(Comparison between Vietnam and Japan) Class: Sustainable Urban Regeneration B (2010) / Lecturer: Takeyoshi CHIBANA Name: Bebio AMARO / Dep. Of Architecture The University of Tokyo
The objective of this report is to consider the topics and problems mentioned in Prof. Chibanas lecture, and to make some proposals towards improving safety in the city of Hanoi, in Vietnam. The first shocking thing that comes across from this lecture is that despite the great amount of research done in the area of flood prevention, the death toll is still high in many countries, especially in Vietnam. And here lies the main problem: while many technical solutions are available, in the end very little is done in terms of implementing these measures. The populations at large, as well as politicians, consistently fail to see beyond short-term gains. Many things are done by these agents, without considering their consequences in the long term. With this in mind, I shall present some of the main factors that worsen the destructive effects of floods in the city of Hanoi. According to Prof. Thi Thanh Van Ngo, from the Hanoi Water Resources University, the city started growing exponentially when the government started an open door policy, with the intention of fostering economic development. In the last decade, many people moved to Hanoi, and the urbanization growth rate was so high that the citys infrastructures could not absorb it. More specifically, the existing infrastructure for water drainage can only cover less than 40% of the population. To make things worse, the sewers and water disposal networks from residential and commercial properties are interconnected with the main network, leaving less draining capacity for floods. As a result, the environment has degraded, as this increased population consumes more natural resources. As explained by Prof. Chibana, many of these new inhabitants moved into the natural flood areas of the Hong River. The main reason is that this population has less economical resources in general, and they will tend to settle in cheaper plots of land, or even build illegal dwellings. As a result, this group is usually the one that suffers the most from flood damage. Finally, almost all the areas around the city that could absorb excess water in case of a flood (lakes and other water channels, retarding basins, drainage systems) are clogged with pollution residues or illegally urbanized, making them largely ineffective. In some cases, they even worsen the effects of a flood. And in the few occasions when government agencies attempt to intervene in the urban territory in order to improve safety, they are often met with public opposition. The warnings from experts and their appeals to move to safer locations are largely ignored, due to the infrequent nature of floods, which gives a false sense of security to the public. Therefore, in order for anything to be accomplished, the understanding and cooperation of the public is essential. At this level, many possible solutions become impractical: removing the large mass of urbanization away from dangerous areas and relocating it is economically unfeasible, except if done during a large period of time. Due to the dimension of the Hong River, dredging is almost impossible, because any material removed from the river would be refilled in a short space of time. Residents also tend to oppose the building of high levees, because they block the view, and the natural resources of the river could be seriously affected by these large-scale construction works. However, there are some interesting options available, in terms of gaining the cooperation of the public. In Japan, some community-oriented centers are improving the dialogue between the population and the economic and politic forces. I am referring to the network of Urban Design Centers, best known as UDC; its most important building is UDCK, located in Kashiwa. There is a group of students and researchers devoted to making urban experiments, and discussing them between the residents, private companies, and government representatives. The building spaces are often used for debating urban planning projects, and there are courses available to make the residents more knowledgeable in the aspects of urban planning. They rent spaces for several kinds of community use, and also invite members of the community to share their knowledge with children, in specially prepared classes. In my opinion, this kind of collaborative infrastructure, if implemented in the most vulnerable areas of Hanoi, could cause a change of mentalities. Another tool which is becoming increasingly important is that of flood simulation carried out by computers. At this moment, the most advanced software program available is dioVISTA, developed by several researchers at Hitachis Central Research Laboratory. Among other things, this software allows to simulate in a detailed 3D space the effects of flooding when a specific part of a levee fails, or some other safety structure collapses. One way in which this software could be well applied is in public presentations, where the residents of a district would see the direct effects of a flood in their area. City halls, community buildings, or the aforementioned design centers would be excellent locations to build public awareness about the damage of floods. Most importantly, the software can reveal which areas are most vulnerable, allowing urban planners to determine where improvement efforts are most urgently needed, which will result in a better management of government funds. It can also help to improve safety and evacuation plans, by showing which areas will be the safest to receive disaster victims. This increased public awareness could make the people more favorable to the possibility of relocation, or cooperating with other urban renovation efforts. For example, these simulation tools