1. General information
2. Objectives of the intervention
Goals of the intervention
Due to the pace of residential development on Staten Island during the 1970s and 1980s, concurrent factors arose regarding inadequate drainage infrastructure, high reliance on septic tanks, and development of unsuitable land, including on "the historic flow paths of the natural creek system of the area" (Refs. 1 & 4). Residential developments were therefore prone to flooding: a "recurring pattern of winter and spring floods wash[ed] through new developments sited in these historic paths", and "wet weather compromised poorly designed septic systems, compounding the impact of these floods" (Ref. 4). As a result, "the area was prone to frequent localized flooding and erosion due to uncontrolled stormwater, and degraded water quality caused by failing septic systems" (Ref. 5).
The intervention was therefore introduced as a way to reduce flooding of property and quell "growing public outcry", reduce sewer output into the natural environment, and additionally "preserv[e] some of the Island's threatened natural stream habitats" (Ref. 4).
The intervention was therefore introduced as a way to reduce flooding of property and quell "growing public outcry", reduce sewer output into the natural environment, and additionally "preserv[e] some of the Island's threatened natural stream habitats" (Ref. 4).
Quantitative targets
Prior to the project being accepted for introduction, a cost-benefit analysis was undertaken, which, as summarised from Ref. 4, focused on the following quantitative aspects:
- Cost of the land assemblage in the corridor, including purchasing privately owned land and lost City revenues from land sales;
- Benefits pertaining to avoided infrastructure costs - "Though...originally envisioned as just avoiding the construction of traditional storm sewers, it soon became clear that a Bluebelt would also significantly reduce road and street construction within the corridor";
- Benefits pertaining to avoided sewer maintenance costs, although "it was assumed that these would be offset by maintenance costs of the natural habitat in the corridor";
- Benefits pertaining to habitat preservation - "In designing the corridor, it was assumed that corridor dimensions would be optimized to incorporate all possible natural flood attenuation features and to avoid development densities that would hyper-charge the flood runoff. Doing so also maximized the integrity of the stream habitat...[as] the streams were to be kept as a fully functioning wetland and riparian feature, not reduced to the status of an open drainage swale. These streams, a significant element of the historic natural habitat of Staten Island, came to be preserved".
Although not initially introduced as a response to climate change, the project has since gained further traction as its ability to provide climate resilience has been recognised, "as New York City prepares for rising sea levels and heavier rains due to climate change, Bluebelts offer a natural and effective solution for stable and sound stormwater management" (Refs. 2 & 4).
At present, 50 sections of the bluebelt have been created, but there is a target to implement a total 90 sections of bluebelt (Ref. 6).
- Cost of the land assemblage in the corridor, including purchasing privately owned land and lost City revenues from land sales;
- Benefits pertaining to avoided infrastructure costs - "Though...originally envisioned as just avoiding the construction of traditional storm sewers, it soon became clear that a Bluebelt would also significantly reduce road and street construction within the corridor";
- Benefits pertaining to avoided sewer maintenance costs, although "it was assumed that these would be offset by maintenance costs of the natural habitat in the corridor";
- Benefits pertaining to habitat preservation - "In designing the corridor, it was assumed that corridor dimensions would be optimized to incorporate all possible natural flood attenuation features and to avoid development densities that would hyper-charge the flood runoff. Doing so also maximized the integrity of the stream habitat...[as] the streams were to be kept as a fully functioning wetland and riparian feature, not reduced to the status of an open drainage swale. These streams, a significant element of the historic natural habitat of Staten Island, came to be preserved".
Although not initially introduced as a response to climate change, the project has since gained further traction as its ability to provide climate resilience has been recognised, "as New York City prepares for rising sea levels and heavier rains due to climate change, Bluebelts offer a natural and effective solution for stable and sound stormwater management" (Refs. 2 & 4).
At present, 50 sections of the bluebelt have been created, but there is a target to implement a total 90 sections of bluebelt (Ref. 6).
