Vegetation Canopies - a New Approach to Urban Flood Mitigation - Dato' Ahmad Fuad Embi
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CONTENTS 1.Background of KL Flooding 2.Hard Engineering - Dams and channelization 3.SMART Tunnel and Ponds 4. Soft Approach – Vegetation Canopies Rehab for catchment
SUBANG JAYA A dense housing suburb with conventional ‘rapid disposal’ drainage, and large areas of impermeable surface Runoff from storms rapidly reaches main drains in minutes.
Typical concrete-lined main drain from old housing area – rapid disposal of stormwater to river
Growth of Elevated Highways to ease traffic congestion – increasing rapid runoff to river
RIVER CHANNELIZATION • Started as solution to flooding problem after major flood in 1971 •‘Rapid disposal’ concept – increase capacity and quickly dispose of flood waters. MASJID JAMEK
Concrete lined channels throughout KL – 1970s, 80s, 90s Very high cost, single objective
Light Rapid Transit (LRT) lines 1990s - occupying river berms, retarding high flows
BUT.. Klang River (& tributaries) continued to flash-flood, and with increasing frequency SRI MUDA, KLANG 1998
MEAN ANNUAL FLOOD ANALYSIS for SG. KLANG – shows alarming trend 3116430 KLANG RIVER AT SULAIMAN BRIDGE TEST FOR STATIONARITY OF SERIES OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM DISCHARGES 16,000 CUMULATIVE MASS OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM DISCHARGE 14,000 12,000 Mean annual flood: Sg. Klang @Jamb. Sulaiman shows huge 10,000 increase 148 → 440 cumecs (3X) (m3/s) 8,000 6,000 Mean annual flood = 440 m3/s 4,000 Mean annual flood = 148 2,000 m3/s 0 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1952 1957 1963 1968 1974 1979 1986 1991 1996 YEAR
SMART (Stormwater Mgt and Road Tunnel) proposed as structural solution 1998 • cost 1.6 Billion Ringgit • privatised road tunnel 3 km in middle • stormwater tunnel length 10 km • expected usage 2 – 5 times a year • one of the largest tunnels in world • completion end 2006 • supplemented by Batu Pond diversion
SMART
TBM No.1 – SOUTH DRIVE Tunnel Boring Machine break-through, June 2005
BATU & JINJANG DETENTION PONDS ( RM 600 M project) 80 cumec 290 cumec 150 cumec Lencongan Gombak (3.375 km) 275 cumec Kolam Takungan Kolam Takungan Jinjang Batu (2.5 mcm) (4.5 mcm) 100 cumec 125 cumec 35 cumec 35 cumec Kolam Kg Puah 65 cumec Kolam Kg Benteng (0.4 mcm) PWTC Masjid Jamek 350 cumec
SG. BATU FLOOD DETENTION POND
NEW PROBLEM: NEED FOR FUTURE RETROFITTING TO REVIVE URBAN RIVERS •30 years of extensive concrete lining •Monotonous uniformity bad for habitat – no bends, loops, meanders, pools, rapids, esp. greenery •No gravels or stones on riverbed for egg-laying •No rocks or tree stumps for fish shelter.
MANAGING URBAN STORMWATER
• Air quality much improved – exhaust from millions of vehicles . • Decrease noise levels • Cools air temp. & UHI effects • Soil better protected. • Better habitat & biodiversity. • More CO² absorbed from the air in the city. • Can reduce up to 40% of urban flash floods • Rehab catchment NOT introduce more Hard Engineering • Malaysia’s commitment to Climate Change Accord Vegetation Canopy - Benefits
• 15 to 30 different species of trees and Miyawaki shrubs planted together. • has structure of a mature natural forest. urban forests • Is a multi-storey structure, with different levels of vegetation. • Such Forest has many benefits in ecosystem services.
Grows min. of 1 m /yr without fertilizers. 200 years for forest to recover on its own. Miyawaki method: 20 years.
2000 world- wide Miyawaki projects
KL Low density vegetation, few bushes Grass cut too short, thin topsoil , exposed Rapid and high runoff – Frequent flash floods
UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) Trees and forests are a critical part of the solution to the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse. The World Economic Forum mobilize global community to grow one trillion trees by 2030. nature-based solutions in support 1t.org conservation, restoration and reforestation
You can also read