Evidence

A. Field Survey Information

1. Topographic Survey

- project site

- inundated areas

- spot elevations of waterlogged areas

- location of waterways

- existing structures

- city, municipality, barangay

- benchmarks

- etc.

Hydrologic Data

1. Precipitation

2. River Stage

3. Discharge

4. Sediment Transport

¨Bridges - 1 in 50-years

¨Box Culverts - 1 in 25-years

¨Pipe Culverts - 1 in 10-years

¨Embankments - 1 in 10-years

¨Ditches and Road Surface - 1 in 2-years

1. Topographic map of the proposed project area with 0.50 m contour interval at a scale of 1:10,000 m.

2. Ground profiles along the banks at horizontal and vertical scales of 1:1,000 m and 1:100 m
respectively.
3. Water surface profile indicating maximum experienced flood level, design water level, and minimum
water level at horizontal and vertical scales of 1:1,000 m. 1:100 m respectively.

4. Profile of the riverbed along the centerline of the river channel at horizontal and vertical scales of
1:1,000 and 1:100 m respectively.

5. Cross-sections facing downstream at 100 meters interval for straight and uniform section, 25 meters
for river bends and 20 meters for sharp bends, indicating thereon the proposed structures, maximum
experienced flood level and ordinary water level as well as design water level and character of bank and
river bed material.

6. Soil investigation data and analysis.

7. Hydrologic and hydraulic design analysis supported by topographic map showing the watershed area
and point of interest.

Acceptability
In Manila, flood management presents both technical and social challenges. On the technical side, many
of the 60 or so existing pumping stations are old and lack sufficient capacity for even normal rainfall
conditions. Over the past few decades, the city has grown rapidly, but new pumping stations have not
been constructed to meet the needs in low-lying areas. Areas around waterways are often densely
populated, with dwellings encroaching over the water, affecting waterflow and preventing maintenance
and desilting. In addition, as was clear again during Karding, solid waste clogs waterways and entrances
to pumping stations. The social challenges presented are equally complex. Today, Metro Manila is home
to about 15 million people. Around a fifth of the population consists of informal settler families, many of
whom migrated from rural areas in search of better jobs. Informal settlers are particularly vulnerable to
flooding, as a large percentage live in inadequate housing near waterways. Implementation of the
Master Plan cannot come quick enough for many people who suffered during Karding and lost whatever
belongings they had. Listening to the stories of affected people is heartrending. One such person is Lisa,
who lives along a waterway and was evacuated when the water started overtopping the banks of the
waterway. Returning to her home afterwards, she found that muddy floodwaters had washed away her
furniture, her appliances, and her children’s uniforms and schoolbooks. The tragedy took Lisa back to
square one, and she has to build up her life and that of her children again from scratch. Every flood event
brings thousands of stories like Lisa's, but there is hope. In September 2017, in partnership with the
Philippine Government, the World Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) approved
funding for the US$500 million Metro Manila Flood Management Project. It is the first major activity to
be implemented under the government's Master Plan. It is also the first Bank-supported project in the
Philippines that benefits from co-financing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The Project
has four components: (i) Modernizing Drainage Areas; (ii) Minimizing Solid Waste in Waterways; (iii)
Participatory Housing and Resettlement; and (iv) Project Management and Coordination. Through these
components, the project aims to reduce flooding in about 56 drainage areas. At least 1.7 million people,
including many informal settlers living near drains and waterways, will directly benefit from the project.
Preventive flood risk management requires dependable pumping solutions. Under the first component,
the project will construct new pumping stations and modernize existing ones, while improving the
supporting infrastructure and associated drainage systems. To fulfill the second component, solid waste
management will be improved through better collection services, community awareness, and incentive-
based programs. Improved collection will reduce the amount of solid waste that ends up in waterways,
and thus at the pumping stations, significantly decreasing flood risk. The third component deals with
resettlement. City residents like Lisa whose houses are going to be impacted by the improvements of the
drainage areas and the construction of new pumping stations, may need to relocate to safer areas. New
types of rental support have been devised to provide resettled families with transitory and permanent
housing close to their places of employment. A rental subsidy program has been created to guarantee
that resettlement options are affordable to all. And finally, working with Civil Society Organizations like
Life Haven Center for Independent Living, will support people with disabilities who relocate and ensure
they have full access to facilities and houses in resettlement sites.

