See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333838640

Evapotranspiration in green stormwater infrastructure systems

Article  in  Science of The Total Environment · June 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.256

CITATIONS READS

4 329

3 authors, including:

Ali Ebrahimian Robert Traver

Villanova University Villanova University
15 PUBLICATIONS   194 CITATIONS    102 PUBLICATIONS   1,449 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effective Impervious area in urban watersheds View project

EPA STAR (Science To Achieve Results) Grant: Next Generation Volume Reduction Green Infrastructure Stormwater Control Measures in Support of Philadelphia’s Green
City Clean Waters Initiative View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Ebrahimian on 08 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Review

Evapotranspiration in green stormwater infrastructure systems

Ali Ebrahimian ⁎, Bridget Wadzuk, Robert Traver
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Villanova University, 800 E. Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA 19085, USA

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• ET is an important component of the hy-

drologic cycle in vegetated GSI.
• ET is dependent on both meteorological
factors and GSI properties.
• Dynamics of ET and infiltration should
be considered in vegetated GSI design.

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

Article history: Evapotranspiration (ET) is a viable runoff reduction mechanism and an important player in the hydrologic cycle
Received 9 April 2019 of vegetated green stormwater infrastructure (GSI). As a dynamic process, ET is dependent on both meteorolog-
Received in revised form 13 June 2019 ical factors (e.g., rainfall characteristics, relative humidity, and air temperature) and GSI properties (e.g., soil
Accepted 16 June 2019
media type). This paper investigates the role of ET in runoff volume reduction of green roofs and rain gardens
Available online 17 June 2019
through a comprehensive literature review. Evapotranspiration is mostly unaccounted in the design and
Editor: Ashantha Goonetilleke crediting of GSI systems because of the complex interaction of soil, plants, and climate that makes its quantifica-
tion difficult. To improve vegetated GSI design for runoff volume reduction, design methods should consider ET
Keywords: and infiltration processes concurrently. Two methods, complex and simple, are reviewed and discussed herein.
ET The simple method requires minimal input information compared to the more complex continuous simulation
Infiltration method; however continuous simulation yields volume reduction values more similar to field observations. It
Bioinfiltration is demonstrated that modifying the drainage structure and using fine-grained in-situ soils can potentially in-
Bioretention crease ET in vegetated GSI systems. None of the available ET predictive equations, mostly derived from agricul-
Rain garden
tural sciences, are found to precisely match observed GSI ET data. Until further research is conducted on GSI ET
Green roof
estimation methods, the 1985 Hargreaves method is recommended when performing continuous simulations.
Green infrastructure
The 1985 Hargreaves method is simple, requires limited input data that are readily available, and generates rea-
sonable results. Technical recommendations and directions for future research are provided.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ali.ebrahimian@villanova.edu (A. Ebrahimian), bridget.wadzuk@villanova.edu (B. Wadzuk), robert.traver@villanova.edu (R. Traver).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.256
0048-9697/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
798 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798
2. ET significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
2.1. ET in urban hydrologic cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
2.2. ET in GSI runoff volume control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
2.2.1. Green roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799
2.2.2. Rain gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
3. ET determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
3.1. Potential ET versus actual ET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
3.2. PET estimation methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
3.3. Comparison of PET and AET in GSI systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
3.3.1. Green roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
3.3.2. Rain gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
3.4. Stress point and available water for ET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
4. ET and GSI design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
4.1. Static methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
4.2. Dynamic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
4.2.1. Complex method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
4.2.2. Simple method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805
4.3. Technical recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
4.3.1. Drainage condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
4.3.2. Native (in-situ) soils in the media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
5. Research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
5.1. Continuous simulation of ET and exfiltration in GSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
5.2. Simple tools to account for ET in GSI design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
5.3. ET predictive methods in GSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
5.4. Stress point and PAW in GSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
5.5. Long term monitoring of GSI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
5.6. Drainage conditions for improved ET and other benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
5.7. Soil media design for ET-infiltration balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808

1. Introduction
Urban flooding and water pollution are common problems asso-
ciated with stormwater management in urbanized areas (Shariat
et al., 2019). Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) mitigates urban-
ization impacts by disconnecting impervious areas from storm sewer
systems and using the hydrologic cycle components to reduce runoff
volume and pollutant loads (Ebrahimian et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2018).
In cities, such as New York City, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia (PA), London, UK, and Paris, France, that widely utilize combined
sewer systems to manage stormwater and sewage, urbanization im-
pacts are intensified because even relatively small rainfall events can
cause combined sewer overflows (CSOs) (Montalto et al., 2007). As
such, cities are using vegetated GSI systems (e.g., rain gardens and
green roofs) that reduce runoff entering the sewer system and, sub-
sequently, CSOs. Evapotranspiration (ET) (i.e., evaporation from
plants and land surface plus transpiration from plants) is an impor-
tant post-storm element of the hydrologic cycle and plays an impor-
tant role in the performance of vegetated GSI systems (Berland et al.,
2017; Muerdter et al., 2018; Feng, 2018). Eger et al. (2017) report the
average and median ET portion of water budgets as 61% and 64%, re-
spectively, in green roofs (N = 59) and 37% and 28%, respectively, in
bioretention cells (N = 10), where N is the number of green roofs
and bioretention cells.
When the goal of GSI design is to reduce the runoff volume and
knowing that ET is a substantial component of an annual water budget,
ET needs to be considered in GSI design. Evapotranspiration contributes
to the restoration of soil media pore storage in vegetated GSI through
moisture reduction after storm events. Hence, the main research ques-
tion becomes how to incorporate ET in the volume-reduction design
and crediting of vegetated GSI systems. Care must be taken in
incorporating ET into design when GSI is designed for other objectives,
particularly with finer temporal resolutions (e.g., flood control) or non-
surface systems (e.g., groundwater recharge, stormwater reuse). Focus-
ing on rain gardens and green roofs, a comprehensive literature review
study was executed and shows the significance of ET in GSI system per-
formance. Further, different methods for estimating ET were investi-
gated, and ideas for resolving the main research question were
developed. Technical recommendations regarding the design and
crediting of rain gardens and green roofs, as well as directions for future
research, are also provided. It should be noted that the term “rain gar-
den” is used in this manuscript to be inclusive of both bioinfiltration
and bioretention systems.
Peer-reviewed journal publications were the main references in
this article. However, other publications such as conference proceed-
ings and technical reports were reviewed and cited as appropriate.
The references encompass a wide range of areas including hydrol-
ogy, water resources science and engineering, environmental sci-
ence and engineering, irrigation and drainage engineering, soil
sciences, landscape planning, ecohydrology, and ecological engi-
neering. While the article is within the context of urban GSI, refer-
ences from agricultural research have been presented to support
the statements and discussions where needed. Reviewing the role
of plant types on ET in vegetated urban GSI systems is beyond the
scope of this paper. Examples of such studies can be found in Wolf
and Lundholm (2008), Lundholm et al. (2010), and Zhang et al.
(2018a) for green roofs, Hunt et al. (2015), and Payne et al. (2018)
for rain gardens, and Tirpak et al. (2018) and Zhang and Chui
(2019) for other GSI systems. Additionally, this paper did not seek
to evaluate and compare existing design guidelines or manuals ex-
plicitly, but they are mentioned as necessary to demonstrate where
ET is or is not considered in design.
 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810 799

2. ET significance
2.1. ET in urban hydrologic cycle
Simplified hydrologic models usually neglect ET in urban areas;
however, ET has been found to be an important component of urban hy-
drologic cycle when trees and vegetated surfaces cover notable portions
of the urban area (Grimmond and Oke, 1991, 1999; Kuehler et al., 2017;
Berland et al., 2017). For example, ET was found to constitute 38% of an-
nual and 81% of summer water balance losses in Vancouver, Canada
(Grimmond and Oke, 1986). Scharenbroch et al. (2016) reported a 46
to 72% share for transpiration in total water outputs of parking lot
bioswales with trees in Chicago, Illinois. While ET has been heavily stud-
ied in agriculture, it is largely unaccounted for in the design of urban GSI.
Several concepts and findings from agricultural literature can be modi-
fied for and applied to the urban environments.
2.2. ET in GSI runoff volume control
The volume control in vegetated GSI is mostly attributed to infiltra-
tion in current practices, although ET can be considered a viable mech-
anism (Li et al., 2009; Denich and Bradford, 2010; Zaremba et al., 2016;
Hess et al., 2017). After a rainfall event, there is a recovery period where
infiltration and ET decrease the soil moisture and restore the soil media
pore volume available for the next rainfall event. The initially high infil-
tration rates after rainfall events reduce as the soil moisture increases
but ET continues throughout the no-rain period while adequate water
is available for the ET process (Wadzuk et al., 2015). Maimone (2010)
investigated the effect of ET on urban tree pit overflows and identified
the need to account for ET if there are poor soil infiltration conditions
or lined systems.
Accounting for ET as a volume control mechanism can provide a
more process-based design for vegetated GSI systems (Berland et al.,
2017). While there are a few places around the world that consider ET
in the design of vegetated GSI through continuous simulations, e.g., in
Australia (DPLG, 2009; Melbourne Water, 2018), New Zealand (Lewis
et al., 2015), and Western US (WSDE, 2012), this is not the norm. In
the US, for example, Wadzuk (2013), LeBoon (2014), and Hess (2017)
looked at how different cities and states give volume reduction credit
to rain gardens and green roofs. They found that there are often neither
regulations that require or include ET in the design and crediting nor
vegetation or soil media guidelines for maximizing the ET benefits.
Hence, considering ET in the design and crediting of vegetated GSI sys-
tems deserves further investigation (Berland et al., 2017). In-situ ET
measurement in vegetated GSI systems (e.g., using chamber systems-
Hamel et al., 2014) is difficult (Szota et al., 2018). Therefore, ET is usually
estimated using other methods such as 1) measurements of other water
budget components through lysimeter/column/box studies (see
Tables 1 and 3), 2) potential ET (PET) estimation equations (see
Section 3), and 3) stomatal conductance measurements at the leaf-
scale (e.g., Scharenbroch et al., 2016- beyond the scope of this paper).
2.2.1. Green roofs
Unlike other GSI systems that rely on infiltration as the primary
stormwater control mechanism, a green roof (with restricted
underdrains) primarily retains water within its soil media and
evapotranspirates this water over time. Runoff volume reduction is
the most widely reported performance metric for green roofs. It is calcu-
lated as the percentage of total captured rainfall by the green roof dur-
ing the study period and sometimes is called percent retention. Palla
et al. (2010) performed a review on green roof experimental studies
in different cities in the US and Europe (Sweden, Belgium, and
Germany) and concluded that green roof volume retention may range
from 40% to 80% of the total rainfall. Similarly, Carson et al. (2013)
reviewed pilot scale green roof studies conducted on elevated test
boxes or similar modules with an area of 0.37 to 12 m2 that have re-
sulted in 30% to 86% volume reduction. Overall, while there have been
studies documenting ET in green roofs, there is wide variability and un-
certainty to the controlling mechanisms, so care should be taken in gen-
eralizing the performance of any green roof to a proposed green roof
with different meteorological conditions or engineering properties
(Harper et al., 2015).
The variability of the reported runoff volume reductions in green
roofs (Berndtsson, 2010) can be because of meteorological factors
(e.g., antecedent rainfall, antecedent dry time, rainfall depth and inten-
sity, relative humidity, wind speed, solar radiation, and time of year)
and green roof properties (e.g., media water retention capacity, vegeta-
tion, slope, and age) (Fassman-Beck et al., 2013; Hakimdavar et al.,
2014; Harper et al., 2015; DiGiovanni-White et al., 2018). Hakimdavar
et al. (2014) identified rainfall depth and duration as the most

Table 1
Pilot scale studies that highlight the significance of ET in green roofs through measurements.

