Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

A game theoretical low impact development optimization model for

urban storm water management
Morvarid Latifi a, Gholamreza Rakhshandehroo a, Mohammad Reza Nikoo a, *,
Mojtaba Sadegh b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Boise State University, Boise, USA

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

Article history: This study presents a novel framework to optimize Low Impact Development (LID) practices for urban
Received 10 February 2019 storm water management. First, the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) model was executed for
Received in revised form different possible scenarios of input parameters and various LIDs to simulate runoff volume, Biochemical
30 August 2019
Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loads. Next, a neural network (MLP-ANN) was
Accepted 6 September 2019
Available online 10 September 2019
trained and validated, as a surrogate model, against the set of inputs and output variables from the
SWMM model simulations. The inherent uncertainties in the rainfall-runoff modeling were accounted
Handling Editor: Prof. S Alwi for using a Nonlinear Interval Number Programming (NINP) model, and stakeholders' interactions are
considered using a leader-follower game model. Velenjak urban watershed in Tehran, Iran, with four key
Keywords: stakeholders was considered as the study area. Tehran Municipality is the financial service provider that
Urban storm water management makes the first decision the leader-follower structure, and is considered as the leader with the priority of
Leader-follower game minimizing LIDs’ construction and maintenance costs. Tehran Department of Environmental Protection,
Nonlinear interval number programming Tehran Regional Water company, and Tehran Province Water and Wastewater company are the main
Low impact development
followers in the decision making structure in the study area. This game theoretical framework yields
Multi-objective optimization model
several Pareto optimal solutions given the conflicting utilities of various players, and a Multi Criteria
Decision Making procedure e i.e. PROMETHEE model e selects the most preferred compromised option.
Fourteen weighting scenarios were considered in the PROMETHEE model to determine the compromise
solution among the 52 solutions on the trade-off curve. The novelty of this study lies in using a nonlinear
interval conflict resolution multi-objective optimization model for urban storm water management
based on a leader-follower game. The proposed methodology warrants BOD and TSS loads, as well as
storm water volume, are all reduced, with the highest reductions of 93, 86 and 90 percent, respectively.
Results testify to the efficacy of the proposed model for urban storm water management.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, urbanization has increasingly stressed the urban
aquatic ecosystem through growing flooding events and pollution
(Shen et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2018). Urbanization enhances
impermeable areas, which in turn resulting in an increase in urban
runoff volumes and pollutant loads (Qin et al., 2013; Randihir and
Raposa, 2014). Urban storm water compounds the impacts of
point and non-point urban and industrial pollution sources, and
play a major role in water quality deterioration throughout cities
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nikoo@shirazu.ac.ir (M.R. Nikoo).
and basins (Banik et al., 2017a and 2017b). In the recent literature,
the traditional concept of “transfer runoff from the urban water-
shed as quickly as possible” has changed to “use/manage runoff by
best management practices” (Fletcher et al., 2015). This reflects the
increasing attention of scientists and decision-makers to social
problems, flood risk and environmental challenges associated with
urban runoff (Li et al., 2018; Larsen et al., 2016).
In the recent years, researchers have been studying
environment-friendly ways, such as Green Infrastructure (GI),
Best Management Practice (BMP), and Low Impact Development
(hereafter LID) to manage urban storm water (notation list are
presented in the supplementary material in section S.4) (Eckart
et al., 2012; Jia et al., 2015). LID is conceptualized based on the
idea to control runoff at the source and reduce the total pollutant

