Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Assessing the combined effects of urbanisation and climate change on the river
water quality in an integrated urban wastewater system in the UK
Maryam Astaraie-Imani*, Zoran Kapelan, Guangtao Fu, David Butler
Centre for Water Systems, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Science, University of Exeter, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QF Devon, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Climate change and urbanisation are key factors affecting the future of water quality and quantity in
Received 15 June 2011 urbanised catchments and are associated with significant uncertainty. The work reported in this paper is
Received in revised form an evaluation of the combined and relative impacts of climate change and urbanisation on the receiving
13 June 2012
water quality in the context of an Integrated Urban Wastewater System (IUWS) in the UK. The impacts of
Accepted 23 June 2012
intervening system operational control parameters are also investigated. Impact is determined by
Available online 31 July 2012
a detailed modelling study using both local and global sensitivity analysis methods together with
correlation analysis. The results obtained from the case-study analysed clearly demonstrate that climate
Keywords:
Climate change
change combined with increasing urbanisation is likely to lead to worsening river water quality in terms
Integrated modelling of both frequency and magnitude of breaching threshold dissolved oxygen and ammonium concentra-
Sensitivity analysis tions. The results obtained also reveal the key climate change and urbanisation parameters that have the
Urbanisation largest negative impact as well as the most responsive IUWS operational control parameters including
Wastewater system major dependencies between all these parameters. This information can be further utilised to adapt
Water quality future IUWS operation and/or design which, in turn, should make these systems more resilient to future
climate and urbanisation changes.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction integrated approach to wastewater systems modelling has been

Climate change and urbanisation are among the key factors
affecting the future of water quality and quantity in urbanised
catchments and the ones associated with most uncertainty. Climate
change modifies the natural hydrologic cycle and results in, among
other things, changing rainfall patterns. Urbanisation leads to
changing land use and water consumption patterns. As a result, the
combined effect of the two leads to changing waste and storm
water flow patterns and associated pollutant loadings which, in
turn, is likely to have an impact on the aquatic life in the receiving
waters, i.e. rivers.
In order to respond to these future challenges, it is vital to
understand the impact of various related factors on urban river
water quality, including their uncertainties and how the mediating
wastewater system can best respond and adjust to maintain
performance. This is best carried out through the lens of an inte-
grated urban wastewater system (IUWS) perspective whereby the
urban wastewater system is considered as a whole comprising sewer
system, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and the recipient. This
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0)1392 723600; fax: þ44 (0)1392 217965.
E-mail addresses: ma353@exeter.ac.uk, mari4farr@gmail.com (M. Astaraie-
Imani).
demonstrated in the academic literature (Schütze et al., 2002; Butler
and Schütze, 2005), although there are few practical examples of any
scale (Butler and Davies, 2011). It is, however, firmly in line with the
precepts of the EU Water Framework Directive (Kallis and Butler,
2001). So far this approach has typically been applied with the
motivation of improving the performance of the whole system by
real time control, based on achieving appropriate receiving water
quality criteria (Vanrolleghem et al., 2005; Fu et al., 2008).
The potential impacts of climate change on water systems have
been and are being widely studied. In this specific domain for
example, Mimikou et al. (2000) assessed the impacts of climate
change on river water quality based on two climate change
scenarios. Wilby et al. (2006) used an integrated framework to
model climate change impacts on river water quality and quantity
in the UK. Whitehead et al. (2006), Delpla et al. (2009) and Park
et al. (2010) investigated the impacts of climate change on river
water quality.
The impact of urbanisation on wastewater systems and the
receiving water quality has been investigated in this study. Tong
and Chen (2002) revealed that there was a significant relation-
ship between land use and in-stream water quality at a regional
scale in the State of Ohio, USA. He et al. (2008) investigated the
response of surface water quality to urbanisation in Xi’n, China. Fu

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.039
2 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9

et al. (2009) quantified the impact of new developments on river Table 1

water quality in the integrated wastewater system context. Urbanisation parameters’ nominal values and their value ranges.

