy • $3.6 billion avoided grey infrastructure costs

up to 10% • increase in property value of up to $390 million over the next 45 years • 140 avoided deaths caused by excessive heat over next 45 years

Environmental Benefits • improved air quality (annualy: 1- 2 avoided premature deaths, 20 avoided asthma attacks, 250 fewer missed days of work or school) • up to 1.5 billions lbs of carbon dioxide emissions avoided or absorbed •up to $8.5 million in water quality and habitat improvement over the next 40 years

Another concern that was raised during the interviews is that many grant applications consider only initial capital costs to design and construct the project, rather than considering long term operation and maintenance/ life cycle costs. This is in a way disqualifying for green infrastructure projects. The interviewees stated that whilst upfront capital costs might be higher, a key benefit is that they can have lower life cycle costs. If cost effectiveness was considered for a life cycle approach, and these types of costs become weightening/ deciding factor in grant funding applications, green infrastructure


80

might be utilized to a greater extent. Therefore, the grant providing bodies shall consider changing the ways in which they construct the grant application requirements, and follow the examples from agencies that account for life cycle costs (e.g. FEMA). When comparing life cycle costs, the big difference between green and grey infrastructure is that the latter requires increased maintenance over time, whereas green infrastructure, due to increase in function does not require more resources and/ or effort (American Rivers et al., 2012). In New York City, the annual savings in operating and maintaining green infrastructure when compared to grey were estimated to be $200.000 dollars (NYC Department of Environmental Protection, 2010). The opportunity for applying the Triple Bottom Line approach can be created during LTCP development, as mentioned before, but also in the next phase of analysis within RDSD project. Develop more detailed cost benefit analysis for the existing plans Stategies on which green infrastructure implementation in Hoboken is Box 14 Stakeholders based are mainly on the landscape architecture level of design, and NHSA, academic institutions, therefore there is an evident need to estimate the costs of city wide external consultants and application. Even though the general sense in stakeholder is that GI will contractors offer solutions in a more cost effective manner than the upgrade of grey infrastructure, detailed cost benefit analysis needs to prove it and only then the feasibility of GI can be justified. What can be expected is that this will be considered by NHSA in the process of LTCP development, so detailed cost estimation shall be available within a timeframe of next 3 years. Furthermore, for the winning of the Rebuild by Design competition, the phase two of the project is starting, where more detailed analysis will be carried out. It is then reasonable to expect the exact cost estimated, together with the estimates of the costs avoided by implementing the strategy. As for the available cost data on GI in Hoboken, it is quite limited. GI Strategic plan provides a graphical representation (Figure 6.6) where average capital and operation and maintenance costs are considered. However, this does not give the indication of total cost or a ratio to grey infrastructure upgrade costs. Also, for the purpose of the RDSD Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy, Royal HaskoningDHV calculated that the total costs to implement Store and Delay parts are around $43 million US, with an additional $18 million for the second wet weather pump. Figure 6.6 BMP's cost effectivness per cubic foot of implementation (source: Together North Jersey, 2013) More importantly, the analysis done for RSDS is the only one giving the indication of possible benefits that all components (Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge) would provide in Hoboken: o o

Approximately $2 billion avoided damages by urban flash flooding over next 50 years Approximately $100 million avoided damage by minimizing subsidence in the next 50 years


81

o o

Around $4500 increase in property value per property in the area within 200 m from green infrastructure dacilities or the proposed green circuit Around $500.000 saving per year in drainage costs

The numbers presented above are just an estimation coming from iternal communication of the winning Team OMA members, and is expected to change during the next phase of the project. Gather and share data on costs and benefits Despite having the motivation to implement environmentally Box 15 Stakeholders sustainable stormwater infrastructure, individuals and local City of Hoboken, NHSA, governments might decide to do differently simply because there is no academic institutions, external source of data from proven examples (American Rivers et al., 2012). consultants and contractors There are two most important sources of cost data: design & construction costs and costs of operation & maintenance. Real data on the costs of green infrastructure in Hoboken are non-existent, simply due to the absence of any delivered projects. Hence, with implementing first projects, there is an opportunity to start building inventory of data in order to use it to eliminate the constraint of unfamiliarity. As the data base of the project costs is being developed over time, GI measures will become more standardized. Yet again, the main stakeholders for the action of cost data collection are the City and NHSA. The final output can be a repository of costs and benefits of different measures, shaped in a fact sheet or guidance for developers and citizens. The findings can be also shared via the Green Hoboken Web Site. Existence of such a repository might ease the difficulties that private property owners can face when deciding on whether to retrofit their properties or not. As previously discussed, the pilot projects might come with the higher costs than usual due to the unfamiliarity with the techniques and risk covering by the contractors. For example, for the Southwest Resiliency Park (Park 12) the City has applied for a loan of $4.7 million, even though the expected construction costs are $3.7 million. The contingency of $1 million is in the case that bids are higher than expected and to account for any unexpected costs. However, as the market is developing, the costs are expected to decrease. For instance, in Chicago’s Green Alleys program, through which in more than 300 alleys impermeable pavement was replaced with permeable, costs were decreasing until a point in which there was no difference between construction of traditional the alley or the alley with permeable pavement (Garrison et al., 2011). Data on long term operation and maintenance costs are not available in long series, simply because of the novely of the techniques in US. However, some cities have made an effort and documented their findings. For example, in West Union, Iowa the analysis proved that cumulative savings for choosing permable pavements over conventional impervious covers equals to about $2.5 million (USEPA, 2013b). Impose stormwater fee and structure it in incentivizing way to enable retrofitting on private properties What was found as a biggest financial hindering factor is absence of a stormwater fee in Hoboken. This leads to a lack of a steady funding source, which in return creates difficulties with the ability of the City and/ or sewerage utility to establish effective incentive mechanisms for private developers and property owners.


82

Campbell (2014) found around 1500 stormwater utilities established in US and Canada (Figure 6.7). Among them, Garrison et al. (2011) recognize that most advanced cities in GI implementation across the US have dedicated funding source: Philadelphia, Milwaukee, New York, Portland, Syracuse, Washington D.C., Aurora, Kansas City, Seattle. The same authors state that for example, Chicago, even though it is recognized as one of the GI champions, is limited in providing incentives to private property owners specifically because there is no steady funding source.

Figure 6.7 Stormwater fees in the US (source: Campbell, 2014)

The situation in Hoboken is unique, since the City is not the infrastructure owner, and in the combination with the lack of political support from State level, setting up the stormwater fee might be a challenge. However, during the interviews, interesting and useful ideas emerged of what could be a way forward. In a long term, the City needs to work on fostering the political buy in Box 16 Stakeholders for a stormwater fee. This could be done in several steps. Firstly, the City of Hoboken, NHSA, NJ CSS partnerships need to be formed with other combined sewer system communities, State of New (CSS) communities across New Jersey. The interviewees mentioned that Jersey- Office of the Governor several other cities are interested in the introduction of a fee, so the motivation is there. The partnership can be structured as a working group, with established objectives and a meeting agenda. Then, after the working group has been formed, they should agree and derive the most effective ways in which to negotiate with the State. The recommendation is to establish contact and gain experiences from the other communities across the US. This process is time consuming, and it depends on the current leadership figure on the State level. As mentioned before, the current governor vetoed the introduction of the fee. While building the political support, the City can restructure the current Municipal Open Space Tax. The current structure is 2 cents per $100 of assessed value. Building new parks (such as Block 12 or BASF site) and construction of scattered facilities throughout the City means new open space to the local residents. Hence, rearranging the amount paid by tax payers, the City can generate a steady funding source for the acquisition of new land, construction of GI, operation and maintenance. Currently, the City is funding the construction of new parks through NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust low interest loans. Whilst this can secure the sources for the construction of facilities, loan money is not a long term solution for operation and maintenance (USEPA, 2015a). It is difficult to estimate when the State law could explicitly authorize municipalities to introduce stormwater fee. However, simply by looking at the increase in number of stormwater fees introduced on a yearly basis in the US (Campbell, 2014), and taking into consideration readiness in key stakeholders in Hoboken to take on such a step, it is reasonable to conclude that this is a long term


83

solution. Still, Hoboken is in a different position when compared to the local municipalities that own their infrastructure. Interviewees stated that still municipalities should be the one introducing the fee. The solution could be in City introducing the fee and establishing enterprise fund. Once when the enterprise fund is created, the private entity (NHSA) can be attached to the fund and use it. This way, the City and NHSA would have a steady funding source for the GI efforts, and more importantly, incentives can be created to foster the GI implementation on privately owned land. Having a steady funding source could draw more private investment in building, operating and maintaining green infrastructure in Hoboken. The private financiers will be more willing to invest if the security of getting a return on the investment is there, and the existence of a stormwater fee can enable it. As stated before, the opportunity is seen in private parties investing in performance measuring equipment. Stormwater fees can be structured in different ways. Most of the municipalities are using Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), and define it as average impervious area on a single family residential parcel (Campbell, 2014). A lot of cities, for instance Seattle, is charging property owners based on the property size and non- residential properties based on the amount of impervious area. In Portland, residential properties are charged with a fixed rate, whereas non- residential are paying the amount equivalent to the size of impervious area. Surely, before introducing the fee, the City should do a detailed analysis and come up with the rate benefiting the City and securing substantial funding on one hand, and being acceptable by the rate payers on the other hand. Parikh et al. (2005) state ‘’as with any other constitutionally valid fee, stormwater fees must be fair, equitable, and based on the cost of the service provided as measured directly or by some approximation of use or benefit’’. Develop incentives for private developers Various types of incentive mechanisms have been developed Box 17 Stakeholders across the US to foster introduction of GI practices in new City of Hoboken (Zoning Board, developments and retrofitting of individual properties. Currently, Planning Board), NHSA, Hudson there are no such incentives in Hoboken, which can be explained County, State of New Jersey, as a direct effect of a lack of a steady funding source. However, Sustainable Jersey there are still ways in which a municipality can incentivize, as it will be discussed in the follow up. The promise of incentive based mechanisms in solving environmental problems is recognized by researchers since 1990’s, so Hahn and Stavins (1991) state that this type of market based instrument will become more standard practice in the future. USEPA (2009a) recognizes most common types of incentive mechanisms: o o o o o

Stormwater fee discount Development incentives (zoning upgrades, expedited permitting, reduced stormwater requirements, increase in floor area ratio) Grants Rebates and installation financing Awards and recognition programs

Even though in the current situation it is a challenge to offer some of the above mentioned incentives, like discount of stormwater fee, that is very motivating for retrofit of existing properties, the City can work on offering some of the following incentives: density allowance, expedited permitting, rebates and installation financing. A stormwater fee discount is a long term solution, and it needs to be


84

offered from the very moment when the fee is introduced. The overview of proposed incentives and a specific time in which they could be implemented in Hoboken is given in Table 6.2. The short term is regarded as an action that can be provided immediately, whereas long term depends on when the City could create a steady funding source. Table 6.2 Possible incentives for Hoboken and timeframe for implementation Incentive type Stormwater fee discount Development incentives Grants Rebates and installation financing Awards and recognition programs

Timeframe Long term Short term Long term Short term Short term

As previously discussed, biggest opportunity for GI is in Hoboken’s redevelopment areas. The incentives of interest here could be expedited permitting and density allowance. In the City with limited space for development and high costs of land, developers can be motivated through getting higher floor area ratio, if GI is included up to a certain extent in the project. The requirements for this could be through the Planning Board requiring developers to achieve one of the LEED standards. Furthermore, interviewees stated that the permitting process in front of the Board of Adjustment is time consuming, so offering faster track for projects that include GI is an incentive itself. However, all of this requires changes to the current zoning code, as it will be discussed later on. Development incentives proved to be very effective in Chicago: the City has documented $225 million in private development through these incentives (USEPA, 2009a). During workshops for rain barells installation, the City is offering limited number of rain barrels for the home owners interested in disconnecting downspouts. This is a good starting point, and this action needs to be continued and expanded. To make it more successful, the City can partner with NHSA and provide technical assistance to interested individuals. Another incentive that can be implemented immediately is in awarding programs for private parties implementing GI. The City can create certificates and issue it to qualified organizations or individuals, which can serve as a marketing opportunity. Reduction in the stormwater fee is seen as a strong incentive to retrofit private properties in many US cities. The way this reduction is structured is different from city to city. For example, in Seattle, it is possible to reduce the fee up to 50%, in Philadelphia up to 100%. Still, the costs of retrofit can be a prohibiting factor for many individuals. Valderrama et al (2012) researched the applicability of financing energy efficiency retrofits for investments in stormwater retrofits, and came up with following options that could be considered: o o o o o o o

off balance ‘’project developer’’ financing PACE program (Property Assessed Clean Energy) Utility enabled financing and repayement Performance contracting (ESCO) model Credit enhancement Project aggregation Offsite mitigation programs


85

They have concluded that for smaller projects, PACE and utility based financing are option to be considered, and for larger projects: ESCO program (Valderrama et al, 2012). The application of these types of financial mechanisms is new for stormwater, and this is where Hoboken can find its place, especially due to the image the City is developing as a role model for resiliency efforts. Introducing such innovative mechanisms can streghten this reputation and bring recognition, hence leading to more private investment, since private investors are motivated by receiving recognition. Of special interest in Hoboken, considering the amount of residential housing is the PACE model, since the State of New Jersey has enabled it through the regulation. The idea of the PACE model is that the municipality takes on bonds, provides property owners with the capital needed for retrofit and after this property owners repay the debt through property tax (Valderrama et al, 2012). The utility based financing is an option for NHSA, whereas owners will be paying for the debts through their montly bills. Important to notice is that all these models are developed in a way to provide homeowners with the financial benefit in a reasonable time period when compared to payment of stormwater fee. To conclude, there are many different options in which private parties can be drawn to invest in stormwater infrastructure. Hoboken is in the beginning stage, but still there are actions that can be taken immediately, whereas some other mechanisms need to be developed in parallel with securing the steady funding source. The overview of the incentives that GI pioneering cities across the US are providing is presented in Table 6.3. Table 6.3 Some existing incentives in the cities across US (based on Garrison et al. 2011) City

Incentives offered

Philadelphia

Free design assistance, site evaluation, stormwater fee discount, grants, low interest loans for large property owners, Green Roof Tax Credits, Fast Track Stormwater Plan Project review, Residential Rain Barrel Program

Chicago

Density allowance, building height allowance, expedited permitting process, waiver for processing the building permit

Portland

Technical assistance, Private Properties Retrofit Program, Eco roof Grant Program, Stormwater System Development Charge, stormwater fee discount

Seattle

Stormwater Facility Credit Program, Rain Wise rebates, technical assistance

New York City

Green roof tax credit, rain barrels giveaways, grants

Communicate stormwater fee in a way that will make it more acceptable for the public Introducing a new fee is a controversial topic, especially if the fee is for management of stormwater that public is not used to perceive as a part of critical infrastructure system. Hence, strong, well structured message needs to be sent to Hoboken’s residents in order to understand the advantages. The City’s government, in their outreach efforts needs to shape Box 18 Stakeholders the message so that residents can understand that this fee is City of Hoboken, NHSA, GITFC, similar to ‘’polluter pays’’ philosophy. For instance, examples like community members, developers, NJ the one from Philadelphia can be used, where the local airport, Future once when the fee was introduced, started paying $126000 more per month, whereas the local University that was green saved $11000 per month (Valderrama et al, 2012). This huge difference was because the previous billing system was based on potable water use,


86

rather than parcel based. Hence, huge stormwater generators (like the airport) that do not consume a lot of water were paying almost nothing for their huge contribution to the overtaxing of the drainage system and CSO generation. Also, the message needs to be conveyed that in parallel with introducing a stormwater fee, ways for fee reduction through retrofits are being developed. The City needs to conduct an extensive campaign, through mailings and public meetings. The facilitators can be memebers of the City Council by informing the citizens in the wards they are representing. The message needs to contain also exact specification on how having a steady funding source will solve the City’s long term problem of reoccurent flooding, which brings large financial lossess for the residents and local businesses. Throughout the interviews, one of the respondents mentioned that during the creation of the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan a survey has been conducted with local residents, and the results were quite suprising in the sense that residents were not reluctant to contributing financially for the problem solution. Also, findings from a research conducted in a municipality in Iowa showed that local residents were willing to pay if they were provided with more open space (Bowman and Thompson, 2009). 6.1.4. Recommendations institutional barriers When compared to the other barriers, it can be concluded that institutional barriers do not pose such a serious obstacle in Hoboken, since both City and NHSA, being the core stakeholders, show outstanding readiness to merge the efforts and work together. Therefore, the recommendations developed here are to be seen in a light of improving this already existing collaborative atmosphere. Proposed recommendations are following:  

Develop a coalition of agencies in the City to promote green infrastructure Continous education until a critical mass of knowledgable individuals is created

Develop a coalition of agencies in the City to promote green infrastructure The City and NHSA should institutionalize their cooperation by forming a Green Infrastructure Task Force Committee (GITFC). The members of the GITFC would be assigned from both institutions and the Committee would have meeting agenda in regular time intervals to discuss the status quo and future implementation steps. The formation of GITFC is advised to be done as soon as possible, since the City is dedicated to getting the projects done, while NHSA started working on LTCP. Thus, GITFC would streamline their activities and efforts. Several steps need to be followed in process of creating GITFC: o o o o o

Identify individuals from both the City and NHSA that would take part Develop appropriate structure of the Committee Develop GITFC Strategic Plan Determine aims, goals and working agenda Propose a way in which work of the GITFC can be monitored and evaluated

GITFC main responsibilities would be: o

Build strategic partnerships


87

o o o o o o o

Represent public and private interests Negotiate for political support from a State level Organize community meetings Follow grants and low interest loans applications Evaluate up to date projects and initatives Overlook GI efforts in the City Form a Committee of independent experts to revise the plans