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118323
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323
load. Various LIDs have been proposed in the literature and
practice that use treatment processes such as sedimentation,
filtration, adsorption, and chemical treatment (Ahiablame et al.
2012; Lee et al., 2012). LID practices are landscape structures to
capture and retain storm water generated from impervious sur-
faces in urban areas (Jia et al., 2012; Petit-Boix et al., 2017). LIDs
come in different types such as bio-retention cell, rain gardens,
green roofs, infiltration trenches, permeable pavement, block
paver, rain barrels, rooftop disconnection, and vegetative swale
(Hoang and Fenner, 2016). These structures not only reduce sur-
face runoff through enhanced infiltration (Rossman, 2016), but
also significantly improve water quality (Li and Davis, 2009). LID
practices, provide higher resiliency for urban areas against the
uncertainty of future extreme events, such as floods caused by
climate change (Pyke et al., 2011; Byrne et al., 2015). Several
studies have been devoted to developing models to evaluate
different LID practices, their application and efficacy (Liu et al.,
2015; Wang et al., 2018).
Due to the complexity and diversity of different LID practices,
optimization of LID facilities' location and cost of construction is
challenging, and is often constrained by availability of construction
land (Martin-Mikle et al., 2015; Geng and Sharpley 2019). One
principal challenge in utilizing LID practices is the choice of optimal
combination of these installations to efficiently improve quantity
and quality of urban runoff, and refine associated environmental
and ecological effects in the presence of economic concerns
(Joksimovic and Alam, 2014; Xu et al., 2017b). Researchers have
utilized different approaches, such as location, area, and structural
optimization of BMP to improve water quality (Lee et al., 2012;
Chiang et al., 2014). Ghodsi et al. (2016b), for example, proposed
deterministic and stochastic non-cooperative bargaining ap-
proaches to optimize location and area of LID facilities and their
controls on urban storm water management. The literature, how-
ever, didn't address the nonlinearity of uncertain parameters of
rainfall-runoff models and different bargaining levels of stake-
holders and organizations' priorities.
One paradox to consider in urban storm water management is
the existence of stakeholders with different utility functions
(Kaplowitz and Lupi, 2012; Du et al., 2019). Often, a particular
stakeholder (leader) holds the upper hand in the decision making
structure and makes the first move, and the remaining stake-
holders (followers) make their choices at a lower hierarchical level,
competing in the feasible space defined by the leader. Decisions are
made in a system with huge uncertainties on the characteristics of
rainfall, land permeability, and buildup and washoff parameters,
among others, all having great importance for the stakeholders’
choices (Sedghamiz et al., 2018; Khorshidi et al., 2019).
A novel approach is presented herein that uses a nonlinear in-
terval multi-objective optimization model based on a leader-
follower game, and the best possible solution is determined
among the Pareto optimal choices using a PROMETHEE model. The
proposed framework explicitly accounts for system uncertainties;
and approaches the issue in a pragmatic and realistic manner,
which in turn enables decision-makers to make more reasonable
and informed decisions.
2. Method
This study models conflict-of-interests among different stake-
holders in a Low Impact Development (LID) practice in the face of
uncertainties of Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) simu-
lations. The method is based on a leader-follower game and a
Nonlinear Interval Number Programming (NINP) model. A flow-
chart outlining the main steps of a nonlinear interval multi-
objective optimization model based on the leader-follower game
in urban storm water management is shown in Fig. 1.
Step 1 Collecting data and information
The first step is to collect data for the land features, sub-
catchments, site characteristics (permeability, population, topog-
raphy), and key stakeholders and their interests. Also, relevant
water quality variables in urban storm water as well as buildup and
washoff coefficients for the rainfall-runoff model should be
collected or estimated for the design rainfall.
Step 2 Preparing inputs to the SWMM simulation model
LID types are then selected based on the sub-catchments char-
acteristics e population and topography e with a specific focus on
previous successful LID experiences such as vegetative swale and
bio-retention cell in many engineering applications (Xu et al.,
2017a) (more details in section 3.1). It is widely accepted that the
choice of storm water model is essential for planning LID practices.
SWMM is a widely used model for LID planning which employs an
open source code (Xu et al., 2017a). In this Study, the SWMM 5.1
(Rossman, 2015) is utilized for simulation of storm water in
Velenjak urban watershed in Tehran, Iran.
Step 3 Determining key stakeholders
In the third step, leader and followers are identified given the
real-world characteristics of the decision making structure among
the involved stakeholders, and subsequently, their utility functions
are determined. In this study, Tehran Municipality (TM), Tehran
Department of Environmental Protection (TDEP), Tehran Regional
Water Company (TRW), and Tehran Province Water and Waste-
water company (TPWW) are the key stakeholders, TM being the
leader due to its superior political and financial power, and others
function as followers (Also see section 3.2).
Step 4 Developing the SWMM model
In the fourth step, a rainfall-runoff SWMM model is developed
and executed for different possible values of inputs and parameters
(including rainfall value, buildup and washoff coefficients, and
imperviousness coefficients, as well as areas and types of LID
practices). Then, the outputs database matrix including runoff
volume, BOD and TSS loads for each LID scenario is constructed.
Step 5 Developing the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model
In this step, an MLP-ANN is trained and validated as a meta-
model to SWMM using the obtained input-output database to es-
timate runoff volume and water quality variables (BOD and TSS
loads) based on input parameters of rainfall, impermeability, and
buildup and washoff coefficients.
Step 6 Developing a nonlinear interval number programing multi-
objective optimization model based on the leader-follower
game
To obtain robust optimization solution in the face of un-
certainties of storm water management model, the NINP model
was utilized (Nikoo and Kerachian, 2012; Nikoo et al., 2013). Sen-
sitive uncertain parameters of the SWMM model are identified, and
bounds are set for the followers’ objective functions. In this study,
impermeability, buildup and washoff coefficients and rainfall are
considered as important uncertain parameters. More details about
the NINP model are explained in the Supplementary material
 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323 3

Fig. 1. The flowchart of the optimal design algorithm for LID facilities considering nonlinear interval multi-objective optimization model based on the leader-follower game in an
urban storm water management.
1
Low Impact Development (LID); 2TM is the leader and its utility functions are the cost of constructing and maintaining LID practices and linear combinations of the midpoint and
radius of interval number of NasheHarsanyi model of followers. Also, Tehran Department of Environmental Protection (TDEP), Tehran Regional Water company (TRW), and Tehran
Province Water and Wastewater company (TPWW) are followers whose utility functions are minimizing storm water volume and TSS contamination load, and optimizing runoff
and water quality variables (in this study, BOD and TSS), respectively; 3Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE).