Jacobson (2011) provided a review on the impacts of urban Parameter Unit Nominal value Range
imperviousness on hydrological systems in diverse areas. POP % 0 [4.5, 15]
The combined or relative affects of climate change and urbani- IMP % 0 [5, 15]
sation have not gained so much attention in the context of urban PCW litre/person/day 180 [80, 260]
NHþ
4 mg/l 27.7 [20, 30]
wastewater management. There are a few exceptions. For example,
Semadeni-Davies et al. (2008a, 2008b) studied the potential
impacts of climate change and continued urbanisation on storm
water flows in a suburban stream and combined sewer system, measured by AMM and DO. As each of three subsystems has its own
Helsingborg, Sweden. Tu (2009) analysed the combined impact of characteristics and is simulated using different sets of pollutants,
climate and land use changes on water quality in watersheds of a factor-based conversion method is used to convert three
eastern Massachusetts. subsystems models into a single integrated model (Rauch et al.,
Notwithstanding the uncertainties in emissions scenarios, 2002; Vanhooren et al., 2003).
climate models and population projections, uncertainty also arises
from modelling of the urban drainage system. In order to scientif- 2.2. Sensitivity analysis methods
ically analyse and assess the future changes in environmental
quality and their uncertainties, there is a need to quantitatively Saltelli et al. (2006) classified the Sensitivity Analysis methods
characterise the uncertainties of environmental impacts by into three categories: screening methods, local sensitivity analysis
systematically identifying the relationships between the future (LSA) and global sensitivity analysis (GSA). The local, one-factor-at-
changes and the environmental quality (Zhou et al., 2010). To a-time method (OAT), and the global, Regional Sensitivity Analysis
achieve this, Mannina and Viviani (2010) and Thorndahl et al. method (RSA) are used here.
(2008) used the Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation
(GLUE) method to evaluate uncertainty. Zhou et al. (2010) devel- 2.2.1. Local sensitivity analysis
oped an integrated assessment method based on accounting for the The LSA is used here to screen the significance of various climate
uncertainty of water quality. Dessai and Hulme (2007) provided an change, urbanisation and operational control parameters and their
assessment framework that allows the identification of adaptation potential impact on the receiving water quality. This was done by
strategies that are robust (i.e. insensitive) to climate change perturbing one parameter value at a time while keeping the values
uncertainties in a water resources management framework in the of other input parameters fixed at their nominal (i.e. ‘Base Case e
UK. Sin et al. (2009) focused on uncertainty analysis of WWTP BC’) values. Once this is done, only the most sensitive parameters
models. filtered this way are then considered in the GSA. The BC represents
The aim of this study is to identify the input and operational the ‘business as usual’ in the existing IUWS, i.e. with no climate nor
control parameters that have the most significant impact on the urbanisation changes, with all IUWS parameters set to their default
receiving water quality in an IUWS context under the combined values.
effects of climate change and urbanisation. An integrated urban The Tornado type graphs are used to visualise the LSA results.
wastewater model is used to simulate receiving water quality in an These graphs were prepared as follows:
urban river represented by dissolved oxygen (DO) and ammonium (1) Run the IUWS model with all sensitivity parameters set
(AMM). The input parameters considered are from three categories, equal to their nominal values (BC); (2) Select one IUWS model input
i.e., climate change, urbanisation and system operational control parameter and change its value from default to upper (i.e.
parameters. Two sensitivity analysis methods, one local and one maximum) or lower (i.e. minimum) value in the considered range.
global, together with correlation analysis are used to analyse the Keep the other input parameter values at their nominal values (see
sensitivity of river DO and AMM concentrations to above Table 1 and Table 2); (3) Run the IUWS model and evaluate the
parameters. analysed IUWS model outputs; (4) Calculate the relative (i.e.
percent) change for the IUWS model outputs relative to the BC and
2. Methodology (5) Rank the relative differences obtained in a descending order.
Note that Tornado graphs obtained include both negative and
2.1. Integrated urban wastewater system modelling positive values. The positive values represent an increase relative to
the BC and vice versa.
The simulation model of the IUWS studied here is based on the
SIMBA5 simulation tool, developed by IFAK (2005). SIMBA5 2.2.2. Global sensitivity analysis
consists of a library of modelling blocks (in the Matlab/Simulink In GSA, the analysed IUWS model input parameters are varied
environment) to simulate different individual components in the simultaneously and the effects of their possible interactions are
IUWS. taken into account. Therefore, unlike LSA, the GSA takes into
The sewer system is modelled using a hydrological approach. account both local and global effects of IUWS model inputs on
The hydrological processes and losses considered include surface outputs. RSA has been widely applied in the fields of environmental
runoff from both pervious and impervious areas, wash-off, flow and
pollutant transport in sewers and storage tanks. Flow between sub-
catchments (i.e. pipe flow) is modelled using a Nash Cascade model. Table 2
Operational control parameters’ nominal values and their value ranges.
The Activated Sludge Model No.1 (Henze et al., 1986) is used for
modelling the WWTP. The IWA Task Group used this model as the Operational control parameter Unit Nominal value Range
Benchmark Simulation Model No.1 (Copp, 2002). The river is Qmaxout m3/d 5  DWF [3  DWF, 8  DWF]
simulated using the EPA Storm Water Management Model Qmaxin m3/d 3  DWF [2  DWF, 5  DWF]
