An Integrated GIS Methodology to Assess the Impact of Engineering Maintenance Activities: A Case Study of Dredging Projects
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Case Study
3. Methodology
3.1. Scheme of the Methodology
- Phase 1: Collection of activities. The information is collected and classified by location.
- Phase 2: Organization of the documentation. The information about each location is organized into two groups: consulting (associated with the initial design of the project) and construction (associated with the final construction project and the executed works) information.
- Phase 3: Analysis of two selected activities to design the guideline table. Two representative activities are chosen with the managers as examples and benchmarks to select the fields of data to be included in the database. The most relevant variables are then grouped and organized into the first table design. The variables are reviewed, and the table is redesigned if necessary. A final table and set of variables are developed.
- Phase 4: Completion of the final table. This step consists of collecting the data for all of the activities. Although many variables are similar to other types of engineering maintenance activities (see Table 2), other specific data may be collected for further analysis depending on the type of activity. In our case, Table 2 includes data about the maritime climate. The variables highlighted in color appear in both the consulting and the construction information and provide the basis for further comparisons and the development of management strategies. As in Phase 3, periodic revisions by the working team are recommended to avoid inconsistencies.
- Phases 5 and 6: Incorporation into a database and GIS integration. The final steps consist of the incorporation of the information into a database and the full integration into a GIS. These phases are further described in the next section.
3.2. Development of the Database and GIS Integration
4. Application to the Case Study
4.1. Destination of the Dredged Material
4.2. Cost Efficiency Assessment
4.3. Deviations from Original Projects
4.4. Applications of the Tool
5. Punta Umbría (Huelva): An Example of the Database Potential
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Marchant, A.P.; Banks, V.J.; Royse, K.R.; Quigley, S.P. The development of a GIS methodology to assess the potential for water resource contamination due to new development in the 2012 Olympic Park site, London. Comput. Geosci. 2013, 51, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Argent, R.M.; Perraud, J.-M.; Rahman, J.M.; Grayson, R.B.; Podger, G.M. A new approach to water quality modelling and environmental decision support systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turconi, L.; Nigrelli, G.; Conte, R. Historical datum as a basis for a new GIS application to support civil protection services in NW Italy. Comput. Geosci. 2014, 66, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whelan, G.; Kim, K.; Pelton, M.A.; Castleton, K.J.; Laniak, G.F.; Wolfe, K.; Parmar, R.; Babendreier, J.; Galvin, M. Design of a component-based integrated environmental modeling framework. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 55, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rackwitz, R.; Lentz, A.; Faber, M. Socio-economically sustainable civil engineering infrastructures by optimization. Struct. Saf. 2005, 27, 187–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vefago, L.H.M.; Avellaneda, J. Recycling concepts and the index of recyclability for building materials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 72, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, A.; Chester, M.V. Environmental and economic consequences of permanent roadway infrastructure commitment: City road network lifecycle assessment and los angeles county. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2016, 22, 04015018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Streicher, H.; Joanni, A.; Rackwitz, R. Cost-benefit optimization and risk acceptability for existing, aging but maintained structures. Struct. Saf. 2008, 30, 375–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puig, M.; Wooldridge, C.; Darbra, R.M. Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators for sustainable port development. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 81, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinwoodie, J.; Tuck, S.; Knowles, H.; Benhin, J.; Sansom, M. Sustainable development of maritime operations in ports. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donnelly, A.; Jones, M.; O’Mahony, T.; Byrne, G. Selecting environmental indicator for use in strategic environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2007, 27, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.; Yeo, G.-T.; Thai, V.V. Environmental efficiency analysis of port cities: Slacks-based measure data envelopment analysis approach. Transp. Policy 2014, 33, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leotsinidis, M.; Sazakli, E. Evaluating contamination of dredges and disposal criteria in greek coastal areas. Chemosphere 2008, 72, 811–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedri, Z.; Corkery, A.; O’Sullivan, J.J.; Alvarez, M.X.; Erichsen, A.C.; Deering, L.A.; Demeter, K.; O’Hare, G.M.P.; Meijer, W.G.; Masterson, B. An integrated catchment-coastal modelling system for real-time water quality forecasts. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 61, 458–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldsworthy, L.; Goldsworthy, B. Modelling of ship engine exhaust emissions in ports and extensive coastal waters based on terrestrial ais data—An australian case study. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 63, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Lin, C.-Y. Compliance with international emission regulations: Reducing the air pollution from merchant vessels. Mar. Policy 2006, 30, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casado-Martínez, M.C.; Forja, J.M.; DelValls, T.A. A multivariate assessment of sediment contamination in dredged materials from spanish ports. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 163, 1353–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerra, R.; Pasteris, A.; Ponti, M. Impacts of maintenance channel dredging in a northern adriatic coastal lagoon. I: Effects on sediment properties, contamination and toxicity. Estuarine, Coast. Shelf Sci. 2009, 85, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedge, L.H.; Knott, N.A.; Johnston, E.L. Dredging related metal bioaccumulation in oysters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 832–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamindy-Pajany, Y.; Libralato, G.; Romeo, M.; Hurel, C.; Losso, C.; Ghirardini, A.V.; Marmier, N. Ecotoxicological evaluation of mediterranean dredged sediment ports based on elutriates with oyster embryotoxicity tests after composting process. Water Res. 2010, 44, 1986–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darbra, R.M.; Ronza, A.; Stojanovic, T.A.; Wooldridge, C.; Casal, J. A procedure for identifying significant environmental aspects in sea ports. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2005, 50, 866–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.-T. Environmental efficiency of ports: A data envelopment analysis approach. Marit. Policy Manag. 2013, 40, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheehan, C.; Harrington, J. Management of dredge material in the republic of ireland—A review. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1031–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasserman, J.C.; Barros, S.R.; Lima, G.B.A. Planning dredging services in contaminated sediments for balanced environmental and investment costs. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 121, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jonge, V.N.; Schuttelaars, H.M.; van Beusekom, J.E.E.; Talke, S.A.; de Swart, H.E. The influence of channel deepening on estuarine turbidity levels and dynamics, as exemplified by the ems estuary. Estuarine Coast. Shelf Sci. 2014, 139, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, R.; Revenga, C.; Kura, Y. Fishing gear associated with global marine catches: I. database development. Fish. Res. 2006, 79, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Song, C. Optical remote sensing of forest leaf area index and biomass. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2013, 37, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nigrelli, G.; Chiarle, M.; Nuzzi, A.; Perotti, L.; Torta, G.; Giardino, M. A web-based, relational database for studying glaciers in the italian alps. Comput. Geosci. 2013, 51, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewitte, O.; Jones, A.; Elbelrhiti, H.; Horion, S.; Montanarella, L. Satellite remote sensing for soil mapping in africa: An overview. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2012, 36, 514–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Yi, J. Management methods of spatial data based on postgis. In Proceedings of the 2010 Second Pacific-Asia Conference on Circuits, Communications and System, Beijing, China, 1–2 August 2010; Volume 1, pp. 410–413. [Google Scholar]
- Carrera-Hernández, J.J.; Gaskin, S.J. The basin of mexico hydrogeological database (bmhdb): Implementation, queries and interaction with open source software. Environ. Model. Softw. 2008, 23, 1271–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jäppinen, S.; Toivonen, T.; Salonen, M. Modelling the potential effect of shared bicycles on public transport travel times in greater helsinki: An open data approach. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 43, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCool, J.-P.P. Pragis: A test case for a web-based archaeological gis. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2014, 41, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rozenstein, O.; Karnieli, A. Comparison of methods for land-use classification incorporating remote sensing and gis inputs. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magaña, P.; López-Ruiz, A.; Lira, A.; Ortega-Sánchez, M.; Losada, M.A. A public, open western Europe database of shoreline undulations based on imagery. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 55, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheehan, C.; Harrington, J.; Murphy, J.D. An environmental and economic assessment of topsoil production from dredge material. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 55, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zentar, R.; Abriak, N.-E.; Dubois, V.; Miraoui, M. Beneficial use of dredged sediments in public works. Environ. Technol. 2009, 30, 841–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