(section S.1). To consider the non-cooperative interaction among
followers, NasheHarsanyi production functions are utilized. Also, a
combination of midpoint value and radius of interval number based
on NINP is determined to consider the uncertainties. Non-
dominating Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) is then
employed to optimize the system and delineate the trade-off curve
(or surface in the presence of more than two objectives) between
the objective functions (Deb et al., 2002; Nikoo et al., 2014; Nikoo
et al., 2015). Each chromosome of the current population of the
NSGA-II model (see section S.2), represents optimal design of LIDs
facilities.
Step 7 Selecting the best possible solution
In the last step, a compromise optimal solution is selected on the
trade-off curve (or surface, depending on the problem dimen-
sionality) according to a weighting scheme for stakeholders’ utility
functions. To provide a complete ranking on Pareto-optimal solu-
tions, PROMETHEE model is utilized. To analyze the sensitivity of
result, different weighting scenarios for objectives are considered
based on engineering judgment. Finally, the surface area and type
of LID practices are determined for each sub-catchment.
4 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323
2.1. The leader-follower game model
In urban storm water management, often stakeholders have
different and sometimes conflicting utility functions, such as cost
minimization, runoff quantity reduction and quality improvement.
In such decision-making structures, stakeholders usually do not
engage in the bargaining process simultaneously as they hold
different levels in the decision hierarchy. A leader-follower game is
a robust and simple dynamic non-cooperative game that has the
capability of modeling such a situation (Safari et al., 2014;
Sedghamiz et al., 2018).
We now explain the simplest form of leader-follower game with
two players: player 1 (leader) and player 2 (follower) assuming
both are rational. Let us assume payoff functions of p1 and p2 for
strategy sets S1 and S2 . In the first step, the leader selects a strategy
s1 2S1 and informs the follower about the decision. Next, the fol-
lower (player 2) selects his best response given strategy s1, which is
indicated by F2 ðs1 Þ, and both players receive their payoffs accord-
ingly. The leader's payoff, which depends on his/her strategy, may
be denoted as p1 ðs1 ; F2 ðs1 ÞÞ, and is obtained through solving
(Matsumoto and Szidarovszky, 2016):
Maximize p1 ðs1 ; F2 ðs1 ÞÞ
(1)
Subject to : s1 2S1
If s*1 is the optimum solution for this problem, ðs*1 ; F2 ðs*1 ÞÞ is the
solution of the leader-follower game.
When more than one follower are playing the game (players 2 to
n), every follower selects their best response against s1 , indicated
by F2 ðs1 Þ; ::::; Fn ðs1 Þ. Next, the NasheHarsanyi bargaining method is
used to determine the dependence of followers' responses to the
leader's strategy (Harsanyi and Selten, 1972; Yang et al., 2015):
FNash ðs1 Þ ¼ ðF2 ðs1 Þ  d1 Þw1  :::::  ðFn ðs1 Þ  dn Þwn
Xn
(2)
wi ¼ 1
i¼1
Where, d1 to dn are disagreement payoffs of players 1 to n and
w1 ; :::::; wn are bargaining powers of the players (Harsanyi and
Selten, 1972). The leader's payoff depends on his/her strategy,
denoted as p1 ðs1 ; FNash ðs1 ÞÞ, which is established through an opti-
mization problem:
Fig. 2. A three layer MLP Artificial Neural Network model (n inputs and one output).
Maximize p1 ðs1 ; FNash ðs1 ÞÞ
(3)
Subject to : s1 2S1
The most common leader-follower game is based on a single
leader with a single objective, while in this study, the leader has
multi-objectives. For more details and applications of the leader-
follower game refer to Chen et al. (2017), Sedghamiz et al. (2018)
and Khorshidi et al. (2019).
2.2. Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is developed based on the
neural structure of the human brain. This method has been utilized
in different fields such as rainfall-runoff simulation (Kashani et al.,
2016). Most widely used ANNs consist of three layers: input, hid-
den, and output layers, with some processing elements named
neurons (nodes) existing in every layer (Fig. 2). ANN discovers the
best nonlinear regression between input and output datasets. In-
formation or input data are assigned to the nodes of the input layer,
which are then distributed to the hidden layer for processing while
weights are applied to them. All weighted input data are combined
and processed through a transfer function (e.g. Sigmoid) to produce
the corresponding output data. In this study, a three-layer feed-
forward neural network using back propagation algorithm is
considered as a meta-model to replace the SWMM model for sce-
nario analysis. This model helps to reduce run-time of multi-
objective optimization model.
3. Case study
The study area is located between latitudes 35 31ʹ to 35 57ʹN
and longitudes 51 4ʹ to 51 47ʹE in Velenjak watershed, north-
eastern Tehran metropolis, Iran (Fig. 3).
The watershed is divided into 27 sub-catchments based on its
topography, land use, surface water collection network, and runoff
outlets. Table 1 enlists the characteristics of the study area,
including surface areas, and land uses of the sub-catchments. The
design rainfall that is utilized in this study for estimating runoff is
7.7 mm in 0.5 h (for more details about design rainfall refer to
Ghodsi et al., 2016a). Rainfall amounts in the critical months vary
between 5 and 9 mm in 0.5 h, and associated runoff for these
rainfall scenarios cause flooding and critical conditions in sub-
 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323 5

Fig. 3. Velenjak watershed and its sub-catchments in Tehran metropolis.

Table 1
Velenjak sub-catchments' characteristics (adopted by Ghodsi et al., 2016a, 2016b).

Sub-catchments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Area (ha) 41 25 30 16 16.2 76 30.4 38 64 38 84.8 86.9 68 99
Land usea Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu1 Lu2 Lu2 Lu2

Sub-catchments 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Area (ha) 84 96 59 72 112 80 142 175 26 42 173 102 104
Land use Lu2 Lu1 Lu3 Lu2 Lu2 Lu2 Lu2 Lu3 Lu1 Lu1 Lu3 Lu1 Lu3
a
Lu1: Undeveloped, Lu2: Residential low density and Lu3.Residential high density

Table 2
Classification of sub-catchments 12 to 27 based on impermeability (adopted by Ghodsi et al., 2016a).