Study Location ET performance Remarks

Volume Rate
reduction (mm/day)
(%)

Bengtsson (2005) Malmö, Sweden Up to 64 July 2001–Dec. 2002

VanWoert et al. (2005) East Lansing, MI 49–83 Overall values in Aug. 2002-Oct. 2003.
49% for a standard commercial roof with gravel ballast and 83% for an extensive green roof
with vegetation
DeNardo et al. (2005) Centre County, PA 45 3 October and November 2002
Stovin (2010) Sheffield, UK 34 During spring 2006
Voyde et al. (2010a) Auckland, New 37–64 2.2 January to March 2007 and 2008
Zealand Minimum retention for unplanted trays
Stovin et al. (2012) Sheffield, UK 50 Almost-continuously over a 29-month period from 1/1/2007 to 5/31/2009
Ouldboukhitine et al. La Rochelle, France 2.5 Using an experimental setup during week 44 (November 1–7) of 2010
(2012)
Sherrard Jr and Jacobs Durham, NH 32 0.5–1.2 Between August to November 2009
(2012) 2.8 0.5 and 1.2 = ET rate for the coolest and warmest months, respectively
2.8 = Maximum daily ET
DiGiovanni et al. (2013) Bronx, NY 0.5–3.5 Between June 2009 to June 2010
Wadzuk et al. (2013) Villanova, PA 1 to 10 On average, 3, 3, and 4 mm/day in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively, between April and
November.
Zaremba et al. (2016) Villanova, PA 68–88 3.1 2009–2014 between April and November
Feng et al. (2018) Salt Lake City, UT 2.01, 2.52, Average values for non-vegetated, sedums, and grass covers during 2014
2.69
Loiola et al. (2018) Rio de Janeiro, 58 Average for modular-tray green roofs in January to March 2015
Brazil
800 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
influencing factors on overall green roof retention and peak runoff re-
duction performance when investigating two full-scale and one test-
box green roof in New York City, although rainfall intensity and ante-
cedent dry time had little influence. Conversely, in other studies, obser-
vations showed the performance of similar green roofs varies
substantially because retention ability is strongly affected by the local
climate (e.g., seasonal and short-term distribution of rainfall events
and net radiation dictating ET rates) and the antecedent dryness
(Villarreal and Bengtsson, 2005; Stovin et al., 2012; Carson et al.,
2013; Krebs et al., 2016). It is evident that the stormwater retention
ability is sensitive to the initial moisture condition of the green roof.
Microclimates, along with specific system properties, may explain
variability in green roof performance. DiGiovanni-White et al. (2018)
found up to a 40% difference in estimated annual ET values (using the
ASCE standardized Penman-Monteith equation for short reference sur-
faces; ASCE, 2005) for six weather stations at four GSI sites (three green
roofs and one rain garden) and two airports in New York City over a
one-year period. While highlighting the importance of onsite microme-
teorological data measurements in accurate ET estimation, DiGiovanni-
White et al. (2018) recommended a more comprehensive study that
also evaluates the effect of non-meteorological conditions, such as veg-
etation and soil media types, in GSI systems. Additionally, a better un-
derstanding of the soil moisture content behavior during dry periods
due to ET should result in the development of more accurate approaches
for long-term simulations (Berretta et al., 2014).
Most published observations on the hydrologic performance of
green roofs are based on pilot scale studies. Greater areal plant coverage,
higher transpiring plants, and warmer weather are among contributing
factors to increased ET rates in these studies (Carson et al., 2013).
Table 1 presents a review of pilot scale green roof studies (excluding
modeling studies) that highlight the significance of ET. The ET rates
(Table 1) are in the range of 0.5 to 3.5 mm/day except for Wadzuk
et al. (2013) that reports a range of 1–10 mm/day. The high ET rates
in the latter study were explained by extreme rainfall events in August
and September 2011 and ponding at the undrained green roof followed
by sunny days that provided high energy for the ET process. The average
daily ET in Wadzuk et al. (2013) was 3 to 4 mm in different years of
study that agrees with other studies (Table 1). The reported volume re-
duction of reviewed studies (32–88%; Table 1), is within the range of
Carson et al. (2013) and Palla et al. (2010).
The volume reduction in full-scale green roofs is generally lower
than pilot-scale ones. This might be explained by non-vegetated sec-
tions and irrigation requirements (Carson et al., 2013; Cipolla et al.,
2016). A review of the hydrologic performance of 44 full-scale green
roofs in the US, Canada, New Zealand, China, and Europe (Table 2)
yielded an overall retention between 11% to 77% with a median, aver-
age, and standard deviation of 57%, 50%, and 21%, respectively. These re-
tention values are based on a median monitoring duration of one year of
green roofs with a median drainage area and substrate depth of 170 m2
and 100 mm, respectively.
2.2.2. Rain gardens
There are fewer published studies on ET measurement in rain gar-
dens (Table 3- excludes modeling studies) compared to green roofs,
which is likely due to difficulty measuring ET and the perception that
the ET in rain gardens is small (e.g., Brown and Hunt, 2011a; 2011b
found ET to be b5% of a bioretention water budget using the
Thornthwaite (1948) method for PET and the Zhang et al. (2001) equa-
tion for estimating actual ET from PET) (Szota et al., 2018). However,
there are a few studies that demonstrate that ET may be significant in
a rain garden water budget (see Table 3; 19–84% volume reduction).
Relative to green roofs, the hydraulic loading ratio (the ratio of directly
connected impervious area to the rain garden area) for rain gardens
tends to be large, yielding more inflow and subsequently less ET
percentage-wise (Selbig and Balster, 2010; Brown et al., 2011). For ex-
ample, using 5 dry days after a 25 mm rainfall and an ET rate of
2.5 mm/day on a typical green roof with a 1:1 loading ratio, ET accounts
for 50% of the volume removal, while a typical rain garden with a load-
ing ratio of 5:1 has 10% volume reduction by ET. Although a higher load-
ing ratio decreases the ET percentage by influent volume, it may provide
more available water for increased and prolonged ET (Wadzuk et al.,
2015). Other design factors such as the presence and characteristics of
liners, underdrains, and internal water storage (IWS) may alter the ob-
served ET percentage (Eger et al., 2017).
Selbig and Balster (2010) measured micrometeorological factors in
two side-by-side rain gardens (four rain gardens in total) with the
same size and loading ratio but different vegetation and soil type in
Madison, Wisconsin, to estimate reference ET for the FAO-56 Penman-
Monteith (PM) equation (Allen et al., 1998). The ET ranged from 12%
to 25% of the total influent volume during April–November 2005
(Selbig and Balster, 2010). In Table 3, the volume reductions for each
study are the percentage of total rainfall that is evapotranspirated. The
difference between volume reduction values in different studies is due
to the experiment configuration and drainage structure, soil and vegeta-
tion types, study time (season), micrometeorological conditions in the
study location, and loading ratio.
3. ET determination
3.1. Potential ET versus actual ET
Evapotranspiration is a difficult phenomenon to quantify because of
the complex interaction between the ground surface, vegetation, and
atmosphere (Carbone et al., 2016). Actual ET (AET), or the quantity of
water that leaves a surface based on climatological demand and soil
water availability (i.e., the water-limited ET), depends on surface, sub-
surface, and meteorological conditions. Potential ET (PET) (i.e., non-
water-limited ET) is the maximum amount of water that would leave
a surface from a healthy, well-watered crop growing uniformly in a
large area based on available energy. The PET does not consider the dif-
ferences between plant species or environmental stresses (Wadzuk
et al., 2013). The difference between PET and AET is primarily a function
of soil water availability (Marasco et al., 2015). The AET becomes less
than PET as soil moisture decreases from field capacity. Various soil
moisture extraction functions based on a combination of actual soil
moisture, field capacity, and wilting point can be used to relate the de-
gree of substrate saturation to AET (Zhao et al., 2013; Marasco et al.,
2015).
3.2. PET estimation methods
Several empirical and analytical methodologies are available to de-
termine PET, including Hargreaves, Slatyer-McIlroy, Priestley-Taylor,
and Blaney-Criddle (empirical equations) and Penman and Penman-
Monteith (PM) (analytical equations). The PM equation (Monteith,
1965) supersedes the Penman equation (Penman, 1948). The Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations recommends
a simplified version of the ASCE-PM equation for a short crop reference
surface (similar to grass) with a vegetation height, surface resistance,
and albedo of 0.12 m, 70 s/m, and 0.23, respectively, which is widely
known as FAO-56 PM equation (Allen et al., 1998). Jensen et al.
(1990) presented a PM-based ET equation through the American Soci-
ety of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Manual 70 which is known as ASCE-PM
equation. The ASCE recommends two versions of the ASCE-PM equation
for short and tall crop reference surfaces which are known as ASCE stan-
dardized PM equations (ASCE, 2005). The reference vegetation height
and albedo parameters as well as the surface resistance for daily calcu-
lations of short reference surfaces are the same in both the ASCE stan-
dardized PM and FAO-56 PM methods. However, the ASCE
standardized PM uses two different surface resistance values of 50 s/m
and 200 s/m for daytime and nighttime, respectively, in hourly ET calcu-
lations (Allen et al., 1998; Walter et al., 2000; ASCE, 2005; Irmak et al.,
 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810 801

Table 2
Hydrologic performance of full-scale green roofs.

Authors Publication type Study location Monitored area Substrate depth Length of monitoring Overall retention
(m2) (mm) (months) (%)

Hutchinson et al. (2003) Conference paper Portland, OR 240 100–125 15 69

Moran et al. (2005) Conference paper Goldsboro, NC 35 75 17 63
Raleigh, NC 65 100 2 55
Liu and Minor (2005) Conference paper Toronto, Canada 200 75 20 57
Toronto, Canada 200 100 20 57
Carter and Rasmussen (2006) Journal paper Athens, GA 21.3 76.2 13 77
Connelly et al. (2006) Technical Report Vancouver, Canada 33 75 11 29
Vancouver, Canada 33 150 11 26
TRCA (2006) Technical Report Toronto, Canada 240 140 15 65.3
Teemusk and Mander (2007) Journal paper Tartu, Estonia 120 100 1 19.6
Spolek (2008) Journal paper Portland, OR 290 100–150 30 12
Portland, OR 280 100–150 30 17
Portland, OR 500 150 33 25
Hathaway et al. (2008) Journal paper Goldsboro, NC 35 75 14 64
Kinston, NC 27 100 14 64
Kurtz (2008) Conference paper Portland, OR 246 125 73 56
Portland, OR 465 75 15 64
Berkompas et al. (2008) Conference paper Seattle, WA 743 150 10 30.5
Seattle, WA 1860 100–125 2 33
Seattle, WA 80 150 2 17.1
Bliss et al. (2009) Journal paper Pittsburg, PA 330 140 5 21.8
Berghage et al. (2009) Technical Report Chicago, IL 7000 76 23 74
Voyde et al. (2010a) Journal paper Auckland, NZ 41 50 12 66
Auckland, NZ 13 50 12 66
Auckland, NZ 46 70 12 66
Auckland, NZ 45 70 12 66
Auckland, NZ 12 70 12 66
Auckland, NZ 38 50 12 66
Gregoire and Clausen (2011) Journal paper Storrs, CT 307 102 2 51.4
Carpenter and Kaluvakolanu (2011) Journal paper Southfield, MI 325.2 101.6 6 68.25
Palla et al. (2011) Journal paper Genova, Italy 170 200 13 51.8
Genova, Italy 170 200 3 14.9
Fassman-Beck et al. (2013) Journal paper Auckland, NZ 171 100 8 72
Carson et al. (2013) Journal paper New York, NY 310 32 12 36
New York, NY 390 100–200 24 47
New York, NY 940 100 36 61
Speak et al. (2013) Journal paper Manchester, UK 408 170 11 65.7
Hakimdavar et al. (2014) Journal paper New York, NY 310 32 5 50.6
New York, NY 99 32 10 61.3
Yang et al. (2015) Journal paper Beijing, China 120 150 3 76.4
Versini et al. (2015) Journal paper Paris, France 35 30 14 17
Paris, France 35 150 14 11
Cipolla et al. (2016) Journal paper Bologna, Italy 58 100 12 51.9
Zaremba et al. (2016) Journal paper Villanova, PA 54 100 16 56–62

Table 3
Summary of studies that demonstrate the significance of ET in rain gardens through measurements.