(SWMM) (Huber and Dickinson, 1988). The river water quality Qtrigst m3/d 24,192 [16416, 31,104]
Qempst m3/d 12,096 [6912, 24,192]
model and the relevant conversions described by Schütze et al. QRAS m3/d 14,688 [6912, 24,192]
(2002) are used in this study. The water quality in the river is
 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9
and hydrological modelling (McIntyre et al., 2003; Cox and
Whitehead, 2005), and has been used here because of its capa-
bility to perform a GSA for highly-dimensional and non-linear
models (Hornberger and Spear, 1981) such as the IUWS model
used here.
The main idea behind the RSA is a division of the IUWS model
output space into behavioural (B) or non-behavioural (NB) regions
in terms of a priori defined criteria. The RSA procedure has the
following principal steps: (1) Identify the most important sources
of uncertainty in the IUWS model input parameters using the LSA
method described in Section 2.2.1; (2) Characterise the aforemen-
tioned uncertainties by assigning a probability density function
(uniform distribution used here); (3) Generate multiple input
parameter sets by using the Latin Hypercube Sampling technique;
(4) Run the IUWS model to evaluate the IUWS model outputs of
interest (AMM and DO) and classify each input parameter set as
either ‘behavioural’ or ‘non-behavioural’, based on the a priori
defined criterion. For a multi-objective analysis, this classification is
conducted for each objective separately; (5) Assign each of the
parameter sets likelihood estimated from its relevant output value
for behavioural and non-behavioural groups of samples. The
marginal cumulative distribution of behavioural and non-
behavioural parameter sets is then derived for each output.
The difference between the two marginal cumulative distribu-
tions can be estimated by using a two-sample KolmogoroveSmirnov
(KS) test. The statistic Dm,n is determined as the maximum vertical
distance between the cumulative distributions for behavioural and
non-behavioural as below:
Dm;n ¼ supjSB ðxÞ  SNB ðxÞj
where SB and SNB are the empirical distribution functions for n
behavioural and m non-behavioural samples, respectively. The
larger the value of Dm,n, the more significant the corresponding
parameter.
2.3. Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis is used here to indicate a predictive rela-
tionship between sensitivity parameters analysed. Scatter plots of
most important input parameters are presented as they can be
considered as global measures of correlation (Helton, 1993). In
addition, the Pearson correlation coefficient R is used to indicate
the strength of the linear relationship between the two IUWS
model variables (Saltelli et al., 2000).
Sewer System
CSO
SC1 SC2
(Tank) flow
SC4
SC3 Pump 1
(Tank)
SC7
(Tank)
SC5
SC6
CSO discharge
(Tank)
Reach 7
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the case study of IUWS.
3
3. Case study
3.1. Description
The case study used here is a semi-real case study (see Fig. 1).
This case study has been used for various purposes, including real
time control (Butler and Schütze, 2005; Schütze et al., 2002),
system RTC potential analysis (Zacharof et al., 2004) and system
impact analysis (Lau et al., 2002). The IUWS is divided into the
sewer subsystem, the WWTP and the river.
The sewer system analysed here is an example sewer system
used by ATV (1992). It has 7 sub-catchments with a total area of
725.8 ha. The average Dry Weather Flow (DWF) is approximately
27,500 m3/d. A storage tank is located at the WWTP inlet to control
the Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) by storing the wastewater in
excess to the WWTP pumping capacity. The storage tank release
capacity is controlled by means of thresholds on maximum outflow
rates. Lessard (1989) provided a dataset for concentration of
different water quality indicators for dry and storm water flows
which are applied for the sewer system in this study.
The nitrifying activated sludge plant in Norwich (UK) is used
here as the basis of the treatment plant simulations. The system has
a treatment capacity of 27,500 m3/d which is equal to DWF. It
consists of a storm tank, primary clarifiers, activated sludge reactor
and secondary clarifiers. The storm tank is controlled by the
maximum inflow rate to the primary clarifiers. The tank is emptied
at a certain pump rate, as soon as the inflow rate to the plant drops
below a pre-specified threshold value. The WWTP model has been
previously calibrated and validated (Lessard and Beck, 1993).
(1) The river system is a hypothetical, 45 km long stretch divided into
45 equal reaches. The runoff generated by rainfall on the upstream
catchments enters the system as an additional inflow into the river
at reach 1. The CSOs are assumed to discharge at reach 7 with the
storm tank overflows and treatment plant effluent at reach 10. The
above IUWS operation was assessed using a six day rainfall event
during 7the13th February 1977 with a total depth of 27 mm.
3.2. IUWS model input parameters
3.2.1. Urbanisation parameters
Urbanisation can, in principle, be represented by a number of
different parameters, but the following are used in this study:
- POP: Used to represent percentage increase in population over
a given time period. This parameter is related to the DWF but
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Inflow Primary Reactor
Secondary
Clarifier Clarifier
Effluent
Return
Return Sludge
Flow
Pump 2 Dispose
Waste
Sludge
Storm
Tank
Discharge
River Reach 10
4 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9
may also influence the DWF quality (Butler and Davies, 2011).
Population growth has also been shown to be related to other
urbanisation indices such as housing density and occupancy
(Environment Agency, 2006; Jefferies, 2005; Office for National
Statistics, 2010). In the UK, population growth by 2030 is
predicted to be between 4.5% (as a minimum in Table 1) and
15% (as a maximum in Table 1) (Department for Communities
and Local Government (DCLG), 2010).
- PCW: Defined as a daily Per Capita Water consumption. This
factor has a key role in influencing domestic wastewater