Category Sub-catchment characterization Included sub-catchment Impermeability (%)

Range of area (ha) Slope (%) Lower limit Upper limit

1 25-45 General slope of 10 to 15 percent 23-24 24 40

65-100 12-13-14-15 54 90
95-145 16-19-21 28 46

2 50-80 General slope of 2.5 to 5 percent 17-18-20 54 90

3 170-175 General slope of 2 to 3 percent 22-25 50 84

100-105 26-27 54 90

catchments 12 to 27. As shown in Table 1 and Fig. 3, sub-catchments
1e11 are in an undeveloped area with high permeability that allows
infiltration (Ghodsi et al., 2016a). Therefore, LIDs are merely utilized
for sub-catchments 12 to 27. Impermeability coefficients for these
sub-catchments are considered as one of the uncertain SWMM
input parameters (Table 2).
In this study, TSS and BOD are considered as water quality var-
iables (Fallahi Zarandi, 2013). The lower and upper limits of buildup
and washoff coefficients for BOD and TSS water quality variables for
different land uses are presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Lower and upper limits of buildup and washoff coefficients for BOD and TSS water quality variables for different land use over the study area.

Uncertain parameter Land usea BOD TSS

Lower limit Upper limit Lower limit Upper limit

Buildup C1 (Kg/100m) Lu1 1.312 1.968 23.840 35.760

Lu2 1.192 1.788 59.600 89.400
Lu3 1.788 2.682 47.680 71.520
C2 (Kg/day/100m) Lu1 0.005 0.007 0.784 1.176
Lu2 0.004 0.006 2.456 3.684
Lu3 0.008 0.012 1.584 2.376

Washoff D1 Lu1 0.008 0.012 0.320 0.480

Lu2 0.016 0.024 0.560 0.840
Lu3 0.072 0.108 0.080 0.120
D2 Lu1 0.040 0.060 1.600 2.400
Lu2 0.160 0.240 1.760 2.640
Lu3 0.320 0.480 1.360 2.040
a
Lu1: Undeveloped, Lu2: Residential low density and Lu3.Residential high density
6 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323

Table 4
The surface area required for the LID types for different land uses (Ghodsi et al., 2016a).

Land usea LID type Area required according to each scenario (m2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lu1 Vegetative swale 100 400 800 1,600 2,400 3,200 4,000 -
Bio-retention cell 100 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 -

Lu2 Vegetative swale 100 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 - -

Bio-retention cell 100 300 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 - -

Lu3 Vegetative swale 100 600 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800 6,000 7,200
Bio-retention cell 100 400 800 1,600 2,400 3,200 4,000 4,800
a
Lu1: Undeveloped, Lu2: Residential low density and Lu3.Residential high density

3.1. Low Impact Development (LID) scenarios is defined as:

While the traditional ideology was to route urban storm water t 

P 
out of the city as soon as possible, the new ideology focused on AiLID  CostLID
i
i¼1
reducing flood risk and improving water quality promote treating Minimize : UL ¼ t   t ¼ 1; 2: (4)
P
storm water at the origin. Low Impact Development (LID) practices AiLID; max  CostLID
i

reduce runoff volumes and peak flow rates through infiltration, i¼1

which is essential to protecting or restoring watersheds (Sun et al.

Where, t is the number of LID types, AiLID , AiLID; max , and Cost iLID are
2014). In this study, SWMM model is used for simulation of sub-
area (m2), maximum area (m2), and costs (dollars/m2) for each LID
catchment flood using different types of LID practices. Vegetative
type, respectively.
swale and bio-retention cell were considered herein as suggested
Tehran Province Water and Wastewater company (TPWW):
by previous studies by Mahab Ghods Consulting Engineering
Groundwater is one of the main sources of water supply in
Company (2011). It should be noted this study can be extended
Tehran metropolis. Due to urbanization and population growth,
using other LID types. Here we use vegetative swale and bio-
groundwater withdrawal has increased over the past years (Sadegh
retention cell as recommended by Mahab Ghods Consulting Engi-
and Kerachian, 2011). Therefore, one of the main concerns of
neering Company. Due to the existence of swells at the margin of
TPWW is to reuse the available urban rainfall resources to recharge
certain streets, vegetative swale was considered as the best LID type
groundwater. TPWW favors scenarios with higher groundwater
for certain residential sub-catchments with high population den-
recharge volumes with a utility function (UF1 ) defined as:
sity. Bio-retention cell may be constructed in a flat area and can be
integrated into recreational area. The costs of constructing and  
V
maintaining a vegetative swale and a bio-retention cell are evalu- Maximize UF1 ¼ 1  (5)
ated by Fallahi Zarandi (2013) as 8.2 and 20.4 dollars per square Vmax
meter, respectively. The area required for each LID type may be
Where, V and Vmax are runoff (m3) and maximum runoff volumes
determined based on eight LID area scenarios. Tehran municipality,
(m3), respectively.
constrained by its cost restrictions, allocates LID areas to each sub-
Tehran Regional Water company (TRW):
catchment based on availability of public lands. The first scenario
Water quality is the most important variable for TRW. Organi-
has the minimum surface area, which sequentially increases to the
zational priority of TRW is to utilize runoff with minimum TSS
maximum area for the last scenario (Table 4). The SWMM model is
contaminations to be used for irrigation, which in turn would lead
then executed for different possible LID scenarios (area and type),
to minimum groundwater withdrawal. As a result, the utility
results of which was used to train and validate a surrogate ANN
function of TRW (UF2 ) is maximizing the runoff volume and
model. Then, the validated surrogate model is coupled with the
minimizing its TSS:
proposed NINP multi-objective optimization model based on the
leader-follower game.   
V
Maximize UF2 ¼ 1  w1r  1 
Vmax
3.2. Stakeholders   X2
TSS
þ w2r  and wur ¼ 1 (6)
Utility functions of key stakeholders in this study are explained TSSmax u¼1
in detail in this section. The proposed urban storm water man-
agement system was presented to some experts in each involved Where, TSS and TSSmax are total suspended solid load1 (kg) and its
organization, who are then interviewed to determine the weights maximum value (kg), respectively. In this study, relative impor-
associated with different objectives (utility functions). If any orga- tance of objectives are considered equal (0.5) based on engineering
nization's utility function had more than one objective, the experts judgment. TSS load is the integral of TSS concentration over runoff
were also asked to determine relative weights (for water quality volume.
variables and runoff volume). Then, the final weight of each Tehran Department of Environmental Protection (TDEP):
objective of stakeholders is determined based on the average value One of the main tasks of TDEP is environmental protection,
assigned by all interviewees. restoration, and pollution prevention. In this regard, the utility
Tehran Municipality (TM): function of TDEP (UF3 ) is minimizing runoff volume and water
TM is a financial service provider who tries to utilize available quality variables (BOD and TSS):
spaces for the construction and maintenance of the LID practices.
TM's goal is to minimize construction and maintenance costs for
1
the LIDs in all sub-catchments. TM's utility function ( UL) as a leader TSS load ¼ The cumulative volume of runoff  TSS concentration.
 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323 7