Strategic partnerships are with organizations and institutions Box 19 Stakeholders owning land, facilities and infrastructure that might be of interest City of Hoboken (Department of for GI implementation: the Hoboken Housing Authority, NJ Transit, Transportation and Parking, United Water, Library Board, Municipal Hospital, Stevens Institute Community Development, , NHSA, of Technology. Developers can be informed about opportunities academic institutions, Nj Future, and requirements through partnerships with Hoboken’s Chamber Sustainable Jersey, NY/ NJ Baykeeper of Commerce. Furthermore, it is of interest to establish partnerships with local community groups, such as: Quality of Life Coalition, Hoboken Family Alliance, local religious groups etc. Local academic institutions, such as Stevens Institute of Technology and Rutgers University can be valuable in providing independent experts for technical advisory. The partnership can be built by members of the GITFC reaching out to institutions, organizing meetings, and inviting the partners to regular meetings according to need and previously developed meeting agenda. Environmental champions within community should be identified and included as regular members of GITFC. Good communication links with partners will foster creation and usage of opportunities for GI implementation. Continious education until a critical mass of knowledgable individuals is created Importance of having a competent staff has already beed widely discussed through previously previous recommendations, and here it will just be emphasized. Green infrastructure is a new technique in Hoboken, and as such, Box 20 Stakeholders it is important to strenghten the quality of action by providing City of Hoboken (Department of adequate education to individuals that will be managing the Transportation and Parking, system, from the planning to maintenance phase. This can be Community Development, , NHSA, achieved through providing suitable training (especially through GITFC, community members, technical skills) to the City’s and NHSA’s staff, and through developers, CSS communities seeking for employees with a desired knowledge on GI infrastructure. Training and education can be provided by non profit organizations such as NJ Future and NY/ NJ Baykeeper, from the federal level by EPA, and through partnerships with local universities with developed GI curricula (i.e. Stevens Institute of Technology, Rutgers University). 6.1.5. Recommendations legal and regulatory barriers Legal and regulatory barriers have hindering influence to wider GI adoption across many US cities, and Hoboken is no exception. Changes need to be made to current zoning ordinances, storm water plans and GI needs to be encouraged in practice, rather than just linguistically. Hence, the following recommendations are proposed:  

Review and update the current stormwater management plan and ordinances Update zoning codes


88

 

Prioritize green infrastructure through LCTP Make green infrastructure requirement rather than encouragement

Review and update the current stormwater plan and ordinances The stormwater management plan and ordinances in Hoboken are seen by stakeholders as rather limited and not comprehensive. The City, as a result of Sandy aftermath, is working on updating the ordinances, but the result has not been available to the author. The lesson to be learned from the cities across the US that are in Box 21 Stakeholders the more advanced stage of GI implementation is that after the City of Hoboken, NHSA, Sustainable initatial step, in which City is showcasing GI and its effectiveness Jersey, NJDEP on public land, the momentum needs to be continued through private property development. The way to realize this idea is though stormwater ordinances. New ordinances, expected to be released in 2015 should be water quantity oriented proposing the retention standard. For instance, retention standards are to be found in Philadelphia (first inch of runoff to be retained at site), Chicago (first half inch) or Aurora (first 0.75 inch) (Garrison et al., 2011). The retention standard applies to all new developments and redevelopments. Hence, special emphasis in new stormwater ordinances needs to be put on definition of the size of development and redevelopment areas, so the maximum impact can be made city wide. The interviewees advised the City to consider new Model Stormwater Ordinance prepared by Sustainable Jersey. These ordinances are proposing water retention standards and decrease in the area definition of development and redevelopment areas. Promising is the fact that interviewees stated that Hoboken is, indeed, working on retention oriented standards. The expected outcome of having stricter ordinances is all new developments and redevelopments including GI as a mean to comply with requirements. Another way to make stormwater ordinances stricker is on a State level, through revising current Model Stormwater Ordinances. Except of the City’s ordinances, NHSA has their requirements, as explained throughout the typology in Chapter 5. The advice is to streamline these ordinances as much as possible. This can be facilitated through the above proposed Green Infrastructure Task Force Committee. Compatibility needs to be created especially in a sense that at the moment, NHSA has a detention, and not a retention standard. Based on the above discussed recommendations, main points to consider are: o o

Retention standard Size of the site size triggering stormwater management

Hoboken has a lot of small parcels that might not trigger the application of stormwater management. However, there is a way in still having benefit from developments at sites of this type. For example, in Portland, the initiative 1% for Green requires all the projects that are under the threshold for application of stormwater management plan to pay 1% of construction costs for development of GI elsewhere. The City can a consider similar approach, and by that secure additional funding for GI implementation in areas of special need. Similar to what was proposed in the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan: the creation of Stormwater Trust Fund through which developers that for whatever the reason can’t fulfil the required retention standard, need to contribute to a fund specially created for GI implementation in other areas of the City (Together North Jersey, 2013).


89

Update zoning codes The discussion in typology made it clear that existing zoning in Box 22 Stakeholders Hoboken is outdated, and does not correspond to the present City of Hoboken (Plannig Board, development needs. Hence, the existing government and Planning Zoning Board), Hudson County, EPA Board in Hoboken need to update the zoning, dating from 1979. Determining the way in which this update can be made is out of the scope of this thesis, hence the recommendations are only based on the connection between zoning and green infrastructure. The City’s Planning Board should apply a Water Quality Scoreboard- developed by EPA to provide local governments with an effective tool to identify obstacles for GI in codes and the ways to remove them (USEPA, 2009b). The City can ask and apply for EPA’s Green Infrastructure Technical Assistance Program, to receive assistance with application of this tool. Once when the methodology has been applied and the exact obstacles identified, the codes need to be adjusted to allow for more GI application. Camden, New Jersey revised their local codes according to Water Quality Scoreboard and some of the conclusions were: revision of threshold area for stormwater management, incentivizing through zoning, allow landscaped areas to serve role in stormwater management, revise minimum parking requirements, account for curb cuts etc (USEPA, 2013c). In New York City, the proposed changes are related to requiring trees in new developments and restrictions of the paved areas on private parkings (Garrison et al., 2011) When recommending the incentives, it was advised to develop incentives through zoning codes, especially related to density allowance and allowance in the height of the building. Land use is a local decision in the US, so the Planning Board needs to amend these to the local zoning codes as soon as possible, to accelerate the rate of construction in redevelopment areas. To introduce the incentives through zoning, first performance based zoning needs to be developed (which connects to the revision and update of stormwater ordinances). The process of zoning code adjustment needs to bring together individuals from all City’s departments connected to future GI implementation (Parks, Transportation, Community Development). Prioritize green infrastructure through LCTP For Philadelphia, development of the LTCP Green City, Clean Box 23 Stakeholders Waters was a launching point for undertaking such an extensive GI NHSA, City of Hoboken, external implementation. Learning from that example, NHSA needs to consultants dedicate special attention in LTCP development process to the extent to which GI can be employed in Hoboken. The foundations were already set through RDSD projects and GI Strategy, so NHSA shall follow that path. Even though the rationale behind LTCP is to reduce the number of CSO, it is important to keep the wider picture and additional services that can be provided by insisting on a wide application. NHSA’s in- house consultants can play a significant role. Hence, the previously mentioned GITFC shall foster continuous communication, so the technical realities can be coupled with the vision City has. Furthermore, resident’s interests need to be presented all the time, which is as well through GITFC.


90

Make a green infrastructure requirement rather than encouragement Delivering GI through regulations is seen as an enabling factor by stakholders. Main actors in this process are the State and the City.

Box 23 Stakeholders City of Hoboken (Planning Board, Zoning Board), NJDEP

Part of the State’s Stormwater Management Rules are model Stormwater Management Plans and Ordinances, and each municipality is required to develop their own following at least the standards set out by the State. Hence, if the State requires it more, the municipalities will be enforced to do the same through local ordinances. Special areas of interest are requiring performance based standards. What can be done at local level is to include as a requirement that new developments and redevelopments need to achieve one of the sustainability standards (e.g. LEED). Examples can be found in Seattle through the Seattle Green Factor Program, where developers are awarded with points for including GI in their plans and are obliged to achieve certain amount of credits; or in Portland and Minneapolis, where developments and redevelopments need to comply with minimum green building standards (Hammitt, 2010). Similar can be found in Chicago, through Sustainable Development Policy (Garrison et al., 2011). Thus, the City should work on developing own standards for green buildings, and introduce sustainability credits.

6.2. Towards implementation plan The above presented recommendations offered a range of options for Hoboken to overcome the identified barriers and accelerate towards wider application of green infrastructure. The solutions are numerous and give a glance on the path to be followed. In an attempt to prove the reality of putting recommendations in practice, it is interesting to see which of the identifed drivers previously mentioned can be used to overcome the categorized barriers. Hence, the Table 6.4 offers a direct link between drivers and barriers. Table 6.4 Link between drivers and barriers

Barrier

Drivers

Technical

local community, flooding, local government, environmental impact

Physical

strategies, Master & Redevelopment plans, developers, local government

Financial

funding, cost savings, developers

local government, flooding, environmental impact, climate change regulations, local government, Legal & regulatory flooding, climate change, environmental impact Institutional

The discussion on how the drivers can be used to overcome the barriers has been presented throughout typology and this chapter, and the summary is provided below:


91



For overcoming the technical barriers, influencing drivers are: local government and community, environmental impacts and flooding. The readiness of the local government and residents to accept innovative stormwater infrastructure is enabling in many ways. Firstly, they are receptive in getting accustomed to new types of operation and maintenance, hence ready to learn during the process and elimate the uncertainities due to the novelty of the technique. Regular floodings and occurrence of CSO’s is a driving force in starting with the first projects.



Hoboken’s Master Plan, Redevelopment Plans, RDSD Project and the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan put dedicate a lot of attention to green infrastructure as a means of solving problems with stormwater.



Available funds as a result of Sandy, ‘’green’’ movement from federal and state level enables Hoboken to use the opportunity and get funds, in a form of grants or low interest loans. General perceptions of cost savings and developers seeing marketing option through GI can lead towards more investments in GI during future developments and redevelopments.



Institutional barriers are found to be less difficult to overcome due to readiness from core stakeholders. The current government and NHSA is aware of the bottlenecks in current system and challenges of the future.



Regulations from the State level are pushing the City and NHSA to look at the ways in which the local regulations can be adjusted to encourage GI.

This Chapter offered many possibilities and explained the ways in which the implementation of the individual recommendations that can be done. Still, for better understanding of the solutions, the recommendations need to be put in the sequence of steps. Hence, the next step is creation of implementation process, as it will be presented in the following chapter.


92

CHAPTER 7

Design of implementation process The core of this research and final result is presented in this Chapter. After recommendations for overcoming the barriers have been set in Chapter 6, here the synthesis is made, thus providing design of implementation process. Chapter presents implementation framework, continuing with specifications of each of the steps. The results and discussions provided in this Chapter engered the applied research framework.

7.1. Implementation framework The theoretical implementation framework for Hoboken (Figure 7.1) was designed based on the stakeholder’s input and best practices from ‘’GI champion’’ cities across the US (Chapter 6). TIME

Capacity Building



Capacity Building

Regulations, Policies, Finances Strategy

Demonstration Phase

Evaluation Utilize opportunities, rank priorities, build facilities


GI mainstreamed

Evaluation

Evaluation

Initiation Phase

Uptake Phase

Standard Practice Phase

Figure 7.1 Theoretical implementation framework for Hoboken

Implementation of a city wide strategy is a long term process, therefore the created framework is put in a timeframe. The framework itself is dynamic process, distinguished in three phases: From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

93

  

Initiation phase Uptake phase Standard practice phase

The similarity between proposed phases and transition theory is presented in the following box. Transition theory The transition theory was originally developed by Rotmans et al. (2001) and it is ‘’described as a set of connected changes, which reinforce each other but take place in several different areas, such as technology, the economy, institutions, behaviour, culture, ecology and belief system’’ (Rotmans et al., 2001). Basically, it describes the transformation of the structural character of the society (Rotmans et al., 2001). The transition process has 4 different phases: (1) predevelopment, (2) takeoff, (3) acceleration and (4) stabilization. The S- shape curve presented in Figure 7.2 is a multistage concept of the transition theory, describing societal modifications, and indicating that the system of interest is in a certain stage moving towards a certain direction (Rijke, 2007).

Figure 7.2 The four phases of transition (source: Rotmans et al, 2001)

The transition theory has been used by different authors to describe shifts in the way water systems are being managed and developed and to explain the mainstreaming of the innovations in water systems (de Haan et al., 2015; Farrelly and Brown, 2011; Perales-Momparler et al., 2015; Rijke, 2007; Rijke et al., 2013; van Herk et al., 2013). The reason why the transition theory is being presented is due to the fact that the proposed phases of the designed implementation framework are similar in its nature to the 4 stages of the transition theory. The similarities are as following: (1) the initation phase is similar to the predevelopment and takeoff phase, (2) the uptake phase connects to the acceleration phase and (3) the standard practice phase can be described to a certain extent by the stabilization phase. Since developed strategies are on a conceptual level, defining exact time in which they can be implemented is a challenge. The interviewed stakeholders believe that it will take up to 20 years to implementent such a comprehensive solution. Estimation is in line with the findings from Royal HaskoningDHV reached during RDSD proposal creation,. RDSD Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy sees the process even longer, lasting for 50 years. However, most of the green infrastructure shall be implemented during the first 20 years, the rest being continuous upscaling (TeamOMA, 2013). The creators of the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan see the process much shorter and estimate it to be up to 10 years. However, this seems rather unrealistic for a completion of the whole strategy, since the ingredients needed to enable such a change are taking a long time to create. Hence, based on estimations from stakeholders and previous analyses, the total time needed for mainstreaming the Design of implementation process

94

green infrastructure is set to 50 years. Having that estimated, it was decided not to specify it in more details, since the exact realization of projects depends on various factors, some of them being:    

The solutions that will be developed and proposed in the upcoming stage of RDSD project, where more detailed designs will be created Availability of grants, loans, private investments and other available funding sources Political support from local and state level Rate of GI implementation on private properties

Although the estimated time period is 50 years, the exact timeframe is assigned only to the initation phase of the implementation process, and it is estimated to be between 3-5 years. There are two main reasons behind choosing this time step. Firstly, as mentioned before, NHSA is obliged to create LTCP in the next three years, so it is reasonable to conclude that much of the GI planning will be done in this phase. Secondly, the next phase of RDSD project is expected to take 5 years, where detailed analyses and designs will be developed. In parallel, the City working on the new, Green Element of the Master Plan. The exact duration of the uptake phase is difficult to determine, but it can be expected that it will take around 20 years (in line with the findings from the RDSD project). The process is concluded with the standard practice phase, that might be happening in the time frame of 50 years. The creators of the RDSD stated that in a 50 years time period Hoboken will transition to resilient city with high inclusion of blue- green infrastructure (TeamOMA, 2013). It should be noted that the timeframe is rather descriptive and indicative, since development of the processes is parallel. The detailed explanation of the phases and overall implementation process is delivered in following sub chapters. 7.1.1. Specifications initiation phase The first step in the developed implementation framework is the initiation phase (Figure 7.3), composed of three steps: (1) strategy, (2) demonstration phase, (3) evaluation and a sub stagepreparation phase. Based on the results presented in the green infrastructure typology, it can be concluded that Hoboken is in this phase at the moment of thesis writing. The initial momentum created by available GI strategies is being built on by the City trying to deliver the first implementation projects. The first strategies were created in 2013, and first demonstration project (Block12) is expected to be delivered by the end of the year. Hence, this exemplifies that despite strong support and available political will, the process is time consuming and entails significant effort. It took as much as two years for Hoboken to move from the idea to proving the concept through piloting the projects. Park 12 (Southwest Resiliency Park) will be used as an example throughout description of initation phase.

Strategy

Preparation Phase

Demonstration Phase

Evaluation

Figure 7.3 Components of initiation phase

Strategy The first part Strategy is the starting point. As presented previously, available strategies dealing with green infrastructure in Hoboken are RDSD Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy and Green From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

95

Infrastructure Strategic Plan. Both strategies were created during a competitive process: RDSD through Rebuild by Design Competition and GI Strategic Plan through being selected as one of the Local Demonstration Projects in Together North Jersey planning initiative. Thus, it can be concluded that Hoboken has solid strategies that had to demonstrate their excellence in the separate competitions to be selected for funding. Still, the strategies are founded on conceptual level, asking for more specifications in future steps. Hence, the characteristics of the strategies can be described as following:    

Starting point Vision set Initial assumptions and analysis Conceptual level of design

Preparation phase The transitioning link between the strategy and first demonstration projects is described within the preparation phase. Basically, the preparation phase is indicating what are the needed steps and actions that lead to the delivery of the first pilots. In a connection to the previously mentioned transition theory, the preparation phase is in line with the takeoff phase. Hence, the preparation phase is not a part of the strategy, since it provides further specifications of the possible identified sites in the strategy and leads to the execution of the projects, including all the needed elements. In Hoboken, the preparation phase can be described as following:     

Identify ‘’low hanging fruits’’ i.e no regret measures (Park12, City Hall) Identify funding opportunities (grants and low interest loans) Detailed design Community involvement in the design process Procurement strategy

Strategies identified the opportunities for demonstration projects. Thus, the City started working immediatelly on pilot projects without waiting for the further development of strategies. One of the selected projects is Park 12. Currently an impervious parking spot, Park 12 is located in H1 sewershed, lowlying area of Hoboken frequently affected by flooding. Rather than just reducing the flooding problem in H1 sewershed, the City sees an opportunity to solve additional issue experienced by Hoboken’s resident- lack of open space. Available land for such interventions in Hoboken is limited, so it is important not to miss the moment. Hence, the solution is a 1 acre park with incorporated green infrastructure, seen as a no regret solution, providing multiple benefits. The funding is secured through low interest loans by NJ Infrastructure Trust. In the design process, the community was involved through 3 public meetings and 3 worskhops, and the preferred design option has been chosen based on the input of residents provided through online survey. The construction is expected to start in August 2015. Demonstration phase After the the ground has been set and first implementation projects are planned or about to be constructed, there are several activities related to the demonstration phase. These are presented in Table 7.1, together with short description and answer on how the activity can be achieved (tools). The demonstration phase serves as a small scale testing and proof of concept, learning lessons later to be used while upscaling and proceeding to next phases of the overall implementation framework.

