HR: 1340h
AN: H33G-1704    [Abstracts]
TI: Integrated Watershed Management to Rehabilitate the Distorded Hydrologic Cycle in a Korean Urban Region
AU: Lee, K
EM: kilselee@snu.ac.kr
AU: * Chung, E
EM: cool77@snu.ac.kr
AF: Dapartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, 36-203, San 56-1, Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Korea, Republic of
AU: Park, K
EM: diplomacool@hotmail.com
AF: Dapartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, 36-203, San 56-1, Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Korea, Republic of
AB: Many urbanized watersheds suffer from streamflow depletion and poor stream quality, which often negatively affects related factors such as in-stream and near-stream ecologic integrity and water supply. But any watershed management which does not consider all potential risks is not proper since all hydrological components are closely related. Therefore this study has developed and applied a ten-step integrated watershed management (IWM) procedure to sustainably rehabilitate distorted hydrologic cycles due to urbanization. Step 1 of this procedure is understanding the watershed component and processes. This study proposes not only water quantity/quality monitoring but also continuous water quantity/quality simulation and estimation of annual pollutant loads from unit loads of all landuses. Step 2 is quantifying the watershed problem as potential flood damage (PFD), potential streamflow depletion (PSD), potential water quality deterioration (PWQD) and watershed evaluation index (WEI). All indicators are selected from the sustainability concept, Pressure-State- Response (PSR) model. All weights are estimated by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Four indices are calculated using composite programming, a kind of multicritera decision making technque. In Step 3 residents' preference on management objectives which consists of flood damage mitigation, prevention of streamflow depletion, and water quality enhancement are quantified. WEI can be recalculated using these values. Step 4 requires one to set the specific goals and objectives based on the results from Step 2 and 3. Objectives can include spatial flood allocation, instreamflow requirement and total maximum daily load (TMDL). Step 5 and 6 are developing all possible alternatives and to eliminate the infeasible. Step 7 is analyzing the effectiveness of all remaining feasible alternatives. The criteria of water quantity are presented as changed lowflow(Q275) and drought flow(Q355) of flow duration curve and number of days to satisfy the instreamflow requirement. Also the criteria of water quality are proposed as changed average BOD concentration and total daily loads and number of days to satisfy the TMDL. Step 8 involves the calculation of AEI using various MCDM techniques. The indicators of AEI are obtained by the sustainability concept, Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR), an improved PSR model. All previous results are used in this step. Step 9 is estimating the benefit and cost of alternatives. Discrete Willingness To Pay (WTP) for the specific improvement of some current watershed conditions are estimated by the choice experiment method which is an economic valuation with stated presence techniques. WTPs of specific alternatives are calculated by combining AEI and choice experiment results. Therefore, the benefit of alternatives can be obtained by multiplying WTP and total household value of the sub-watershed. Finally in Step 10 the final alternatives comparing the net benefit and BC ratio are determined. Final alternatives derived from the proposed IWM procedure should not be carried out immediately but be discussed by stakeholders and decision makers. However, since plans obtained from the elaborated analyses reflect even sustainability concept, these alternatives can be apt to be accepted comparatively. This ten-step procedure will be helpful in making decision support system for sustainable IWM.
DE: 1880 Water management (6334)
SC: Hydrology [H]
MN: 2007 Fall Meeting