    
BOD TSS
Maximize UF3 ¼ 1  w1m  þ w2m 
BODmax TSSmax
  X 3 maxfZ inash g  minfZ inash g
V wZ i ¼ ci ¼ 1; ::::; n (11)
þ w3m  and wum ¼ 1 2
Vmax u¼1
nash

(7) n o n o
i
max Znash i
þ min Znash
Where, BOD and BODmax are the biological oxygen demand load2 mZ i ¼ ci ¼ 1; ::::; n (12)
nash 2
(kg) and its maximum value (kg), respectively. The relative
importance of water quality variables (BOD (w1m ) and TSS (w2m )) and  
Vi
runoff volume (w3m ) are considered 0.3, 0.3 and 0.4, respectively. UF1i ¼ 1  ci ¼ 1; ::::; n (13)
Vmax
BOD load is the integral of BOD concentration over runoff volume.
    
Vi TSSi
3.3. Most sensitive uncertain parameters in the SWMM model UF2i ¼ 1  w1r  1  þ w2r  ci ¼ 1; ::::; n
Vmax TSSmax
The SWMM model was calibrated and verified for the Velenjak X
2

watershed using the most recent available data that was collected
and wLr ¼ 1
L¼1
in 2009 (Ghodsi et al., 2016a, 2016b). A sensitivity analysis of input
and parameters of SWMM can be conducted to determine the (14)
relative importance of each. In the employed sensitivity analysis,
    
one parameter changes while other parameters remain constant, BODi TSSi
UF3i ¼ 1  w1m  þ w2m  þ w3m
and variability of model outputs in response to the changing BODmax TSSmax
parameter are measured. The parameters that significantly influ-  
Vi
ence the results of the SWMM model are specified as critical.  ci ¼ 1; ::::; n (15)
Vmax
Accordingly, the rainfall amount, buildup and washoff coefficients
X
2
and impermeability have notable effects on the quantity and and wLm ¼ 1
quality of urban storm water in the study area (Ghodsi et al., 2016a). L¼1

In this optimization model, TM is a financial service provider

3.4. Nonlinear interval multi-objective optimization model based
on a leader-follower game
In this study, input parameters in the SWMM model (buildup,
washoff and impermeability) are considered uncertain due to the
limited data available to calibrate the rainfall-runoff model (cali-
bration uncertainties), in addition to intrinsic complexity and un-
certainty inherent in the rainfall data and runoff generation
processes (Sadegh and Vrugt, 2013; Sadegh et al., 2018). To consider
these uncertainties in the rainfallerunoff modeling process, an
NINP model is utilized.
The mathematical form of the nonlinear interval multi-objective
optimization model based on the leader-follower game would be:
that decides first and should be considered as the leader. Leader's
utility functions are to: 1) minimize the cost of constructing and
maintaining LIDs (by selecting appropriate areas and LID types (Eq.
(8)), and 2) minimize the linear combination of midpoint and the
radius of interval number in the NasheHarsanyi model (Eq. (9)). In
the NasheHarsanyi bargaining model, d1 to d3 are disagreement
points and w1 to w3 are bargaining powers of the stakeholders.
In Eq. (9) (leader's second utility function), b is a weighting
factor, w and m are radius of the interval number (Eq. (11)), and
midpoint value (Eq. (12)), respectively. b is a weighting factor of the
radius and the midpoint. It should be noted that b is carefully

2
BOD load ¼ The cumulative volume of runoff  BOD concentration.
8 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323

Fig. 4. The trade-off obtained by nonlinear interval multi-objective optimization model

* Cost, Eq. (8).** Linear combination of midpoint and the radius of interval number in the NasheHarsanyi model, Eq. 9.