Design of implementation process

96

Learning is a key word related to pilot projects. Barbosa et al. (2012) state that ‘’most of the public and political support emerges out of the process when practical examples are shown’’. Since no demonstration projects are delivered in Hoboken, there is a window of opportunity for the City to make use of the proposed activities and maximize the benefits gained through demonstration. The main charachteristic of piloting is that the ideas proposed in the strategies will be validated in real conditions. Table 7.1 Specifications demonstration phase Activity

Description

Tool

Operation and Maintenance Training

Getting accustomed to new type of O&M

Procuring the equipment, techical training

Institutionalize cooperation

City of Hoboken & NHSA merging efforts

GITFC

Demontration Projects

Local Partnerships

Strategic partnerships through Public outreach and meetings, GITFC & Stewardship contact with external Programs contractors

Information Dissemination

Raising awareness acitivies

Public presentations, pamphlets, information tables

Data collection

Technical, cost and performance data

Measurements, monitoring equippments

Implementation Documenting

Implementation process influencing factors

Process duration, delivery on time

Proof of added value

Documenting additional benefits provided by GI

Community survey, real estate market development

The demonstration phase activities are further discussed below (specifically tailored towards the example of Park 12) : 







Once when the construction of Park 12 is completed, the Department of Environmental Services will be in charge of maintanence. Since the maintenance requirements of stormwater park differ from traditional maintanence, training will be needed. This training can be provided by inviting lecturers with knowledge on maintanence requirements and attending workshops. Furthermore, the staff will assess whether new equipment is needed. Learning during this phase is not just desireable, but also of outmost importance, since the gained knowledge will be applied later on. Park 12 offers an opportunity to test the work of previously proposed Green Infrastructure Task Force Committee between NHSA and City. It is advised to include NHSA staff in maintenance activities, so the learning process is aligned for both sides. GITFC can explore the options and establish partherships with local residents, benefiting from existance of Park 12. This can be done through local councilman/ councilwoman representing the ward, reaching out to the community and presenting the opportunities for creating a Stewardship Program, through which community would be partly involved in maintenance. Delivery of a project that brings many benefits should be followed by the deserved attention. The information tables in the Park should be set up, to educate visitors on a difference park is


97







making. Furthermore, the City can advertize on their web site, whereas NHSA can include pamphlets in mailings. Park 12 presents a first chance for documenting various cost data in Hoboken. Design, construction and maintanence costs together with performance data are first input for a future repository of data. To collect some of the data, measuring equipment will have to be installed. The measuring equipment is mainly equipment for performance measuring, so NHSA shall be in charge, since there is already an existing monitoring system in the sewerage network. To gain insight and develop experience, the implementation process shall be documented and several questions asked. For instance: ‘’How long was the process lasting?’’,’’ Was it delivered within designated timeframe?’’ and ‘’What components can be optimized or standardized to expedite delivery?’’. An online survey can be set up on the City’s web site to see what added value community sees were introduced in the area by building Park 12? In a long term, are there any changes in real estate market and what is the influence on property values in vinicity of Park?

Evaluation After demonstration projects have been done, evaluation of what has been done is needed. Hence, the third and final part of the initiation phase is evaluation. The specification on what are the components of evaluation are presented in Table 7.2. Basically, the evaluation is used to answer the following question: is the demonstration project a success and to which extent?

Evaulation

Table 7.2 Specifications evaluation Activity

Description

Tool

Technical proof of concept

Design, site suitability & construction convenience

Monitoring equipment, performance measuring, visual inspections

Cost effectivness

Delivery within planned budget

Expenses tracking

Modelling

Updating & recalibrating the models with monitoring data

Hydrological & hydraulic models

Refine management approach

Input for future managerials agendas

Progress reports

Setting the target

Quantifiable goals to be achieved

% impervious, desired acress of green

Posed question can be answered by following the activities presented in Table 7.2. Again, the example of Park 12 is used: 



Park 12 can be a first proof that green infrastructure indeed works. Based on the performance expectations (capturing 250.000 gallons from 10 years return period design event), the actual performance can be measured. Furthermore, visual inspections can form first impression on how the system actually funtions. Is Park 12 delivered within expected budget?


98





Data collected from Park 12 can be used to update and recalibrate models NHSA is using. Consequently, models will be giving better results and as such, contribute to assessing the performance. Have there been any unanticipated effects and side effects (e.g waste generation, influence on the housing market, unsatisfied community members)

The last two evaluation activities (refine management approach and setting the target) are rather complex to be described with a single project. Progress reports of pilot projects need to be based on the targets that are set in the next phase of RDSD project. As it can be seen in Figure 7.3, arrows from evaluation return to demonstration phase and strategy boxes. The reasoning behind this is that demonstration projects should be evaluated according to activities proposed in order to enhance the learning and gain insights that will be useful for further expansion of the program. Furthermore, future demonstration projects (e.g. City Hall, Washington Streets) can be implemented more effectivelly (time/ money) based on the practical experience gained during previously executed projects. During the initation phase, lessons learned from pilot projects can create new insights and feed in further development of a Strategy. Taking into account that the LTCP and next phase of RDSD are upcoming, it is reasonable to recommend refining and detailed specification based on piloting experiences. The description of initiation phase leads to following conclusions that describe the essence of it:   

Momentum is being built Learning opportunity Approach can be refined prior to further expansion

7.1.2. Specifications uptake phase After the concept has been proven through the demonstration phase, the GI system is entering the uptake phase (Figure 7.4) composed of following the parts: capacity building, regulations, policies, finances, utilizing opportunities, ranking priorities, building facilities and evaluation. During this phase the GI system is expanding and becoming a constitutive part of the critical infrastructure system, ultimately having enough capacity to decrease and/ or eliminate CSO and flooding issues.

Capacity Building


Utilize opportunities, rank priorities, build facilities

Evaluation

Figure 7.4 Components of uptake phase From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

99

Capacity Building As the GI system is transitioning from the initial stage and entering a more accelerating pace- the uptake phase, the term support is crucial. In this sense, support is seen through two different aspects. Firstly, support is through the lens of the community and political buy in. Secondly, support in terms of having competencies to accommodate expansion by providing neccesary technical means (i.e maintanence). The main underlying question is what is the purpose of capacity building and for whom it should be done? The specifications of this step, offering descriptions and tools needed are presented in Table 7.3. Table 7.3 Specifications of capacity building Activity

Capacity Building

Staff evaluation

Description Evaluate staffing needs and capabilities periodically

Tool Technical training for employees; external contractors; staff with desired experience

Local Partnerships

Gather support, create and use the opportunities

Outreach, meetings, GITFC

Outreach & Education Campaigns

Targeted towards community members, developers & other cities (Hoboken as a role model)

Worshops, focus groups, public events, trainings, web sites, social media, pamphlets, environmentalists, curriculas

Negotiations on State level

Acquiring political buy in

GITFC, New Jersey’s CSS communities

As it was discussed in detail in Chapter 6, technical support can be ensured through staff in charge of maintenance having appropriate technical training and new employees already coming with desired knowledge. In this stage, when the maintenance is becoming more complex when compared to the initiation phase, it would be good to assess whether it is more financially viable to hire outside contractors for maintaining facilities around the city, or current budget for maintenance can accommodate it. For the community buy- in, key is outreach and education. The final goal is not just having support for publicly financed projects, but also motivating local residents and developers to introduce GI on their properties and be aware of the benefits. Hoboken should work on the outreach towards other cities at this point, since its recognition as Role Model City. This would streghten the existing image. Fostering political buy in is mainly aimed at State level, for the previously mentioned introduction of stormwater fee. However, political buy in needs to be constantly provided from a local government. In the current situation, this is a case, but it would be desireable that future city leaders continue these endeavours. Regulations, Policies, Finances The step presented in Table 7.4 is a critical link in the whole implementation framework, through which the transition from a strategy to real life projects is accomodated. The success of GI program is directly correlated to the level of achievement in realizing this step. Also, this phase is the most complex one, due to the various changes needed to be introduced in different aspects: regulatory, policy, financial. Thus, significant amount of resources is needed, especially human resources and funding. Furthermore, the process is time consuming and it is difficult to assess the needed time, since it depends on different factors, such as available political support, knowledge within the Planning Board etc. Theoretically, some of the activities can be taken in short term, for instance: changes to the


100

zoning code, master plan update, stormwater ordinances update, etc. It has been previously commented how some of these changes are already considered. On the other hand, activities like securing a steady funding source may require long term commitment and resolution. However, as discussed in Chapter 6 and outlined in Table 7.4, alternative ways of temporarily creating a funding stream can be devised as follows: creation of enterprise fund and restructuring of Open Space Tax. Funds for publicly owned projects can be secured also in some of the more traditional ways, such as: taxes and general funds, bonds, grants, loans, public- private partnerships (USEPA, 2014c). Furthermore, funding for public projects can be supplemented by NHSA, since NHSA has direct benefit from avoiding CSO fines (Re. Invest Initative, 2015). For private parties, availability of various incentives is a way forward (reference to Chapter 6).


Table 7.4 Regulations, Policies, Finances specification Activity

Description

Tool

Changes to Zoning codes

Identify & remove barriers; reconsider land use designations; set sustainability standards

EPA’s Water Quality Scoreboard; decisions through Planning Boards; sustainability credits

Master Plan update & Climate Adaptation Policy

GI in long term vision& planning

Green Building & Environmental Sustainability Element of Master Plan

Update Stormwater Ordinances

Water quantity oriented Retention standards; Treshold ordinances; streamlining with for stormwater management NHSA

Secure funds

Utilize funding opportunities through constant monitoring of available funds

Grants, low interest loans, bonds, public private partnerships, stormwater fee

Create steady funding source

Steady funding stream for construction, operation an maintenance of GI facilities

Open Space Tax, Stormwater fee, enterprise fund

Introduce Incentives

Motivate retrofits in developed areas, new developments and redevelopments

Development incentives through zoning, rebates & installation financing, awards & recognition programs, grants, stormwater fee discount

Utilize opportunities, rank priorities and build the facilities Important part of the uptake phase is actually realizing and delivering projects (Table 7.5). In a space constrained city like Hoboken, the question of where are the biggest opportunities is arising. Previous analysis has shown that the biggest opportunities for large scale GI is within redevelopment areas (TeamOMA, 2013; Together North Jersey, 2013), followed by publicly owned land, other available land (e.g land on which Green Circuit is planned) and privately owned land. The nature and usefulness of proposed tools depends on the type of available land. Evaluation The components of the evaluation phase are presented in Table 7.6. Evaluation at this stage encompasses more complex system than the evaluation discussed during explanation of the initiation phase. Several components are distinguished in evaluation: tracking system, monitoring system, milestones and data documenting. Tracking and monitoring systems can be seen through the same


101

lens, since they are founded on datababase containing vast amount of data (location, performance, maintenance responsibility, installed measuring equipment). GIS databases can be a valuable management tool in providing easy access to detailed information and an giving overview of the overall status. Furthermore, setting milestones is an excellent tracking tool, since it is an easy evaluation factor to assess the success of the whole implementation process. Progress reports can assess whether the City/ NHSA is reaching the desired point (that can be set up as % of impervious or area of green). Throughout the whole process, documenting the different type of data is valuable not just for the local parties when evaluating the success, but can also serve as a worthy source of data for researchers. One of the ways through which the evaluation can be facilitated are the science policy partnerships with a constant information flow and exchange. From the policy side of the partnership, the City (in a coordination with NHSA) is in charge, whereas local universities with the strong interest in environmental science and sustainable development (e.g Rutgers University, Stevens Institute) can provide valuable inputs for the readjustment of the future approach.

Utilize opportunities, rank priorities & build the facilities

Table 7.5 Utilize, rank and build specification Activity

Description

Tool

Biggest opportunity for large scale GI

Land acqusition, requirements for new developments & redevelopments (sustainability credits)

Publicly owned land

Include GI in planned projectsincremental cost

Capital improvement projects (right of ways, parks, public buildings)

Other available land

Big land owners (NJ transit, The Port Authority of NY& NJ, local schools, affordable housing faciltiies, churches, water supply)

GITFC negotiations

Privately owned land

Retrofits of private properties

Regulations, incentives

Redevelopment areas

Evaluation

Table 7.6 Specification evaluation phase

Activity

Description

Tool

Tracking System

Develop a tool tracking location, type, performance and O&M responsibilities

GIS database

Monitoring System

Information on performance of the measures- hydrological variables

Hydrological and hydraulic models, measuring equipment, GIS database

Milestones

Data documenting


Progress reports in equal time Evaluate overall success based intervals, % imprevious, acres on the targets set in the of green, vision from Master Strategy Plan Data type: cost, O&M, real Develop a data base for a long estate market development, term proof of concept ancilliary benefits; GIS database

102

What can be observed in the uptake phase is a link between different steps, as indicated by arrows in Figure 7.4. The position of boxes within the phase presents the logical sequence in which the process should flow. However, this is not a strict division and the process is rather seen as dynamic and iterative, with a constant interplay within the steps. The process especially depends on the mode of the land in concern. For instance, if the emphasis is on GI projects planned on public properties, then the sequence of the phases is not as important. On the other hand, the portion of GI that will be built on private properties will be strongly correlated to the success of proposed activities in previous boxes (e.g. awareness created through capacity building, retention requirements through stormwater ordinances, available incentives). Based on the description presented above, the main characteristics of uptake phase are as following:     

Highly dynamic and iterative Integrates various aspects (politics,planning, engineering, management, financial sector) Time consuming Requires significant resources Determines success in implementation framework

7.1.3. Specifications standard practice phase The final phase in the implementation framework is the standard practice phase (Figure 7.5) distinguished in three parts: operation & maintenance, GI mainstreamed and evaluation. The position in an overall framework indicates that in this phase GI is already introduced to a bigger extent and it is becoming a standard technique for managing stormwater. Operation and Maintenance

GI mainstreamed

Evaluation

Figure 7.5 Standard practice phase

Operation and maintenance Operation and maintenance has been discussed in detail previously. Further specification is provided in Table 7.7. A clear division of maintenance responsibilities is one of the determining factors in overall success of the strategy, since proper performance is a direct function of good maintenance. As the system grows, so do responsibilities and management becomes more complex. To ensure ongoing maintenance, schedules and protocols need to be developed for individual facilites. NHSA is already requesting from private bodies to have watering, weeding, replanting and inspection plans (North Hudson Sewerage Authority, 2012). Furthermore, NHSA holds the right to inspect facilities located on private properties. This practice should be continued and complemented with exact specification of neglectance fees. Operation and maintenance manuals are a logical attachment, since they provide much needed support to individuals with no previous experience. Stewardships programs and adopt a measure program can be a valuable tool in galvanizing social capital and community involvement in the process.


103

Table 7.7 Operation and Maintenance Specifications


Activity

Description

Clearly divide maintenance tasks and responsibilities for Maintenance Responsibilities public and private properties in design phase of projects

Schedules and Procedures

Guidance Documents

Network of volunteers

Operation and maintenance plans for individual facilities

Tool

City’s Departments, NHSA, external contractors

Long term protocols, O&M schedules, fees for neglectance

Develop Operation & Maintenace guidance Green Infrastructure Start Up documents for different types Kit of GI Green Infrastructure Galvanize community Stewardship, Adopt a involvement in maintaining GI Sustainable Stormwater Measure

GI mainstreamed Mainstreamed green infrastructure is a status in which GI is a standard planning procedure and a part of the critical infrastructure. At this point, green infrastructure is mainstreamed in every part of urban planning. Desired goals defined in the Strategy or LCTP are already reached or about to be reached. Evaluation The evaluation has already been presented in the description of the uptake phase (Table 7.6), and the components of the evaluation system do not differ significantly at this point as well. In the standard practice phase, evaluation is important since even though the system is expected to be fully developed, still some space for the experimentation is needed, aligned with the needs and the technologies of the uncertain future. Doing the evaluation at this stage will allow for identifiying the opportunities for the inclusion of the modern approach, that will not necessarily be the same as the knowledge of today. Hence, following the above presented, the main charachteristics of standards practice phase are:      

GI is a constitutive part of stormwater management system, resulting in tangible effects in terms of flood/ CSO reduction GI is included in all aspects of urban development Information available and easy to access Regular evaluations for future refinements Serves as a long term proof of concept It needs to take into the account through the evaluation the uncertain futures


104

7.2. Discussion on the interconnections between the phases The connections within the phases have been explained above, whereas in this part, a discussion on interconnections between different phases is given. These intereconnections are important in order to understand the dynamics of the proposed approach. As it can be seen in Figure 7.6 (represented in red colour), interconnections can be seen within the following phases:  

Initiation and uptake phase Initiation and standard practice phase

Initiation and uptake phase The strongest connection is within the initation phase and the uptake phase. This result is expected, since the initation phase is basically just a small scale demonstration of what is later to be introduced on a wider scale through the uptake phase. Hence, the uptake phase and its development can be accelerated by the initation phase. The rate of acceleration will depend on the extent of the demonstration projects and refinements of strategies done through the initiation phase. During the initiation phase, many changes related to regulations and policies can be introduced. Furthermore, it is an opportunity to explore and test innovative financial mechanisms that will allow for the construction of more facilities. Besides that, the level of planning achieved in the initation phase can directly influence (positively or negatively) the needed endeavors during the uptake phase (e.g ranking the priorities). Capacity Building



Capacity Building

Regulations, Policies, Finances Strategy Strategy

Demonstration Demonstration Phase Phase

Evaluation Evaluation Utilize opportunities, rank priorities, build facilities

Operation Operation and and Maintenance Maintenance

GI GI mainstreamed mainstreamed

Evaluation Evaluation

Evaluation

Figure 7.6 Interconnections between the phases

As stated before, Hoboken is currenty in the initation phase. Thus, it is interesting to see which actions Hoboken is taking now can influence the future development of the GI program:   

Capacity building for maintenance will be done through maintaining projects about to be delivered (e.g Park 12, Washington Street) The new element of a Master Plan (Green Building and Environmental Sustainability) will be developed within next 2 years. New stormwater ordinances (water quantity oriented) are being considered and should be introduced during next few years.