Monitoring indicators defined
Unknown
Sustainability challenge(s) addressed
Climate change adaptation: What were the goals of the NBS?
Climate change adaptation: What activities are implemented to realize the conservation goals and targets?
Habitats and biodiversity conservation: What types of conservation goals are / were defined for the NBS intervention?
Habitats and biodiversity conservation: What activities are implemented to realize the conservation goals and targets?
What types of restoration goals are / were defined for the NBS intervention?
What activities are implemented to realize the restoration goals and targets?
Implementation activities
The programme emphasises the preservation of "natural drainage corridors including streams, ponds, and wetlands, and enhanc[ing] them to perform their functions of conveying, storing, and filtering runoff precipitation or stormwater" (Ref. 2). By protecting and restoring these waterways, the bluebelt system provides an "excellent mechanism for reducing urban flooding and improving the health of local waterways, [and] also provide[s] open green space for their communities and diverse habitat for wildlife since they are not constricted by closed pipes or underground infrastructure like traditional storm sewers" (Ref. 2). In addition to promoting conservation and restoration of natural waterways, by avoiding the construction of artificial drainage systems, degradation of the natural ecosystem has further been avoided (Ref. 1).
In addition to focusing on the waterways themselves, the project further "works to preserve, restore, and enhance the land around the natural waterways in the area. Many plants grow naturally at the edges of the Bluebelt, and these plants help create a more natural ecosystem for birds, frogs, turtles and mammals" (Ref. 1). Specific species of plants are chosen for introduction along the waterways, with native plants being specifically chosen for planting "because their roots are home to beneficial bacteria that help clean the water", and "other species [being] chosen specifically to attract or feed other helpful species" (Ref. 1). By considering plants at the species level, development/restoration of the ecosystem as a whole is sought, "Designing a system like this helps create new habitats for native species" (Ref. 1).
In addition to focusing on the waterways themselves, the project further "works to preserve, restore, and enhance the land around the natural waterways in the area. Many plants grow naturally at the edges of the Bluebelt, and these plants help create a more natural ecosystem for birds, frogs, turtles and mammals" (Ref. 1). Specific species of plants are chosen for introduction along the waterways, with native plants being specifically chosen for planting "because their roots are home to beneficial bacteria that help clean the water", and "other species [being] chosen specifically to attract or feed other helpful species" (Ref. 1). By considering plants at the species level, development/restoration of the ecosystem as a whole is sought, "Designing a system like this helps create new habitats for native species" (Ref. 1).
3. NBS domains, ES and scale
4. Governance and financing
5. Innovation
Type of innovation
Please specify technological innovation
This NBS can be considered an example of both a technological and social innovation. It can be regarded as a technological innovation as it was implemented as an alternative to traditional drainage systems, "[the waterways] are not constricted by closed pipes or underground infrastructure like traditional storm sewers" (Ref. 2). The innovative nature of this approach was exemplified by opponents to the project when it was first proposed in 1990, "A number of objections were raised during the resulting review. Water infrastructure traditionalists protested it was unproven: what, they worried, if it failed?" (Ref. 4). Its novelty as an alternative to traditional drainage approaches is further illustrated by the fact that "the Bluebelt program incorporates specialized construction techniques not typically used for traditional drainage projects" (Ref. 5).
Novelty level of the innovation
Please specify novelty level of the innovation
When implemented, the project was the first within New York City to utilise green infrastructure, "The Bluebelt did not proceed from any ideological preference for green infrastructure or any preordained preference for "soft" infrastructure instead of traditional hard infrastructure. It was a problem-solving solution, evaluated from the perspective of what was the most cost-effective way to solve a costly and disruptive water management problem, created by ignoring the realities of stormwater drainage in an area crisscrossed by streams and spotted with freshwater wetlands" (Ref. 4).
Replicability/Transferability
Please specify Replicability/Transferability
Since the initiation of the project in 1990, increasingly more sections of the bluebelt have been created across Staten Island. 50 sections are now built and in operation, and plans exist for a further 30 to be developed in the mid-island area (Ref. 5).
