tolun - (littoral 2010 education centre)

8/8/2019 Tolun - (Littoral 2010 Education Centre)

1/43

Initialization of Systems Approachin the Izmit Bay:

Results of SSA17 (SPICOSA project)

Leyla TOLUNLeyla TOLUN

TBTAKTBTAK , Marmara Research Center,Environment Institute

[email protected]@mammam.gov.tr.gov.tr

LITTORAL 2010LITTORAL 20102222 SeptemberSeptember 2010,2010,

LondonLondon

SPICOSASPICOSA teamteam: Ahmet Baban, Asl: Ahmet Baban, Asl DnertaDnerta, olpan Polat, olpan Polat BekenBeken, Tlay, Tlayokacarokacar, Selda Murat, Sinan, Selda Murat, Sinan HsrevoluHsrevolu,, eylaeyla ErgenekonErgenekon


2/43

Location of the Izmit Bay

ME D I T E R R A N E A N S E A

AEGEANS

EA

B L A C K S E A

WESTERN CENTRAL EASTERN

B L A C K S E A

AEGEAN

SEA

MA RMA R A S E A

stanbul

Kocaeli

Rivers Domestic inputs (ST ; TT) Industrial inputsWater

exchange


3/43

Pollution history ofIzmit Bay

Until 1980s, industrial and domestic wastewaters were dischargeddirectly to the bay without any pre-treatment

After 1980s most of the majorindustrial plants have primarily treatedtheirwastewaters.

ithin the last 10 years, 80% of organic matterhas been removed from

industrial wastewater. However organic loads from the domesticwastewaters have doubled because of the growth in surroundingpopulation.

In 1999 a powerful earthquake along the North Anatolian Fault, struckthe eastern part of the Marmara region including Izmit Bay. Theearthquake destroyed many coastal cities. Ecosystem of the Bay wasalso affected by the quake and subsequent refinery fire

Since 1985 periodic red tides have been observed Transparency of water column decreased and coastal area lost its

attraction for the inhabitants

Musilage events have been observed in the recent years The Bay was stated as a Hot Spot and Sensitive Area for

Eutrophication


4/43

State of Eastern Glck Coast Line (Before Earthquake)

Before Earthquake

After Earthquake

Change Areas

Coast Line in 1976 (GCM)


5/43

Decline of water transparency in the Izmit Bay since 1970.

Measurement of transperancy(SDD)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 9 70 1 97 5 1 9 84 1 9 94 2 00 8 2 00 9

Year (August values)

secchi

depth(m)

East

Central

West


6/43

Initilaization of the Systems approach underSPICOSA project (2007-2010)


7/43

POLICYISSUES

ECOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMICAPPRAISALS

CZ SYSTEM FORMULATION

CZ SYSTEM DESIGN

POLICY CONSTRAINTSand GOVERNANCE

PUBLIC andEND-USERS

SYSTEM OUTPUTand DELIBERATIONS

Operational Sequence for the Systems Approach Framework

Ref: SPICOSA DOW


8/43

The main drivers and related pressures on the system are :1-Urbanization oxygen deficiency in bottom waters; eutrophication

2-Industrialization toxicity; harmful substance accumulation in biota and sediments

3-Marine transportation harmful substance accumulation in biota and sediments


9/43

HumanActivity

(Driver)

Forcing

(Pressure)

SystemState (S)

Response(R) Impact(I)

Urbanization-Population

growth

Domesticwaste water,

*nutrient conc.increase

*org. matterincrease

*phytoplanktonincrease

*oxygen leveldecrease

*sedimentaccumulation

(Eutrophication)

*fish kills*harmful algal blooms

(bio diversity loss)

*ecosystem health loss

*less beneficial use

*turbidity increase(transparency decrease)

Industrialization Industrialwastewater

*haz. subs.Increase

*org. matterincrease

Bio- accumulation

Sedimentcontamination

Toxicity

Biodiversity loss

Ecosystem health loss

Less beneficial use ofhuman

Human health loss

Atmospheric

deposition

*haz. subs.increase

Bio- accumulation


Biodiversity loss



Human health loss

Marinetransportation

*contamin.