105

 



If the BASF site is acquired and the project goes ahead, it will be a unique opportunity to provide a park of that size (6 acres) with incorporated stormwater management Re. Invest Initative (2015) in their report on Hoboken has already explored innovative financial mechanisms and ownership structures that could be applied for the BASF site. In the case of site contruction and application of the proposal, the mechanisms could be made generic and applied to future projects The City and NHSA are in negotiation on partnering for the BASF site. The size of the retention will be selected based on the commitment from NHSA to separate the CSS surrounding the site

It is challenging to determine the moment in which the process has evolved from the piloting to the uptake phase. What can be expected is that at the point certain modifications in the current regulations (e.g retention requirements in stormwater ordinances) and zoning codes (e.g incentive based zoning) are made, green infrastructure will begin to be introduced at the faster pace. Initiation and standard practice phase The obvious connection between the initiation and standard practice phase is through boxes of demonstration projects and operation and maintanence. As described several times, during delivery of demonstration projects, staff in charge of maintanence will encounter new type of activity for the first time. Hence, experience gained through piloting can create valuable lessons for the upcoming stages. Besides that, creating partnerships with local residents and organizing programs such as the Stewardship Program and the Adopt a Sustainable Stormwater Measure plan can be used for the testing of a concept that can be expanded later. The direct link between these phases is as well in maintenance activities driving the very design. Through experiencing requirements in the demonstration phase, the future designs can be adjusted in a way that maintenance is considered already earlier in the process.

7.3. Key lessons for GI implementation in Hoboken/ Course of action The previous sub chapters were dealing with the implementation process and discussed tools that need to be employed in order to convert strategies into practice. In this part, the synthesis is given, in order to provide a clear course of action and repository of the available options. Thus, this sub chapter aims to answer the following three questions:   

What needs to be done in the short term? What needs to be done in the long run? What needs to be done to make the long term possible?

In the Figure 7.7, all the recommendation developed throughout this research have been put in the context of answering the three questions posed above. It is Important to mention is that a detailed description of what has been presented in the circles will not be provided in this part, since that was explained in the previous chapters. What needs to be done in the short term? The analysis has shown that in the short term, emphasis needs to be given to the detailed planning and learning process. The planning process is focused on further development and specifications of the existing strategies in the second phase of RDSD and through the LTCP, followed by the green


106

element of the master plan. The result of this planning should be presented in form of the implementation target, thus allowing for a systematic approach and development. The learning process is fostered through demonstration projects, that will open a window of opportunity for the experimentation. Lessons learned through the demonstration projects can be used for future refinements but does also allow for the creation of a flexible and adaptive approach, since the lessons are learned by doing and thus the future actions are being determined. Furthermore, learning process includes O&M training and institutional strenghtening. Institutional strenghtening (mainly through the creation of GITFC and partnerships) is a very important link in the very early stage of the process, since the inertia toward the innovative practice can be eliminated. What needs to be done in the long run? The long run depicts a situation in which GI is already an integrated part of the stormwater management system, and as such included in all publicly planned projects, new developments/ redevelopments and retrofits of privately owned land. Furthermore, in the long run the uncertainities regarding the GI performance are removed. The operation and maintenance of the system is a standard practice, not requiring change in the approach and the community members are fully involved in the process. The innovative financial mechanisms are developed, through which the private property owners are motivated to introduce GI and bigger capital projects are financed through public private partnerships. The system is also regulary evaluated through the previously proposed tracking and monitoring system, and based on that, further managerial approach is being developed. The latter is especially important due to the uncertain outcomes future brings. Thus, it is recommended that the system is updated incorporating the new technologies that will again be proved through the process of experimentation via demonstration projects. Short term (5 years)

Long term (50 years)

Detailed planning

Piloting & Demonstration

Institutional Strenghtening

O&M training

Implementation targets Learning

Innovative Financial Mechanisms

Regular O&M

Evaluation & Refinements

Public projects

Private development

Retrofitting

Partnerships

Policy Creation

Data Collection

Capacity Building

Incentive Mechanisms

Political & Community Buy-in

Guidance Documents

Regulations

Financial Mechanisms

Evaluation

Factors enabling the long term

Figure 7.7 Course of action for GI implementation in Hoboken


107

What needs to be done to make the long term possible? The question on what actions need to be done in order to make the long term possible is the most difficult one to answer, primarily due to the variety of approaches it encompasses. Furthermore, it is a challenging task to assign the exact time that will be needed, since the development of actions will depend based on many different factors. The short summary is presented below: 







The creation of policies and update of the regulations (especially stormwater and zoning ordinances) that the City can start doing in the short term will determine to a large extent the introduction (and rate of introduction) of the GI practices in the future, coupled with the inclusion of the incentive mechanisms in the modification of the policies. Creating ways to finance the stormwater projects through modification of the existing taxes (short term) or the introduction of new fees (time consuming process), in parallel with the mechanisms to attract private investments. These will again be strongly connected with the ability to offer the incentives. Creating partnerships in the short term will prove to be beneficial in the long term. Under the same umbrella are also capacity building efforts, tailored towards the specific needs of the targeted groups. Furthermore, negotiating and creating political buy-in on higher levels and creating further community buy in are crucial for the success of the campaign in the long run. Data collection and creation of guidance documents needs to be done from the moment the demonstration projects are starting to be delivered, since this will feed in to the future evaluations and refinements. Furthermore, as the system is developing, benefits are demonstrated and more data are made available to the engineering community, decision makers, developers and general public, the uncertainities will be slowly eliminated.

The materials presented in the Figure 7.7 demonstrate and prove the complex nature of the implementation process and its dependance on the various factors. The bottom line is that the success of the future efforts will be determined exclusively by the actions taken. It is of utmost importance to build on the present momentum in Hoboken, while the memories of the Sandy devastation are still present in the mind of decision makers and the local community, constantly refreshed by the occurance of flash floods (e.g. May 2015 flooding). 7.3.1. On the dynamic nature of the proposed framework The dynamic nature of the proposed framework has been mentioned before and it is important to emphasize it again. The process reads as linear, but the proposed feedback loops and interconnections within the system indicate that it will depend on many factors, some of them being developments in: politics, financial climate, legislaslations and institutions. This was also confirmed by the representation in Figure 7.7. The framework dynamics can be explained as internal and external dynamics. The internal dynamics are considered through the evaluation in every step and as mentioned before, it will be useful in establishing adaptive approach and refinements in the ways system is being managed, based on the above identified factors. On the other hand, the external dynamics are dependant on the uncertainties brough by the unknown future and climate change. In the literarature on climate change adaptation, the terms of adaptivity and flexibility are identified as important factors for mitigating the impacts of climate change. Ashley et al. (2008) define adaptation ‘’as the process that entails responding to largley unpredictable short


108

timescale changes in demans on urban drainage systems’’. Zevenbergen et al. (2012) define flexibility as ‘’inherent capability to successfully respond to foreseen (unforseen) changes, i.e. uncertainty’’. It is therefore important that the delivered GI system in Hoboken is adaptive and flexible in the face of upcoming challenges. Hence, it is important to include active learning in the process (Figure 7.7). Ashley et al. (2008) state that ‘’active learning can develop the capacity by different stakeholder groups to both accept a different view on risk and performance and also to be able to utilise different types of response and at different times of implementation’’. Hence, the learning component is placed in the center of the course of action for the GI implementation. The rationale is that each executed project can be seen as a learning opportunity and findings can be used in future approaches. In other words, the learning does not end with the initation phase and delivery of the demonstration projects. One of the ways to faciliate active learning is through learning alliances (Ashley et al., 2008). To conclude, active learning is seen as a contribution to the developed framework, but the ways in which it can be accomodated are not researched in this work. Hence, further study in this direction is needed.

7.4. Towards a generic framework for implementing green infrastructure The process of framework development was case specific, based on the local conditions in Hoboken. However, it can be noted that many elements of the framework appear generic and applicable for the other urban areas. Thus, in the following the elements are disussed from a stand point of determining which elements are defined by the local conditions and which elements can be tranferred from one case study to others. 7.4.1. Applicability of the selected methodology to other cities This research is dealing with a case study that already had a GI strategy in place. As mentioned before, the trigger or the ‘’game changer’’ in Hoboken was Hurricane Sandy. Even though GI has no capacity to mitigate the effects of an event of that magnitude, still Sandy was a point at which the City realized there is a need for change in the way flooding is being addressed. This included not just the flooding from the storm surge, but also flash flooding problems. Thus, in a combination with the realization that the costs of separating the existing CSS are too high to bear, the realization of the potential of GI was created. This resulted in extensive efforts that Hoboken is taking, as discussed in this work. The consequential effect of a big event on a GI strategy creation can be found in other places as well (e.g New Orleans Urban Water Plan designed after the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 or The City of Copenhaged Cloudburst Management Plan initiated after the 2011 flooding in the capital of Denmark). Based on the above, cities worldwide that are experiencing similar problems due to their aged infrastructure or high level of impervious area can learn a lesson from Hoboken and realize that a trigger is very likely to occur. Hence, they can learn that it is wise to take proactive approach and start their planning initiatives, rather than deal with the consequences. In other words, the investments can be tailored towards pre disaster planning and preparedness rather than post disaster relief efforts. Hoboken, New Orleans, Copenhagen and many others learned the lesson in an opposite way, after severe events had already appeared. An other important trigger in Hoboken was of regulatory nature, and this is very case specific for Hoboken and other US cities. As mentioned before, Hoboken is in a stage of detailed planning through the LTCP development and through the second stage of the RDSD project. Lesson to be learned is that From vision to reality: making cities flood resilient by implementing green infrastructure strategies

109

in order to deliver comprehensive GI solution, extensive planning is needed, that will require strong and long term commitment and significant resources (financial and human). Create the initial momentum

Trigger

Develop Green Infrastructure Strategy

Map the context

Identify barriers

Identify drivers

Include stakeholders

Consult GI role models

Figure 7.8 Steps for the cities to take prior to the development of the implementation plan

The implementation framework in Hoboken has been designed based on an innovative methodology of mapping local context by identifiying the drivers and the barriers for GI implementation. Balancing between them created a though process through which the ways to implement have been designed. The importance of learning from other cities has been noted, since it was found that many cities previously encountered similar obstacles and removed them effectively. Important lesson for other cities is that both drivers and barriers are defined by the local conditions. Hence, before starting the development of the implementation plan, it is of outmost importance to identify what are the forces that might be accelerating the process and what are the factors that will be hindering advancement. By identifying these, a clearer direction towards implementation will be created. Further step is then to look for other experiences internationally and learn from others. The experience gained in this research is that many barriers are found in the other cities as well, just in different combinations and influencing the process in a different manner. In the Figure 7.8, the steps cities should take prior to the development of an implementation plan are presented. Important to bear in mind is that the steps are more tailored to the cities that have an existing strategy, so the first two boxes of the process are just indicative. For cities that still have no strategy in place, the process from creating the initial momentum towards actually having the GI plan will be much more comprehensive and will require a series of steps. However, this was not an objective of this research project. 7.4.2. Applicability of the designed implementation framework to other cities The designed implementation framework has a generic nature, even though it was constructed based on Hoboken’s case study. However, the sub processes and elements of the framework can be either


110

easily applicable to the other cities or completely defined by the local conditions. Thus, the individual boxes (Figure 7.1) are discussed in order to assess the applicability and draw further lessons. Strategy The available strategies are developed based on Hoboken’s challenges and local conditions. Hence, they cannot be applied elsewhere. However, the structure of the strategy and approach can be a valuable lesson for the other cities in a sense of direction towards the final product. Preparation phase The preparation phase, that Hoboken is currently in sends a strong message to the other cities. It demonstrates the importance of the political buy-in for the delivery of the first projects. The political support helps in putting the projects at the top of the action agendas and provides the necessary resources (through grants and loans). If a city is aiming for GI, but has no support from higher political levels within the local government, the efforts will be slowed down. What can be seen in Hoboken is a good cooperation between the key stakeholders. This can also be explained by the fact that the City is rather small, and it is easier to organize joint efforts between the Departments in charge. For the bigger cities, this might present a serious obstacle. Hence, the first advice would be to get all the Departments of interest around the table and also partner with the local sewerage authority (if the system is privately owned). Demonstration Phase The demonstration phase designed for Hoboken can easily be translated to the other cities, since its elements are aimed in proving the concept of green infrastructure. Some of the Hoboken’s pilot projects are envisioned at the City’s own properties (e.g City Hall), and this concept can be a point translated elsewhere. The difference in Hoboken is that the City decided to deliver as a first pilot rather complex project (Park 12), whereas in other cities, the approach can be different by firstly introducing smaller scale, less complex projects (e.g community rain gardens). Evaluation All elements of the evaluation phase are applicable to the other cities. The main goal of the evaluation is to learn a lessons and use it as an input for future efforts. This applies for the evaluation box included in the standard practice phase as well as the uptake phase. Capacity Building Capacity building and the most effective ways to do it will take different forms in different communities. However, the general idea of tailoring training means towards the specific needs of the targeted group can be applied everywhere. Regulations, policies, finances The developed recommendations regarding the regulations, policies and finances are based on the existing conditions in Hoboken. Thus, the direct application is not possible without deeper insight into the local factors. However, the rationale behind creating such a set of recommendations should be followed:  The series of policy and regulatory changes in order to foster wider uptake of GI should be considered


111

 The ways in which the projects will be funded need to be derived based on the structure of the local taxes and current ways of financing stormwater projects  Incentive policies need to be created in order to attract private involvement in the process Utilize opportunities, rank priorities and build the facilities The identified opportunities for GI in Hoboken are highly case specific, based on the spatial layout of the city, mode of land, ownership and opportunities identified through the RDSD and the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan. Thus, they are not applicable elsewhere. However, the advice that GI should be included in capital improvement projects is also useful for the GI planning in other cities. Furthermore, recommended fostering of GI at public properties will constitute a significant part of GI strategy regardless of location. Operation and maintenance Even though the ways in which O&M will be structured will differ from the City to the City, the general lessons developed for Hoboken can be applied elsewhere. Designating the responsibilities, developing schedules, procedures, guidance documents and including the community in the maintenance should be a part of the implementation strategy independent of the location. 7.4.3. Conclusions on the applicability of the developed framework to other cities Taking into account the material presented above, the general conclusion is that the developed implementation framework for Hoboken can be replicated in other urban areas experiencing similar problems. This is especially true for the general constituties of the framework (boxes) and the thought process used for the design, whilst further specifications that were discussed through this Chapter are more case specific and need to be carefully considered from case to case. The overview of the applicability of specific parts of the framework is provided in Table 7.8. Even the elements that were marked as ‘’not applicable’’ have the characteristics and offer the ideas that other cities could use when developing the implementation agenda. For instance, marking the ‘’Regulations, Policies, Finances’’ as not applicable indicates that the specifications developed under this part of the framework were designed based on the context in Hoboken, but the general advice of reviewing the current regulations, creating the policies and securing funding sources is to be followed elsewhere. Table 7.8 Applicabilty of the developed implementation framework to other cities

Part of the framework

Not applicable

Applicable to the certain extent

Applicable

Strategy Preparation Phase Demonstration Phase Evaluation Capacity building Regulations, Policies, Finances Utilise opportunities, rank the priorities and build facilities Operation and maintenance


112

Based on the created framework and lessons learned from Hoboken, series of implementation steps can be developed as a recommendation for the municipalities interested in knowing which are the required steps they need to undertake on their way towards implementing green infrastructure. The sequence of steps will depend on the local charactheristics and status quo, but the aim of the process presented in the Figure 7.9 is to provide general guidelines.

Gather political and community support

Streghten the Institutions/ Cooperate

Create the lessons (demonstrate, experiment, prove the concept)

Make series of policy & regulatory changes

Educate/ Outreach/ Build the capacity

Create steady funding source

Evaluate/ Refine

Scale it up

Attract private investment

Collect the data/ avoid uncertainty

Operate and Maintain

Identify biggest opportunities/ Set the target/ Build

Figure 7.9 General steps to follow when implementing green infrastructure


113

CHAPTER 8

Research reflection The aim of this chapter is to highlight the importance of the presented research in the context of the currently available scientific literature and practical guidance documents (presented in the Chapter 2). The added value of the research is discussed and the applications of the presented work for science and practice are presented. This chapter is supposed to emphasize the innovative aspects of this research work, both for practice and science.