1 | * Categories based on the Recommendations for the Management of Dredged Material in the Ports of Spain, CEDEX. |
PROVINCE | LEISURE | FISHING | COMMERCIAL |
---|---|---|---|
HUELVA | 1,2,3,5,6,8,10 | 2,3,5,6*,8 | |
4,7 | |||
9 | 9 | 9 | |
SEVILLA | 12 | ||
11 | 11 | ||
CÁDIZ | 14,15,19,21,22,23,24 | 13,14,15,22*,23,24,28 | 24 |
29 | |||
16,18,20,26,27 | 18,20,25,26 | 17,18,20,25,26 | |
MÁLAGA | 31,36,40 | 31,36,40 | |
30,32,33,34,35,37,39 | 34 | ||
38 | 38 | 38 | |
GRANADA | |||
41 | |||
42 | 42 | 42 | |
ALMERÍA | 43,45,50,51,52,53 | 43,45,50,51,52,53 | 51 |
44,46,48 | |||
47 | 47 | 47,49 |
TERM | UNITS | RANGE | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
General information | ||||
Location (city, village) | Nominal | - | ||
Latitude | Coordinates | 36.19–37.23 | ||
Longitude | Coordinates | −1.90–7.41 | ||
Harbor name | Nominal | - | ||
Project ID | - | - | ||
Project name | Nominal | - | ||
Drafting project date | - | 1993–2014 | ||
Start date | - | 1993–2011 | ||
End date | - | 1993–2011 | ||
Contract settlement date | - | 1994–2012 | ||
Project purpose | Nominal | - | ||
Administrative procedure | Nominal | - | ||
Machinery used | Nominal | - | ||
Duration of the work (real duration) | Months | 01-dic | ||
Geometry | ||||
Dredging area | m | 1900–6,937,672 | ||
Reference level | - | - | ||
Slope gradient (H-V) | - | 0:1–10:1 | ||
Consulting information | ||||
Consulting firm | Nominal | - | ||
Machinery (suggested) | Nominal | - | ||
Expected duration | Months | 0.25–12 | ||
Previous bathymetry | ||||
Company | Nominal | - | ||
Date | - | 1992–2015 | ||
Time zone | - | 29–30 | ||
Projection system | - | - | ||
Consulting information | ||||
Geometry | ||||
Expected maximum dredging depth | Lowest astronomical tide (LAT) | −2.5/−10 | ||
Expected dredging volume | m | 3000–924,359.05 | ||
Expected additional dredging volume | m | 1318.68–45,000 | ||
Budget | ||||
Execution budget | € | 7,954.46–6,053,158.45 | ||
Overhead cost | % | 13 | ||
Industrial profit | % | 6 | ||
Tender budget (before VAT) | € | 9465.80–23,093,074.08 | ||
VAT | % | 15–21 | ||
Tender budget | € | 10,980.33–8,355,779.93 | ||
Construction information | ||||
Construction company | Nominal | - | ||
Machinery used | Nominal | - | ||
Expected duration | Months | 0.25–19 | ||
Bathymetry after works | ||||
Company/enterprise | Nominal | - | ||
Date | - | 1993–2015 | ||
Time zone | - | 29–30 | ||
Projection system | - | - | ||
Geometry | ||||
Maximum dredging depth | LAT | −2.5/−10 | ||
Modifications | ||||
Geometry and dredging level modifications | Nominal | - | ||
Real dredging volume | m | 5040–299,328.03 | ||
Construction information | ||||
Budget | ||||
Execution budget after modifications | € | 139,916.61–2,272,680 | ||
Allocation coefficient | - | 0.58–1 | ||
Reduction of tender | % | 0–100 | ||
Adjudication budget (before VAT) | € | 9,015.18–5,491,86.50 | ||
VAT | % | 15–21 | ||
Adjudication budget | € | 10,457.61–6,370,568.62 | ||
Budget increase | € | 0–41,784.25 | ||
Adjudication budget (total) | € | 10,457.61–6,370,568.62 | ||
Final cost | ||||
Draft execution budget | € | 7,434.77–2,501,556.40 | ||
Overhead cost | % | 13 | ||
Industrial profit | % | 6 | ||
Average executed budget (before VAT) | € | 8,426.19–2,051,014.25 | ||
VAT | % | 15–21 | ||
Average executed budget | € | 9,774.38–2,420,196.82 | ||
Materials | ||||
Sediment samples | ||||
Company | Nominal | - | ||
Date | - | 1993–2015 | ||
Laboratory | Nominal | - | ||
Material | Nominal | - | ||
Sampling equipment | Nominal | - | ||
Sampling depth | Nominal | - | ||
Granulometry | Nominal | - | ||
Classification | - | I-II-III1 | ||
Volume according to the classification | m | - | ||
Materials | ||||
Uses of dredged material | ||||
Final use | Nominal | - | ||
Destination of the material | Nominal | - | ||
Radius of the circle | nautical miles | 0.25–1.75 | ||
Material (extra dredging volume) | m | - | ||
Transport and dumping equipment | Nominal | - | ||
Maritime climate | ||||
Wave height (H12) | m | 1–4.90 | ||
Peak period (Tp) | s | 3.75–8.85 | ||
Tidal range | m | 0.31–3.90 | ||
Wave energy flux (module) | kW·m | 0.63–3.98 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Magaña, P.; Reyes-Merlo, M.Á.; Tintoré, Á.; Zarzuelo, C.; Ortega-Sánchez, M. An Integrated GIS Methodology to Assess the Impact of Engineering Maintenance Activities: A Case Study of Dredging Projects. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8030186
Magaña P, Reyes-Merlo MÁ, Tintoré Á, Zarzuelo C, Ortega-Sánchez M. An Integrated GIS Methodology to Assess the Impact of Engineering Maintenance Activities: A Case Study of Dredging Projects. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2020; 8(3):186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8030186
Chicago/Turabian StyleMagaña, Pedro, Miguel Á. Reyes-Merlo, Ángela Tintoré, Carmen Zarzuelo, and Miguel Ortega-Sánchez. 2020. "An Integrated GIS Methodology to Assess the Impact of Engineering Maintenance Activities: A Case Study of Dredging Projects" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8, no. 3: 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8030186
APA StyleMagaña, P., Reyes-Merlo, M. Á., Tintoré, Á., Zarzuelo, C., & Ortega-Sánchez, M. (2020). An Integrated GIS Methodology to Assess the Impact of Engineering Maintenance Activities: A Case Study of Dredging Projects. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(3), 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8030186