Study Location ET performance Remarks

Volume Rate
reduction (mm/day)
(%)

Culbertson and Topeka, KS 2.7–7.8 A column study from June 2003 to November 2003.
Hutchinson (2004) Minimum rate (2.7) in fall and maximum rate (7.8) in summer
Li et al. (2009) Louisburg, 19 Volume reduction due to ET in 2004 for one lined, underdrained cell with sandy loam soil
NC
Denich and Bradford Guelph, 4.2, 7.7 An average of 4.2 mm/day over August 2008 and 7.7 mm/day over a sunny, dry period of 5 days for an
(2010) Canada unconstrained draining rain garden lysimeter with sandy soil
Wadzuk et al. (2015) Villanova, 50 3.1 Data from April to November in 2010 and 2011 in two weighing lysimeters.
PA 78 6.1 Top: Freely draining sandy soil
Bottom: Freely draining sandy soil with IWS.
Nocco et al. (2016) Madison, 21–84 1.5–9 Data from 12 replicate, free-drainage bioretention cells with three vegetation types (prairie, shrub, and turfgrass)
WI and bare soil (control) subjected to three controlled stormwater applications in July, August, and September 2006
from a 6:1 loading-ratio drainage area. Minimum and maximum volume reduction values correspond to bare soil
in August and prairie in September, respectively.
Minimum and maximum rates correspond to prairie in July and bare soil in September, respectively
Hess et al. (2017) Villanova, 47 2.9 Data from July 2013 to July 2015 in three weighing lysimeters.
PA 43 2.7 Top: Sandy loam soil with unconstricted valve underdrain.
70 4.3 Middle: Sandy soil with unconstricted valve underdrain.
Bottom: Sandy soil with IWS.
802 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
2005; Suleiman and Hoogenboom, 2009). Lu et al. (2005) and
DiGiovanni et al. (2013) classify the PET models into temperature
based (e.g., Thornthwaite, Hamon, and Hargreaves), radiation based
(e.g., Turc, Makkink, and Priestley-Taylor) and composite (combina-
tion) models (e.g., Penman, and Penman-Monteith). Carbone et al.
(2016) also categorize the ET quantification methods based on the cli-
mate input data: (1) methods that rely on temperature measurements
and require some estimation of solar energy (e.g., Hargreaves, 1975
and Thornthwaite (Wilm et al., 1944)), and (2) combination methods
based on the energy balance and mass transfer principles
(e.g., Penman and the FAO-56 PM (Allen et al., 1998)). Available agricul-
tural literature concludes that combination methods have variability in
predicting AET but, in general, have better performance than other
methods (Katul et al., 1992; ASCE, 2005). The downside of combination
methods is the extensive required input data that are not always justifi-
able given the improvement in their ET results compared to those of the
simpler methods (Katul et al., 1992; DiGiovanni et al., 2013). A review
and discussion about different PET methods can be found in Wadzuk
et al. (2013), Zhao et al. (2013), and Feng (2018).
3.3. Comparison of PET and AET in GSI systems
3.3.1. Green roofs
Comparing the measured ET results from different green roof studies
with available PET estimation methods has been the subject of several
studies (Table 4). DiGiovanni et al. (2013) tested two variations of the
PM equation (ASCE standardized PM equation for short reference sur-
faces (ASCE, 2005) and Meteorological Office Rainfall and Evaporation
Calculation System (MORECS) equation (DeGaetano et al., 1994))
against ET measurements from a green roof lysimeter in the Bronx,
New York. Both equations overpredicted the measured ET over a one-
year period. However, during a 30-day subset of the one-year period
when water was not limited, the ASCE standardized PM equation per-
formed well in predicting measured ET. Wadzuk et al. (2013) quantified
the ET component of a green roof water budget in Villanova, PA using
weighing lysimeters for three climatologically different years
(2009–2011) and concluded that the ASCE standardized PM tends to a
slight underestimation, but occasionally overestimates measured ET
during very dry periods. The Blaney-Criddle and ASCE standardized
PM gave similar estimations that were closest to the measured ET in
Wadzuk et al. (2013). In another study by Marasco et al. (2015), the
Priestley-Taylor model was found to generate the closest results to ET
measurements from two green roof sites in New York City when assum-
ing uniform moisture conditions. Berretta et al. (2014) compared the
observed data from green roofs in Sheffield, UK with simulated moisture
content using a water balance model and two PET methods (Hargreaves
and FAO-56 PM) combined with a soil moisture extraction function.
Since the two PET methods did not show any significant difference,
they suggested the 1985 Hargreaves method (Hargreaves and Samani,
1985) due to requiring less input data. Based on the onsite data from
an experimental extensive green roof (irrigated and covered with
short vegetation) in Rende, Italy, Carbone et al. (2016) demonstrated
that Hargreaves (1975) and Hargreaves and Samani (1982) models pro-
duce results that are in good agreement with the FAO-56 PM model and
hence, can be used as simple practical PET methods when the required
input data for combination models are not available. This conclusion
agrees with that of Hilten (2005) where the author found no statistical
difference between the monthly ET estimates from FAO-56 PM and
1985 Hargreaves methods in a green roof site in Athens, GA.
3.3.2. Rain gardens
There are limited studies comparing measured ET data from rain
gardens with PET estimation methods available in the literature
(Table 4). Wadzuk et al. (2015) measured ET from bioretention lysime-
ters in Villanova, PA and found no equation to be an exact fit for the
measured data, although the 1985 Hargreaves model produced the
best fit. Nocco et al. (2016) measured ET during three stormwater appli-
cations in July, August, and September 2006 to 12 replicate, free-
draining bioretention lysimeters with different vegetation types (prai-
rie, shrub, turfgrass, and bare soil) in Madison, Wisconsin and compared
the AET results to Hamon, Priestley-Taylor, and FAO-56 PM models. All
of the PET models underestimated prairie AET values. The AET values for
other vegetation types were either overestimated or underestimated by
the three PET models. Hess et al. (2017) studied the observed ET values
during 2013–2015 from three weighing lysimeter rain gardens with dif-
ferent drainage conditions at Villanova, PA and concluded that both the
ASCE standardized PM and 1985 Hargreaves equations can adequately
represent the free draining (unconstructed valve underdrain) lysime-
ters but underestimate the IWS (using an upturned elbow underdrain)
lysimeter. Hess et al. (2019) continued the study of Hess et al. (2017) for
the period of July 2013–July 2016 (both daily and storm based) by con-
sidering modifications for water availability (soil moisture extraction
functions) and plant health (crop coefficients). The unmodified ASCE
standardized PM provided an adequate ET estimate for all lysimeters
on a storm basis but not for the IWS lysimeter on a daily basis. The un-
modified 1985 Hargreaves resulted in adequate ET estimates for all ly-
simeters in both daily and storm based cases. Considering soil
moisture extraction functions and crop coefficients resulted in increas-
ing prediction efficiency of both equations for all lysimeters.
In summary, the 1985 Hargreaves method (Hargreaves and Samani,
1985; Hargreaves and Allen, 2003) generally overpredicts the measured
ET but has a good accuracy for longer periods (N5 days). This method is
simple and only uses temperature data and global position to estimate
ET (Wadzuk et al., 2013; 2015; Hess et al., 2017; 2019). Hargreaves
models (Hargreaves, 1975; Hargreaves and Samani, 1982; Hargreaves
and Samani, 1985) have also shown a good agreement with ET values
from lysimeters and the FAO-56 PM model in various agricultural stud-
ies, especially for non-arid climates and not very high ET rates (e.g., b
9 mm/day) (e.g., Jensen et al., 1990, 1997; López-Urrea et al., 2006;
Khoob, 2008; Tabari and Talaee, 2011; Bourletsikas et al., 2018). In
arid and semiarid climates, Hargreaves can be calibrated to improve
its performance (Heydari and Heydari, 2014; Djaman et al., 2018). The
1985 Hargreaves method has been demonstrated to produce compara-
ble ET results to the FAO-56 PM method for periods greater than five
days in irrigated sites (Hargreaves and Allen, 2003) and has been rec-
ommended as an alternative for the FAO-56 PM method when sufficient
or reliable input data for FAO-56 PM is not available (Allen et al., 1998).
3.4. Stress point and available water for ET
Davis et al. (2012) define the bioretention abstraction volume (BAV)
as the volume of the water captured from the surface runoff that is not
returned to the surface waters and is either evapotranspirated to the at-
mosphere or exfiltrated into surrounding soils. While Davis et al. (2012)
consider both the surface storage and soil media pore volume in the BAV
definition, they only consider the difference between full saturation and
field capacity as the maximum pore storage in the soil media. However,
plant available water (PAW) (also called available water capacity or soil
moisture capacity), is determined as the difference between field capac-
ity and permanent wilting point for planning purposes (Fassman and
Simcock, 2012; Fassman-Beck et al., 2016). Soil water storage metrics
and their corresponding tensions (suction heads) are summarized
from Fassman and Simcock (2012) as Fig. 1. As an example, the average
values of full saturation, field capacity and wilting point for three differ-
ent texture classes (sand, sandy loam, and loamy sand) based on Saxton
and Rawls (2006) are presented in Table 5. The free water is the avail-
able moisture between full saturation and field capacity that is drained
by gravity. The readily available water is the moisture between field ca-
pacity and stress point, which is a portion of PAW. The remaining part of
PAW is called stress water, which is the moisture between stress point
and permanent wilting point. Fassman and Simcock (2012) consider
the maximum potential available water for ET as readily available
Table 4
Comparison of the measured ET results from different green roof and rain garden studies with available PET estimation methods. ‘+’ denotes overprediction, ‘−’ underprediction, and ‘*’ closest to the observed ET values.