*balast water

*PAH conc.ncrease

Bio- accumulation


*invasive sp. ?

Biodiversity loss



Human health loss

System State (DPSIR - SPICOSA loop)


10/43

Determination of the priority issueDetermination of the priority issue//ss


11/43

Participated Organization

Public / Central

Government

15%

Public / District

Goverment

14%

Public / Local

Government

14%

Public / Union

7%

Private Sector

14%

NGO

14%

R&D and

Universities

22%

Policy issue:Improvement ofWater Quality

Meeting with users and potential users of the Bay

Improvement of water transperancy


12/43

Cause and Effect Reltionship


13/43

Investment inSource control

Domestic

andRiverinputs

POM DO

Nitrogen

Phytoplankton Transperancy

Public Perception

+

+

+

+

--

+

Real Estate-

Feed back loop of the Izmit Bay subsystem

zooplankton+

-

+

+

mixing

Solar irradiance

+

+

resuspension

+

+


14/43

Conceptual model (ecosystem)


15/43


16/43

Model components

Natural Component-Circulation dynamics

*Salt Budget

*Freshwater balance(Evaportaion, Rain, Runoff, River)-Nitrogen proceses-Oxygen proceses

-Phytoplankton-zooplankton-POM-SDD


17/43

Model components

Economic Component

-Cost Benefit Analysis

*Financial*Economic

Social Component-Public perception


18/43

Model components

LOADS-Domestic loads

-Industrial Loads-Runoff Loads

SCENARIOS-Scenario 1-Scenario 2


19/43

MODEL Information anddata flow

Salinity, temperature, nutrient, DO,Chlorophyl,meteorological conditions(wind,precipitation, humidity,temp.)

State MeteorologyInstitute 48 hr.

observation


20/43

Externalforces

Circulationexchange

Salt budget Interfacediffusiveexchange

Nitrogenbudget

Oxygenbudget Regeneration

lightPhytoplankton

growth

(2 sp.)

Zooplankton

growth

ParticulateOrganic

Matter

Turbidity

(SDD)

Econ.comp.

Fresh waterbalance

Socialcomp.

Izmit Bay Model Components

scenariosLOADS(River, Runoff, Domestic, Industrial, Other)


21/43

User interface of the Extend model


22/43

getC

RS

t

Eq

F

C tfl

F

Q_

t

Qi

F esh Water Inputs & Outputs

FWC_

Q ut

AsurQpr

Ev po

ion from B

Rin on B

E

p

i ! "

li k#

kiss"

i c ls$

% d w! "

whil#

i

w &

s$

% %p!