quantities. Butler and Davies (2011) indicate that 95% of the
water consumed in the UK is returned to the sewer system as
wastewater. PCW is primarily influenced by factors such as
changing household demographic composition, the changing
structure of the UK economy and the water charging policies
(Environment Agency, 2006) but may also be influenced by
climate change via increased air temperature. The possible
range of this parameter is set according to Defra (2006) as
shown in Table 1.
- IMP: IMP represents the percentage increase in impervious
surfaces which has a direct influence on the rate of storm water
runoff in urban areas (Butler and Davies, 2011). The growth of
impervious surfaces, by definition, implies a change from
natural catchment surface status as influenced by rates and
types of development in urban areas. The rate of increase of
imperviousness, in a given urban area is defined as the urban
creep, and has increased significantly over recent years
(UKWIR, 2010). The UK government policy is currently being
changed (DCLG, 2010) hence it is difficult to estimate future
urban creep and the resulting amount of imperviousness. The
range of the IMP values considered here (see Table 1) is based
on the values reported by CIWEM (2009).
- NHD þ
4 : NH4 is defined as the concentration of Ammonium in
DWF. This is a rather different parameter to the above ones as it
assumes the possible roll out of urine separation toilets. This is
unlikely in the UK in the short-term, but is a possible in the
long-term. Urine separation toilets reduce both the hydraulic
and nutrient loads in the sewer systems. Achileitner et al.
(2007) and Semadeni-Davies et al. (2008b) estimated that
urine separation in new homes could reduce the specific load
of nitrogen by some 25%. This has been used as a basis for the
range of values considered (see Table 1).
3.2.2. Climate change parameters
In this study, rainfall has been selected as the indicator of climate
change. Hulme et al. (2002) and IPCC (2000) estimated the future
pattern changes in rainfall for the UK indicating a future with wetter
winters and drier summers for some regions under certain climate
change scenarios. The MediumeHigh IPCC emissions scenario has
been adopted as a basis for the analyses done here. According to this
scenario, an increase in rainfall depth and/or intensity is likely under
the future climate change. Rather than undertake a detailed regional
climate model study, a simplified approach has been adopted in this
study. Here, the rainfall increase is represented by using the
following two parameters (as in Hulme et al., 2002):
- RD: This parameter represents the Rainfall Depth in mm. The
30 percent increase in 2080 is possible for winter rainfall in the
UK under the aforementioned emissions scenario. Based on
this, the 10, 20 and 30 percent increases in rainfall depth were
considered here (denoted as RD10, RD20, and RD30). These RD
increases have been applied to the base rainfall intensity to
increase the total rainfall depth without modifying the dura-
tion of the base rainfall.
- RI: This parameter represents the Rainfall Intensity in mm/h.
Three cases of 10, 20 and 30 percent increases to the base
rainfall intensities (denoted as RI10, RI20, RI30) are analysed
here. The increase is achieved by applying a fixed percentage
increase to rainfall intensities across the entire event/time-
series whilst maintaining the same cumulative depth as
follows:
yt ¼ maxð0; x þ ðxt  x  cÞ  dÞ (2)
where yt is the value of rainfall intensity at time t, xt is the value of
base rainfall intensity at time t, xis the average of rainfall intensity
in the base rainfall, d is a scaling factor and c is a weighting factor
that acts as the adjustor of x. As shown in Equation (2) the values of
yt have a minimum value of zero to avoid generating negative
rainfall rates which can result from the total rainfall depth
increases. To generate a new rainfall series, an initial value is
assigned to the factor c, and the new rainfall series are calculated
using Equation (2). Then the total rainfall depth of the new series is
computed and compared with the base rainfall depth value. If the
two depth values are not equal the factor c is used to adjust the
difference by trial and error. This process is repeated until the two
series have the same rainfall depth.
3.2.3. IUWS operational control parameters
The following IUWS operational control parameters are ana-
lysed here:
- Qmaxout: This parameter is the maximum outflow rate from the
storage tank in the sewer system. This parameter controls CSO
discharges into the river and the WWTP inflow.
- Qmaxin: This parameter represents the maximum inflow to the
WWTP. It controls the inflows to the primary clarifiers and has
an impact on the rate of storm tank overflows into the river.
- Qtrigst: This parameter defines the threshold at which the
storm tank emptying is triggered. This parameter controls the
storm tank operation in terms of river overflows.
- Qempst: The filling of the storm tank is controlled by the
maximum inflow rate to the primary clarifiers. The tank is
emptied at a certain pump rate, as soon as the inflow rate to the
plant drops below a pre-specified threshold value.
- QRAS: The return activated sludge is taken from the secondary
clarifiers and is pumped back into the aerator head. The waste
sludge is set constant to 660 m3/d.
The nominal values of the above parameters and their possible
ranges are given in Table 2.
3.3. IUWS model outputs
The following two IUWS model outputs are used to represent
water quality in the receiving water:
- Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in the river (DO):
DO is one of the most important water quality factors that can
affect the aquatic life in the rivers if it drops too low.
- Maximum Ammonium concentration in the river (AMM):
Ammonium is a component of DWF that affects the quality of
water in the rivers by consuming the DO.
The critical threshold of 4 mg/l is used here for both DO and
AMM based on the Urban Pollution Management (UPM) manual
(FWR, 1998).
 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9 5