8.1. Barriers in Hoboken vs barriers in the literature In the Chapter 2 (Table 2.1), the repository of barriers as identified by various authors (Abhold et al., 2011; Brown, 2005; Brown and Farrelly, 2009; Cettner et al., 2014; Lee and Yigitcanlar, 2010; Roy et al., 2008) has been presented. The existing literature revealed that barriers are case specific and highly dependent on the local conditions. Thus, as a part of this thesis, barriers have been identified in direct communication with stakeholders (Figure 5.4). In the follow up, the comparison between the barriers identified in Hoboken and barriers identified in the literature is presented. The idea is to see whether Hoboken’s specifics fit into the wider image of hindering factors identified elsewhere. 8.1.1. Comparison of the barriers Technical barriers The technical barriers that have been identified through this research are in line with previous findings. In general, the available literature recognizes technical difficulties that are being experienced due to the innovative nature of GI, such as: lack of the empirical data, no guidelines and standardization, absence of needed skills and knowledge etc. Hence, Hoboken is no exception. Physical barriers Physical barriers have not been identified as a serious impediment in the reviewed literature (except in the research by Abhold et al. (2011)). However, in Hoboken they have been proven to be influential for the implementation process, mainly due to the limited available space for the introduction of GI. This discrepancy between the findings of this research and findings in the literature can perhaps be attributed to the fact that the applied approach in this thesis was case study oriented, whereas previous research was concerned with the higher spatial scales or much bigger cities (e.g Melbourne), hence leading to more generalized findings. Hoboken is a very small city with a high percentage of

Research reflection

114

built area and no possibilities for vertical expansion, so the presence of the physical barrier is not suprising. Financial barriers It can be observed from the summary presented in Table 2.1 that the importance of financial barriers is understood by the other authors as well. An additional conclusion that can be drawn is that the financial barriers are explained through the lens of lack of funding sources and cost information. However, analysis has shown that the background of Hoboken’s financial struggle is connected to the absence of a steady funding source and the chain effect of the inability to introduce incentives for the private developers. Even though the absence of incentives has proven to be a serious impediment in the case of Hoboken, this has been previously identified only by Roy et al. (2008). An additional finding in Hoboken that has not been addressed in other studies is the influence of the high cost of land in highly developed urban areas, where available land for the implementation of GI is the exception, rather than rule. Institutional barriers The biggest discrepancy between the previous research and results of this thesis is in the emphasis put on the institutional barriers. Even though the current knowledge indicated that the factors hindering the implementation are mainly of socio institutional nature, the situation in Hoboken is different. It was identified that a possible barrier is a need for complex managerial approach between the City and NHSA. However, this factor is not seen as a serious impediment to the advancement, due to the readiness of both parties to cooperate. Legal and regulatory barriers Legal and regulatory barriers have been identified by other researchers as well. The most important one for Hoboken is that the current government has no authority to introduce the stormwater fee, which connects well with the findings presented by Roy et al. (2008) and Brown and Farrelly (2009). The new barrier that emerged in Hoboken is outdated ordinances. 8.1.2. Conclusions The discussion presented above indicates that almost all of the barriers that were identified in Hoboken can be found in the literature. Furthermore, the observed differences confirm that the barriers to GI implementation are case specific, as argued by others (e.g Roy et al. (2008) and Abhold et al. (2011)). However, Hoboken’s situation provided some new insights as well. For instance, it has shown that not just the type of the barrier depends on the local coditions, but also the influence of the individual barriers on the implementation process is context specific. In other words, the uniqueness of the situation places some barriers in impediments hierarchy higher than others. Furthermore, the findings have revealed the importance of physical barriers in the implementation process for small, higly built urban areas surrounded by other equally developed areas. It is important to stress that the above presented comparison was focused only on the similarities between barriers encountered in Hoboken and the barriers identified in other places. The discussion of the barriers identified by other authors that were not found in Hoboken is not a part of the presented material. However, it would be interesting to research why some barriers that are commonly experienced in other places (e.g resistance to change or poor communication) are not found in Hoboken. This type of analysis would help in seeing what preparatory actions can be done in the cities to eliminate some of the barriers even before the GI program starts.


115

8.2. Comparison with EPA’s implementation wheel and evaluation criterias for Emerald Cities In Chapter 2, two practical approaches for mainstreaming GI have been presented: (1) EPA’s green infrastructure wheel (Figure 2.8) and (2) the Emerald Cities evaluation criteria (Table 2.2). In the follow up, the discussion of the comparison between these approaches and the green infrastructure framework developed in this research is presented. The idea is to assess the practical implications of the obtained results. 8.2.1. GI Implementation framework and EPA’s implementation wheel As discussed in the methodology, the EPA’s implementation wheel (Figure 2.8) has been chosen as the starting point for creating the implementation plan for Hoboken. The main reason for this is that it was found as the latest knowledge output and tool developed by the EPA to help municipalities with the advancement of their GI programs. Elements of the EPA’s Implementation Wheel Review planning documents and code

Identify funding

Plan for maintenance

Train staff

Identify high visibility projects

Strategy

Demonstration phase

Evaluation

Capacity building

Regulations, policies, finances

Operation and maintenance

GI mainstreamed

Elements of the GI implementation framework developed in this research

Figure 8.1 Connection between the EPA's implementation wheel and the GI framework developed in the thesis

The direct visual comparison between the EPA’s wheel and GI implementation framework developed in this work is presented in the Figure 8.1. It can be seen that the framework includes all the elements proposed by the EPA and it goes a step further by introducing new elements (marked in orange). Even though the EPA’s guidances provide a logical sequence of steps to be followed, the approach is not adaptive enough, since it does not include any type of proposed evaluations that would allow for refinements and an adaptive management approach. On the other hand, the proposed framework is includes evaluation in all its parts. Besides the complete absence of some of the elements, the evident difference between the two approaches is in the comprehensiveness of the proposed actions. As presented in Chapter 7, the GI framework developed for Hoboken offered a set of proposed actions and tools that will make it possible to achieve the goals, whilst EPA’s approach is rather too general and limited. Even though the framework was developed based on the specific case study, the discussion presented in Chapter 7 indicated that many elements of the framework are generic and could be applied to the other cities. The step further was done by proposing the general steps for municipalities to follow when implementing green infrastructure strategies (Figure 7.9), that appear to be much more explanatory for the use by the decision makers. 8.2.2. GI implementation framework and Emerald Cities evaluation criteria The Emerald Cities evaluation criteria (Table 2.2) identified six steps that have enabled the widespread adoption in ‘’GI champion cities’’ across the US: (1) long term GI plan, (2) water quantity oriented ordinances, (3) decrease in impervious area, (4) incentives, (5) provided guidance and (6) dedicated funding sources (Garrison et al., 2011). Whilst the presented research has confirmed the importance of all the proposed evaluation criterias, it has widen the scope by introducing additional important

Research reflection

116

factors for the uptake of GI. Besides that, the attempt was made to design a process, hence indicating which factors need to be introduced in which stage of the development. 8.2.3. Conclusions Based on the above presented discussion, it can be concluded that the designed implementation framework improved the existing EPA’s guidance documents for municipalities trying to find ways to implement their GI programs. The advancement is delivered through more detailed specifications of actions and through widening the original ‘’wheel’’ by proposing general steps municipalities can follow. Furthermore, this research has shown that in order to facilitate the adoption and application of such an extensive program as the implementation of the GI strategy, cities will have to introduce much more than the six evaluation criteria proposed by the Emeral Cities. Yet, the critical importance of these criteria has been confirmed throughout this research as well.

8.3. Comparison with previous research The recommendations for the uptdake of the green infrastructure developed by the other scholars (e.g Farrelly and Brown (2008), Brown and Farrelly (2009), Roy et al. (2008)) have proven to be valid for the case of Hoboken as well. However, some additional recommendations were proven to be applicable for Hoboken (e.g procurement strategies, mainstreaming in the capital projects). The emergence of the new recommendations can be explained by the specific context of the case study. Hence, it can be concluded that it is a challenging task to develop a respository of recommended actions, since it is defined by the case of interest. It would be interesting for further research to create a typology of case study specifications followed by the matching typology of recommended actions. This would allow the responsible parties in the cities to develop a sense of the direction needed. In Chapter 2, the recommendation by Ferguson et al. (2013) that ‘’there is a need for a reliable diagnostic procedure that could assist planner, policy analyst and decision- makers in selecting and designing strategic action initiatives that best fit an urban water system’s current conditions to enable desired system change’’. This statement has been one of the leading ideas for this work and this research has made an attempt to create such a tool. The advancement was made primarily through the methodological approach, by enriching the GI mainstreaming typology developed by Young et al. (2014) with the addition of barriers, and looking at the ways on how drivers can be used to overcome the barriers. In this process, the importance of learning from the other cities has been emphasized. This methodological approach has been presented in Figure 7.8 and discussed accordingly. The 8 factors needed for a system wide adaptation or transition developed by Rijke (2014) were confirmed to be applicable for the case of Hoboken as well. The factors that were seen as needed to develop new practices: 1) narrative for change, 2) a regulatory and compliance agenda, 3) economic justification and 4) policy and planning frameworks and institutional design (Rijke, 2014) have been seen as important also in the light of delivering the starategy. The framework also emphasized the importance of factors needed for enabling the transition: 1) leadership, 2) capacity building and demonstration, 3) public engagement and behaviour change and 4) research and partnerships with policy/ practice (Rijke, 2014). However, it has been noted that leadership is crucial already in the earlier phase (while establishing the transformation). A further attemp was made to design a process through which these factors (and some additional) are put in the timeframe. However, it was seen that this is an extremely challenging task due to the dynamic nature of the process, and it requires further research.


117

The sustainable transition management cycle developed as a part of the SWITCH project and presented in Figure 2.9 was addressed in this topic mainly on the tactical and operational level. All the elements proposed as a part of SWITCH framework on these levels were proven to be applicable to the developed framework as well. However, the framework in this research was not dealing with the strategic level of the SWITCH approach, except by concluding that in the standard practice phase there is a need for the experimentation space. The approach developed in this work was focussed on delivering a more detailed design, placing emphasis on operational tools. As well as in the SWITCH approach, the steps were put in the process. The reflection and comparison of the work delivered through this thesis with the work of previous scholars indicates that the step further was made by putting previously developed recommendations (supplemented with the additional, context specific recommendations) in the process. It has once again confirmed the dynamic nature of the city wide application of the innovative technologies, and it calls for further research in exploring the connections between the long term planning/ delivery and time in which actions are being taken.

8.4. Research application/ Conclusion on the added value The discussion on the added value of this research and how it is placed in the context of previously delivered work has been presented in this chapter. To summarize, the value added to the methodological approach, practice and science is emphasized in the follow up. Methodological approach The methodological approach taken in this research allowed for the creation of the diagnostic approach for cities to see which steps they need to take prior to the implementatiopn of GI. By identifying drivers and barriers and balancing between them it is possible to get a sense of the direction needed for the further advancement. Then, based on this, the ‘’GI chamption’’ cities can be consulted and their approach considered and tailored towards the local context. Applications for practice The presented research is useful for the local government in Hoboken and for the utility company NHSA. The results are useful in a sense that it can help them in decision making by understanding which steps are needed to convert their strategies into practice, reach the desired state and facilitate the uptake of green infrastructure. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of the framework and the placed importance on the evaluation sends a message that the management approach is not static and it needs to be constantly refined, based on the conditions of the present time. Finally, the results of the presented research can be useful in the further stages of RDSD project. Applications for science The main importance for the field of transitions in urban water system is the fact that the recommendations for the advancement have been put in the form of the process, created based on the insights provided by the local stakeholders and experiences from the other cities across the US. While reviewing the available literature, it was noted that there is a need for such an approach, since the research up to date was limited in a sense on how to make the strategic planning operational (Ferguson et al., 2013). The presented research expanded the GI typology and emphasized the importance of the influencing factors that enable the implementation and how they can be used. It indicated that factors such as

Research reflection

118

political support are needed not just at the local level, and that the lack of the support from higher political levels can influence the long term realization, despite the presence of local will. Finally, this research emphasized the future research needs. For instance, exploring the importance of triggers (e.g Sandy in Hoboken) is interesing in understanding ther influence on the creation of the initial momentum and overall implementation process. Furthermore, more research on the inclusion of the learning process within the developed framework is needed.


119

CHAPTER 9

Conclusions and recommendations The final chapter of this research is organized in three sections and presents conclusions and recommendations derived through the process. Limitations of the research conducted are presented followed by the conclusions. The conclusions are presented as answers to the research questions posed. Finally, recommendations for further research are presented.

9.1. Limitations of the study The focus of the study was to deliver an implementation plan for the existing green infrastructure strategies in Hoboken. The results presented in the previous chapters are subject to certain limitations, which imply that the findings are not ideal. 









Due to the project constraints, it was not possible to organize a field visit to the case study area. This would allow other types of research instruments to be employed, such as face to face interviews, workshops and focus groups. However, it was felt that the alternative method of semi structured interviews provided a sufficient amount of input data. The original idea of the researcher was to organize a survey of the residents of Hoboken. However, due to the aforementioned constraint of the inability to visit the case study area, the survey was not set up. Yet, through interviews with the stakeholders that have taken part in community meetings in Hoboken, a general picture could be gained. The results and findings of this research were validated up to a certain point. The validation was done through a review of available reports on GI implementation in other areas and through review of findings in the scientific literature on transitions from centralized to decentralized urban stormwater management. However, due to time constraints, it was not possible to validate the results through sessions with stakeholders. The interviews were not organized with all of the desired stakeholders, either due to time constraints, since persons of interestes had busy schedules, or since the contacted persons did not answer the request at all (probably due to high political sensitivity of the case). However, the author reached the goal of contacting stakeholders coming from different backgrounds or levels. The interviews were conducted during March, April and May of 2015. During this period, the City was working on documentation for several projects and new ordinances. However, these were not available to the author at the moment of writing this report.

Conclusions and recommendations

120

 

The research findings are based on a specific case study and local context. Hence, the proposed framework should be seen as a first step towards a more generic one. To achieve the idea of the resilient urban areas, other type of stresses should be taken into account. This research only dealt with flooding.

9.2. Conclusions This study was set with the overall objective of proposing an implementation agenda for transforming green infrastructure stormwater management strategies to real projects in Hoboken, New Jersey. The complexity of such an extensive process has been highlighted previously by many authors (Brown, 2005; Gallo et al., 2012; Perales-Momparler et al., 2015; Roy et al., 2008; Van de Meene et al., 2011). However, it is seen that the solutions are proposed mainly in an incremental manner, addressing specific challenges, thus not providing comprehensive approach tracking all stages of the process. To fill in this knowledge gap and reach the overall objective, this research developed an implementation framework, created by balancing the drivers with ways to overcome the barriers for green infrastructure. The results developed in this research offered advancement to the current state of knowledge through the methodological approach, practical and scientific contributions. The methodological approach applied in this research offers a diagnostic tool for cities that can be used to see what are the steps to be taken prior to the implementation process, and thus approach the issue in a systematic manner. The current government and local sewerage authority can use the results when forming their future decisions by understanding what are the needed steps to go from strategy to practice. Furthermore, the results of this research expanded the latest EPA guidance for GI implementation. Finally, the scientific contribution is delivered by contributing to the research field of transitions in urban water systems. The recommendations and enabling pathways for GI uptake have been put in the form of a process, thus providing an overview of the process requirements for operationalizing the strategic planning. In the following, specific research questions will be answered. 9.2.1. Conclusions on the drivers and barriers for green infrastructure The first two research questions involved investigating what are the drivers for change in current stormwater management in Hoboken and what are the main barriers that hinder the implementation process. The conclusions on these two themes are provided below. Need for change Hoboken has a chronic problem with pluvial flash flooding during storm events, as often as on average twice per year (TeamOMA, 2013). The flooding can be attributed to several factors, mainly a high level of imperviousness, low lying topography and combined sewer system with insufficient capacity during wet weather. The flooding issue is more often mentioned, but due to the structure of the combined sewer systems, during combinations of rainfall and high tide on Hudson River, there are also severe environmental impacts caused by CSO’s (on average 100 per year) through 7 outfalls (TeamOMA, 2013). After the devastating impacts of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, Hoboken started following a path towards increasing flood resilency. As a result, two important project were created through which green infrastructure is introduced as a way of decreasing the flood risk and number of CSO’s. Those projects are namely: (1) Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy for Hoboken and (2) Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan. The important charachteristic of Hoboken’s


121

approach is that the planned solutions are seen as a way to solve flooding problems and CSO’s, but also address non- flood related problems in a spirit of multifunctionality. The research conducted a series of semi- structured interviews to gain insights into the main forces driving the GI system and identify factors that are hindering realization of the proposed strategies. Results indicated that barriers do outweight the drivers, but the solid foundations for implementation are set. Furthermore, the results show that stakeholders see a range of possibilities to tackle the identified barriers. Current GI efforts in Hoboken Application of the GI system typology allowed for mapping the social and ecological context in Hoboken to a very detailed scale and presented a clear picture of the status of green infrastructure. The amount of green infrastructure in Hoboken is negligible and so far, no major projects have been delivered. However, due to the presence of many planning actions (Southwest Resiliency Park, City Hall, Washington Street) and strong support for GI, several important projects are expected to be delivered in a short time frame. These projects are funded though the low interest loans from the New Jersey Infrastructure Trust. Hoboken is placed in an unequal GI development trajectory, indicating notable difference in certain parts of the social and ecological systems. The planned actions are exclusively driven by the public sector, whilst strategies place importance on GI in private developments. Drivers The research has seen a need for identification of factors that could facilitate implementation. Hence, different drivers for GI adoption have been determined, divided into: (1) internal social drivers, (2) external social drivers and (3) ecological drivers (Young et al., 2014) Ecological drivers have proven to be very straightforward, shaped by the presence of frequent flooding and environmental impact to the receiving ecosystem by CSO’s. An additional driver was expectation that these events will expedite under a threat of climate change. A crucial moment in Hoboken reconsidering its approach was Hurricane Sandy, after which the window of opportunity for tackling the problem through support for creation of strategies opened. The interesting finding of this study is that the trigger for considering green practices was an event that cannot be mitigated by GI. However, it has been a ‘’wake up call’’ and created a comprehension that the current management of the system is not effective. On the other hand, social drivers were more complex and offered new insights into implementation opportunities. The Major and City Council having green infrastructure at the top of their agendas creates a political buy- in, seen by stakeholders as a crucial enabling factor for all the current GI efforts. This can be explained by the fact that Hurricane Sandy occured during the mandate of the current government, hence making solving flooding problems a priority. The strong support of local government is exemplified through applications for loans, grants, land acquisition efforts, cooperation with project teams and development of the Community Resilience Plan. Even though the survey with local community was impossible to set up to gain insights into their attitudes towards GI, the interviewed stakeholders indicated that the local community is in favour of GI, due to their awareness of flooding problems and requests for more open space and recreational opportunities. This further increases the political buy- in, since the government is interested in meeting community needs. In the light of federal policy and Clean Water Act, the local sewerage authority is obliged to reduce the CSO’s