Qri 'Runoff

Riv(

r

Runoff

Eqn

Urban Runoff

Eqn

Ri) si 0 ul 1 m3/d

Runoff

M ar_FWinM ar_FWout

Mar_FWout

FWC

Ssur

Sref

Sewage Di2

charge Industrial Discharge

Fresh Wate r

Balance

Qohr

Ri 3 _4

f

Asur

Pr

Mar_FWin

FWQi n

Qfor

FWQ_i nFWQtot

Qin_5

WSurb_6 ld

A 7 s_urb Qswr

Pr

Forest Runoff OtherRunoff

Tw

Wspd

RH

Qind

Pr

Aws_for

WSfor_6 ld

Qev

S in_MSSref

WWTi n

Arch_riv

WSriv_6ld

Pr

Qout_5

365

INDin

365

Runoff

Qurb

Ta

Pr

Aws_agr

WSagr_8 ld

Qagr

FWfrac

Pr

Agriculture Runoff

Aws_for

WSohr_9 ld

Qev

Ev Qpr

Qriv

Qurb

Qagr

Qfor

Qohr

Qswr

Qind

0 107.@

21@ A

22.@

4A

020

21.2@

22.@

2A

.7@

2@

2B

.2@

27.@

28.7@

A0

TiC

e

Va luePlo tte r I/

D

0

0.12@

0.2@

0.A

7@

0.@

0.B

2@

0.7@

0.87@

1

Y2

Ss ur Ss ur _obs Y2 De lS Y2 Dif f eren E e

0 107.F

21F G

22.F

4G

00

F

000000

1.00000e+07

1.F

0000e+07

2.00000e+07

TiH

e

ValuePlotter I/

I

Mar_PWin Mar _

PWou

Q

Green

FWQQ

oQ


23/43

45 %

10 %

21%

16%

8%

river

ru noff

dom estic

other

i ndustry

Nitrogen LOADS(River, Runoff, Domestic, Industrial, Other)

R

5R R R

S R R R R

S5

R R R

T R R R R

T5

R R R

U R R R R

V

W

V

X

4

W

6

W

X

8

Y

V

4

V

W

4

V

45

V

65

V

86

W

`

6W

W

a

W

4

a

W

68

W

88

Y

`

b

Y

W

b

Y

5

`

river

runoff

domestic

other

industrc

Runoff: agriculture, forest, urbanand other


24/43


25/43

1- Present Situation:

Running the model with the application of present conditions for the bay as a base,Existing Loads:Merkez, Korfez and Derince cities: Advanced wastewater TreatmentGolcuk and Karamursel cities: Biological wastewater treatment (no nutrientremoval)

ndustrial Loads: Fertilizer Industry

Surface runoffs form the surrounding area

2- Scenario 1:

Running the model with the application of upgrading two WWTPs;(adition of nutrient removal facilities to the existing WWTPs such as Golcuk andKarmursel cities)

3- Scenario 2:Running the model with the reduced runoff loads;In Stream (Riverine) Treatment in the selected point sources will be applied since some of therivers such as Dilderesi and Eastern Channel(Sar River) dischrging to the Bay has high nutrientand TSS loads.


26/43

DOMESTIC WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANS

inplanning

Organized Industrial Park Area


27/43


28/43

0.00E+00

2.00E-05

4.00E-05

6.00E-05

8.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.20E-04

1

20.5

40

59.5

79

98.5

118

138

157

177

196

216

235

255

274

294

313

333

352

current

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Nitrogen conc. changes in the upper layer (model simulation results)

DIN Kg/m3

Model Ecosystem Results


29/43

Socio-economic results


30/43

Reduction of the water uality negatively effects peopleliving in the coastal area.

Contingent Valuation method was applied using auestionnaire where peoples perception of water

pollution is being measured. The uestionnaire aimed to

evaluate, how the water pollution has changed peopleshabits and how it will change with pollution abatement.Also, people are directly asked to state their willingnessto pay for clean water which is the price people areready to pay for this good.

Other purposes are to understand:1- Peoples present and future usage habitat of the Bay2- Their relationship with the Bay3- Peoples satisfaction with the water uality3- Their willingness to pay for better water uality(Contingent Valuation)

Social component


31/43

Usage habitat

Opinion about water uality

Fre uency of use

Infuence of the Bay inthe regionFre uency of use after

WQ increase

Results


32/43

0 30,d

e 66f

60,g

3333 9 e ,h i

e

h

e ,666f

e 5h

,0833 e 82,i

212,916f

243,3333 273,75 304,1667 334,5833 365300000

312500

325000

337500

350000

362500

375000

387500

400000

412500

425000

437500

450000

462500

475000

487500

500000

512500

525000

537500

550000

562500

575000

587500

600000

Tip e

q

aluePl

r

tter I/O

present_public_ s fter_int estp en s fter_ip pru t edv

w

s tp

Public percepti n ch nges (scenari 1)

SDD tresh ld5m ccepted

present_public_perceptixn

after_iny estment_public_perceptix n

after_imprx y ed

Q_people_ready_tx_pay

M del S ci l Results

Acc r ding t the sur ey results 55% of the respondants w nt to pay for betterw ter uality.