For every stage of the project, gender analytical tools will be used to make sure the needs of both
females and males are addressed and monitored. Through consultations with women from various
economic groups, surveys, and census, the team will generate gender-disaggregated data. Women will
also play an important role in resettlement planning and livelihood restoration programs. If there is one
thing that tropical storms such as Ondoy and Karding have taught everyone, it is that typhoons, flooding,
solid waste management, housing, and poverty are all inextricably linked. This project is an important
step forward not only in flood risk management, but also in the social well-being and prosperity of the
citizens of Manila. The Metro Manila Flood Management Project is implementing innovative approaches
to promote inclusive and resilient flood management.

____________________

Another major concern raised by scholars about high-cost flood defence construction

is the fact that this type of solution has design constraints (e.g. 100-year flood), and

may not be effective in the long term, considering the constantly increasing flood risks

facing CMDN (Duy et al. 2018; Ke, Haasnoot, and Hoogvliet 2016; Yin et al. 2015).

A study by Gilbuena et al. (2013a) revealed that structural measures could not protect

Manila from the flood created by typhoon Ondoy in 2009 because these structures

were designed using only 10-year and 30-year discharge return periods for the drainage works and flood
protection works, respectively. A recent study by Badriana et al.

(2017) demonstrates that in a prospective scenario of an “Anak-krakatau” tsunami, the

proposed GGSW project in Jakarta may prove ineffective and wave collision may

cause damage to the iconic Garuda bird’s head. Through a series of optimisation runs,

the study shows how alternative designs could help minimise the wave effects.

Furthermore, a hydrodynamic modelling study by Takagi et al. (2017), which aims

to understand the long-term effectiveness of proposed dikes under continuing sea-level

rise, tides and rapid land subsidence scenarios in Jakarta, shows that the effectiveness

of using higher flood defence will gradually disappear over time. Xian et al. (2018)

raised concern that current flood mitigation measures need to be stepped up to account

for the dynamics of future climate and sea level rise in coastal cities. They noted that

dynamic sea walls with flexibility for incremental height increases in line with future

increases in sea level, is preferable to the traditional design of sea walls with fixed

heights. However, results from Yin et al. (2015) show that hard engineering measures

have limitations, and merely increasing the height of flood defences does not always

address the problem, but rather transfer risks from one place to another, as water will

backflow to upstream locations to cause increased water level and potential inundation

in surrounding neighbourhoods. With sufficient evidence now highlighting the limitations of flood
defences in CMDN, Takagi et al. (2017) recommended that from the

middle of the 21st century onwards, actions to stop land subsidence should top the list

of the most effective countermeasures against coastal floods in cities such as Jakarta.

This recommendation by Takagi et al. (2017) is useful because it emphasises the need

for future researchers, funding bodies and the governments of CMDN to work together

to explore innovative and viable solutions to the problem of land subsidence.

A closely related scheme to Compensatory Techniques, that is gaining traction as an

environmentally sustainable approach to urban flood management, is the concept of

sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), a kin to Water Sensitive Urban Design

(WSUD) that has been practiced in Australia since the early 1900s. SuDS is a broad
approach to flood management that requires all relevant stakeholders to work

together to harmonise the process of urbanisation and urban flood control in a manner that fosters
biodiversity and social benefits, including access to basic amenities

such as clean water (Miguez and Ver!ol 2016). The success of SuDS depends on the

ability to tightly integrate drainage solutions with urban development in a systemic

way, including through significant consideration to land use planning and low

impact development (LID), to encourage minimal hydrological changes or disruption

to natural flow patterns (Miguez, Rezende, and Ver!ol 2015). SuDS are often facilitated through storage
and infiltration measures wherein retention basins, infiltration

trenches, green roofs, detention ponds and permeable pavements are integrated with

the urban landscape (Miguez, Bahiense et al. 2012, 2014). Central to SuDS are two

important pillars: (1) proper planning and (2) the need to respect watershed limits

and provide adequate space for rivers (Miguez, Ver!ol, and Bianchini 2016).