122

into Hudson River. When taking into account experiences from cities across the US that are advanced in the GI implementation process, it can be noticed that regulatory driver are the strongest ones. Hence, this sets Hoboken on an accelerated track for wider GI adoption. The city government expressing strong support and NHSA having an obligation in decreasing the CSO‘s creates a cooperative climate and fertile ground for GI implementation. It also identifies above mentioned parties as core stakeholders in the implementation process. Furthermore, it makes these two parties beneficiaries of GI, since City will meet its community needs and NHSA will avoid fines for violating the regulations. However, the biggest beneficiary is evidently the local community, especially residents in flood affected areas, through avoidance of flood damages. Barriers Even though the above mentioned drivers are encouraging GI implementation, the existence of many impediments make the task challenging. Thus, the existing typology was expanded by identification of the barriers. In this manners, clearer picture of the local context is created, thus making it easier to determine future actions. The research has identified 5 categories of barriers, namely: (1) technical barriers, (2) physical barriers, (3) financial barriers, (4) institutional barriers and (5) legal and regulatory barriers. Each barrier plays a role in limiting certain aspects of implementation and the view of barriers was depending on the role and perspective of the interviewed stakeholder. However, financial barriers are seen as the most influential hindering factor. There is no steady funding source for green infrastructure implementation and all the current efforts are financed either through grants or low interest loans. However, for the realization of the wider action and proper operation and maintenance, the system cannot rely on grants and loans and needs to have a steady stream of funding. Yet, Hoboken has no stormwater fee nor political support from the State level to introduce it. The domino effect of inability to create incentives to private parties and developers is immediatelly created. Thus, it will be a challenge to motivate private developers to include GI in their developments or to retrofit existing properties. The other approach would be through regulatory compliance. However, Hoboken´s stormwater ordinances are rather limited and do not require green infrastructure. Even though there is a strong will for green infrastructure in Hoboken, the barriers are numerous. Just as for the drivers, it is challenging to determine the ranking of barriers, since it depends on perspective. Furthermore, the overall challenge of implementation is a result of interaction of influences of all the barriers. The desk study revealed that the almost all of the barriers that were identified in Hoboken can be found in the other cities. However, it was confirmed that the uniqueness of the situation places some barriers higher than others in the impediments hierarchy, based on the local context. 9.2.2. Conclusions on the options to move forward/ How can green infrastructure be implemented most effectively? The insight into the drivers and barriers and their origin allowed for the determination of the direction in which the implementation plan needs to be developed. Interviewed stakeholders proposed the ways in which implementation can be realized, but due to the impression that recommendations were not sufficient in approaching the problem in a coherent manner, experiences and best practices from other cities were added. This gave the range of implementation possibilities, categorized as recommendations for overcoming the individual barriers and presented in Chapter 6.


123

Repository of solutions The bottom line is: to facilitate city wide implementation there is a need to deliver significant changes to policy, politics, regulations and the tax system. Policy implications require development of long term planning agendas, through which green infrastructure will be integrated in every part of urban development, especially as a part of capital improvement projects and renewals in redevelopment zones (that present biggest opportunity for large scale GI). Changes in politics require negotiating political buy- in from the State level, but also the establishment of local partnerships and institutionalization of cooperation between the City and NHSA, that can be facilitated through establishment of the Green Infrastructure Task Force Committee. The research indicated that the current regulations are not supportive of GI and that modifications need to be made to local zoning codes and more importantly, stormwater ordinances (by moving towards retention oriented ordinanced). By doing this, the GI program will experience expansion due to the obligations for regulatory compliance. Incentives can be created through modifications of current zoning codes and introduction of performance based zoning. There are several incentives that can be introduced in short term (development incentives, awards and recognition programs, rebates and installation financing) and long term (grants, stormwater fee discounts). Tax changes are needed in the short term and can be facilitated by restructuring the Open Space Tax and ensuring a steady funding source. In the long run, the City should consider introducing a stormwater fee and create an enterprise fund, so that NHSA has access to the funds. Besides the above mentioned more extensive interventions, there is a large number of actions that need to be introduced, like fostering community buy- in for maintenance, ensuring technical skills within the responsible staff, expertise in contractors, provision of guidance documents, development of a tracking system, collection design, construction, costs, maintenance data, data sharing the public and developers, and many more that were proposed in this research. The importance of learning from the successful examples, emphasized by previous research (Barbosa et al., 2012; Wong, 2000) was confirmed in the case of Hoboken. It was discovered that many other US cities (e.g Portland, Philadephia, New York City) have been experiencing similar barriers and thus, developed the effective ways to overcome them. Thus, it can be concluded that looking at experiences from other cities and modifying them to fit the local context presents a valuable tool in advancing the green infrastructure development. Implementation framework After the range of options for overcoming the barriers was devised, the further step was made in creating an implementation process. This was done in order to provide the local decision makers with an image of the future steps needed. This research sees implementation as a process distinguished in three phases: (1) initation phase, (2) uptake phase and (3) standard practice phase. Each of the phases has been divided into steps, and range of activities to be taken and tools needed to operationalize the activies have been proposed. Implementation of a comprehesive strategy will be a complex, long lasting process, depending on various factors and requring changes and efforts on various fronts. Assigning an exact time frame is a challenging task, and estimations from stakeholders were combined with implementation period proposed as a part of RDSD project to estimate a time frame of 50 years. However, it should be noted that the exact period for the implementation will depend on various aspects, starting from commitmment from the City and NHSA and availability of funds to political buy- in from higher levels


124

that will directly dictate the ability to create a steady funding source and provide incentives to encourage the introduction of GI on public properties. Hoboken is currently preparing to enter the demonstration phase through delivery of Southwest Resiliency Park and preparation of several other projects. It can be noted that City is choosing projects that will present no- regret measures. The following demonstration period will be important for the City because it will present a learning opportunity and proof of concept. Thus, it is important to deliver the projects properly and ensure adequate operation and maintanence in order to build on and expand support, both from community and politics. In parallel with demonstration period, several important actions will be on going: the LTCP, next phase of RDSD project and development of Green Building & Environmental Sustainability Element of Master Plan. Thus, these will, through detailed planning and analysis, determine the future path for green infrastructure in Hoboken. Presently, GI implementation in Hoboken is done in an opportunistic manner, depending on the availability of funding sources. Creation of implementation targets would help in creating a more systematic approach, and would allow for setting up exact evaluation criteria. The uptake phase will be the most difficult step in the overall implementation process, since it will require significant efforts on many different fronts (enhanced planning, creation of policies, regulations and financial mechanisms). The overall success of the implementation will depend on the variety of actions taken in this step. The proposed framework is seen as a dynamic process with interconnection within and between the phases. These dynamics are determined by internal and external factors. The internal dynamics are formed by the development in various aspects (e.g institutions, legislations, finances) and are considered through the constant evaluation of the system, that will create an adaptive management approach. The external dynamics depends on the uncertain aspects of the future. Thus, it is important to put emphasis on the learning component of the system, that does not end with the demonstration phase, but rather propagates throughout the system. However, further specifications of the ways learning can be included and facilitated in every step is a subject to further research. The framework developed in this research was analyzed to assess the applicability to other case studies. It was concluded that many elements of the framework are generic and can be replicated (after the readjustment based on the local context) to other case studies. However, the most important lesson for other cities is the though process that was used to develop the framework.

Lesson to be taken from this research To conclude, an old English proverb says: Where there is a will, there is a way. Thus, based on the initial momentum and commitment created in Hoboken it can be concluded that by following the framework outlined, green infrastructure can become an important constituent of future stormwater management in Hoboken.


125

9.3. Recommendations for further research In the following, the future research requirements and improvements to the research process are descirbed: 





 



  







The interviewing process should be enriched by including more stakeholders, especially from the County and State level. Furthermore, it is advised to always interview at least two stakeholders from the organization, to avoid biased opinions. This approach would ask for no time contraints and preferably face to face interviews. The future research should place importance on community input, through arranging questionnaires sent thourg direct mailings or online surveys. It would be interesting to see how community input would influence the structure of the framework developed in this research. The methodology can be expanded by planning on including the multi criteria analysis. Already in the interviewing process, it would be interesting to develop questions in a way that stakeholders assign weights to selected range of options. This would allow for the identification of priority actions. The framework should be validated through a series of workshops and focus groups with interviewed stakeholders. Following that process and received feedback, it should be refined. To test the generic nature of the proposed framework and applicability to other areas, additional case studies of the cities in a similar development stage to Hoboken can be researched. Since there are several other cities in New Jersey expressing interest in GI, the selection of case studies can be on the state level. The framework should be applied to some of the internationally recognized GI champions (e.g. Singapore, Melbourne) to investigate the connection between the elements of the implementation processes between the cities in different stages of transition. An interesting and novel research would be to explore to the details the applicability of financial instruments from energy efficiency retrofit markerts to stormwater retrofits. More research should be done on the dynamics of the implementation process, and the ways through which the proposed actions can be put in a timeframe. The results indicated the importance of the learning process in the framework. However, further research into the ways active learning can be facilitated and used effectively in the process is needed. The urban resilience should be seen in an integrated manner, including other types of external stresses (e.g droughts, soil subsidence). Hence, further research in if these elements can be included (and how) into the framework can be done. The research revealed the importance of Hurricane Sandy as a trigger for the action. Thus, it would be interesting to see what is the influence of the type and intensity of the trigger on the overall realization of the idea of resilient environment. The importance of the GI mainstreaming into capital projects and redevelopment projects has been identified. The further research should be done in how this can be done in the most effective manner, and how the opportunities for such can be identified on time.


126

References Abhold, K., Lorraine, L. & Grumbles, B.,2011, Barriers and gateways to green infrastructure, Clean Water America Alliance http://www.uswateralliance.org/pdfs/gireport.pdf. Allen, W.L. 2012. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Advancing Green Infrastructure at All Scales: From Landscape to Site. Environmental Practice, 14, 17-25. American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects & ECONorthwest,2012, Banking on Green: A look at how green infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide economic benefits communitywide, http://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/B anking%20on%20Green%20HighRes.pdf. ANJEC,2014, 2013 ANJEC Congress highlights: Strenghtening stormwater protection, Flood preparation and response, http://www.anjec.org/pdfs/Winter2014ANJECReport.pdf. Ashley, R., Lundy, L., Ward, S., Shaffer, P., Walker, A., Morgan, C., Saul, A., Wong, T. & Moore, S.,2013, Water-sensitive urban design: opportunities for the UK, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer, ICE Publishing, pp. 65-76. Ashley, R., Newman, R., Molyneux- Hodgson, S. & Blanksby, J. 2008, Active learning: building the capacity to adapt urban drainage to climate change, 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage,, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK,. Bailin, D.,2014, Hoboken's Post- Sandy Resilience Learning from the Past, Rebuilding for the Future, Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/center-for-science-anddemocracy/hoboken-case-study-final.pdf. Barbosa, A., Fernandes, J. & David, L. 2012. Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management. Water research, 46, 6787-6798. Blick, S.A.K. & FredSkupien, J.J.,2004, New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection http://www.state.nj.us/dep/stormwater/bmp_manual2.htm. Bloomberg, M.,2011, PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York, City of New York http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/downloads/pdf/publications/planyc_2011_planyc_full_repo rt.pdf. Bowman, T. & Thompson, J. 2009. Barriers to implementation of low-impact and conservation subdivision design: Developer perceptions and resident demand. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92, 96-105. Brenzel, K. 2013. "Hoboken ranked No.1 walkable City in United States." Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/11/hoboken_scored_most_walkable_city_in_the_ country.html. Brown, R., Keath, N. & Wong, T. 2009. Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future regimes. Water Science& Technology, 847- 855. Brown, R., Sharp, L. & Ashley, R.,2005, Implementation impediments to instutionalizing the practice of sustainable urban water management, 10th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Copenhagen,. Denmark. Brown, R.R. 2005. Impediments to integrated urban stormwater management: the need for institutional reform. Environmental management, 36, 455-468. Brown, R.R. 2008. Local institutional development and organizational change for advancing sustainable urban water futures. Environmental management, 41, 221-233.


127

Brown, R.R. & Farrelly, M.A. 2009. Delivering sustainable urban water management: a review of the hurdles we face. Water science and technology, 59, 839. Bykowski, J.,2013a, Historic Waters: Re- imaging Hoboken's Engineered Landscape, MSc Thesis, Rutgers University http://cues.rutgers.edu/hoboken-block-byblock/pdfs/Historic_Waters_5_1_2013.pdf. Bykowski, J., Hoefer, W. & Ravit, B.,2013, Hoboken City Hall Sustainable Stormwater Demonstration Project Concept Plan, Center for Urban Environmental Sustainability, Rutgers University http://www.njfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Hoboken-City-Hall-SustainableStormwater-Demonstration-Project-Concept-Plan.pdf. Campbell, C.W.,2014, Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2014, Bowling Green http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/wku_stormwater_survey_2014_finalversion.pdf. Carlet, F. 2015. Understanding attitudes toward adoption of green infrastructure: A case study of US municipal officials. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 65-76. Cettner, A., Ashley, R., Hedström, A. & Viklander, M. 2014. Assessing receptivity for change in urban stormwater management and contexts for action. Journal of environmental management, 146, 29-41. CH2MHILL,2013, Regional Green Infrastructure Plan- Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, P8600 http://www.freshcoast740.com/PDF/final/MMSDGIP_Final.pdf. City of Chicago,2014, City of Chicago Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategy, http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/progs/env/ChicagoGreenStormwaterInfrastr uctureStrategy.pdf. City of Hoboken 2013a. "Community Invited to Public Workshop to Develop Green Element of Master Plan." Retrieved April 4, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/2013/04/community-invitedto-public-workshop-to-develop-green-element-of-master-plan/. City of Hoboken 2013b. "Hoboken Shade Tree Commission." Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/boards/stc/. City of Hoboken 2014a. "Public Invited to Two Meeting for proposed Park Space at Pino Site Property." Retrieved May 6, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/2014/05/public-invited-to-twomeetings-for-proposed-park-space-at-pino-site-property/. City of Hoboken 2014b "City of Hoboken receives Approval for Loan to Build Flood Pump." Retrieved May 6, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/2014/08/city-of-hoboken-receives-approvalfor-loan-to-build-flood-pump/. City of Hoboken,2014d, Hoboken Yard Redevelopment Plan, http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Hoboken-Yard-Redevelopment-PlanOctober-2014.pdf. City of Hoboken 2015a. "Council." Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/council/. City of Hoboken 2015b. "Resiliency." Retrieved April 28 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/resiliency/. City of Hoboken 2015c. "UN & Dutch Delegation to Present Mayor Zimmer With Role Model City Recognition." Retrieved may 7, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/2015/04/un-dutchdelegation-to-present-mayor-zimmer-with-role-model-city-recognition/. City of Hoboken 2015d. "Public Meeting to be Held for First Street Streetscape Improvements, CityWide Wayfinding & Branding Project." from http://www.hobokennj.org/2015/01/publicmeeting-to-be-held-for-first-street-streetscape-improvements-city-wide-wayfinding-brandingproject/. City of Hoboken 2015e. "Rain Barrel Installation Workshop." Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/greenteam/rainbarrel/.