Fig. 5. LIDs practice areas in different sub-catchments based from selected chromosome (on Fig. 4).

chosen to ensure the interval of the objective function has small
midpoint and radius (Jiang et al., 2008). According to the sensitivity
analysis, the value of b is set to 0.3.
Stakeholders (TPWW, TRW and TDEP) react to the leader's de-
cision and are so-called the followers. The main objective functions
for the followers are as follows:
➢ Minimizing runoff volume to enhance aquifer recharge (Eq.
(13)).
➢ Minimizing TSS contaminations to reuse urban runoff with an
acceptable quality level for irrigation purposes and maximizing
runoff volume to supply agricultural water demands down-
stream of the sub-catchment (Eq. (14)).
➢ Minimizing water pollution variables (BOD and TSS) and runoff
volume for purposes of environmental protection, restoration,
and pollution prevention (Eq. (15)).
NasheHarsanyi bargaining method is then utilized to: 1)
consider the non-cooperative interactions among the followers,
and 2) determine conflict-resolution strategies based on the
leaders’ suggested strategy (Eq. (10)). To use the Nash-Harsanyi
model, utility functions of the followers are normalized, whereby
the value of NasheHarsanyi function is mapped between zero (the
lowest followers satisfaction level) and one (the maximum fol-
lowers satisfaction level).
 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323 9

4. Results multi-objective algorithm is utilized to optimize different objec-

In this paper, a calibrated SWMM model is forced with a range of
inputs and parameters to generate a database, which includes
runoff volume, TSS and BOD loads and LID prices for 84,823
possible scenarios. In each scenario, 51 inputs and parameters
(including rainfall value, 6 buildup coefficients, 6 washoff co-
efficients, 6 imperviousness coefficients, and 32 values for area and
type of LIDs) were considered as inputs. The database matrix
comprises of 84,823 rows and 54 columns (51 inputs and 3 out-
puts). These scenarios are randomly selected and taken into ac-
count with the least degree of similarity to cover a range of input
parameters and variables. The ranges of inputs and parameters as
well as imperviousness, buildup and washoff coefficients and LID
area/type were shown in Tables 2e4, respectively. Then, an NSGA-II
tives of the leader, and NasheHarsanyi model was employed as a
conflict resolution approach among the followers to find non-
dominated LID solutions for all sub-catchments in the study area.
Subsequently, 52 solutions are determined on the trade-off curve
using the nonlinear interval multi-objective optimization model
(Fig. 4). It should be noted that, through trial and error, the
maximum number of generations, population size, crossover, and
mutation coefficients of the NSGA-II model are set to 2,000, 1,000,
0.8 and 0.2, respectively.
As an example, one chromosome (selected point on Fig. 4) of the
obtained trade-off curve by NSGA-II model is explained in details.
The x-value (cost function, Eq. (8)) and y-value (second utility
function of leader, Eq. (9)) of the selected chromosome are 0.154
and 0.053, respectively. Also, LIDs' area in sub-catchments for this

Fig. 6. The range of variation for followers1 utility functions a) TPWW, b) TRW, c) TDEP at Pareto-optimal solutions of the leader2.
1
TDEP: Tehran Department of Environmental Protection, TRW: Tehran Regional Water company, and TPWWC: Tehran Province Water and Wastewater company;2Solution points in
Fig. 4.
10 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323

Fig. 7. Normalized values for BOD and TSS loads, runoff volume and LID practice cost for each weighting scenario number.

Fig. 8. Normalized values for stakeholders utility function at each weighting scenarios number
**TM: Tehran Municipality, TDEP: Tehran Department of Environmental Protection, TRW: Tehran Regional Water company, TPWW: Tehran Province Water and Wastewater
company.

solution of trade-off was shown in Fig. 5. Ranges of variations of
followers’ utility functions considering the nonlinear interval
number for uncertain input variables for selected chromosome and
other optimal solutions of the leader (Fig. 4) are shown in Fig. 6.
The normalized values of utility functions for TPWW and TDEP
are bounded between 0.8 and 1, while this range for TRW is be-
tween 0.47 and 0.50. As shown in Fig. 6, optimal solutions obtained
based on NINP, lead to robust mean values that are less affected by
the uncertain inputs and parameters (lower and upper limits of
stakeholders’ utility functions are also shown in Fig.6aec). The
maximum value of BOD, TSS, and runoff volume in all possible
scenarios are 5.26 kg, 54,913 kg, and 62.78 103 m3, respectively.
The PROMETHEE model is then employed to determine best
compromise solutions from the obtained Paretoeoptimal solutions
considering the main criteria of all stakeholders. For this purpose,
to conduct sensitivity analysis on how weight (power) of each
stakeholder translates into final optimal results, 4 different weights
(0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 with a total sum of 1) were considered for each
stakeholder (TM, TPWW, TRW and TDEP). This results in 24 (4
factorial) weighting scenarios based on the total possible permu-
tations of weights, which are detailed in Table 5. The values of
stakeholders’ utility functions in each weighting scenario are also
Table 5
Weighting scenarios, value and utility functions for different stakeholders. Normalized values for BOD and TSS loads, runoff volume and LID costs at each weighting scenario and stakeholder utility function values (TPWW, TRW,
TDEP, and TM) are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.

Weighting scenario numbera Weighting scenario TM TPWW TRW TDEP

Weight Utility function Weight Utility function Weight Utility function Weight Utility function