Unfortunately, space is a scarce commodity in most CMDN, and they have evolved

over time into “irregular” megacities, without proper city planning. According to

Miguez, Bahiense et al. (2012, 2014), it is difficult to attain SuDS in such poorly

planned megacities that are already consolidated and where space for water is constantly threatened.
SuDS have been practised in Brazilian cities, including Rio de

Janeiro, but their large-scale adoption in CMDN may not be viable (Miguez, Ver!ol,

and Bianchini 2016).

The viability of SuDs in CMDN is further dampened by the presence of informal settlements or slums
that counteract city plans and degrade the urban environment. Miguez,

Verol, and Santos (2013) proposed an alternative solution to help integrate slums and areas

of irregular urban growth with the formal city, while taking into account their different terrain, resources,
available infrastructure and residential needs (e.g. sewage and domestic

water use). The proposed solution works by introducing a low-cost micro drainage system

for the slum community, comprising small storage tanks for each home, open channels
along sloppy land to aid runoff collection and central gutters to facilitate drainage to a bigger retention
reservoir, which then acts as a storage measure for linking the micro drainage

from the informal settlement to the formal city. By simulating different scenarios of the

proposed solution for the city of Rio de Janeiro, the authors demonstrate that a suitable

drainage system can be established for informal areas, and integrated seamlessly with the

existing downstream formal drainage network in the city. This solution is a useful

8 R.I. Ogie et al.

contribution to the enormous challenge of managing the environmental impacts of slum

dwellings, particularly because it can be adapted to the unique needs of other developing

coastal megacities such as Jakarta, Lagos and Manilla.

Environmental

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7f40/20d5a2db291dceec1fd8285181
4f2a3dd4ee.pdf

Structural details
CMDN rely heavily on structural approach to flood management, and in the last few

decades, there has been an unprecedented desire to acquire additional flood control

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 5

infrastructure, often expensive, but deemed to be essential for coping with the demands

of a changing climate, sea-level rise and the damaging impacts of large waves (Chan

et al. 2014; Yin et al. 2015). Some studies have highlighted projects involving the

planning and construction of additional flood control infrastructure in CMDN. For

example, Adelekan (2016) identified notable flood control engineering projects that

have occurred in Lagos since 1998. These include the development of the Greater

Lagos Drainage Master Plan in 1998, the construction of a breakwater on the Bar
Beach section of Atlantic coast in 2006, the execution of five channelisation works in

2011, and the construction of 69 km concrete secondary storm water collector drainage

from 2007 to 2011. The study also provides useful information about the ongoing fivemile “Great Wall of
Lagos” – a large sea revetment being developed to prevent even

the worst expected storms in 1,000 years from impacting built areas in reclaimed lands

such as the Victoria Island and parts of Lekki. However, there is a need for more scientifically rigorous
research to further understand the future adaptation challenges

associated with such a major project that entails building a new city (EkoAtlantic) in

the Atlantic Ocean.