Temperature-based methods Radiation-based methods Combination methods Remarks

Study Location Blaney-Criddle Hamon Hargreaves Hargreaves 1985 Slatyer-McIlroy Priestley-Taylor Penman FAO-56 ASCE MORECS
(1975) and Samani Hargreaves PM Standardized
(1982) PM

Green roofs

A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810

Hilten Athens, N/A N/A N/A N/A * N/A N/A N/A * N/A N/A FAO-56 PM was used as the reference ET
(2005) GA
Wadzuk Villanova, −/+ N/A N/A N/A +1 – – N/A N/A ‐/+2 N/A 1
Better accuracy for longer periods (N5 days)
2
et al. PA * * Slightly underestimation, but occasionally
(2013) overestimation during very dry periods
DiGiovanni Bronx, NY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * + For non-water-limiting conditions
et al.
(2013)
Berretta Sheffield, N/A N/A N/A N/A * N/A N/A N/A * N/A N/A Hargreaves was suggested because of requiring less input
et al. UK data
(2014)
Marasco New York N/A N/A N/A N/A + N/A * + N/A + N/A Assuming uniform moisture conditions
et al. City, NY
(2015)
Carbone Rende, N/A N/A * * N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * N/A ASCE standardized PM was used as the reference ET
et al. Italy
(2016)

Rain gardens
Wadzuk Villanova, -1 N/A N/A N/A + – – N/A N/A -1 N/A 1
Underestimation during summer and good performance
et al. PA *2 in low ET rates
2
(2015) Overestimation but better than other methods
Nocco et al. Madison, N/A −/+ N/A N/A N/A N/A −/+ N/A −/+ N/A N/A Variations based on vegetation type (prairie, shrub, and
(2016) WI turfgrass, and bare soil) and time of the year (July, August,
September) in 12 replicate, free-drainage bioretention
lysimeters
Hess et al. Villanova, N/A N/A N/A N/A *1 N/A N/A N/A N/A *1 N/A 1
For freely draining lysimeters
(2017) PA −2 −2 2
For IWS lysimeters
Hess et al. Villanova, N/A N/A N/A N/A *1 N/A N/A N/A N/A *2 N/A 1
Overestimation and underestimation in unconstructed
(2019) PA outflow and IWS lysimeters, respectively, but ultimately
adequate results
2
Underestimation in IWS lysimeters but ultimately
adequate results

