Energy
Waste
Water and Sewage
Transport
Green Blue
Buildings & land use
englishdeutsch
Project Summary Project Description Application of Tools Opinion of Tools Decision making process Contact Details

Decision making process

Name der Fallstudie
Harbour bathing in Copenhagen
Hafen-BΓ€der in Kopenhagen

Decision making process - stages
An important precondition for bathing in the harbour is the water quality. The Copenhagen EPA became aware of the possibility of establishing a warning system for overflows after a private company (DHI, Danish Hydraulic Company) presented the system for the EPA. It would be able to warn bathers about coming overflows from the detention basins, and also to calculate when the water would have gained bathing quality again. If the overflows should be completely eliminated, it would be extremely expensive (an even larger number of detention basins should be established) , so this was not an option. The tools were used in the initial stages, to design the warning system.

At the same time, the Copenhagen EPA gave dispensation for bathing in the harbour at the Culture Week in 2001. An athletic association called the ?Big Splash? used the harbour for trampoline jumping in the water. The event was open to the public and more than 1.000 people took part in the two days. Through Copenhagen EPA the group heard about the warning system, opening possibilities for a permanent permit for bathing. Big Splash contacted the mayor, who invited them for a meeting, where also the EPA and Copenhagen Energy (water section) were invited. The leader of "Big Splash" enthusiastically convinced the mayor about the potentials in the harbour. After the meeting, the mayor recommended to the city council that the possibilities for bathing should be seriously investigated, and a harbour bath established if possible. This was decided in the council, after which a municipal group with members from the different departments were appointed to find suitable places for a bathing site. Having located a number of possibilities, meetings with citizens were arranged, to decide on a place. From discussions and a selection procedure based on different criteria, Islands Brygge was chosen as the place for the first bathing place in the harbour. When the harbour bath opened in 2001 it was an instant success, attracting thousands of Copenhageners and people from the suburbs, standing in line to get a bath. Due to the success, and as people were starting to bathe spontaneously in other places in the harbour, politicians soon promised more bathing places in the harbour. There were however certain conditions that had to be respected; the water should be clean, i.e. detention basins should be established, but also it should be a place where the current is not too strong, and a place with a "hinterland" of services for the visitors. In 2003, the second harbour bath, Copencabana, was opened.

The second harbour bath
The second harbour bath "Copencabana" from 2003

Decision making process - levels
Decisions were made on political and technical levels

Decision making process - sources of information
The public were notified through information leaflets about the harbour bath. Bathers are informed of the quality of the water through flags; a green flag means that the water quality is ok. A red flag means overflows, and that bathing is not allowed.

Decision making process - who are the decision makers
The main actors have been the Copenhagen EPA, politicians in the city council, DHI (Danish Hydraulic Institute), users of the harbour and Copenhagen Water (from 2002 Copenhagen Energy). The national EPA has been involved in the beginning of the process.

Decision making process - who made the final decision for project implementation
The main decisions were political


Name of tool
MOUSE

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The tools were used in the initial stages by experts, but also in the operation of the warning system. Establishing detention basins was based on the output from MOUSE. Using MIKE allows monitoring of overflows through simulations, which enables the warning system, and therefore also bathing. </p> <p>Goals defined in relation to the harbour bathing: <br> • Number of overflows per year should be reduced to 5 (from app. 30) by building detention basins along the harbour. This is based on calculations with MOUSE. These goals are defined locally, by comparing to the present situation and to practices in other municipalities <br> • After overflows, the harbour bath can only be opened when e-coli per 100 ml water is less than 500 in 12 hours (the normal limit is 1.000 coli). A coming EU-regulation also operates with a limit on 500 e-coli. <br> Other parameters used are: <br> • Outlet of mercury from overflows (kg of hg per year) has been reduced by app. 80% from 1995-2002, due to the large investments in detention basins that started in 1995. The content of mercury in the harbour water has been compared to limits set by WHO (World Health Organisation), on how much mercury a person can ingest per week without damaging the health, defined as the PTWI index (Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake). From this, the EPA has calculated that a child of 30 kg could daily drink 7.500 litres of water from the harbour without exceeding the WHO-limit for mercury ingestion (mercury can only be absorbed by drinking the water, not by bathing in it).<br> • Outlet of lead by overflows (kg lead per year) – has been reduced app. 70% from 1995-2002<br> • Measures of TBT (Tributylin), of which there are no commonly defined limits, only suggestions. From measures and from the suggested limit values, it has been calculated that a child of 30 kg daily could drink 375 litres of water from the harbour without exceeding the limit</p> <p> The tool (the warning system, based on system simulations from MOUSE and MIKE) provides information about the water quality. This information is being used to decide when bathing should be cancelled due to overflows, and when the water has regained an acceptable quality. </p>


Name of tool
MIKE

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The tools were used in the initial stages by experts, but also in the operation of the warning system. Using MIKE allows monitoring of overflows through simulations, which enables the warning system, and therefore also bathing. </p> <p> Goals defined in relation to the harbour bathing: <br> • Number of overflows per year should be reduced to 5 (from app. 30) by building detention basins along the harbour. This is based on calculations with MOUSE. These goals are defined locally, by comparing to the present situation and to practices in other municipalities <br> • After overflows, the harbour bath can only be opened when e-coli per 100 ml water is less than 500 in 12 hours (the normal limit is 1.000 coli). A coming EU-regulation also operates with a limit on 500 e-coli. <br> Other parameters used are: <br> • Outlet of mercury from overflows (kg of hg per year) has been reduced by app. 80% from 1995-2002, due to the large investments in detention basins that started in 1995. The content of mercury in the harbour water has been compared to limits set by WHO (World Health Organisation), on how much mercury a person can ingest per week without damaging the health, defined as the PTWI index (Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake). From this, the EPA has calculated that a child of 30 kg could daily drink 7.500 litres of water from the harbour without exceeding the WHO-limit for mercury ingestion (mercury can only be absorbed by drinking the water, not by bathing in it).<br> • Outlet of lead by overflows (kg lead per year) – has been reduced app. 70% from 1995-2002<br> • Measures of TBT (Tributylin), of which there are no commonly defined limits, only suggestions. From measures and from the suggested limit values, it has been calculated that a child of 30 kg daily could drink 375 litres of water from the harbour without exceeding the limit</p> <p> The tool (the warning system, based on system simulations from MOUSE and MIKE) provides information about the water quality. This information is being used to decide when bathing should be cancelled due to overflows, and when the water has regained an acceptable quality. </p>


Decision making process - how was the information for the dmp disseminated
The decision-making process for allowing bathing and establishing bathing facilities was started by direct contacts between the Copenhagen EPA, users of the harbour and the Copenhagen Mayor of Environment.

Decision making process - how was the public involved
The public were informed by information campaign of the bathing facilities. However, the public (=some users) also initiated the public bathing.

Decision making process - was there public discussion over the project
There was a direct public involvement in the location of the bathing facilities

Welche Tools wurden verwendet, um Nachhaltigkeit zu beurteilen?

MOUSE

MIKE

Weiterführende Informationen (nur auf Englisch):

Für den vollständigen Bericht hier klicken (pdf)