Similarly, Colven (2017) and Van der Wulp et al. (2016) discuss Jakarta’s GGSW

project, also known as the National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD)

programme: it is a USD40 billion flood control infrastructure plan that involves constructing a giant 40
km long sea wall to enclose Jakarta Bay, thereby creating a vast

manmade lagoon, with a new waterfront world-class city to be built around it on

reclaimed land of over 1,000 hectares, in the shape of the Garuda mythical Hindu bird

representing Indonesia’s national symbol. A massive offshore retention lake and a set

of pumping stations will be used to maintain low water levels by discharging water

from Jakarta’s rivers into the sea. Funding for the project is expected to come mainly

from foreign aid by the Dutch government and supported by the Indonesian government, as well as
private capital. In this section, we present various research activities

related to the establishment of such new flood control infrastructure projects

in CMDN. There is a significant body of research aiming to improve operational decisions related

to flood control infrastructure. One set of studies focuses on achieving this through

hydraulic calculations and analytical solutions that explain how water flows in compound open channels
and urban drainage systems (Huai et al. 2009; Sreeja and Gupta

2007; Yang, Gao, and Huai 2010; Zeng, Wang, and Huai 2010). Another set of studies

directly focuses on optimising the operations of flood control infrastructure. For

example, Gu et al. (2014) proposed a means of optimising the operations of sluice gates,

while Liu Cheng, and Gong (2014a) conducted a similar study for pumping stations.

Nkwunonwo, Whitworth, and Baily (2016) reported that flood control in a developing

nation context remains a challenging task due to other factors, such as the lack of reliable data. To
address data scarcity, a recent study by Ogie, Shukla et al. (2017) recommends installing additional
measuring devices such as water-level sensors, and

demonstrates how to find optimal locations for the placement of a limited number of

low-cost sensors. Their case study of Jakarta’s flood control network aims at acquiring

the most relevant data for facilitating informed decisions about the operations of different flood control
infrastructure within the city.

Another closely related issue to data scarcity is knowledge deficiency. Poor knowledge

of the topological connectivity of waterway networks, and of the hydraulic conditions of

upstream and downstream network flows, complicates flood control decisions (Kuan

2015). For example, cities such as Jakarta and Shanghai have hundreds of man-made

canals and several interconnected rivers that interact in complex ways to influence flood

control outcomes; poor knowledge of these waterway networks can undermine flood control efforts. To
simplify this network-type problem, Ogie, Holderness, Dunn et al. (2017)

demonstrate how graph theory can be applied to construct a city-scale hydrological infrastructure
network for Jakarta; this constructed network model is demonstrated to help

coastal authorities better understand how their flood control infrastructures (such as pumping stations
and floodgates) are both spatially and topologically connected through waterways. The network model,
therefore, has potential to support real-time decision making

relating to the operations of flood control infrastructure in CMDN.Flood control structures are designed
to protect coastal and river-bank

areas, including urban and agricultural communities, homes, and other

economically valuable areas, and the people located within them. These

structures are used to divert flows of water, by re-directing rivers, slowing

natural changes in embankments and coastlines, or preventing inundation

of vulnerable coastlines or floodplains. Dikes, spurs, levees, and seawalls

often act as the first line of defense against overflowing rivers, floods,

storm surges, and—in the longer term—rising seas. By keeping water out,

flood control structures lessen harm to physical infrastructure and help to

ensure continuation of communities’ economic and social activity.

But flood control structures do not completely eliminate risk. Flooding

may occur if the design water levels are exceeded. If poorly designed,

constructed, operated or maintained, these structures can increase risk

by providing a false sense of security and encouraging settlements or

economic activity in hazard-prone areas.

Nevertheless, many development programs rely on these structures to

maintain program objectives, including continued food and water supplies,

economic activity, and protection from storms and floods. For example,

urban initiatives (e.g., urban transport projects) in coastal cities like Dhaka,

Bangladesh necessarily rely on effective flood control structures, such

as pump stations and dikes, to maintain program effectiveness in the

short-term.

Drainage design

http://www.fao.org/3/t0099e/T0099e04.htm

Roads will affect the natural surface and subsurface drainage pattern
of a watershed or individual hillslope. Road drainage design has as its
basic objective the reduction and/or elimination of energy generated
by flowing water. The destructive power of flowing water, as stated in
Section 3.2.2, increases exponentially as its velocity increases.
Therefore, water must not be allowed to develop sufficient volume or
velocity so as to cause excessive wear along ditches, below culverts, or
along exposed running surfaces, cuts, or fills.