803
804 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
Fig. 1. Soil water storage metrics and their corresponding tensions (not to scale).
water plus stress water (i.e., PAW). However, the actual available water
for ET is greater than readily available water and less than PAW.
Modelers may make some simplifying assumptions to generate a
parsimonious model. For example, the total water available for ET may
be taken as PAW; however, Allen et al. (1998) discussed water stress
as a linear reduction in ET after the soil reaches a threshold between
field capacity and wilting point. Hence, ET decreases after this threshold
and discontinues at the wilting point (Allen et al., 1998). Szota et al.
(2017) supported the presence of this stress threshold, based on a sim-
ulated rainfall experiment over August to November 2011 on eighteen
green roof modules in Melbourne, Australia, where they found that
laboratory-measured PAWs may overestimate ET and rainfall retention
potential in green roofs. Hence, Szota et al. (2017) suggested those PAW
values should be adjusted down to conform to real conditions. This find-
ing agrees with Kasmin et al. (2010) where they state that some of the
moisture between field capacity and permanent wilting point will not
be accessible by plant roots. A reduction in the ET rate after approxi-
mately 50% of the PAW is lost has been reported by Rezaei et al.
(2005), Berghage et al. (2009), and Voyde et al. (2010b). This threshold
might be corresponding to the stress point (associated moisture with
100 kPa tension), as Fassman and Simcock (2012) state that ET will be
reduced at tensions below the stress point because the remaining mois-
ture is held more tightly to the soil matrix in smaller pores.
4. ET and GSI design
Incorporation of ET in a GSI design depends on the design objective
and the region. Evapotranspiration can be an important element in the
water budget of vegetated GSI systems and needs to be considered in
GSI design when the objective is annual runoff volume reduction
(e.g., for CSO control). Care must be taken when considering ET in de-
sign that contradicts the design objective (e.g., groundwater recharge
and stormwater reuse), is not conservative (e.g., flood reduction), or
the design is in an area where ET loss is minimal (e.g., in a region with
very frequent rainfall). Additionally, ET is both water- and energy-
Table 5
Soil water content values in percent (vol/vol) for different soil texture classes.
Metric Tension (kPa) Sand Loamy Sand
Full saturation 0 46.3 45.7
Field capacity 10–33 9.4 12.1
Stress point 100
Wilting point 1500 5.0 5.7
Oven dry Very high 0.0 0.0
dependent, and relies on the available soil water. Once soil water
reaches the permanent wilting point, no ET can happen (Allen et al.,
1998; Wadzuk et al., 2013), which must be considered in the design
time horizon.
4.1. Static methods
Design and crediting of rain gardens are often based on static
stormwater volume storages in the GSI system. For example, the design
guideline in Pennsylvania, which is similar to that in other states
(e.g., Virginia (VADCR, 2011) and Maryland (MDESD, 2007)), only ac-
counts for surface storage volume and soil media void space volume
during a rain event (PA DEP, 2006). This static approach considers the
porosity values of soil media (sandy loam or loamy sand), sand, and
stone as 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4, respectively, and does not consider ET in vol-
ume reduction calculations (PWD, 2015, 2018).
The difference between the average values of full saturation and
field capacity (which is assumed to be the available water for infiltration
or draining due to gravity) is calculated as 27% (i.e., 45.0%–17.9%) for
sandy loam soils using Saxton and Rawls (2006). The calculated value
(27%) is greater than the credited void space for rain garden soil
media (i.e., 20%). Also, according to Saxton and Rawls (2006), the differ-
ence between average values of field capacity and wilting point (which
is assumed to be the maximum potential water for ET) is about 10%
(i.e., 17.9–8.1%) for the sandy loam soil. No portion of this potential stor-
age is credited for ET in the static design guidelines. For loamy sand (an-
other common planting soil texture), the difference between full
saturation and field capacity is 34%, which is greater than the 20%
credited void space, and a 6% difference between field capacity and
wilting point that is not credited to ET. Similarly, the available water
for infiltration and the maximum potential water for ET in sandy soils
are calculated as 37% and 5%, respectively, sum of which is greater
than the 30% credited void space. To assess the static design and
crediting approach, the actual available water for ET as void space was
considered as 50% of the PAW (i.e., ½ (field capacity – wilting point))
(Allen et al., 1998) and the total creditable void storage summed free
water and 50% PAW using the values from Table 5. The creditable void
storage values were found as 39.1%, 36.8%, and 32.0% for sand, loamy
Sandy Loam sand, and sandy loam, respectively, all of which are greater than the
45.0 aforementioned credited void storage. This indicates that the current
17.9 static approach is overly conservative. Increasing the credited void stor-
age (e.g., for sandy loam from 20% to 30%) will yield more physically
8.1 based design of rain gardens. This example assumes the actual available
0.0
water for ET is 50% PAW. Calculating the portion of PAW that
 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
corresponds to the measured ET values in vegetated GSI systems is rec-
ommended as future research.
4.2. Dynamic methods
Immediately after a storm event, the stormwater retained in the GSI
soil (with a restricted or no underdrain) is lost primarily to infiltration
and some ET. Evapotranspiration continues to reduce the soil water dur-
ing the interevent dry time and restore the soil storage capacity for the
next storm event. Although ET is generally greater after a rainfall event
than during extended dry periods, it continues as long as water is avail-
able (Wadzuk et al., 2015; Nocco et al., 2016). This is a key point that has
been usually neglected in crediting and continuous modeling of GSI sys-
tems (Wadzuk and Traver, 2012; Wadzuk et al., 2013; Nocco et al.,
2016). To incorporate ET in the design and crediting of vegetated GSI
systems, methods are needed that incorporate both ET and infiltration
dynamically into the design process (Berland et al., 2017). Two
methods, i.e., complex and simple methods, are reviewed.
4.2.1. Complex method
Evapotranspiration is a continuous process and does not easily fit
into the existing static design of vegetated GSI systems. Evapotranspira-
tion rates vary by climate conditions over the year and considering this
variation can result in a more realistic performance analysis that is not
overly conservative (Zaremba et al., 2016; Eger et al., 2017). Available
literature demonstrates the dynamic role of ET in the hydrology of
green roofs and rain gardens and provide insights to incorporate the dy-
namics of ET in their design and crediting (Li et al., 2009; Denich and
Bradford, 2010; Feller et al., 2010; Hickman et al., 2010, 2011;
Schneider et al., 2011; Wadzuk and Traver, 2012; Wadzuk et al., 2013;
Hess et al., 2015a, 2015b; Zaremba et al., 2015a, 2015b; Zaremba et al.,
2016; Hess, 2017; Hess et al., 2017). Infiltration and ET are both dy-
namic processes that should be considered simultaneously in the design
of vegetated GSI systems (Wadzuk et al., 2013).
The complex method that incorporates ET in GSI design is a contin-
uous simulation approach that considers the dynamic aspects of infiltra-
tion and ET by using long-term records of rainfall and climate data
(Traver and Ebrahimian, 2017). This approach is currently used in a
few places in Australia, New Zealand, and Western US by hydrologic
models such as MUSIC and SWMM (DPLG, 2009; Melbourne Water,
2018; Lewis et al., 2015; WSDE, 2012). Moving towards continuous sim-
ulation is emphasized for areas that currently do not use this approach
for GSI design. The complex method provides a robust design that cou-
ples the soil matrix and hydrologic aspects through a continuous simu-
lation of ET and exfiltration (i.e., infiltration from soil media to the
surrounding in-situ soil in infiltration-based rain gardens). Evapotrans-
piration is dependent on available soil water; hence, continuous simula-
tions with a water accounting system would provide results closest to
reality. Based on the available knowledge, the 1985 Hargreaves method
(Hargreaves and Samani, 1985) is recommended for continuous simula-
tions. Further research is needed to modify the ET predictive methods to
better represent the observed ET data in vegetated GSI systems
(Wadzuk et al., 2013, 2015; Eger et al., 2017).
4.2.2. Simple method
Traditional methods for the design and crediting of GSI systems are
based on design storm events analyzed over a narrow time window.
Also, ET is not accounted for because of perceived unimportance. How-
ever, identifying how ET contributes to the volume reduction between
storm events can improve the event-based designs and is recognized
as a research need (Berland et al., 2017). For example, Minnesota
stormwater manual (MPCA, 2017) uses an event-based method to cal-
culate the volume credit due to ET by considering the ET volume as
the minimum of the measured ET and the amount of water stored be-
tween field capacity and wilting point. MPCA (2017) considers the mea-
sured ET as the average daily pan evaporation rate of 0.2 in./day
805
(5 mm/day) multiplied by a factor of 0.5 (equivalent to 2.5 mm/day,
which is close to the average measured ET rates in the literature) over
a basin's drawdown time (time between rain events).
To take advantage of accumulated ET through the GSI recovery pe-
riod, Hess (2017) looked at the balance between ET and infiltration in
three rain garden lysimeters with a media depth of 66 cm in Villanova,
PA: a sandy loam and a sandy media with an unconstricted outflow
(UO) valve and a sandy media with IWS (Hess et al., 2014, 2017).
Hess (2017) developed charts that estimate cumulative ET in the rain
gardens during the dry period after large storm events (25 mm or
greater). This method could be applied in other regions and climate
zones to develop charts that can be used as a simple tool to incorporate
dynamic losses from ET into static design. Fig. 2 demonstrates a concep-
tual example of these charts that allow the user to determine the cumu-
lative amount of water loss due to ET from a rain garden up to eleven
days after a storm event. For example, using Fig. 2 for the sandy loam
UO, sand UO, and sand IWS systems would result in an approximate
water loss of 25.2, 24.6, and 43.0 mm, respectively, due to ET over
6 days (the typical time between storm events in Philadelphia, PA-
Driscoll et al., 1989). The amount of ET from the simple tool may be con-
sidered as an additional porosity to the current static porosity (e.g., 20%
void space for engineered soil media- PWD, 2015, 2018) in storage vol-
ume calculations. Considering this additional porosity for a bioretention
system with 66 cm media depth will yield a credited storage of 23.8%,
23.7%, and 26.5% for sandy loam UO, sand UO, and sand IWS, respec-
tively. Note that the maximum potential water for ET (i.e., the difference
between average values of field capacity and wilting point) for sandy
loam and sand was calculated based on Saxton and Rawls (2006) as
10% and 5%, respectively. In this example, the actual values of ET
(from Fig. 2) are less than the presented values of maximum potential
water for ET.
It should be noted that the chart in Fig. 2 was developed based on the
specific conditions of the experimental setup (media depth, soil type,
drainage condition, and plant type), length of monitoring period or
number of observed data corresponding to large events, and meteoro-
logical conditions of the study area (Villanova, PA), and is applicable
to systems with a similar climate and rain garden configurations to
Hess (2017). A similar approach can be adopted to develop simple
methods (charts) for other climate zones and rain garden configuration
and characteristics where annual volume reduction is the design objec-
tive. Another study, which is a bench scale study using non-weighing ly-
simeters, was performed by Hess et al. (2015b) and DelVecchio et al.
(2019) looking at two more media depths (46 and 20 cm) and four ad-
ditional media types (loamy sand, loam, silt loam, clay loam) that pro-
vided additional information for expanding the simple method to
Fig. 2. Conceptual example of cumulative ET (as water depth) versus days after large rain
events (25 mm or greater) for sandy loam and sandy soils (based on data from Hess,
2017).
806 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
different soil media and depths. Typical (e.g., average) length of the dry
periods between storm events should be determined by statistical anal-
ysis of long-term rainfall records in the study area. Such a study is per-
formed by Driscoll et al. (1989) for 160 locations throughout the US.
Two years of monitoring data, including ten storm events equal to or
N25 mm, were used for developing the charts in Fig. 2. Long-term mon-
itoring is needed to increase the number of large events in the observed
dataset. If large storm events (flood volume reduction) is of concern, a
study of back-to-back storm events needs to be performed to evaluate
the appropriateness of accounting for ET in the design. Such a study
has been done by Wadzuk et al. (2017) that shows a very low likelihood
for back-to-back storm events that impact GSI recovery performance
between events in the study area for Fig. 2.
4.3. Technical recommendations
Technical recommendations presented and discussed herein are
based on the available literature and encompass the effects of two im-
portant items, drainage conditions and soil media, on the amount of
ET in green roofs and rain gardens.
4.3.1. Drainage condition
Zaremba et al. (2016) compared an undrained green roof (i.e., no
drainage system) to a drained green roof under the same microclimate
and rainfall conditions in Villanova, PA. While the drained green roof
evapotranspirated 62% and 56% of the total rainfall in 2013 and 2014
(April to November), respectively, with an average ET rate of
2.1 mm/day, the undrained system had greater ET performance with
an annual ET range of 68% to 88% and an average ET rate of
3.1 mm/day during 2009–2014 (April to November). The different