References

128

City of Melbourne,2014, City of Melbourne :WSUD Guidelines - Applying the Model WSUD Guidelines: An Initiative of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan http://urbanwater.melbourne.vic.gov.au/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/WSUD_Guidelines-1.pdf. Clements, J., St Juliana, A. & Levine, L.,2013, The Green Edge: How Commercial Property Investment in Green Infrastructure Creates Value, http://www.nrdc.org/water/files/commercial-valuegreen-infrastructure-report.pdf. Climate Data 2015. "Hoboken, NJ." Retrieved May 11, 2015, from http://en.climatedata.org/location/18954/. Cruijsen, A.,2015. Design opportunities for flash flood reduction by improving the quality of the living environment: A Hoboken City case study of environmental driven urban water management. MSc Thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. De Bruijn, K.M.,2005. Resilience and flood risk management: a systems approach applied to lowland rivers. PhD Thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. de Haan, F.J., Rogers, B.C., Frantzeskaki, N. & Brown, R.R. 2015. Transitions through a lens of urban water. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 15, 1-10. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Bhave, A., Mittal, N., Feliu, E. & Faehnle, M. 2014. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multiscale assessment of green urban infrastructure. Journal of environmental management, 146, 107-115. Duffy, A. & Jefferies, C.,2011, Research Report: Developing a Framework to guide Urban Water Systems Transition (SWITCH deliverable D1.3.3), http://www.switchurbanwater.eu/outputs/pdfs/W13_GEN_MAN_D1.3.3_SWITCH_Transition_Framework.pdf. Economides, C.,2014, Green Infrastructure: Sustainable Solutions in 11 Cities across the United States, http://water.columbia.edu/files/2014/04/Green_Infrastructure_FINAL.pdf. EFB Associates,2010, City of Hoboken Reexamination Report, New palz, New Jersey http://hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Hoboken-Reex-2010-Final.pdf. Emmanuel, R. & Loconsole, A. 2015. Green infrastructure as an adaptation approach to tackling urban overheating in the Glasgow Clyde Valley Region, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 7186. Emmet Environmental Law & Policy Clinic and the Environmental Policy Initiative,2014, Certifications for Green Infrastructure Professionals- The Current Syaye, Recommended Best Practices, and What Governments Can Do to Help, Harvard Law School, Cambridge http://environment.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/certifications-greeninfrastructure-professionals.pdf. EmNet,2011, Sewer Monitoring Program Observations and Data Analysis, City of Hoboken http://www.njfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Hoboken-Emnet-Sewer-MonitoringStudy-2011-Final-Report.pdf. EmNET,2013, Final Report: An Evaluation of I/I and Ilicit Flow in West New York, NJ and Flood Mitigation in Hoboken, North Hudson Sewerage Authority http://www.nhudsonsa.com/docs/Hoboken_Flooding_Analysis_and_WNY_Illicit_Flow_Analysi s_2013.pdf. Farrelly, M. & Brown, R.,2008, Professional perceptions on institutional drivers and barriers to advancing diverse water options in Australia, Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Urban Drainage. Edinburgh. Farrelly, M. & Brown, R. 2011. Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global environmental change, 21, 721-732. Featherstone, J., Cammarata, M., Neukrug, H. & Devine, W.,2011, Creating a Sustainable City: Philadelphia’s Green City Clean Waters Program, 47th ISOCARP Congress.


129

Ferguson, B.C., Brown, R.R. & Deletic, A. 2013. Diagnosing transformative change in urban water systems: Theories and frameworks. Global environmental change, 23, 264-280. Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Trowsdale, S., Barraud, S., Semadeni-Davies, A. & Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L. 2014. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more–The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, 118. Foster, J., Lowe, A. & Winkelman, S.,2011, The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation, http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-ClimateAdaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf. Freas, K., van der Tak, L., Kepke, J., Pasteris, P. & Karney, P. 2011. Confronting Climate Change: An Early Analysis of Water and Wastewater Adaptation Costs Through 2050. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2011, 871-897. Gallo, C., Moore, A. & Wywrot, J. 2012. Comparing the adaptability of infiltration based BMPs to various US regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 326-335. Garrison, N., Hobbs, K. & Natural Resources Defense Council 2011. Rooftops to Rivers II: Green strategies for controlling stormwater and combined sewer overflows. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY, 1-134. Green, J. 2013. "The New Philadelphia Story is About Green Infrastrcuture." Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://dirt.asla.org/2013/12/18/the-new-philadelphia-story-is-about-greeninfrastructure/. Hahn, R.W. & Stavins, R.N. 1991. Incentive-based environmental regulation: A new era from an old idea. Ecology LQ, 18, 1. Hammitt, S.A.,2010. Toward sustainable stormwater management: overcoming barriers to green infrastructure. MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Hoboken Planning Board,2004, City of Hoboken Master Plan, Hoboken, NJ: City of Hoboken http://www.hobokennj.org/washingtonstreet/files/hoboken-master-plan-2004.pdf. Hoornweg, D., Bhada, P., Freire, M., Trejos, C. & Sugar, L.,2010, Cities and climate change: an urgent agenda, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUWM/Resources/3402321205330656272/CitiesandClimateChange.pdf. Horton et al 2015. New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Chapter 1: Climate Observations and Projections. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 1336, 18-35. Houle, J.J., Roseen, R.M., Ballestero, T.P., Puls, T.A. & Sherrard Jr, J. 2013. Comparison of maintenance cost, labor demands, and system performance for LID and conventional stormwater management. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 139, 932-938. IPCC,2013, Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)], Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf. Jaffe, E. 2014. "The Water Next Time: How nature itself could become a city’s best defense against extreme weather." Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-water-next-time/382242/. Jeffrey, P. & Gearey, M. 2006. Integrated water resources management: lost on the road from ambition to realisation? Water science and technology, 53, 1-8. LaBadie, K.,2010. Identifying barriers to low impact development and green infrastructure in the Albuquerque Area. MSc Thesis, The University of New Mexico.

References

130

Lee, S. & Yigitcanlar, T. 2010. Sustainable urban stormwater management: water sensitive urban design perceptions, drivers and barriers. Rethinking Sustainable Development: Urban Management, Engineering, and Design, 26-37. Li, T.H., Ng, S.T. & Skitmore, M. 2012. Public participation in infrastructure and construction projects in China: From an EIA-based to a whole-cycle process. Habitat International, 36, 47-56. Liao, K.-H. 2012. A Theory on Urban Resilience to Floods--A Basis for Alternative Planning Practices. Ecology and Society, 17, 48. Lloyd, S.D., Wong, T.H. & Chesterfield, C.J.,2002, Water sensitive urban design: a stormwater management perspective Industry Report, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology http://ewater.org.au/archive/crcch/archive/pubs/pdfs/industry200210.pdf. Louis Berger LB 2015. "Louis Berger- supported Hoboken green infrastructure plan wins outstanding plan award." Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.louisberger.com/news/louis-bergersupported-hoboken-green-infrastructure-plan-wins-outstanding-plan-award. Madden, S.S.A.,2010. Choosing green over gray: Philadelphia's innovative stormwater infrastructure plan. MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Madureira, H., Nunes, F., Oliveira, J.V., Cormier, L. & Madureira, T. 2015. Urban residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 56-64. Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T. & Yohe, G.W.,2014, Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment, National Climate Assessment http://s3.amazonaws.com/nca2014/low/NCA3_Full_Report_02_Our_Changing_Climate_LowR es.pdf?download=1. MicKenzie Roberts,2014, Stormwater Utilities: A funding solution for New Jersey's Stormwater Problem, NJ Future http://www.njfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/New-JerseyFuture-Stormwater-Utilities-Report.pdf. NACWA,2009, Confronting Climate Change: An Early Analysis of Water and Wastewater Adaptation Costs Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies http://www.amwa.net/galleries/climatechange/ConfrontingClimateChangeOct09.pdf. Netusil, N.R., Levin, Z., Shandas, V. & Hart, T. 2014. Valuing green infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 14-21. New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Fund 2015. "General Information." Retrieved May 9, 2015, from http://www.njeit.org/general-information/general/about-us. New Jersey Statuatory Authority,2010, Stormwater Management Rules, http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_8.pdf. NJ Future,2014, Ripple Effects: The State of Water Infrastructure in New Jersey Cities and Why it Matters, NJ Future http://www.njfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/RIPPLE-EFFECTSFinal.pdf. NJDEP 2015a. "Long Term Control Plans." Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.nj.gov/dep/dwq/cso-longtermplans.htm. NJDEP 2015b. "Christie Administration Issues Permits to Improve Water Quality in Urban Areas." Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2015/15_0023.htm. North Hudson Sewerage Authority,2012, North Hudson Sewerage Authority Requirements and Checklist for Sanitary, Stormwater and Dewatering Connections, http://www.nhudsonsa.com/Sewer/docs/Connection%20Review%20Checklist%202013.pdf. NRDC,2013, Green Infrastructure in New Jersey- The Current State of Implementation, Natural Resoruces Defense Council http://docs.nrdc.org/water/files/wat_13102801a.pdf. NYC Department of Environmental Protection,2010, NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A sustainable strategy for clean waterways, The City of New York - Office of Mayor & Department of


131

Environmental Protection http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_Executi veSummary.pdf. Olorunkiya, J., Fassman, E. & Wilkinson, S. 2012. Risk: A fundamental barrier to the implementation of low impact design infrastructure for urban stormwater control. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5, p27. Pachauri, R.K., Allen, M., Barros, V., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., Church, J., Clarke, L., Dahe, Q. & Dasgupta, P. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B. & Knieper, C. 2010. Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the management and transition framework. Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 571-581. Parikh, P., Taylor, M.A., Hoagland, T., Thurston, H. & Shuster, W. 2005. Application of market mechanisms and incentives to reduce stormwater runoff: An integrated hydrologic, economic and legal approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 133-144. Perales-Momparler, S., Andrés-Doménech, I., Andreu, J. & Escuder-Bueno, I. 2015. A regenerative urban stormwater management methodology: the journey of a Mediterranean city. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1-16. Public Utility Board Singapore,2011, ABC Waters Design Guidelines, PUB http://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/abcwatersdesignguidelines/Documents/ABCWatersDesign Guidelines_2011.pdf. Re. Invest Initative,2015, Re Invest Feasibility Study Hoboken, http://www.reinvestinitiative.org/reports/RE.invest_Hoboken-City-Report.pdf. Rebuild by Design 2013. "Rethink Resilience." Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/. Rijke, J.,2007. Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management–Case studies in Melbourne and the Netherlands. MSc thesis, October 2007, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Rijke, J., Brown, R., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., Farrelly, M., Morison, P. & van Herk, S. 2012a. Fit-forpurpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environmental Science & Policy, 22, 73-84. Rijke, J., Farrelly, M., Brown, R. & Zevenbergen, C. 2013. Configuring transformative governance to enhance resilient urban water systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 25, 62-72. Rijke, J., van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C. & Ashley, R. 2012b. Room for the River: delivering integrated river basin management in the Netherlands. International journal of river basin management, 10, 369-382. Rijke, J.S.,2014, Delivering change: Towards fit-for-purpose governance of adaptation to flooding and drought, 1138026336, PhD Thesis, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. & van Asselt, M. 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3, 15-31. Roy, A.H., Wenger, S.J., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., Ladson, A.R., Shuster, W.D., Thurston, H.W. & Brown, R.R. 2008. Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States. Environmental management, 42, 344-359. Salinas Rodriguez, C.N., Ashley, R., Gersonius, B., Rijke, J., Pathirana, A. & Zevenbergen, C. 2014. Incorporation and application of resilience in the context of water‐sensitive urban design: linking European and Australian perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1, 173186.

References

132

SEPA 2015. "Diffuse pollution in the urban environment (SUDS)." Retrieved March 4, 2015, from http://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/water/diffuse-pollution/diffuse-pollution-in-the-urbanenvironment/. Shuster, W.D., Morrison, M.A. & Webb, R. 2008. Front-loading urban stormwater management for success–a perspective incorporating current studies on the implementation of retrofit lowimpact development. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 1, 8. Spatari, S., Yu, Z. & Montalto, F.A. 2011. Life cycle implications of urban green infrastructure. Environmental Pollution, 159, 2174-2179. Syracuse University 2015. "Education and Outreach on Green Infrastructure." Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://efc.syracusecoe.org/efc/projects.html?skuvar=24. TeamOMA,2013, Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A comprehensive urban water strategy, New York City http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=OMA_IP_Briefing_Book.pdf. The Philadelphia Water Department,2011, Green City, Clean Waters: Implementation and Adaptive Management Plan, http://phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/IAMP_body.pdf. The Philadelphia Water Department,2012, Green City, Clean Waters Comprehensive Monitoring Plan, The Philadelphia Water Department http://phillywatersheds.org/ltcpu/GCCW%20Comprehensive%20Monitoring%20Plan%20Secti ons%201-10.pdf. Tian, S.,2011. Managing stormwater runoff with green infrastructure: Exploring practical strategies to overcome barriers in citywide implementation. MSc, University of Nebraska- Lincoln. Timmermans, J. 2009. Interactive actor analysis for rural water management in The Netherlands: an application of the transactional approach. Water resources management, 23, 1211-1236. Together North Jersey,2013, Hoboken Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan, http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Hoboken-Green-Infrastructure-StrategicPlan.pdf. United States Census Bureau 2013a. "Hoboken, New Jersey." Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/3432250.html. United States Census Bureau 2013b. "State and County Quick Facts- Hoboken." Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/3432250.html. USEPA,1995, Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance For Nine Minumum Controls, United States Environmental Protection Agency http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/1995-09-ltcp-guidepa-832-B-95-002.pdf. USEPA,2003, Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff 847-F-03-003, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nps_urban-facts_final.pdf. USEPA,2007, Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/2008_01_02_NPS_lid_costs07uments_reducing stormwatercosts-2.pdf. USEPA,2009a, Managing wet weather with green infrastructure Municipal Handbook: Incentive Mechanisms, United States Environmental Protection Agency http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/gi_munichandbook_incentive s.pdf. USEPA,2009b, Water Quality Scorecard: Incorporating Green Infrastructure Practices at the Municipal, Neighborhood, and Site Scales http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201404/documents/water-quality-scorecard.pdf. USEPA,2010, Green Infrastructure case studies: Municipal policies for managing stormwater with green infrastructure, United States Environmental Protection Agency


133

http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/Documents/SCI/Report_Guide/Guide_EPA_GICaseSt udiesReduced4.pdf. USEPA,2013a, Green infrastructure opportunities and barriers in the greater Los Angeles region: an evaluation of State and Regional Regulatory drivers that influence the costs and benefits of green infrastructure, United States Environmental Protection Agency http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/Council_Watershed_Health_ GI_Report.pdf. USEPA,2013b, Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/lid-gi-programs_report_8-6-13_combined.pdf. USEPA,2013c, Green Infrastructure Barriers and Opportunities in Camden, New Jersey: An Evaluation of Local Codes and Ordinances, http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/Camden_GI_Evaluation.pdf. USEPA,2014a, The Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure: A Case Study of Lancaster, PA, United States Environmental Protection Agency http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/CNT-Lancaster-Report508.pdf. USEPA,2014b, Greening CSO Plans: Planning and Modelling Green Infrastructure for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control United States Environmental Protection Agency http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/upload/Greening_CSO_Plans.PDF. USEPA,2014c, Getting to Green: Paying for Green Infrastructure Financing Options and Resources for Local Decision Makers, United States Environmental Protection Agency http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/gi_financing_options_122014_4.pdf. USEPA,2015a, Green Infrastructure Opportunities that Arise During Municipal Operations, United States Environmental Protection Agency http://epa.gov/owow/ocpd/green_infrastructure_roadshow.pdf. USEPA 2015b. "What is Green Infrastructure?". Retrieved March 4, 2015, from http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm. USEPA 2015c. "Laws and Regulations Summary of Clean Water Act." Retrieved April 3, 2015, from http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act. Valderrama et al,2012, Financing Stormwater Retrofits in Philadephia and Beyond, Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/water/files/stormwaterfinancing-report.pdf. van Abs, D.J.,2014, Water Infrastructure in New Jersey's CSO Cities: Elevating the importance of upgrading New Jersey's urban water systems, New Jersey Future, New Bruswick http://www.njfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VanAbs_Urban-Water-InfrastructureReport-Revised-Final-June-2014.pdf. Van de Meene, S., Brown, R. & Farrelly, M. 2011. Towards understanding governance for sustainable urban water management. Global environmental change, 21, 1117-1127. van Herk, S., Rijke, J., Zevenbergen, C. & Ashley, R. 2013. Understanding the transition to integrated flood risk management in the Netherlands. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. Veerbeek, W., Ashley, R., Zevenbergen, C., Rijke, J. & Gersonious, B.,2012, Building adaptive capacity for floodproofing in urban areas through synergistic interventions, Proceedings of the 7th International Con-ference on Water Sensitive Urban Design, Melbourne, Australia 21-21 February 2012. Voskamp, I. & Van de Ven, F. 2015. Planning support system for climate adaptation: Composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events. Building and Environment, 83, 159-167.

References

134

Wikipedia 2015. "Hoboken, New Jersey." Retrieved August 25, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoboken,_New_Jersey#Government_and_public_service. Wong, T. 2000. Improving urban stormwater quality-from theory to implementation. Journal of the Australian Water Association, 27, 28-31. Worstell, C.,2013, Green Infrastructure in the State of New Jersey: Statutory and Regulatory Barriers to Green Infrastructure Implementation, http://www.njfuture.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/New-Jersey-Future-Statutory-Regulatory-Barriers-to-GreenInfrastructure-in-NJ.pdf. Young, R., Zanders, J., Lieberknecht, K. & Fassman-Beck, E. 2014. A comprehensive typology for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 2571-2583. Zevenbergen, C., Cashman, A., Evelpidou, N., Pasche, E., Garvin, S. & Ashley, R.,2012. Urban flood management. CRC Press. Zimmer, M. 2015. "Mayor Zimmer Council 27.2.2015." Retrieved May 6, 2015, from http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/mayor/2-27-15-Memo-Zimmer-Council.pdf.


135

Appendices

Appendices

136

Appendix A Description of individual green stormwater infrastructure measures Appendix A offers a short description of several green stormwater infrastructure measures. The GI measures are numerous, hence the selection is made to present only the measures that are part of RDSD and Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan. Permeable pavements The main advantage of permeable pavements is that these systems allow for infiltration of the stormwater in the subsurface. Installation of permeable pavements in urban areas present an opportunity for GI introduction, since large areas in the cities are composed of roads, driveways and parking lots (City of Melbourne, 2014). Below porous surface there are several layers of engineered soil. Implementation of porous pavements in urban areas helps in decreasing total impervious coverage, purifies stormwater filtering through sub soil, fosters groundwater recharge and decreases the amount of water entering drainage systems. Furthermore, it increases the spatial and aestetic potential.

Figure A.1 Permeable pavement (www.pathwaycaffee.com)

Stormwater trees/ infiltration planter Trees in urban settings are important link in mitigating the effects of urban heat island and cleaning the air. In addition, trees can serve as a part of stormwater infrastructure. By combining natural retention features of the trees (interception by the leaves and canopy) with smart design of tree pits, trees offer inexpensive and effective GI facility. The street pits can be designed with structured soils to allow for infilatration and thus manage stormwater from surrouding surfaces. Rather than merely offering financial viable solution, these techniques do not require a lot of space, which is an important advantage in densely built urban areas. Additionally, trees beautify the urban landscape.


