| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Project Evaluation Criteria== | ==Project Evaluation Criteria== | ||
The following Criteria will be used to assess the success of this project. These criteria were chosen based on the artist and the team of students who working on the wetland. The scale (1-10) represents the importance level of meeting the constraint of each listed criteria. 10 has the largest magnitude and decrease | The following Criteria will be used to assess the success of this project. These criteria were chosen based on the artist and the team of students who working on the wetland. The scale (1-10) represents the importance level of meeting the constraint of each listed criteria. 10 has the largest magnitude and weight decrease numerically in descending order. | ||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
Revision as of 02:39, 10 February 2014
{305inprogress|May 15, 2014}}
Background
The project is an initiative by New York artist and sculptor Mary Mattingly who advocates for sustainable practices and alternative living methods. The WetLand “wetland” will create a sustainable, livable environment that meets the challenges of coming generations dealing with overpopulation, lack of resources, and decrease of usable land that alleviates as an alternative living model.
Problem statement
The objective of this project is to design a floating wetland to provide inspirational awareness of sustainable environmental design. The floating wetland will be placed in the Delaware River alongside the WetLand facility. The floating wetland will be used throughout the duration of the WetLand project in the summer of 2014.
Project Evaluation Criteria
The following Criteria will be used to assess the success of this project. These criteria were chosen based on the artist and the team of students who working on the wetland. The scale (1-10) represents the importance level of meeting the constraint of each listed criteria. 10 has the largest magnitude and weight decrease numerically in descending order.
| Criteria | Constraints | Weight (1-10) |
|---|---|---|
| Budget | Must be between $600-$1,000. | |
| Aesthetics | Compliment the installation and increase appeal. | |
| Vegetation | Plants must be adequate for the Delaware River regional climate, water quality, and be able to endure as it moves to New York. | |
| Education | Educational aspect compliments the overall theme of the project. | |
| Reproducibility | Can be easily recreated with readily available materials. | |
| Functionality | Utilize the appropriate and most efficient water purifying and oxygen adding plants. | |
| Materials | Recyclable materials preferred obtained from the Philadelphia area. | |
| Maintenance | Be easily maintained with little to no expertise. |
References
Template:Reflist 1.USDA legal status plants [[1]]
2.City of Philadelphia. Invasive Plant List [[2]]
3.http://www.floatingislandinternational.com/
4. Delaware River Basin Commission. 2012 Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment.
5. Philadelphia Water Department. 2006. "Tidal Wetland", Andropogon Associates LTD. http://www.phillywatersheds.org/doc/ERU_4_Tidal_Wetland.pdf
6.Stebb, Chriss. 2013. Building Floating Wetlands to Restore Urban Waterfronts and Community Partnership. National Wetlands Newsletter. March 2013
7. Clemson University. Floating Treatment Systems, Report. 2008
8.Tyler Kimberly, Ruan Michelle. 2012. “Edible and Medicinal Plants”, SUNY Plattsburgh, NY. http://edibleandmedicinalplants.weebly.com/index.html. (February 6, 2014)