RD30 RI30
RD30 RD30
Qmaxout PCW
PCW Qmaxin
Qmaxin RD20
RD20 RI30
RI30 POP
RD10 IMP
RI20 Qmaxout
RI10 RD10
NH4 RI20
POP RI10
IMP Qtrigst
QRAS NH4
Qtrigst QRAS
Qempst a Qempst b
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Relative variation of DO to the Base Case for Relative variation of DO to the Base Case for
minimum values of System Control Parameters (%) maximum values of System Control Parameters (%)
Qmaxout Qmaxin
RD30 PCW
Qtrigst RD30
PCW POP
NH4 NH4
QRAS RD20
Qmaxin RD10
Qempst IMP
RD20 QRAS
RD10 RI10
RI20 RI20
RI10 RI30
POP Qtrigst
RI30 Qempst
IMP c Qmaxout d
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Relative variation of AMM to the Base Case for Relative variation of AMM to the Base Case for
minimum values of System Control Parameters (%) maximum values of System Control Parameters (%)

Fig. 2. LSA results.

4. Results and discussion
4.1. Local sensitivity analysis results
The LSA results are summarised in Tornado graphs shown in
Fig. 2. Fig. 2a and b depict the sensitivity of DO to the analysed
IUWS model inputs and Fig. 2c and d depict the corresponding
results in the AMM case. The following points are deduced from
these figures:
impact on the AMM in the river as it controls the storm tank
overflows (see Fig. 2c).
Based on the LSA results shown in Fig. 2, the following significant
parameters are selected for further investigation in the GSA: RD and
RI (with 30% increase only), PCW, POP, IMP, Qmaxout, Qmaxin and Qtrigst.
Even though the RI parameter did not show as significant impact on
the recipient water quality as the RD, it was investigated further in
the GSA for possible interactions with other parameters.

- The most significant climate change parameter is RD for both

4.2. Global sensitivity analysis results
DO and AMM. As shown in Fig. 2a and b, the 30 percent
increase in rainfall depth results in a more severe deterioration
The above IUWS model input parameters were used to generate
of DO than any other input parameter. Similar deterioration is
corresponding samples by using the methodology described in
observed for AMM in Fig. 2c and b. This deterioration is
a consequence of increasing the CSOs and storm tank over- Table 3
flows with excess rainfall volume. KS statistic of each parameter for the model outputs.
- PCW has the most significant impact on river water quality of
Model outputs DO AMM
all urbanisation parameters considered. The minimum value of
PCW improves the DO and AMM (see Fig. 2a and c) while the Climate change parameters RD30 RI30 RD30 RI30

opposite happens when the PCW is set to the maximum value Urbanisation IMP 0.68 0.27 0.16 0.12
parameters POP 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.07
(see Fig. 2b and c).
PCW 0.76 0.50 0.41 0.40
- As shown in Fig. 2, Qmaxout and Qmaxin are the two most NHþ 0.33 0.07 0.15 0.18
4
significant operational control parameters with the highest Operational control Qmaxout 0.93 0.64 0.59 0.56
impact on the river water quality. This is because these two parameters Qmaxin 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.20
parameters directly control the CSOs and storm tank overflows Qtrigst 0.28 0.07 0.13 0.10
Qempst 0.20 0.07 0.04 0.06
which, in turn, affect the quality of water in the river (Butler
QRAS 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.06
and Davies, 2011). In addition, Qtrigst also has a significant
6 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9

D-line B NB

Rainfall Depth (RD30) Rainfall Intensity (RI30)

1 1
1
2
0.5 0.5

0 0
1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15
Cumulative Probability

IMP (%) IMP (%)

1 1
3 4
0.5 0.5

0 0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
PCW (lit/person/day) PCW (lit/person/day)
1 1
5 6
0.5 0.5

0 0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
PCW (lit/person/day) PCW (lit/person/day)

Fig. 3. CDFs of the selected urbanisation parameters from GSA under two climate change parameters with regard to DO (Fig. 3-1 to 3-4) and AMM (Fig. 3-5 to 3-6) in the river,
respectively. B denotes the ‘behavioural’ group and NB denotes the ‘non-behavioural’ group.

Section 2.2.2. The pre-defined threshold value of 4 mg/l was applied analysed water quality indicators. The corresponding KS statistics
for both water quality parameters to divide the obtained parameter obtained in RD30 and RI30 cases are shown in Table 3.
samples into ‘behavioural’ and ‘non-behavioural’. The behavioural
group of samples has a DO concentration above 4 mg/l and the 4.2.1. GSA results for the urbanisation parameters
AMM concentration below 4 mg/l and vice versa for the non- The most significant sensitivities obtained for the urbanisation
behavioural groups of samples. The cumulative distribution func- parameters are shown in Fig. 3. The following observations can be
tions (CDFs) of both groups were plotted with regard to the made:

D-line B NB
Rainfall Depth (RD30) Rainfall Intensity (RI30)
1 1
1 2
0.5 0.5

0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
Cumulative Probability

3 4
0.5 0.5

0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8
Qmaxout(*27500, m3/d) Qmaxout(*27500, m3/d)

RD30 RD30
1 1
5 6
0.5 0.5

0 0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Qmaxin (*27500, m3/d) Qtrigst (*24, m3/d)

Fig. 4. CDFs of the selected operational control parameters from GSA under two climate change parameters with regard to DO (Fig. 4-1, 4-2, 4-5 and 4-6) and AMM (Fig. 4-3 to 4-4)
in the river.
 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9 7