are already being used by urban planners in St. Tammany, in the state of Louisiana, USA. They are attempting to create a real-time flood alarm system that can receive real-time weather data, and based on its simulations, issue warnings to the population. However, these are suggestions for a medium to long-term period. What could be done in the short-term? Of course, efforts should be made to prevent further urban occupation of water reservoir areas, and create an adequate infrastructure for water treatment and disposal, that can minimize pollution and the clogging of pipes. The government could implement a garbage collection system, offering some sort of incentive or reward for properly organized and collected waste, encouraging the residents to stop throwing their garbage into the river (although for this to succeed, it should be a simple, easy-to-understand system, and there would have to be community centers devoted to instructing the public on the proper procedures). Another thing to consider would be the construction of one or more artificial reservoirs, dug deep within the ground, and devoted solely to retaining flood waters, which can then release their contents safely back into the river, once the main danger has passed. While this measure has risks (the floods could exceed the design levels of the reservoir dam, causing greater damage than expected; the deposition of sediments would reduce the reservoir capacity during the course of time; they can have a negative impact on the quality of water, among other issues), a well-designed network of reservoirs could be a useful asset during a flood. Another possibility was explained by Prof. Chibana during his lecture: by controlling the flow direction of the river, especially in its bottle-neck areas (where the river becomes narrower). This can be achieved by implementing concrete revetment in these smaller sections, which stabilizes the water flow and can minimize bank erosion. As for the areas outside of these interventions, some space should be given for the river to expand or contract naturally, allowing it to be flexible. If these measures succeed in bringing some stability to the most dangerous areas, then long-term projects can be carried out; during a period of many years, residents in river banks could receive support in relocating to safer areas. Small batches of residents could be moved from time to time, thus minimizing the economic impact, and avoiding large and bothersome redevelopment works. Or, in alternative, if residents insist on remaining there, as houses become old and need to be replaced or improved, the government could implement a minimum 2-floor house policy, slowly building new houses with a taller first floor, and a second floor, where people could be temporarily protected from the river. Also, the building should allow for the possibility of evacuation by helicopter (a correctly designed balcony in the roof or second floor could be sufficient). Again, a portion of the residents in a district could be temporarily relocated while the new houses are built, and over a long span of time, the whole urban tissue could be renovated. However, this situation is far from ideal, and should be seen only as a last resort, in case the residents refuse to permanently relocate. If the authorities decide to maintain and build levees (despite their risks in terms of water quality and healthy aquatic environment, as well as giving a false sense of security to populations) they should create a setback levee, which can accommodate some public leisure activities, and allow for people to enjoy the river. In conclusion, I will once again mention the opinion of Prof. Ngo, who defends that proper management of wastewater and building a good water drainage infrastructure are the most important things that could be done at this time. Besides that, the public has to be encouraged to preserve these channels, and avoid clogging or damaging them. The only way to achieve this is to engage with community centers or nonprofit organizations that have close connections with residents in dangerous areas, and encourage a new kind of urban planning policy, one that takes into serious account the input from the community, instead of having the government make decisions unilaterally. I believe that urban design centers and software simulation tools could be effective tools to achieve this objective.
Consulted Works
CHIBANA, Takeyoshi: How To Integrate River and Urban Planning ~Comparison Between Vietnam and Japan~, lecture given in the class of Sustainable Urban Regeneration B, on October 15, 2010
NIWA, Yukari: Kashiwa-no-wa International Campus Town, lecture given in the class of Sustainable Urban Regeneration B, on November 12, 2010
NGO, Thi Thanh: The Existing Sewerage and Drainage System in Hanoi, in TU International, 63, January 2009, paper available at the website of Technische Universitat Berlin https://www.alumni.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/ABZ/PDF/TUI/63/van_ngo_TUI63 .pdf
vv.aa: Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, Chapter 8, March 2004, Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee, paper available at the website of St. Tammany Parish Government http://www.stpgov.org/departments_hazard.php http://www.stpgov.org/pdf/1239205448.pdf
YAMAGUCHI, Satoshi, et al: Development of GIS-based Flood-Simulation Software and Application to Flood-Risk Assessment, presentation given at the Second IMA International Conference on Flood Risk Assessment, on September 5, 2007, paper available at the website of The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications http://www.ima.org.uk/Conferences/Flood%20Risk%202007/Yamaguchi.pdf
Class: Sustainable Urban Regeneration B (First Assignment) Date: November 26, 2010 Name: Bebio AMARO Student Number: 37-106954 Department: Architecture The University of Tokyo