drainage configurations determined the available water for ET. The un-
drained green roof had more stored water and resulted in more ET.
Availability of sufficient dry time between storm events in the study
area allowed ET to restore the storage capacity of the green roof
media and, hence, system performance was not compromised in the un-
drained green roof. The other advantage of the undrained system in
Zaremba et al. (2016) was the increased storage capacity, which re-
sulted in less outflow. The undrained system could become fully satu-
rated and only had measurable outflow from rainfall events N35 mm.
The drained green roof could only reach field capacity and generated
outflow for rainfall events N13.5 mm, similar to studies reviewed in
Fassman-Beck et al. (2016). One recommendation for green roof design
is to consider the need for an underdrain. Given adequate structural ca-
pacity, omitting underdrains in extensive green roofs or adding a valve
to regulate outflow based on the weather conditions can be investigated
to enhance ET. Alternatively, the roof drain could be slightly raised to
encourage more storage within the drainage layer, or other mechanisms
could be implemented to reduce conveyance to the roof drain (Zaremba
et al., 2016). This approach may require more maintenance needs and
considerations for freezing conditions but would substantially increase
annual volume reduction. Moreover, it could minimize the watering
needs except for areas with long dry weather periods.
Similar to green roofs, design modifications, such as excluding the
underdrain (bioinfiltration) or including an IWS, could be made to
rain gardens to encourage controlled (delayed) release of stormwater
to the drainage system and increase ET from the system (Brown and
Hunt, 2011a; Davis et al., 2012; Winston et al., 2016). An IWS can create
a semi-permanent saturated zone at the bottom of the rain garden by
adding an upturned elbow underdrain pipe or elevated outlet. Capping
the underdrain pipe end and making an orifice by drilling the cap when
needed is another way of providing IWS (PWD, 2018). The IWS provides
increased hydrologic performance via less outflow, prolonged water
storage for plants to draw on during dryer periods, increased runoff vol-
ume reduction via ET, as well as water quality benefits (Davis et al.,
2009; Brown and Hunt, 2011a; Wadzuk et al., 2015; Hess et al., 2017).
Excluding or elevating the underdrain may also address the problem
of increased groundwater drainage from rain gardens due to shallow
groundwater tables (Zhang et al., 2018b). In a study by Li et al. (2009),
a bioretention cell with an IWS zone produced outflow during 37% of
observed events, while a neighboring identical cell with no IWS zone
generated outflow for 65% of events. The exfiltration rate is reported
to be dependent on the surrounding in-situ soil hydraulic conductivity.
While highly conductive surrounding soils can greatly increase the
exfiltration rate, in sites with low infiltration capacity in-situ soils, the
water is more restricted within the bioretention media and fills the
void space (Davis et al., 2012). However, Winston et al. (2016) showed
that the inclusion of IWS in three rain gardens constructed in low per-
meability soils (clay, hydrologic soil group D) in Ohio resulted in a sub-
stantial reduction in runoff volume. Wadzuk et al. (2015) quantified ET
in two weighing lysimeters in Villanova, PA mimicking two different
drainage conditions in bioretention systems: freely draining (low stor-
age capacity) and lined system with IWS (high storage capacity). Al-
though the IWS system had a sandier soil with a lower water storage
capacity, it showed more ET in comparison to the freely draining system
(78% of the direct rain falling on the system versus 50%). Also, the mea-
sured daily average ET during the study period (April–November in
2010–2011) in the IWS system was found to be double that of the freely
draining system (i.e., 6.1 mm/day versus 3.1 mm/day). Hess et al.
(2017) monitored three rain garden lysimeters with two different
drainage structures: underdrain with unconstructed valve (freely
draining) and IWS (with upturned elbow underdrain) in Villanova,
PA. The average ET rate and volume reduction due to ET during the en-
tire monitoring period (July 2013 to July 2015) for the IWS system with
sandy soil media (4.3 mm/day and 70%, respectively) were greater than
those of the free draining systems with sandy loam (2.9 mm/day and
47%) and sandy media (2.7 mm/d and 43%). These results are attributed
to the prolonged water storage in an IWS system enabling more ET than
a freely draining system. Therefore, one recommendation for rain gar-
den design is modifying the outlet structure (e.g., underdrains equipped
with an end cap) or including an IWS to encourage extended water stor-
age and increase the role of ET where appropriate.
4.3.2. Native (in-situ) soils in the media
Native (in-situ) soils often have a higher percentage fines and
greater water-holding capacity than the typically sandier engineered
soils designed for expedited infiltration. One recommendation is to
use native (in-situ) soils for the rain gardens' media design, where
they are finer than engineered soils, have sufficient infiltration rates,
and are not contaminated (Davis et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2016). Utilizing
fine-grained native (in-situ) soil encourages more ET (Hess et al., 2014)
and will result in improved pollutant removal in some cases (Hsieh and
Davis, 2005; Sickles et al., 2007), as well as cost savings and environ-
mental protection due to reducing the need for soil extraction and
transportation to the site (Flynn and Traver, 2013). However, care
must be taken when using in-situ soils for the rain garden media as
they may include large amounts of dead dirt or ash (i.e., with few living
organisms). The rain garden location is important in the soil mix design.
Higher fines content will result in more water retention in the media
and may increase the risk of flooding, which is a major concern in
some highly-populated urban areas. It is suggested that the in-situ soil
is evaluated first to see if it is a living soil (i.e., with adequate amount
of living organisms, organic matter, minerals, and water). Then, the
soil texture should be evaluated using particle size distribution of the
soil. Compaction and plasticity of the soil should also be evaluated as
they are limiting factors for infiltration rates (Pitt et al., 2008;
Carpenter and Hallam, 2010; Olson et al., 2013).
5. Research needs
With the purpose of incorporating ET in the design and crediting of
rain gardens and green roofs, future research directions are identified
as following:
 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
5.1. Continuous simulation of ET and exfiltration in GSI
Continuous simulation models often neglect exfiltration during
storm events and make empirical assumptions about how the soil mois-
ture declines and the infiltration capacity recovers over time between
events with little connection to the physics of ET (Traver and
Ebrahimian, 2017). Because of the importance of rainfall characteristics
in runoff retention, rainfall distribution needs to be considered in eval-
uating GSI performance. The effects of climate change on rainfall distri-
bution is another issue that makes the problem more complex. Further
research is needed for the continuous simulation of ET and infiltration
processes and exploring the balance between them in a GSI system.
5.2. Simple tools to account for ET in GSI design
Simple tools are needed to explore the interrelation between ET,
exfiltration, and pore storage in GSI systems and to incorporate this re-
lationship in the design and crediting of those systems. Pilot scale stud-
ies such as Denich and Bradford (2010), Wadzuk et al. (2015), Hess et al.
(2017), and DelVecchio et al. (2019) need to be expanded to consider
different soil and plant types as well as media depths in different cli-
mates to cover the whole range of rain garden and green roof systems
in practice.
5.3. ET predictive methods in GSI
Currently, the most common predictive models for ET do not prop-
erly fit the measured ET rates in vegetated GSI. More research is needed
to find out modification factors such as soil moisture extraction func-
tions, which are useful in determining a proper predictive method.
5.4. Stress point and PAW in GSI
Further research is needed to calculate the portion of PAW that cor-
responds to the measured ET values in vegetated GSI systems. By using
laboratory-derived soil moisture characteristics curve for the GSI soil
media, it can be examined to see how close the measured ET with a cer-
tain plant type is to the readily available water (field capacity minus
stress point) and whether the measured ET is close to 50% PAW in dif-
ferent soil textures. This will provide a reasonable estimate of the por-
tion of PAW that corresponds to actual ET and can be added to the
credited pore space, when designing and crediting GSI systems are
based on a static surface storage plus void space volume in the soil
media.
5.5. Long term monitoring of GSI
The varying performance of GSI systems over the design life due to
factors such as clogging and compaction indicates a need for long
term monitoring of those systems. More on-site data collection is neces-
sary to fully evaluate the dynamic performance of the ET equations over
different seasons and in different locations. Also, more observed data
through long term monitoring programs from different green roof and
rain garden systems is needed to verify the continuous simulations.
Long term measurements (e.g., 5 years or more- Eger et al., 2017) are
recommended to investigate the discussed issues and ideas in this
paper. Further, long term studies will help define a GSI' design life.
5.6. Drainage conditions for improved ET and other benefits
Further investigations are needed to improve the performance of the
green roofs and rain gardens by allowing more ET through the modifica-
tion of drainage systems. Using automated controls on a GSI drainage
structure could provide another mechanism to manipulate the stored
water in the soil and make it available for ET.
807
5.7. Soil media design for ET-infiltration balance
Further research is needed to determine the best soil mix design
looking at the balance between ET and infiltration in different areas as
well as the balance between runoff reduction and pollutant removal
(Davis et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2014). A comprehensive cost-benefit
study and risk analysis is suggested to investigate the benefits, limita-
tions, issues and concerns regarding using in-situ (native) soils as the
soil media in GSI systems.
6. Conclusions
A literature review was performed on the role of ET in green roofs
and rain gardens. The results indicate that:
– Evapotranspiration is a viable runoff reduction mechanism in the
hydrologic cycle of vegetated green stormwater infrastructure (GSI).
– The annual volume retention in green roofs (mostly due to ET) can
range from 11% to 77% of the total rainfall volume (with a median
of 57%) in different studies depending on meteorological conditions
and green roof properties (Table 2).
– The annual volume retention due to ET in rain gardens depends on
the GSI configuration, design, and hydraulic loading ratio in each
rain garden, but is still considerable in the overall water balance
(e.g., 19% in Li et al., 2009 that is for an actual rain garden not a lysim-
eter or column study where ET portions in the annual water balance
tend to be higher).
– The ET rates in green roofs and rain gardens in different climates
and experimental setups are found to vary between 1 and
10 mm/day; however, the average ET rate can be assumed about
2–3 mm/day in climates similar to southeastern Pennsylvania
(i.e., between Cfa and Dfa climate zones of the Koppen-Geiger
classification system).
– Modifying the drainage structure and using fine-grained in-situ
soils can potentially improve ET in vegetated GSI systems.
Evapotranspiration is a dynamic process that is highly dependent
on available water in the soil media; hence, ET and infiltration should
be considered simultaneously in the design of vegetated GSI systems.
Continuous modeling of ET and infiltration, which couples the soil
matrix and hydrologic aspects using rainfall and climate data,
would provide the most appropriate design. None of the available
methods (equations) for estimating ET are an exact fit for observed
ET data. Based on the available knowledge, the 1985 Hargreaves
method (Hargreaves and Samani, 1985), due to its simplicity, rea-
sonable results without modifications, and ease of access to the re-
quired input data, is recommended when performing continuous
simulations.
Two methods, simple and complex, for incorporating ET in the de-
sign and crediting of vegetated GSI systems were reviewed. The simple
method (empirical, porosity-based approach based on certain soil,
plant, and climate conditions that can be reproduced for other condi-
tions) requires little input information but gives conservative volume
reductions compared to the complex method (continuous simulation)
that requires more input information and provides more realistic vol-
ume reductions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Philadelphia Water De-
partment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, USA Villanova Center for
Resilient Water Systems, Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA and partners
of Villanova Urban Stormwater Partnership, Villanova, Pennsylvania,
USA for funding this study. The opinions expressed in this paper are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the funding or-
ganizations' views.
808 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
References
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for
computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56.
FAO, Rome, Italy.
ASCE, 2005. The ASCE Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation, Task Com-
mittee on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration of the Environmental
and Water Resources Institute. ASCE, Reston, VA.
Bengtsson, L., 2005. Peak flows from thin sedum-moss roof. Nord. Hydrol. 36, 269–280.
Berghage, R., Beattie, D., Jarrett, A., Thuring, C., Razaei, F., O'Connor, T., 2009. Green Roofs
for Stormwater Runoff Control. Rep. No. EPA/600/R-609/026. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati.
Berkompas, B., Marx, K.W., Wachter, H.M., Beyerlein, D., Spencer, B., 2008. A Study of