Table 4
Correlations between system input parameters and IUWS model outputs.
IUWS model output e climate change parameters
DO (under RD)
DO (under RI)
AMM (under RD)
AMM (under RI)
- In general, departures of the urbanisation parameters from the
diagonal line (D-line) under RD30 are more significant than
under RI30. In other words, the sensitivity of the water quality
indicators to the urbanisation parameters under RD30 is more
significant than under RI30.
- The most significant departures from the D-line are observed
for the PCW parameter (see Fig. 3-3 to 3-6). Under RD30 (see
Fig. 3-3, 3-5), the PCW values leading to compliant water
quality standards (see KS statistics in Table 3), are predomi-
nantly in the lower bound of the considered PCW range. In
other words, reducing the PCW is important for meeting the
water quality standards in the river (especially the DO stan-
dards) in a changing climate.
- Fig. 3-1 and 3-2 show that DO is considerably more sensitive to
the IMP than the AMM and this sensitivity is more significant
under RD30. The excess volume of rainfall under RD30 causes
more runoff and this runoff intensifies when the impervious-
ness increases. The increased runoff causes CSOs and storm
tank overflows which, in turn, lead to the deterioration of DO
in the river. Therefore, under a changing climate, attention
must be paid to controlling the imperviousness (i.e. the urban
creep), although this is of less importance than the PCW.
4.2.2. GSA results for the operational control parameters
The most significant sensitivities obtained for the operational
control parameters are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4-1 to 4-4 show the
sensitivity of DO to Qmaxout and Fig. 4-5 to 4-6 show the sensitivity
of DO to Qmaxin and Qtrigst respectively. The following observations
can be made from these figures:
- The departures from the D-line in Fig. 4-1 and 4-2 show that
the Qmaxout parameter has the most significant impact on DO.
Qmaxout PCW Comparing Fig. 4-1 and 4-2 with Fig. 4-3 and 4-4 indicate that
0.75 0.017 the DO is more sensitive to Qmaxout than AMM. Also, as it can be
0.87 0.46 observed from Fig. 4-1 to 4-4, the maximum departures
0.18 0.43 (dashed lines) are obtained near the maximum value of Qmaxout
0.15 0.51
in the RD30 case. This is because increased Qmaxout reduces the
volume of CSO discharges into the river which, in turn, helps
maintaining the water quality in the river. Note also that the
sensitivity of Qmaxout to the RD is larger than the corresponding
sensitivity to the RI.
- The DO is also sensitive to Qmaxin (but less than to Qmaxout)
under both climate change parameters with no marked
difference (hence Fig. 4-5 depicts this sensitivity under RD30
only). This figure also shows that most of the behaving samples
(B dashed line) occur for larger Qmaxin values. This is because
increasing Qmaxin has the potential to reduce the storm tank
overflows which in turn, improves the DO.
- The sensitivity of DO to Qtrigst is observed only in the RD30 case,
as shown in Fig. 4-6. The maximum departure from the D-line
occurs near the lowest Qtrigst values. This indicates that for
maintaining the DO quality in the river, the control scheme
reduces the storm tank overflows. Fig. 4-6 shows that, under
the RI30, AMM is not sensitive to Qtrigst.
4.3. Correlation analysis results
Although the KS statistic provides an insight into the distinction
between behavioural and non-behavioural distributions, it may not
identify the regional sensitivity hidden by high correlation between
the analysed IUWS model parameters. Therefore the results of the
RSA should be interpreted in conjunction with the parameter
covariance or correlation matrix (McIntyre et al., 2003). As the
sensitivity results showed, PCW and Qmaxout are the two most
important parameters.
Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients for PCW and Qmaxout.
The significant correlation, i.e. relationship is observed between
Qmaxout and DO for both RD30 and RI30 as both values (0.75 and 0.87

RD30 RI30
5 6
a b
DO Concentartion (mg/l)
DO Concentartion (mg/l)

5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1

0 0
3 4 5 6 7 8 3 4 5 6 7 8
Qmaxout (m3/d) Qmaxout (m3/d)
24 20
AMM Concentartion (mg/l)
AMM Concentartion (mg/l)

c d
20 16

16
12
12
8
8
4
4

0 0
80 130 180 230 260 80 130 180 230 260
PCW (lit/person/day) PCW (lit/person/day)