33/43

Cost Benefit Analysis of Upgrading theWWTPs in the Izmit Bay (scenario1)

Model Economic Results


34/43

Cost Benefit Analysis1) Financal CBA whether it is financially feasible for

municipalities to upgrade their WTTP to advancedtreatment?

2) Economic CBA whether the benefits of upgrading is

more than costs from a macro economic point of view


35/43

Financial CBACost of treating one cubic meter of wastewatercompared to the fee that the people would be willing topay as wastewater charge

Investment Cost : 2 Euro / capita

Unit Investment Cost : 0.019 Euro / m3

Operation Cost : 0.02 Euro / capita / dayUnit Operation Cost : 0.12 euro / m3

Total Unit Cost : 0.139 Euro / m3


36/43

Financial CBA

WTP(Willingness To Pay) for improved water uality wasmeasured with the help of a uestionnnaire

% is ready to pay

On the average, people are willing to pay 1 , Euro /cap /annum. That converts to 0.2 Euro / m3.

Benefit /Cost : 0.2 /0.139 = 1.


37/43

Economic CBA

Water uality (SDD) in the Izmit Bay has an impacton Real Estate Value.

The Hedonic Pricing Method has been used to

measure the impact of SDD on property valuesince environmental services affect market prices.


38/43

HEDONIC PRICING

Data were collected on residential property sales prices inthe region (17 data) including;

*sales prices*property characteristics that affect selling prices,such as apartment age, size, number of rooms, andnumber of bathrooms at certain districts*SDD in the area close to the district

The data were analyzed using regression analysis, whichrelates the price of the property to its characteristics and theenvironmental characteristic of interest.Price was defined as a function of SDD


39/43


40/43

Topics of the stakeholder meeting (output step)

General description of theIzmit Bay coastal system

Need for the SAF application

in the Izmit Bay The Policy Issue and systemdescription

Model development underSAF application

Description of the scenarios

ESE results of the scenarios

Stakeholder views about thescenarios (future needs)

August 2010 - Kocaeli


41/43

Comparison of the different scenario optionsInvestment

cost

(1000 )

Operational

cost

(/m3)

Reimbrustm

ent period,

(years)

B/C

(econ.)

Area

req.,

(m2)

N loads

rem. pot.,

ton/y

(Effective

ness)

Applicabilit

y,

(difficulties,

strong and

weakness ,

tech. req.)

S.holder

opinions,

Suitability

with the

Plans and

prog., etc.

Scenario1,

Upgrad

f

G

lcukandKaramurs

l

TP, N,P,

TSSr mo

al

and filtration

~4.400 0.24 ~9 y ars >1 ~1500 From

241to 47

tons/y

*hight chnoloji

r

quir

m nt

* ducat dand

qualifi d

personel

requirement for

operation

Very suitable

withthe

present plans

Scenario2,

Reduction ofN

and TSSloads

from nonpoint

sources

~20.000. 0.000007 ~9 years >1 ~

3.3 0.000 %70remo

al

*low technology

Req.

*easy to

operate

Notsuitable

with the

present plans

Alternatii

e

scenarios,

Reduction ofN

and TSSloads

from solid

wastes (wilde

storage)and

industrial

discharge

control???

Landfill appl.

For the solid

waste

deposition

areas near

ri

ers


42/43

Another meeting with stakeholders to give informationabout the final situation of the model and scenarios

Dissemination of this experience (web site of Izmit Bay and participating to conferances.)

Support in preparation of the Local, Regional and NationalICZM strategy and plans

Plans for future


43/43

Vigilando, agendo, bene consulendo,

prospera omnia cedunt

By watching, by doing, by consultingwell, these things yield all things

prosperous. (Sallust)

tolun - (littoral 2010 education centre)

Documents