Green Roof Hydrologic Performance in the Cascadia Region. 2008 Low Impact Devel-
opment Conference. ASCE, pp. 1–10.
Berland, A., Shiflett, S.A., Shuster, W.D., Garmestani, A.S., Goddard, H.C., Herrmann, D.L.,
Hopton, M.E., 2017. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 162, 167–177.
Berndtsson, J.C., 2010. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water
quantity and quality: a review. Ecol. Eng. 36 (4), 351–360.
Berretta, C., Poë, S., Stovin, V., 2014. Moisture content behaviour in extensive green roofs
during dry periods: the influence of vegetation and substrate characteristics.
J. Hydrol. 516 (4), 37–49.
Bliss, D.J., Neufeld, R.D., Ries, R.J., 2009. Storm water runoff mitigation using a green roof.
Environ. Eng. Sci. 26 (2), 407–418.
Bourletsikas, A., Argyrokastritis, I., Proutsos, N., 2018. Comparative evaluation of 24 refer-
ence evapotranspiration equations applied on an evergreen-broadleaved forest.
Hydrol. Res. 49 (4), 1028–1041.
Brown, R.A., Hunt, W.F., 2011a. Underdrain configuration to enhance bioretention
exfiltration to reduce pollutant loads. J. Environ. Eng. 137 (11), 1082–1091.
Brown, R.A., Hunt, W.F., 2011b. Impacts of media depth on effluent water quality and hydro-
logic performance of undersized bioretention cells. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 137 (3), 132–143.
Brown, R.A., Hunt, W.F., Skaggs, W.R., 2011. Long-term Modeling of Bioretention Hydrol-
ogy with DRAINMOD. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North
Carolina, Raleigh, NC Report No. 415. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/handle/1840.4/
8155.
Carbone, M., Principato, F., Garofalo, G., Piro, P., 2016. Comparison of evapotranspiration
computation by FAO-56 and Hargreaves methods. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 142 (8),
06016007.
Carpenter, D.D., Hallam, L., 2010. Influence of planting soil mix characteristics on
bioretention cell design and performance. J. Hydrol. Eng. 15 (6), 404–416.
Carpenter, D.D., Kaluvakolanu, P., 2011. Effect of roof surface type on storm-water runoff
from full-scale roofs in a temperate climate. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 137 (3), 161–169.
Carson, T.B., Marasco, D.E., Culligan, P.J., McGillis, W.R., 2013. Hydrological performance of
extensive green roofs in New York City: observations and multi-year modeling of
three full-scale systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2), 024036.
Carter, T.L., Rasmussen, T.C., 2006. Hydrologic behavior of vegetated roofs. J. Am. Water
Resour. Assoc. 42 (5), 1261–1274.
Cipolla, S.S., Maglionico, M., Stojkov, I., 2016. A long-term hydrological modelling of an ex-
tensive green roof by means of SWMM. Ecol. Eng. 95, 876–887.
Connelly, M., Liu, K., & Schaub, J. (2006). BCIT Green Roof Research Program, Phase 1 Sum-
mary of Data Analysis: Observation Period – Jan. 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2005. Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. http://publications.gc.
ca/site/eng/389231/publication.html.
Culbertson, T.L., Hutchinson, S.L., 2004. Assessing bioretention cell function in a Midwest
continental climate. SCGR Dynamic Partnership for an Environmentally Safe Healthy
World, ASAE Annual Int. Meeting, Ottawa, pp. 7814–7852.
Davis, A.P., Hunt, W.F., Traver, R.G., Clar, M.E., 2009. Bioretention technology: an overview
of current practice and future needs. J. Environ. Eng. 135 (3), 109–117.
Davis, A.P., Traver, R.G., Hunt, W.F., Lee, R., Brown, R.A., Olszewski, J.M., 2012. Hydrologic
performance of bioretention storm-water control measures. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17 (5),
604–614.
DeGaetano, A.T., Eggleston, K.L., Knapp, W.W., 1994. Daily Evapotranspiration and Soil
Moisture Estimates for the Northeast United States. Northeast Regional Climate Cen-
ter Research Series Publication Number RR941. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
DelVecchio, T., Welker, A., Wadzuk, B., 2019. Balance of infiltration and evapotranspira-
tion for different soil types: volume removal. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. (in
press).
DeNardo, J.C., Jarrett, A.R., Manbeck, H.B., Beattie, D.J., Berghage, R.D., 2005. Stormwater
mitigation and surface temperature reduction by green roofs. Trans. ASAE 48 (4),
1491–1496.
Denich, C., Bradford, A., 2010. Estimation of evapotranspiration from bioretention areas
using weighing lysimeters. J. Hydrol. Eng. 15 (6), 522–530.
Department of Planning and Local Government (DPLG), 2009. Water sensitive urban de-
sign technical manual for the greater Adelaide region. Government of South Australia.
Adelaide, Australia https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/planning-and-property/land-and-
property-development/planning-professionals/water-sensitive-urban-design.
DiGiovanni, K., Montalto, F., Gaffin, S., Rosenzweig, C., 2013. Applicability of classical pre-
dictive equations for the estimation of evapotranspiration from urban green spaces:
green roof results. J. Hydrol. Eng. 18 (1), 99–107.
DiGiovanni-White, K., Montalto, F., Gaffin, S., 2018. A comparative analysis of micromete-
orological determinants of evapotranspiration rates within a heterogeneous urban
environment. J. Hydrol. 562, 223–243.
Djaman, K., O'Neill, M., Diop, L., Bodian, A., Allen, S., Koudahe, K., Lombard, K., 2018. Eval-
uation of the Penman-Monteith and other 34 reference evapotranspiration equations
under limited data in a semiarid dry climate. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 1–15.
Driscoll, E.D., Palhegyi, G.E., Strecker, E.W., Shelley, P.E., 1989. Analysis of Storm Event
Characteristics for Selected Rainfall Gages throughout the United States.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, CA. Prepared for the. US Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Available at. https://nepis.epa.gov.
Ebrahimian, A., Wilson, B.N., Gulliver, J.S., 2016a. Improved methods to estimate the effec-
tive impervious area in urban catchments using rainfall-runoff data. J. Hydrol. 536,
109–118.
Ebrahimian, A., Gulliver, J.S., Wilson, B.N., 2016b. Effective impervious area for runoff in
urban watersheds. Hydrol. Process. 30 (20), 3717–3729.
Ebrahimian, A., Gulliver, J.S., Wilson, B.N., 2018. Estimating effective impervious area in
urban watersheds using land cover, soil character and asymptotic curve number.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 63 (4), 513–526.
Eger, C.G., Chandler, D.G., Driscoll, C.T., 2017. Hydrologic processes that govern
stormwater infrastructure behaviour. Hydrol. Process. 31 (25), 4492–4506.
Fassman, E., Simcock, R., 2012. Moisture measurements as performance criteria for exten-
sive living roof substrates. J. Environ. Eng. 138 (8), 841–851.
Fassman-Beck, E., Voyde, E., Simcock, R., Hong, Y.S., 2013. 4 living roofs in 3 locations:
does configuration affect runoff mitigation? J. Hydrol. 490, 11–20.
Fassman-Beck, E., Hunt, W., Berghage, R., Carpenter, D., Kurtz, T., Stovin, V., Wadzuk, B.,
2016. Curve number and runoff coefficients for extensive living roofs. J. Hydrol.
Eng. 21 (3), 04015073.
Feller, M., Traver, R., Wadzuk, B., 2010. Estimation of green roof evapotranspiration: ex-
perimental results. Proc. of 2010 International Low Impact Development Conference:
Redefining Water in the City, San Francisco, CA, pp. 11–14.
Feng, Y., 2018. Evapotranspiration from green infrastructure: benefit, measurement, and
simulation. In: Bucur, Daniel (Ed.), Advanced Evapotranspiration Methods and Appli-
cations. IntechOpen https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80910.
Feng, Y., Burian, S.J., Pardyjak, E.R., 2018. Observation and estimation of evapotranspira-
tion from an irrigated green roof in a rain-scarce environment. Water 10 (3), 262.
Flynn, K., Traver, R., 2013. Green infrastructure life cycle assessment: a bio-infiltration
case study. J. Ecol. Eng. 55, 9–22.
Gregoire, B.G., Clausen, J.C., 2011. Effect of a modular extensive green roof on stormwater
runoff and water quality. Ecol. Eng. 37 (6), 963–969.
Grimmond, C.S.B., Oke, T.R., 1986. Urban water balance: 2. Results from a suburb of Van-
couver, British Columbia. Water Resour. Res. 22 (10), 1404–1412.
Grimmond, C.S.B., Oke, T.R., 1991. An evapotranspiration-interception model for urban
areas. Water Resour. Res. 27 (7), 1739–1755.
Grimmond, C.S.B., Oke, T.R., 1999. Evapotranspiration rates in urban areas. Impacts of
urban growth on surface water and groundwater quality, proceedings of lUGG 99
symposium. IAHS Publication No 259, 235–244.
Hakimdavar, R., Culligan, P.J., Finazzi, M., Barontini, S., Ranzi, R., 2014. Scale dynamics of
extensive green roofs: quantifying the effect of drainage area and rainfall characteris-
tics on observed and modeled green roof hydrologic performance. Ecol. Eng. 73,
494–508.
Hamel, P., Mchugh, I., Coutts, A., Daly, E., Beringer, J., Fletcher, T.D., 2014. Automated
chamber system to measure field evapotranspiration rates. J. Hydrol. Eng. 20 (2),
04014037.
Hargreaves, G.H., 1975. Moisture availability and crop production. Trans. ASAE 18 (5),
980–0984.
Hargreaves, G.H., Allen, R.G., 2003. History and evaluation of Hargreaves evapotranspira-
tion equation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 129 (1), 53–63.
Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A., 1982. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J. Irrig.
Drain. Div. 108 (3), 225–230.
Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A., 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from tempera-
ture. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1 (2), 96–99.
Harper, G.E., Limmer, M.A., Showalter, W.E., Burken, J.G., 2015. Nine-month evaluation of
runoff quality and quantity from an experiential green roof in Missouri, USA. Ecol.
Eng. 78, 127–133.
Hathaway, A.M., Hunt, W.F., Jennings, G.D., 2008. A field study of green roof hydrologic
and water quality performance. Trans. ASABE 51 (1), 37–44.
Hess, A., 2017. Rain Garden Evapotranspiration Accounting. Ph.D. Dissertation. Villanova
University, Villanova, Pennsylvania.
Hess, A., Wadzuk, B.M., Traver, R.G., 2014. Construction and soil monitoring plan for an
ET-infiltration rain garden comparison site. World Environmental and Water Re-
sources Congress 2014: Water without Borders. World Environmental and Water Re-
sources Congress. Proceedings vol. 2014, pp. 105–114.
Hess, A., Wadzuk, B., Welker, A., 2015a. Evapotranspiration and infiltration in rain garden
systems. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Floods, Droughts,
and Ecosystems 261–270.
Hess, A., DelVecchio, T., Welker, A., Wadzuk, B.M., 2015b. An experimental program to
evaluate soil mixes for rain gardens. World Environmental and Water Resources Con-
gress: Floods, Droughts, and Ecosystems, pp. 221–230.
Hess, A., Wadzuk, B., Welker, A., 2017. Evapotranspiration in rain gardens using weighing
lysimeters. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 143 (6), 04017004.
Hess, A., Wadzuk, B., Welker, A., 2019. Predictive evapotranspiration equations in rain
gardens. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 145 (7), 04019010.
Heydari, M.M., Heydari, M., 2014. Calibration of Hargreaves–Samani equation for estimat-
ing reference evapotranspiration in semiarid and arid regions. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.
60 (5), 695–713.
Hickman, J., Scheider, D., Wadzuk, B., Traver, R., 2010. Determination of evapotranspira-
tion in SCM's using a weighing Lysimeter: an experimental approach. In World Envi-
ronmental and Water Resources Congress: Challenges of Change 3990–3999.
Hickman, J., Wadzuk, B., Traver, R., 2011. Evaluating the role of evapotranspiration in the
hydrology of a bioinfiltration basin using a weighing lysimeter. Proceedings, World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Bearing Knowledge for Sustainability.
ASCE/EWRI, Reston, VA.
 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
Hilten, R.N., 2005. An analysis of the energetics and stormwater mediation potential of
greenroofs. M.S. thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Hsieh, C.H., Davis, A.P., 2005. Evaluation and optimization of bioretention media for treat-
ment of urban storm water runoff. J. Environ. Eng. 131 (11), 1521–1531.
Hunt, W.F., Lord, B., Loh, B., Sia, A., 2015. Plant Selection for Bioretention Systems and
Stormwater Treatment Practices. Springer Briefs in Water Science and Technology
https://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=1001994.
Hutchinson, D., Abrams, P., Retzlaff, R., & Liptan, T. (2003). Stormwater Monitoring Two
Ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon, USA. Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities,
Chicago, IL. 1–18 www. portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/63098.
Irmak, S., Howell, T.A., Allen, R.G., Payero, J.O., Martin, D.L., 2005. Standardized ASCE
Penman-Monteith: impact of sum-of-hourly vs. 24-hour timestep computations at
reference weather station sites. Trans. ASAE 48 (3), 1063–1077.
Jensen, M.E., Burman, R.D., Allen, R.G., 1990. Evapotranspiration and irrigation water re-
quirements. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No 70, 360.
Jensen, D.T., Hargreaves, G.H., Temesgen, B., Allen, R.G., 1997. Computation of ETo under
nonideal conditions. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 123 (5), 394–400.
Kasmin, H., Stovin, V.R., Hathway, E.A., 2010. Towards a generic rainfall-runoff model for
green roofs. Water Sci. Technol. 62 (4), 898–905.
Katul, G.G., Cuenca, R.H., Grebet, P., Wright, J.L., Pruitt, W.O., 1992. Analysis of evaporative
flux data for various climates. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 118 (4), 601–618.
Khoob, A.R., 2008. Comparative study of Hargreaves's and artificial neural network's
methodologies in estimating reference evapotranspiration in a semiarid environ-
ment. Irrig. Sci. 26 (3), 253–259.
Krebs, G., Kuoppamäki, K., Kokkonen, T., Koivusalo, H., 2016. Simulation of green roof test
bed runoff. Hydrol. Process. 30 (2), 250–262.
Kuehler, E., Hathaway, J., Tirpak, A., 2017. Quantifying the benefits of urban forest systems
as a component of the green infrastructure stormwater treatment network.
Ecohydrology 10 (3), e1813.
Kurtz, T., 2008. Flow monitoring of three ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon. 2008 Low Impact
Development Conference. ASCE, pp. 1–10.
LeBoon, Megan, 2014. Evapotranspiration Research Update, Memorandum, File No.
781450002. AMEC, Philadelphia Water Department.