1 S1 0.1 0.263 0.4 0.429 0.3 0.417 0.2 0.370

2 S2 0.2 0.620 0.4 0.480 0.1 0.442 0.3 0.433

S3 0.4 0.620 0.3 0.480 0.2 0.442 0.1 0.433

S4 0.4 0.620 0.3 0.480 0.1 0.442 0.2 0.433

M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323

3 S5 0.3 0.398 0.4 0.489 0.2 0.483 0.1 0.507

S6 0.3 0.398 0.4 0.489 0.1 0.483 0.2 0.507

S7 0.2 0.398 0.3 0.489 0.4 0.483 0.1 0.507

S8 0.1 0.398 0.3 0.489 0.2 0.483 0.4 0.507

4 S9 0.3 0.533 0.1 0.520 0.4 0.416 0.2 0.489

5 S10 0.1 0.797 0.4 0.546 0.2 0.416 0.3 0.440

6 S11 0.2 0.461 0.3 0.547 0.1 0.452 0.4 0.545

7 S12 0.2 0.448 0.1 0.725 0.4 0.371 0.3 0.596

8 S13 0.1 0.407 0.2 0.753 0.4 0.473 0.3 0.744

S14 0.3 0.407 0.2 0.753 0.4 0.473 0.1 0.744

9 S15 0.4 0.443 0.1 0.755 0.3 0.432 0.2 0.720

10 S16 0.1 0.562 0.2 0.770 0.3 0.419 0.4 0.722

S17 0.4 0.562 0.2 0.770 0.3 0.419 0.1 0.722

11 S18 0.3 0.349 0.2 0.856 0.1 0.393 0.4 0.763

S19 0.4 0.349 0.2 0.856 0.1 0.393 0.3 0.763

S20 0.4 0.349 0.1 0.856 0.2 0.393 0.3 0.763

S21 0.3 0.349 0.1 0.856 0.2 0.393 0.4 0.763

12 S22 0.2 0.578 0.4 0.862 0.3 0.368 0.1 0.718

13 S23 0.1 0.499 0.3 0.879 0.4 0.454 0.2 0.844

14 S24 0.2 0.573 0.1 0.964 0.3 0.479 0.4 0.940

**TM: Tehran Municipality, TPWW: Tehran Province Water and Wastewater company, TRW: Tehran Regional Water Company, TDEP: Tehran Department of Environmental Protection.
a
This number includes scenarios with the same results, so for the weighting scenario with the same results this number is same.