Provision for adequate drainage is of paramount importance in road

design and cannot be overemphasized. The presence of excess water
or moisture within the roadway will adversely affect the engineering
properties of the materials with which it was constructed. Cut or fill
failures, road surface erosion, and weakened subgrades followed by a
mass failure are all products of inadequate or poorly designed
drainage. As has been stated previously, many drainage problems can
be avoided in the location and design of the road: Drainage design is
most appropriately included in alignment and gradient planning.

Hillslope geomorphology and hydrologic factors are important

considerations in the location, design, and construction of a road.
Slope morphology impacts road drainage and ultimately road stability.
Important factors are slope shape (uniform, convex, concave), slope
gradient, slope length, stream drainage characteristics (e.g., braided,
dendritic), depth to bedrock, bedrock characteristics (e.g., fractured,
hardness, bedding), and soil texture and permeability. Slope shape
(Figure 59) gives an indication of surface and subsurface water
concentration or dispersion. Convex slopes (e.g., wide ridges) will tend
to disperse water as it moves downhill. Straight slopes concentrate
water on the lower slopes and contribute to the buildup of hydrostatic
pressure. Concave slopes typically exhibit swales and draws. Water in
these areas is concentrated at the lowest point on the slope and
therefore represent the least desirable location for a road.
Hydrologic factors to consider in locating roads are number of stream
crossings, side slope, and moisture regime. For example, at the lowest
point on the slope, only one or two stream crossings may be required.
Likewise, side slopes generally are not as steep, thereby reducing the
amount of excavation. However, side cast fills and drainage
requirements will need careful attention since water collected from
upper positions on the slope will concentrate in the lower positions. In
general, roads built on the upper one-third of a slope have better soil
moisture conditions and, therefore, tend to be more stable than roads
built on lower positions on the slope.

Natural drainage characteristics of a hillslope, as a rule, should not be

changed. For example, a drainage network will expand during a storm
to include the smallest depression and draw in order to collect and
transport runoff. Therefore, a culvert should be placed in each draw so
as not to impede the natural disposition of stormflow. Culverts should
be placed at grade and in line with the centerline of the channel.
Failure to do this often results in excessive erosion of soils above and
below the culvert. Also, debris cannot pass freely through the culvert
causing plugging and oftentimes complete destruction of the road
prism. Headwater streams are of particular concern (point A, Figure
60) since it is common to perceive that measurable flows cannot be
generated from the moisture collection area above the crossings.
However, little or no drainage on road crossings in these areas is
notorious for causing major slide and debris torrents, especially if they
are located on convex slope breaks.
Increased risks of road failures are created at points A and B. At point
A, water will pond above the road fill or flow downslope through the
roadside ditch to point B. Ponding at A may cause weakening and/or
erosion of the subgrade . If the culvert on Stream 1 plugs, water and
debris will flow to point A and from A to B. Hence, the culvert at B is
handling discharge from all three streams. If designed to minimum
specifications, it is unlikely that either the ditch or the culvert at B will
be able to efficiently discharge flow and debris from all three streams
resulting in overflow and possible failure of the road at point B.Roads
will affect the natural surface and subsurface drainage pattern of a
watershed or individual hillslope. Road drainage design has as its basic
objective the reduction and/or elimination of energy generated by
flowing water. The destructive power of flowing water, as stated in
Section 3.2.2, increases exponentially as its velocity increases.
Therefore, water must not be allowed to develop sufficient volume or
velocity so as to cause excessive wear along ditches, below culverts, or
along exposed running surfaces, cuts, or fills.

Provision for adequate drainage is of paramount importance in road

design and cannot be overemphasized. The presence of excess water
or moisture within the roadway will adversely affect the engineering
properties of the materials with which it was constructed. Cut or fill
failures, road surface erosion, and weakened subgrades followed by a
mass failure are all products of inadequate or poorly designed
drainage. As has been stated previously, many drainage problems can
be avoided in the location and design of the road: Drainage design is
most appropriately included in alignment and gradient planning.