Lee, R.S., Traver, R.G., Welker, A.L., 2016. Evaluation of soil class proxies for hydrologic per-
formance of in situ bioinfiltration systems. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2 (4),
04016003.
Lewis, M., James, J., Shaver, E., Blackbourn, S., Leahy, A., Seyb, R., Simcock, R., Wihongi, P.,
Sides, E., Coste, C., 2015. Water sensitive design for stormwater. Auckland Council
Guideline Document GD2015/004 http://www.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/regula-
tions/technical-guidance/wsd.
Li, H., Sharkey, L.J., Hunt, W.F., Davis, A.P., 2009. Mitigation of impervious surface hydrol-
ogy using bioretention in North Carolina and Maryland. J. Hydrol. Eng. 14 (4),
407–415.
Liu, K., Minor, J., 2005. Performance Evaluation of an Extensive Green Roof. Greening
Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Washington DC, pp. 1–11. http://seedengr.
com/documents/Performance%20evaluation%20of%20an%20extensive%20green%
20roof.pdf.
Liu, J., Sample, D., Bell, C., Guan, Y., 2014. Review and research needs of bioretention used
for the treatment of urban stormwater. Water 6 (4), 1069–1099.
Loiola, C., Mary, W., & da Silva, L. P. (2018). Hydrological performance of modular-tray
green roof systems for increasing the resilience of mega-cities to climate change. J.
Hydrol.. in press. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.004.
López-Urrea, R., de Santa Olalla, F.M., Fabeiro, C., Moratalla, A., 2006. Testing evapotrans-
piration equations using lysimeter observations in a semiarid climate. Agric. Water
Manag. 85 (1–2), 15–26.
Lu, J., Sun, G., McNulty, S.G., Amatya, D.M., 2005. A comparison of six potential evapo-
transpiration methods for regional use in the southeastern United States. J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc. 41 (3), 621–633.
Lundholm, J., MacIvor, J.S., MacDougall, Z., Ranalli, M., 2010. Plant species and functional
group combinations affect green roof ecosystem functions. PLoS One 5 (3), e9677.
Maimone, Mark, 2010. Evaporation and Transpiration Impacts on Green Stormwater In-
frastructure, Memorandum. Philadelphia Water Department.
Marasco, D.E., Culligan, P.J., McGillis, W.R., 2015. Evaluation of common evapotranspira-
tion models based on measurements from two extensive green roofs in new York
City. Ecol. Eng. 84, 451–462.
MDESD (2007). Bioretention manual. Maryland Environmental Services Division, Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, Prince George's County, Maryland.
Melbourne Water, 2018. MUSIC Guidelines; Input Parameters and Modelling Approaches
for MUSIC Users in Melbourne Water's Service Area. State Government of Victoria,
Melbourne, Australia https://www.melbournewater.com.au/planning-and-building/
stormwater-management.
Montalto, F., Behr, C., Alfredo, K., Wolf, M., Arye, M., Walsh, M., 2007. Rapid assessment of
the cost-effectiveness of low impact development for CSO control. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 82 (3), 117–131.
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment. In: Fogg, G.E. (Ed.), Symposium of the
Society for Experimental Biology, the State and Movement of Water in Living Organ-
isms. vol. 19. Academic Press, Inc., NY, pp. 205–234.
Moran, A.C., Hunt, W.F., Smith, J.T., 2005. Green roof hydrologic and water quality perfor-
mance from two field sites in North Carolina. Watershed Management Conference.
ASCE, pp. 1–12.
MPCA, 2017. Minnesota Stormwater Manual, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St.
Paul, MN http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Main_Page.
Muerdter, C.P., Wong, C.K., LeFevre, G.H., 2018. Emerging investigator series: the role of
vegetation in bioretention for stormwater treatment in the built environment: pol-
lutant removal, hydrologic function, and ancillary benefits. Environ. Sci.: Water Res.
Technol. 4 (5), 592–612.
809
Nocco, M.A., Rouse, S.E., Balster, N.J., 2016. Vegetation type alters water and nitrogen bud-
gets in a controlled, replicated experiment on residential-sized rain gardens planted
with prairie, shrub, and turfgrass. Urban Ecosyst. 19 (4), 1665–1691.
Olson, N.C., Gulliver, J.S., Nieber, J.L., Kayhanian, M., 2013. Remediation to improve infiltra-
tion into compact soils. J. Environ. Manag. 117, 85–95.
Ouldboukhitine, S.E., Belarbi, R., Djedjig, R., 2012. Characterization of green roof compo-
nents: measurements of thermal and hydrological properties. Build. Environ. 56,
78–85.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., Lanza, L.G., 2010. Hydrologic restoration in the urban environment
using green roofs. Water 2 (2), 140–154.
Palla, A., Sansalone, J.J., Gnecco, I., Lanza, L.G., 2011. Storm water infiltration in a moni-
tored green roof for hydrologic restoration. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (3), 766–773.
Payne, E.G., Pham, T., Deletic, A., Hatt, B.E., Cook, P.L., Fletcher, T.D., 2018. Which species?
A decision-support tool to guide plant selection in stormwater biofilters. Adv. Water
Resour. 113, 86–99.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. A 193 (1032), 120–145.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). (2006). Stormwater
Best Management Practices Manual, Chapter 6: Structural BMPs.
Pitt, R., Chen, S.E., Clark, S.E., Swenson, J., Ong, C.K., 2008. Compaction's impacts on urban
storm-water infiltration. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134 (5), 652–658.
PWD, 2015. Stormwater Regulation Updates, July 2015, Philadelphia Water Department.
PA, Philadelphia http://www.phillywatersheds.org/StormwaterRegulations.
PWD, 2018. Stormwater Management Guidance Manual Version 3.1. Philadelphia Water
Department, Philadelphia, PA https://www.pwdplanreview.org/manual-info/guid-
ance-manual.
Rezaei, F., Jarrett, A.R., Berghage, R.D., Beattie, D.J., 2005. Evapotranspiration rates from ex-
tensive green roof plant species. 2005 ASAE Annual Meeting. American Society of Ag-
ricultural and Biological Engineers, p. 1.
Saxton, K.E., Rawls, W.J., 2006. Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic
matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70 (5), 1569–1578.
Scharenbroch, B.C., Morgenroth, J., Maule, B., 2016. Tree species suitability to bioswales
and impact on the urban water budget. J. Environ. Qual. 45 (1), 199–206.
Schneider, D., Wadzuk, B.M., Traver, R.G., 2011. Using a weighing lysimeter to determine a
crop coefficient for a green roof to predict evapotranspiration with the FAO standard-
ized Penman-Monteith equation. World Environmental and Water Resources Con-
gress, pp. 3629–3638.
Selbig, W.R., Balster, N., 2010. Evaluation of turf-grass and prairie-vegetated rain gardens
in a clay and sand soil, Madison, Wisconsin, water years 2004–08. U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5077 , p. 72. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/
2010/5077/.
Shariat, R., Roozbahani, A., Ebrahimian, A., 2019. Risk analysis of urban stormwater infra-
structure systems using fuzzy spatial multi-criteria decision making. Sci. Total Envi-
ron. 647, 1468–1477.
Sherrard Jr., J.A., Jacobs, J.M., 2012. Vegetated roof water-balance model: experimental
and model results. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17 (8), 858–868.
Sickles, L., Parker, N., Wu, J.S., Hilger, H., 2007. Evaluation of regionally appropriate and
cost effective bioretention media mixes. World Environmental and Water Resources
Congress, ASCE 1–10.
Speak, A.F., Rothwell, J.J., Lindley, S.J., Smith, C.L., 2013. Rainwater runoff retention on an
aged intensive green roof. Sci. Total Environ. 461, 28–38.
Spolek, G., 2008. Performance monitoring of three ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon. Urban
Ecosyst. 11 (4), 349–359.
Stovin, V., 2010. The potential of green roofs to manage urban stormwater. Water Envi-
ron. J. 24, 192–199.
Stovin, V., Vesuviano, G., Kasmin, H., 2012. The hydrological performance of a green roof
test bed under UK climatic conditions. J. Hydrol. 414, 148–161.
Suleiman, A.A., Hoogenboom, G., 2009. A comparison of ASCE and FAO-56 reference
evapotranspiration for a 15-min time step in humid climate conditions. J. Hydrol.
375 (3–4), 326–333.
Szota, C., Fletcher, T.D., Desbois, C., Rayner, J.P., Williams, N.S., Farrell, C., 2017. Laboratory
tests of substrate physical properties may not represent the retention capacity of
green roof substrates in situ. Water 9 (12), 920.
Szota, C., McCarthy, M.J., Sanders, G.J., Farrell, C., Fletcher, T.D., Arndt, S.K., Livesley, S.J.,
2018. Tree water-use strategies to improve stormwater retention performance of
biofiltration systems. Water Res. 144, 285–295.
Tabari, H., Talaee, P.H., 2011. Local calibration of the Hargreaves and Priestley-Taylor
equations for estimating reference evapotranspiration in arid and cold climates of
Iran based on the Penman-Monteith model. J. Hydrol. Eng. 16 (10), 837–845.
Teemusk, A., Mander, Ü., 2007. Rainwater runoff quantity and quality performance from a
greenroof: the effects of short-term events. Ecol. Eng. 30 (3), 271–277.
Thornthwaite, C.W., 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr.
Rev. 38 (1), 55–94.
Tirpak, R.A., Hathaway, J.M., Franklin, J.A., 2018. Evaluating the influence of design strate-
gies and meteorological factors on tree transpiration in bioretention suspended pave-
ment practices. Ecohydrology 11 (8), e2037.
Traver, R.G., Ebrahimian, A., 2017. Dynamic design of green stormwater infrastructure.
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 11 (4), 15.
TRCA, 2006. Evaluation of an Extensive Greenroof: York University, Toronto, Ontario. To-
ronto and Region Conservation Authority, Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Pro-
gram. https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2013/03/GR_york_fullreport.
pdf.
VADCR, 2011. Virginia DCR Stormwater Design Specification No. 9: Bioretention, Version
1.9. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA.
VanWoert, N.D., Rowe, D.B., Andresen, J.A., Rugh, C.L., Fernandez, R.T., Xiao, L., 2005. Green
roof stormwater retention. J. Environ. Qual. 34 (3), 1036–1044.
810 A. Ebrahimian et al. / Science of the Total Environment 688 (2019) 797–810
Versini, P.A., Ramier, D., Berthier, E., De Gouvello, B., 2015. Assessment of the hydrological
impacts of green roof: from building scale to basin scale. J. Hydrol. 524, 562–575.
Villarreal, E.L., Bengtsson, L., 2005. Response of a Sedum green-roof to individual rain
events. Ecol. Eng. 25 (1), 1–7.
Voyde, E., Fassman, E., Simcock, R., 2010a. Hydrology of an extensive living roof under
sub-tropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand. J. Hydrol. 394 (3),
384–395.
Voyde, E., Fassman, E., Simcock, R., Wells, J., 2010b. Quantifying evapotranspiration rates
for New Zealand green roofs. J. Hydrol. Eng. 15 (6), 395–403.
Wadzuk, B., 2013. How best to take credit for ET in green roofs-a roundtable discussion.
2013 VUSP-PA Stormwater Symposium, Villanova, PA.
Wadzuk, B.M., Traver, R.G., 2012. Soil moisture balance in bioretention systems. Proc.
Water Environ. Fed. 2012 (5), 231–240.
Wadzuk, B., Schneider, D., Feller, M., Traver, R., 2013. Evapotranspiration from a green-
roof storm-water control measure. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 139 (12), 995–1003.
Wadzuk, B., Hickman Jr., J., Traver, R., 2015. Understanding the role of evapotranspiration
in bioretention: Mesocosm study. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 1 (2), 04014002.
Wadzuk, B.M., Lewellyn, C., Lee, R., Traver, R.G., 2017. Green infrastructure recovery: anal-
ysis of the influence of back-to-back rainfall events. Journal of sustainable water in
the built. Environment 3 (1), 04017001.
Walter, I.A., Allen, R.G., Elliott, R., Jensen, M.E., Itenfisu, D., Mecham, B., Howell, T.A.,
Snyder, R., Brown, P., Echings, S., Spofford, T., Hattendorf, M., Cuenca, R.H., Wright,
J.L., Martin, D., 2000. ASCE's standardized reference evapotranspiration equation. Wa-
tershed Management and Operations Management 2000, pp. 1–11.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE), 2012. Stormwater Management Man-
ual for Western Washington. Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Lacey,
Washington Publication Number 12-10-030. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/
stormwater/manual.html.
Wilm, H.G., Thornthwaite, C.W., Colman, E.A., Cummings, N.W., Croft, A.R., Gisborne, H.T.,
Harding, S.T., Hendrickson, A.H., Hoover, M.D., Houk, I.E., Kittredge, J., 1944. Report of
the committee on transpiration and evaporation, 1943-44. Eos, Transactions
American Geophysical Union 25 (5), 683–693.
View publication stats
Winston, R.J., Dorsey, J.D., Hunt, W.F., 2016. Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow
mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio. Sci. Total Envi-
ron. 553, 83–95.
Wolf, D., Lundholm, J.T., 2008. Water uptake in green roof microcosms: effects of plant
species and water availability. Ecol. Eng. 33 (2), 179–186.
Yang, W.Y., Li, D., Sun, T., Ni, G.H., 2015. Saturation-excess and infiltration-excess runoff
on green roofs. Ecol. Eng. 74, 327–336.
Zaremba, G., Molina, S., Wadzuk, B.M., Traver, R.G., 2015a. Optimizing green roof Design
for Evapotranspiration. In International Low Impact Development Conference: It
Works in All Climates and Soils, ASCE 186–195.
Zaremba, G., Wadzuk, B.M., Traver, R.G., 2015b. Application of the Hargreaves equation
for green roof evapotranspiration. In World Environmental and Water Resources
Congres: Floods, Droughts, and Ecosystems, ASCE 231–240.
Zaremba, G., Traver, R., Wadzuk, B., 2016. Impact of drainage on green roof evapotranspi-
ration. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 142 (7), 04016022.
Zhang, K., Chui, T.F.M., 2019. Linking hydrological and bioecological benefits of green in-
frastructures across spatial scales–a literature review. Sci. Total Environ. 646,
1219–1231.
Zhang, L., Dawes, W.R., Walker, G.R., 2001. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration
to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 37 (3), 701–708.
Zhang, Z., Szota, C., Fletcher, T.D., Williams, N.S., Werdin, J., Farrell, C., 2018a. Influence of
plant composition and water use strategies on green roof stormwater retention. Sci.
Total Environ. 625, 775–781.
Zhang, K., Chui, T.F.M., Yang, Y., 2018b. Simulating the hydrological performance of low
impact development in shallow groundwater via a modified SWMM. J. Hydrol. 566,
313–331.
Zhao, L., Xia, J., Xu, C.Y., Wang, Z., Sobkowiak, L., Long, C., 2013. Evapotranspiration estima-
tion methods in hydrological models. J. Geogr. Sci. 23 (2), 359–369.