137

Figure A.2 Stormwater tree planter (www.phillywatersheds.org)

Vegetated swales Vegetated swales are widely used in urban areas and serve several functions: detention of stormwater, conveyance of water and sedimentation (Public Utility Board Singapore, 2011). With their function, they can meet water quanitity (through decrease in water velocity) and water quality objectives. Very often, they are applied in urban areas, since they can be easily incorporated into local streets (for road runoff), parks and gardens (City of Melbourne, 2014). Special importance of vegetated swales is in using vegetation and process of particles sedimentation to purify the collected stormwater.

Figure A.3 Vegetated swale (www.watershedmanagement.vt.org)

Rainwater harversting/ Stormwater collection Stormwater collection systems of interest in this work are mainly rain barrels. The standard role of rain barrels is collection of the stormwater from rooftops via rain gutter. Hence, these systems are directly linked with downspout disconnection programs in residential areas. The water stored in rain barrel can be used for several purposes (e.g. gardening, car washing). These measures are easily implementated at a site scale, and have important advantage in being simple to maintain.

Appendices

138

Figure A.4 Rain barrel (www.rv-orchidworks.com)

Rain gardens Rain gardens are one of the most often implemented GI measures. The main underlying idea is to provide vegetated depression that will allow for collection of stormwater from surrounding surfaces. The collected stormwater is treated by vegetation and by subsurface infiltration. By applying creative designs, rain gardens can be employed in various settings: as a part of parks, parkings, streetscapes. Furthermore, they can be combined with stormwater trees and incorporated as a part of street pit. Limiting factor in many urban areas is that rain gardens require flat slopes. As other described measures, rain gardens improve landscape characteristics.

Figure A.5 Rain garden (www.apwa.net)

Green Roof Green roofs are designed to retain or detain rainfall at the top of the buildings, on otherwise traditional roofs. The are numerous ancilliary benefits provided by green roofs, such as improved air quality, heat island mitigation, reduction of energy costs to improved stormwater management. Green roofs can decrease the amount of rainfall entering stormwater system by retaining certain percentage and can also improve water quality. Two main types of green roofs are intensive and extensive, depending on type of vegetation and soil layer depth. These roofs can be implemented on various


139

types of buildings, from small private properties to large industrial buildings. However, there are some constraints related to the suitable roof slopes.

Figure A.6 Green roof (www.greencitygrowers.com)

Constructed Wetlands Constructed wetlands are a standard green stormwater infrastructure measure in many urban areas, constructed as a shallow planted areas filled with water. These measures have high potential in treating stormwater runoff by sedimentation and biological uptake and additionally serve as a retention system (Public Utility Board Singapore, 2011). Furthermore, constructed wetlands increase aesthetic identity to the area.

Figure A.7 Urban constructed wetland (www.domusweb.it)

Bio retention swales Bioswales are in principle similar systems to above described vegetated swales, with a main difference being addition of extended detention feature and allowance of infilatration in the system. Once when the runoff is infilltrated, it is being collected by a perforated pipe and taken to the further system (Public Utility Board Singapore, 2011). The system is constructed of few layers of engineered soil, with peforated pipe being in the third and final later. Same as vegatates swales, these system are attractive solution for urban areas, since they can be easiliy incorporated in the existing urban settings and can add on the aesthetic quality of the landscape.

Appendices

140

Figure A.8 Bioswale (www.water.epa.gov)


141

Appendix B Cover Letter for the Interviews Dear Name Surname, My name is Robert Sakic Trogrlic and I am currently writing my final MSc thesis at UNESCO-IHE and Royal HaskoningDHV, both located in The Netherlands. I was advised by Name Surname to contact you regarding an interview for my research about the implementation of green infrastructure in Hoboken. The name of my thesis is From Vision to Reality: Making Cities Flood Resilient by Implementing Green Infrastructure Strategies (case study Hoboken, New Jersey). Based on the insights of the key stakeholders of urban water management in Hoboken, the research project has the objective to deliver an implementation plan for green infrastructure in Hoboken. The research aims to answer key questions:   

Why is there a need for change in current stormwater management practice? What are the main barriers in implementation of GI strategies in Hoboken? How can these barriers be overcome?

Are you willing to take part in a phone interview of 30-60 minutes? If so, could you suggest a time that suits you best? If it is more convenient for you to give the answers in the written form, I can send you the questions. Furthermore, if you have any other contact to recommend I would be very grateful. All interview data will remain anonymous and confidential. If you require more information on my research please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time. Your input is very much appreciated and wanted. Kind regards, Robert Sakic Trogrlic UNESCO IHE Institute for Water Education/ Royal HaskoningDHV Graduate Student in Flood Risk Management [email protected] [email protected] +31-61-143-8293

Appendices

142

Appendix C Interview Questions The questions are dividied into three groups, and were asked based on the background of the interviewee. First group of questions (1-7) presented core questions, second and third was depending on the information provided when answering to Group 1 of questions. 1. In your opinion, how important it is to implement green infrastructure across Hoboken and similar highly urbanized areas? 2. What would you identify as a biggest driver for green infrastructure implementation in Hoboken? 3. What do you see as biggest barriers for implementing and mainstreaming of green infrastructure ` practices in Hoboken? 4. In your opinion, how to overcome these barriers? 5. Do you think that present policies, ordinances, institutional structure, available guidances can effectively enable city wide application of green infrastructure? 6. If you or your organization are directly influenced by green infrastructure implementation, how do you see your role in the process? 7. In your opinion, what is a timeframe for the implementation of the city wide strategy? 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

What is the approval process for green infrastructure? Opinion on the costs of implementation? Who should be paying for Green Infrastructure? What are the challenged and opportunities you see in shifting from centrally maintained system to more decentralized operation and maintenance? Opinion on the issues of responsibilities and costs of maintenance? Are there financial incentives to promote green infrastructure practices on private properties? Available land for implementation (public/ private properties issues, right of ways)? What is the state of cooperation between different City Departments (Development Department, Transportation and Parking Department, Department of Environmental Services)? In your opinion, how is the success of already implemented demonstration projects? Is there an obvious disagreement between zoning ordinances and green infrastructure? What is the community perception and state of knowledge regarding green infrastructure?

19. What advice you have for the cities wanting to implement green infrastructure strategies? What are the first few steps you would recommend? 20. How would you judge the state of the knowledge in science related to green infrastructure strategy versus the actual application and state of the knowledge in practice? 21. What exact approach from your own projects would you advise to be considered for Hoboken?


143

Appendix D Hoboken Zoning Map

Figure D.1 Hoboken’s Zoning Map (source: www.hobokennj.org)

Appendices

144

Appendix E Nine Minimum Controls and contents of the Long Term Control Plan In the Table E.1, the short description of the contents of the Combined Sewer Overflow Policy is presented. Table E.1 Nine Minimum Controls and contects of Long Term Control Plan (adapted from USEA, 1995 and NJDEP, 2015)

The Nine Minimum Controls Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system and CSO outfalls Maximum use of collection system for storage Review and modification of pretreatment requirements to ensure that CSO impacts are minimized

Long Term Control Plan Characterization, monitoring, and modeling activities as the basis for selection and design of effective CSO controls A public participation process that actively involves the affected public in the decision-making to select long-term CSO controls Consideration of sensitive areas as the highest priority for controlling overflows

Evaluation of alternatives that will enable the permittee, in Maximization of flow to the POTW for consultation with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System treatment permitting authority, Water Quality Standards authority, and the public, to select CSO controls that will meet CWA requirements Elimination of CSOs during dry Cost/performance considerations to demonstrate the relationships weather among a comprehensive set of reasonable control alternatives Control of solid and floatable materials Operational plan revisions to include agreed-upon long-term CSO in CSOs controls Pollution prevention programs to Maximization of treatment at the existing Publically Owned Treatment reduce containments in CSOs Works treatment plant for wet weather flows Public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification An implementation schedule for CSO controls of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts Monitoring to effectively characterize A post-construction compliance monitoring program adequate to CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO verify compliance with water quality-based CWA requirements and controls ascertain the effectiveness of CSO controls

In the light of this research, it is interesting to analyze how green infrastructure measures fit in Combined Sewer Overflow Policy. Both EPA and NJDEP encourage the use of green infrastructure for the reduction and elimination of CSO’s to the maximum extent possible and whenever appropriate, taking into account specific site characteristics, costs and performance (NJDEP, 2015a; USEPA, 2014b). As a part of 9 minimum controls, GI measures can contribute to the control of runoff volume, quantity and quality. Various techniques, such as green roofs and infiltration trenches can delay or detain the stormwater entering the collection system, and by that increase the available stormwater storage capacity. Already in 1995, before the wide spread application of innovative stormwater management practices, EPA recommended the use of GI in Guidance for LCTP’s, recognizing the potential of source control measures to reduce investmens downstream of the measure (USEPA, 1995). When including and evaluating GI in LCTP’s control alternatives , the following factors need to be taken into consideration: soil characteristics, land use and ownership, local buy- in, topography, financing and institutional factors, redevelopment rate, GI on private properties and opportunities presented by partnerships (USEPA, 1995).


145

Appendix F Green Infrastructure in Hoboken’s Master Plan In the Table F.1, the synthesis of the extent to which green infrastructure is present in the current Master Plan is given. Table F.1 Green Infrastructure in Hoboken’s Master Plan (2004) and Master Plan Reexamination Report (2010)

City of Hoboken Master Plan, 2004 The master plan acknowledges a lack of vegetated areas and open space in the City of Hoboken. One of the main aims of a plan is to increase the current 30 acres of park coverage to 60 acres in 15 years. New open spaces in the city at different scales are proposed in three different sets: green connections (circuit of parks and recreational amenities), green plazas and green design (more sustainable and environmentally friendly lots, roofs and streets). The opportunity for realizing more green areas is seen in occupying and utilizing roofs over parking garages and public schools for recreation and other amenities. The areas for new public spaces are limited in a highly urbanized city. Therefore, the plan advises public acquisition of undeveloped parcels, especially in the northwest portion of the City. Green infrastructure should be required in new development to create sustainable Hoboken. The plan strongly recommends green roofs due to multiple benefits (runoff alleviation, shade, urban heat island mitigation). It calls for the provision of rear yard trees and additional street trees. Underground stormwater management facilities in new parks are advised. The plan encourages incorporation of US Green Building Council´s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design) Rating System. Environmentally sensitive and sustainable design should be promoted. The drainage problems in City should be tackled, especially in areas located in flood zones. All urban development in flood zones shall comply with requirements and the Plan proposes tax increment financing for financing of sewer and drainage improvements. The Zoning Board should incorporate zoning regulations in order to reduce the amount of impervious coverage. Also, development of new surface parking lots should be discouraged and prohibited, together with upgrading the requirements in landscaping of existing off street parking lots. Stormwater management policies and regulations for new development requiring stormwater management plans for new developments and redevelopment. Existing combined sanitary and sewer storm system shall be replaces, with emphasis on southwest portion of the City. City of Hoboken Master Plan Reexamination, 2010 Climate change has significant impact as is a part of everyday debate. Hoboken, as a coastal city built on wetlands and in flood prone zone. With the expected storm frequencies, City´s problems with flooding, CSO´s and aging infrastructure are expected to put additional pressure. These challenges need to be tackled. The Mayor sees ´´greening´´ of the City as a priority. In order to approach the problem in holistic and coordinated manner, creation of the Green Part element of Master Plan is advised. From 2004 to 2010 park areas have been increased from 30 to 48 acres. The parks should serve as recreational facilities but also as components of a larger system of green infrastructure. The reexamination report corrected and updated The Open Space element, where all existing parks and open spaces have been mapped, in addition to proposed and planned parks. The discussion on climate change adaptation strategies and its relation to infrastructure should be initiated. To mitigate the flooding issues, it is advised: nonstructural management of stormwater, improved green infrastructure, urban agriculture, permaculture, porous pavements, structural soils, progressive storage systems, comprehensive native street tree infrastructure, constructed wetlands, as much pervious coverage as possible, submersible flood pumps, on site stormwater mitigation by

Appendices

146

complying with Stormwater Management Rules, intensively apply state of the art technologies and best management practices, green elements as requirements or in exchange for bonuses, incorporating assumptions on rising sea levels into planning, zoning and urban design considerations.

The Reexamination Report states that in a longer term, separation of the combined sewer system should be seen as a solution. However, in short term, promotion and requirement for rain gardens, green roofs, cisterns and gray water systems should be applied. The City adopted Stormwater Management Plan in 2006, and the Open Space Tax for the Open Space Trust Fund has been introduced. The Fund will be used to acquire and develop new land for the introduction of more parks.

In direct comparison of Master Plan and Reexamination Report, it is evident that the City is putting effort and seeing greening as the priority. The awareness of possible climate change impacts to the City and the need for adequate mitigation measures is present. Since laws require reexamination of the master plan each 6 years, it can be expected that the next update of the Master plan will put more emphasis on green infrastructure, in the light of the decisive approach City is taking at the moment in solving flooding issues.


147

Appendix G Description of planned projects in Hoboken This appendix bring the overview and description of the currently planned projects in Hoboken, that are incorporating green infrastructure to a certain extent. The projects are mapped in Figure 5.2. Southwest Resiliency Park Southwest Resiliency Park (Block 12) is located in the southwest portion of the City, the area highly susceptible to flash flooding due to low elevation and insufficient capacity of drainage system. In the current state, the location is impervious parking lot with an area of 1 acre. The design of the park, led by Starr Whitehouse, includes several GI features (rain gardens, permeable pavements) as it is presented in Figure G.1. The part of the design is underground detention storage, aimed in capturing 250.000 gallons of stormwater (i.e. 10 years return period design event). The project is currently tendering and receiving bids for contractor, and the expected start of construction is in August 2015. The construction period is 180 days. Throughout planning and design process, several community meetings for getting residents input and feedback have been held.

Figure G.1 Design of Southwest Resiliency Park (source: Starr Whitehouse, 2014)

BASF Park/ Northwest Resiliency Park In the northwest portion of Hoboken, the City is interested in acquiring 6 acre BASF property, for the construction of Northwest Resiliency Park. The Park would be valuable contribution is overcoming the issue of lack of open space, as well as contribution in stormwater capturing, and possibly the best opportunity for the City to introduce a park of such size. The City plans to incorporate green infrastructure in the design of the park. The site is located in sewershed which suffers from localized flooding, due to its location and due to inflows from surrounding sewersheds. The Re.Invest Initiative team offered a conceptual design of the park and identified possible ways of employing innovative financial schemes for funding the project (Re. Invest Initative, 2015). Cleaning of the contaminated land will be required, as BASF is former industrial site. In 2012, the City authorized the use of eminent domain for the contaminated property. The are two potential designs for the park: one that would

Appendices

148

capture 1 million gallons of stormwater and the other that would capture 5 million gallons, choice of which depends on the readiness of NHSA to invest in Eco- District (Zimmer, 2015). PINO Site Another possible location for the park is PINO site, located in Western Hoboken. The developer of the site offered to the City available land for 1 acre park as exchange to allowing extra stories in the proposed build (City of Hoboken, 2014a). The construction of this park would be beneficial in providing much needed open space in this part of the City, together with possibilities for stormwater capturing with integrating GI (Together North Jersey, 2013). The possible capturing with the proposed design is 350.000 gallons of stormwater (Zimmer, 2015). However, in the current zoning ordinances, there are no benefits for the developers, so this would be a precedent and showcase on how developers can be encouraged in implementing GI in their developments. During interviews with the municipal staff, PINO site was not mentioned as one of the planned projects in the upcoming periods. Despite that, the site is included in this thesis as a potential part of GI system, as identified by Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan , RDSD winning proposal and Mayor´s memo to the City Council. City Hall The Rutgers Center for Environmental Sustainability developed a design for square block around the City Hall, with the idea of developing the underutilized land in the block and reducing the amount of stormwater on the site by providing example to other blocks (Figure G.2). The project aims in incorporating several green infrastructure measures (bio swales, downspout disconnection, porous pavements, trees) and capturing 13.122 gallons (47%) of stormwater entering the CSS (City of Hoboken, 2014b ).The project is currently tendering.

Figure G.2 Green Infrastructure around the City Hall (source: Bykowski et al, 2013)

Washington Street Washington Street is the main street in downtown Hoboken, and a location of number of business. The City is working on the redesign of the street, and as a part of that, is considering green infrastructure to delay the stormwater entering the combined sewer system (Figure G.3). Even though this street has no flooding issues due to its higher elevation, green infrastructure is seen as a way of decreasing the pressure on the existing sewer system and help with eliminating CSO’s. Considered green infrastructure is mainly infiltration trenches in curb extensions, tree pits and porous pavements. The redesign project of Washington Street includes improvement of aged and outdated water mains (Zimmer, 2015).


149

Figure G.3 Proposed stormwater delay pit in Washington Street (source: City of Hoboken, 2014)

First Street Streetscape Revitalization First Street Streetscape Revitalization, City- Wide Wayfinding & Branding Project aims in revitalizing 12 blocks in the 1st Street between Paterson Avenue to Bloomfield Street. The new visual identity of the area, coupled with management of excess rainfall would be provided by employing the variety of green infrastructure measures. The project is currently in the design process and public meeting to get feedback from the residents were organized (City of Hoboken, 2015d). Rain- gardens The grant for demonstration projects won from Sustainable Jersey is planned for building two rain garden curb extensions at 4th Street and Garden Street. However, since the bids came much higher than expected, the projects will be reengineered and included as a part of transportation project.

Appendices

150