Hillslope geomorphology and hydrologic factors are important

considerations in the location, design, and construction of a road.
Slope morphology impacts road drainage and ultimately road stability.
Important factors are slope shape (uniform, convex, concave), slope
gradient, slope length, stream drainage characteristics (e.g., braided,
dendritic), depth to bedrock, bedrock characteristics (e.g., fractured,
hardness, bedding), and soil texture and permeability. Slope shape
(Figure 59) gives an indication of surface and subsurface water
concentration or dispersion. Convex slopes (e.g., wide ridges) will tend
to disperse water as it moves downhill. Straight slopes concentrate
water on the lower slopes and contribute to the buildup of hydrostatic
pressure. Concave slopes typically exhibit swales and draws. Water in
these areas is concentrated at the lowest point on the slope and
therefore represent the least desirable location for a road.

Hydrologic factors to consider in locating roads are number of stream

crossings, side slope, and moisture regime. For example, at the lowest
point on the slope, only one or two stream crossings may be required.
Likewise, side slopes generally are not as steep, thereby reducing the
amount of excavation. However, side cast fills and drainage
requirements will need careful attention since water collected from
upper positions on the slope will concentrate in the lower positions. In
general, roads built on the upper one-third of a slope have better soil
moisture conditions and, therefore, tend to be more stable than roads
built on lower positions on the slope.
Natural drainage characteristics of a hillslope, as a rule, should not be
changed. For example, a drainage network will expand during a storm
to include the smallest depression and draw in order to collect and
transport runoff. Therefore, a culvert should be placed in each draw so
as not to impede the natural disposition of stormflow. Culverts should
be placed at grade and in line with the centerline of the channel.
Failure to do this often results in excessive erosion of soils above and
below the culvert. Also, debris cannot pass freely through the culvert
causing plugging and oftentimes complete destruction of the road
prism. Headwater streams are of particular concern (point A, Figure
60) since it is common to perceive that measurable flows cannot be
generated from the moisture collection area above the crossings.
However, little or no drainage on road crossings in these areas is
notorious for causing major slide and debris torrents, especially if they
are located on convex slope breaks.

Increased risks of road failures are created at points A and B. At point

A, water will pond above the road fill or flow downslope through the
roadside ditch to point B. Ponding at A may cause weakening and/or
erosion of the subgrade . If the culvert on Stream 1 plugs, water and
debris will flow to point A and from A to B. Hence, the culvert at B is
handling discharge from all three streams. If designed to minimum
specifications, it is unlikely that either the ditch or the culvert at B will
be able to efficiently discharge flow and debris from all three streams
resulting in overflow and possible failure of the road at point B.
-AESTHETIC AND FUNCTIONALITY

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/2067/htm

Over the last decades, a number of bio-retention facilities have been

installed in urban areas for flood control and green amenity purposes.
As urban amenity facilities for citizens, bio-retentions have a lot
potential; however, the literature on bio-retentions focused mostly on
physiochemical aspects like water quality and runoffs. Hence, this
paper aims to explore psychological aspects of bio-retentions such as
perceptions and landscape aesthetic value for visitors. In order to
achieve this purpose, the study employed on-site interviews and
questionnaires in the chosen three case studies as research
methodology. For the 3 different locations of bio-retention facilities,
interviews and questionnaires were carried out. The surveys of 100
bio-retention users were conducted, investigating their general
perceptions and landscape aesthetics of the bio-retention facilities.
The paper found that only 34% of the interviewees recognised bio-
detention facilities, illustrating that most visitors were not aware of
such facilities and were unable to distinguish the differences between
bio-retention and conventional gardens. On the other hand, the
majority of interviewees strongly supported the concept and function
of bio-retentions, especially those who recognised the differences in
planting species with conventional urban open spaces. Such main
findings also encourage further studies of seeking quantitative values
by conducting a correlation analysis between the functions and
aesthetics of bio-retention facilities