Fig. 5. Scatter plots between parameters (PCW and Qmaxout) and water quality indicators (DO and AMM) under climate change parameters (RD30 and RI30).
8 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9
1 1
Cumulative Probability
99 %
0.8 88 %
0.6
0.4 49 %
0.2
0 0
1 2 3 4
DO Concentration (mg/l)
Fig. 6. Empirical CDFs of water quality indicators in the river under climate change parameters.
respectively) are relatively large, i.e. closer to one than other values.
The positive values obtained also indicate that increasing Qmaxout
lead to increasing DO values, i.e. improved system performance.
The reason for this is that the increasing Qmaxout is leading to
reduced CSOs.
Fig. 5a and b show the relationship between Qmaxout and DO
under RD30 and RI30. In these figures, with increasing Qmaxout, the
number of samples which have DO above the threshold of 4 mg/l
(dashed line) is reduced by a changing climate and it is worse under
RD30. Therefore, it is difficult to maintain the quality of DO in the
river without increasing Qmaxout and consequently reducing CSOs.
Regarding the AMM (see Table 4), the maximum correlation
coefficients are observed for the PCW. In this study, the correlation
between AMM and PCW is more significant than correlation to any
of other parameter under the climate change. As can be observed in
Fig. 5c and d, more non-behavioural samples are observed near the
maximum value of PCW for AMM showing that the increase in PCW
under the climate change has the potential to increase DWF and
consequently leads to deterioration of water quality in the river.
Fig. 6 shows the empirical CDF of water quality indicators under
climate change based on the generated samples. Fig. 6a indicates
that the probability of DO failure (i.e. DO below the 4 mg/l
threshold) increases from 49% to 88% and nearly 99% assuming RI30
and RD30 respectively. Therefore, RD30 has a greater negative
impact on DO than RI30 because of the increased CSO discharges
into the river.
The probability of AMM failure (i.e. AMM above the 4 mg/l
threshold) increases with increasingly worsening climate. The
probability of failure increases by 12% for the RI30 and 34% for the
RD30 (see Fig. 6b). The AMM failure is a consequence of the
increased CSO discharges i.e. discharges of untreated wastewater
into the river under worsening climate conditions.
5. Conclusions
This paper investigated the combined impact of urbanisation
and climate change on the receiving water quality in rivers in the
context of an integrated urban wastewater system in the UK,
together with the associated potential for improved operational
system control. The main conclusions can be summarised as
follows.
Based on the case study results obtained, it can be concluded
that climate change is likely to lead to deterioration of water quality
in rivers. The potential increase in rainfall depth is likely to have
a more significant impact on the river water quality than the
increase in rainfall intensity. The likelihood of breaching the 4 mg/l
thresholds for ammonium and dissolved oxygen is likely to increase
for both ammonium and dissolved oxygen and the breach for the
latter is likely to be more frequent and significant than for the
former.
With regard to the urbanisation parameters, assuming the
climate change, the per capita water consumption is the most
a 0.8 b
0.6 55%
43%
0.4 Base Rainfall
21% RD30
0.2
RI30
5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
AMM Concentration (mg/l)
significant parameter. This is due to the fact that increased water
consumption leads to increase dry weather flow and combined
sewer overflows which, in turn, results in the increased ammonium
concentration in the river. The per capita water consumption is also
the most important urbanisation parameter influencing the dis-
solved oxygen in the river because it increases dry weather flow
and consequently the ammonium concentration which leads to
depletion of dissolved oxygen in the river.
The maximum outflow rate from the sewer system is the most
significant operational control parameter in terms of complying
with the dissolved oxygen standard in the river under the climate
change. The maximum inflow rate to the wastewater treatment
plant is the most important operational control parameter in
complying with the ammonium standard in the river. These two
operational control parameters are the most significant ones as
they affect the river water quality by controlling the discharge
frequency of the combined sewer overflows and storm tank
overflows.
The results obtained provide a valuable insight into the key
urbanisation and climate change parameters impacting on the
receiving water quality in the integrated urban wastewater system
context in the UK. This information can be further utilised to adapt
future operation (and, if necessary, design) of these systems which,
in turn, should make these systems more resilient to future climate
and urbanisation changes.
References
Achileitner, S., Möderl, M., Rauch, W., 2007. Urine separation as part of a real-time
control strategy. Urban Water J. 4 (4), 233e240.
ATV (Abwassertechnische Vereinigung e.V.), 1992. Richtlinien für die Bemessung
und Gestaltung von Regenentlastungsanlagen in Mischwasserkanälen. ATV-
Arbeitsblatt A128, Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Abwassertechnik, St.
Augustin.
Butler, D., Davies, J.W., 2011. Urban Drainage, third ed. Spon Press, London.
Butler, D., Schütze, M., 2005. Integrating simulation models with a view to optimal
control of urban wastewater systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 20, 415e426.
CIWEM, 2009. Integrated Urban Drainage Modelling Guide. URBAN DRAINAGE
GROUP, WAPUG. http://www.ciwem.org/media/44495/WaPUG_IUD_
Modelling_Guide_Draft_Rev1_v28_(June_09)_v01e001.pdf.
Copp, J.B., 2002. The COST Simulation Benchmark Description and Simulator
Manual. Office for Official Publications of the European communities,
Luxembourg, ISBN 92-894-1658-0.
Cox, B.A., Whitehead, P.G., 2005. Parameter sensitivity and predictive uncertainty in
a new water quality model Q2. J. Environ. Eng. ASCE 131, 147e157.
Dessai, S., Hulme, M., 2007. Assessing the robustness of adaptation decisions to
climate change uncertainties: a case study on water resources management in
the East of England. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 59e72.
Defra, 2006. BNWAT22: Domestic Water Consumption in Domestic and Non-
domestic Properties. Defra’s Market Transformation Programme, UK.
Delpla, I., Jung, A.V., Clement, M., Thomas, O., 2009. Impacts of climate change on
surface water quality in relation to drinking water production. Environ. Int. 35,
1225e1233.
Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010. Estimating Housing
Need, ISBN 978-1-4098 26262.
Environment Agency, 2006. Using Science to Create a Better Place. Environment
Agency scenarios 2030. Science Report SC050002/SR1, ISBN: 1844325717.
Fu, G., Butler, D., Khu, S.T., 2008. Multiple objective optimal control of integrated
urban wastewater systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 23, 225e234.
 M. Astaraie-Imani et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 112 (2012) 1e9
Fu, G., Butler, D., Khu, S.T., 2009. The impact of new developments on river water
quality from an integrated system modelling perspective. Sci. Total Environ.
407, 1257e1267.
FWR, 1998. Urban Pollution Management Manual, second ed. Foundation for Water
Research, FR/CL0009, UK: Marlow.
He, H., Zhou, J., Wu, Y., Zhang, W., Xie, X., 2008. Modelling the response of surface
water quality to the urbanization in Xi’an, China. J. Environ. Manag. 86 (4),
731e749.
Helton, J.C., 1993. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for use in
performance assessment for radioactive waste disposal. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe.
42, 327e367.
Henze, M., Grady Jr., C.P.L., Gujer, W., Marais, GvR., Matsuo, T., 1986. Activated
Sludge Model No.1. LAWQ Scientific and Technical Report 1. IAWQ, London.
Hornberger, G.M., Spear, R.C., 1981. An approach to the preliminary analysis of
environmental systems. J. Environ. Manag. 12, 7e18.
Huber, W.C., Dickinson, R.E., 1988. Storm Water Management Model. User’s Manual
Version IV. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J.,
Murphy, J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R., Hill, S., 2002. Climate
Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: the UKCIP02 Scientific Report.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 120 p.
IFAK, 2005. SIMBA 5.0: Simulation of Wastewater Systems, User’s Guide. Institut für
Automation und Kommunikation e.V., Magdeburg, Germany.
IPCC, 2000. In: Nakicenovic, Neboisa, Swart, Rob (Eds.), Emission Scenarios: Special
Report of Working Group III to the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, UK, 570 p.
Jacobson, C.R., 2011. Identification and quantification of the hydrological impacts of
imperviousness in urban catchments: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (6),
1438e1448.
Jefferies, J., 2005. Chapter 1: The UK Population: Past, Present and Future. Focus on
People and Migration: 2005.
Kallis, G., Butler, D., 2001. Implications of the EU water framework directive. Water
Policy 3, 125e142.
Lau, J., Butler, D., Schütze, M., 2002. Is combined sewer overflow spill frequency/
volume a good indicator of receiving water quality impact? Urban Water 4 (2),
181e189.
Lessard, P., 1989. Operational Water Quality Management: Control of Stormwater
Dischages. PhD thesis. Department of Civil Engineering; Imperial College of
Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London, London.
Lessard, P., Beck, M.B., 1993. Dynamic modelling of the activated sludge process:
a case study. Water Resour. 27 (6), 963e978.
Mannina, G., Viviani, G., 2010. An urban drainage stormwater quality model: model
development and uncertainty quantification. J. Hydrol. 381, 248e265.
McIntyre, N.R., Wagener, T., Wheater, H.S., Chapra, S.C., 2003. Risk-based modelling
of surface water quality: a case study of the Charles River, Massachusetts.
J. Hydrol. 274 (1e4), 225e247.
Mimikou, M.A., Baltas, E., Varanou, E., Pantazis, K., 2000. Regional impacts of
climate change on water resources quantity and quality indicators. J. Hydrol.
234, 95e109.
9
Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2010. UK Population Approaches 62 Million.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/popnr0610.pdf.
Park, J.H., Duan, L., Kim, B., Mitchell, M.J., Shibata, H., 2010. Potential effects of
climate change and variability on watershed biogeochemical processes and
water quality in Northeast Asia. Environ. Int. 36, 212e225.
Rauch, W., Bertrand-Krajewski, J.L., Krebs, P., Mark, O., Schilling, W., Schütze, M.,
Vanrolleghem, P.A., 2002. Mathematical modelling of integrated urban drainage
systems. Water Sci. Tech. 45 (3), 81e94.
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., 2006. Sensitivity analysis prac-
tices: strategies for model-based inference. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 91 (10e11),
1109e1125.
Saltelli, A., Chan, K., Scott, E.M., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis. Wiley Series in Proba-
bility and Statistics, ISBN 0-471-99892-3.
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., Gustafson, L.G., 2008a. The
impacts of climate change and urbanization on drainage in Helsingborg,
Sweden: suburban stormwater. J. Hydrol. 350, 114e125.
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., Gustafsson, L.G., 2008b. The
impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg,
Sweden: combined sewer system. J. Hydrol. 350 (1e2), 100e113.
Schütze, M., Butler, D., Beck, M.B., 2002. Modelling Simulation and Control of Urban
Wastewater Systems. Springer, Berlin.
Sin, G., Gernaey, K.V., Neumann, M.B., van Loosdrecht, M.C., Gujer, W., 2009.
Uncertainty analysis in WWTP model applications: a critical discussion using an
example from design. Water Res. 43, 2894e2906.
Thorndahl, S., Beven, K.J., Jensen, J.B., Schaapur-Jensen, K., 2008. Event based
uncertainty assessment in urban drainage modelling, applying the GLUE
methodology. J. Hydrol. 357, 421e437.
Tong, S.T.Y., Chen, W., 2002. Modelling the relationship between land use and
surface water quality. J. Environ. Manag. 66 (4), 377e393.
Tu, J., 2009. Combined impact of climate and land use changes on streamflow and
water quality in eastern Massachusetts, USA. J. Hydrol. 379, 268e283.
UKWIR, 2010. Impact of Urban Creep on Sewerage Systems. 10/WM/07/14, ISBN: 1
84057 558 1.
Vanhooren, H., Meirlaen, J., Amerlinck, Y., Claeys, F., Vangheluwe, H.,
Vanrolleghem, P.A., 2003. WEST: modelling biological wastewater treatment.
J. Hydroinform. 5 (1), 27e50.
Vanrolleghem, P.A., Benedetti, L., Meirlaen, J., 2005. Modelling and real-time control
of the integrated urban wastewater system. Environ. Model. Softw. 20 (4),
427e442.
Wilby, R.L., Whitehead, P.G., Wade, A.J., Butterfield, D., Davis, R.J., Watts, G., 2006.
Integrated modelling of climate change impacts on water resources and quality
in a lowland catchment: river Kennet, UK. J. Hydrol. 330, 204e220.
Whitehead, P.G., Wilby, R.L., Butterfield, D., Wade, A.J., 2006. Impacts of climate
change on in-stream nitrogen in a lowland chalk stream: an appraisal of
adaptation strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 365, 260e273.
Zacharof, A.L., Butler, D., Schütze, M., Beck, M.B., 2004. Screening for real-time
control potential of urban wastewater systems. J. Hydrol. 299 (3e4), 349e362.
Zhou, J., Liu, Y., Chen, J., 2010. Accounting for uncertainty in evaluating water quality
impacts of urban development plan. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 30, 219e228.