11
12 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323
Fig. 9. Normalized values of the leader's cost function (Eq. (8)), and NasheHarsanyi production function of followers (Eq. (10)) at each weighting scenario number.
presented in Table 5. In some weighting scenarios, the utility
functions of stakeholders are similar, among which only one is
selected (bold font in Table 5). As a result, fourteen relative
weighting scenarios were considered.
The LID cost in weighting scenario number 1 has a normalized
value of 0.263 (548,216 dollars), which is the minimum cost in all
weighting scenarios (Fig. 7). The minimum cost of constructing and
maintaining LID practices in all scenarios is associated with mini-
mum LID areas. BOD (0.60), TSS (0.74), and runoff volume (0.57) are
maximized in this weighting scenario (equal to 3.16 kg, 40,473 kg,
and 35.82  103 m3 in weighting scenario 1 in Fig. 7).
Variation ranges for BOD and TSS loads, runoff volume and LID
costs in all weighting scenario numbers considering uncertainties
are [0.40e3.37] kg, [4,291.90-40,473.35] kg, [2.25e35.82]  103 m3
and [548.2-1,662.3] thousand dollars, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 7, weighting scenario 14 with normalized
values of 0.08 for BOD, 0.08 for TSS, and 0.04 for runoff volume is an
appropriate weighting scenario for TPWW, TRW, and TDEP stake-
holders who consider BOD, TSS, and runoff volume in their utility
functions (Fig. 8). If instead of this scenario, we had investigated all
weighting scenarios, the maximum utility function of TPWW, TRW,
and TDEP (Fig. 8) would be obtained in scenario number 14
(normalized value, 0.96, 0.48, and 0.94, respectively). Also, in this
scenario the normalized LID cost (leader utility function) is 0.57
(1189 thousand dollars) (Fig. 7).
In the weighting scenario 14, the optimal values of BOD, TSS, and
runoff volume (0.40 kg, 4,291.90 kg and, 2.25  103 m3, respec-
tively), decrease 93%, 86% and 90% relative to the scenario without
utilizing LIDs (in which the value of BOD, TSS and runoff volume are
6.1 kg, 31,732 kg, and 22.27  103 m3, respectively).
To consider the effect of potential conflicts between the leader
(TM) and the followers (TPWW, TRW, and TDEP), the Nash-
Harsanyi production function of followers (Eq. (10)) versus
leader's utility function (Eq. (8)) in different weighting scenarios'
are plotted in Fig. 9. Weighting scenarios 1 and 14 lead to minimum
and maximum Nash-Harsanyi production function values,
respectively.
Finally, LID areas at each sub-catchment is determined in
different weighting scenarios. As an example, the areas of LIDs
(vegetative swale and bio-retention cell) in weighting scenario
number 14 in sub-catchments 12 to 27 are shown in Fig. 10.
The maximum land areas allocated to bio-retention cell and
vegetative swale are located in sub-catchments 16, 19 and 21
(5,000 m2), and 26 and 27 (7,200 m2), respectively. Also, minimum
areas of these LIDs, are located in sub-catchments 22, 25, 26 and 27
(400 m2), and 12, 13, 14 and 15 (100 m2), respectively.
5. Conclusions
In this study, a novel optimization procedure for urban storm
water management is proposed, which explicitly accounts for the
uncertainty of the rainfall-runoff model parameters in the opti-
mization of Low Impact Development (LID) practices and models
stakeholders’ interactions (based on a leader-follower game). The
study area in this paper is Velenjak catchment in Tehran, Iran. The
rainfall-runoff phenomenon is simulated by the SWMM model over
sub-catchments, which is subsequently replaced with a surrogate
model to increase computational efficiency. An NSGA-II optimiza-
tion model is then utilized to find optimal solutions for the stake-
holders. Considering uncertain inputs and parameters for the
SWMM model, watershed response to different forcing was
assessed, including runoff volumes as well as TSS and BOD loads at
all sub-catchments for 84,823 possible scenarios. The maximum
value of BOD, TSS, and runoff volume in these scenarios are 5.26 kg,
54,913 kg, and 62.78  103 m3, respectively. The NSGA-II model
found 52 non-dominated LID solutions for sub-catchments in the
study area. Four key stakeholders with conflicting interests were
considered in the multi-criteria decision making process.
To analyze the sensitivity of compromise solutions to the power
level of different stakeholders, fourteen relative weighting sce-
narios were considered. The amount of BOD and TSS loads, runoff
volume and LID costs in all weighting scenarios in the presence of
uncertainties are bounded between [0.40e3.37] kg, [4,291.90-
40,473.35] kg, [2.25e35.82]  103 m3 and [548.2e1662.3] thou-
sand dollars, respectively. Results showed that the minimum cost of
constructing and maintaining LID practices in all weighting
 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323
Fig. 10. LIDs practice areas in different sub-catchments based on the results of PROMETHEE method in weighting scenario number 14.
scenarios is 548.2 thousand dollars, and consequently BOD, TSS,
and runoff volume are at their maximum with values equal to
3.16 kg, 40,473.35 kg, and 35.82  103 m3, respectively. The
maximum normalized value of followers’ utility functions (TPWW,
TRW, and TDEP) in all weighting scenarios are 0.96, 0.48, and 0.94.
Also the normalized LID cost (leader utility function) for these
utility functions is 0.57 (1.189 million dollars).
The preferred compromise solution in this multi-objective
framework depends on the relative weighting (priority or impor-
tance) for stakeholders based on their utility functions. This
methodology may be extended to various stakeholders and can be
applied in any urban watershed with leader-follower structure.
Graph theory can also be utilized in future works to consider con-
flict resolution among the leader and the followers to obtain a
compromise solution. In this model, different stakeholder with
various strategies try to achieve equilibrium state (i.e. preferred
solution) and Graph theoretical model organizes the next genera-
tion of a strategic decision support system. This approach can
effectively investigate strategic conflicts based on the Taravatrooy
et al. (2019) study. Moreover, the uncertainties of the simulation-
optimization model may be investigated for future studies via
fuzzy set theory models based on the Sadegh et al. (2010, 2011)
studies. The main uncertain parameters (such as rainfall, imper-
meability, buildup and washoff coefficient) can be considered as
fuzzy membership functions, and modeled by advanced fuzzy
arithmetic methods like Fuzzy Transformation Method. Moreover,
climate change can shift the distributions of rainfall frequency and
intensity (Pendergrass and Hartmann, 2014; Zahmatkesh et al.,
2014; Alizadeh et al., 2017). Due to the compounding effects of
increasing impermeable areas in developed urban area and
elevated precipitation intensity in a changing climate, non-
stationarity impacts in rainfall-runoff processes can be considered
for optimizing LIDs in future works (Sadegh et al., 2019; Mallakpour
et al., 2018).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118323.
13
References
Ahiablame, L., Engel, B.A., Chaubey, I., 2012. Effectiveness of low impact develop-
ment practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water,
Air, & Soil Pollution 223 (7), 4253e4273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-012-
1189-2.
Alizadeh, M.R., Nikoo, M.R., Rakhshandehroo, G.R., 2017. Hydro-environmental
management of groundwater resources: a fuzzy-based multi-objective
compromise approach. J. Hydrol. 551, 540e554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2017.06.011.
Banik, B.K., Alfonso, L., Torres, A.S., Mynett, A., Di Cristo, C., Leopardi, A., 2017a. Illicit
intrusion characterization in sewer systems. Urban Water J. 14 (4) https://
doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2016.1176220.9193641017.
Banik, B.K., Alfonso, L., Mynett, A., Di Cristo, C., Leopardi, A., 2017b. Evaluation of
different formulations to optimally locate sensors in sewer systems. J. Water
Res. Plan. Manag. ASCE 143 (7). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-
5452.0000778.
Byrne, J.A., Lo, A.Y., Yang, J., 2015. Residents' understanding of the role of green
infrastructure for climate change adaptation in Hangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 138, 132e143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.013.
Chen, Y., Lu, H., Li, J., Ren, L., He, L., 2017. A leader-follower-interactive method for
regional water resources management with considering multiple water de-
mands and eco-environmental constraints. J. Hydrol. 548, 121e134. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.02.015.
Chiang, L., Chaubey, I., Maringanti, C., Huang, T., 2014. Comparing the selection and
placement of best management practices in improving water quality using a
multiobjective optimization and targeting method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2992e3014. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110302992.
Company, MahabGhods Consulting Engineering, 2011. Integrated Plan of Tehran
Surface Runoff Management. Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T., 2002. A fast and elitist multi-objective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6 (2), 182e197. https://
doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.
Du, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, L., Feger, K.H., Popp, J., Sharpley, A., 2019. Multi-stake-
holders’ preference for best management practices based on environmental
awareness. Clean. Prod. 236, 117682. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.117682.
Eckart, J., Sieker, H., Vairavamoorthy, K., Alsharif, K., 2012. Flexible design of urban
drainage systems: demand led research for Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg. Rev. En-
viron. Sci. Biotechnol. 11 (1), 5e10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-011-9256-5.
Fallah Zarandi, A., 2013. Selection of Optimized Combination for Best Management
Practices Considering Economic Issues for Improving Tehran Urban Surface
Runoff Quality. Master Thesis. Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Trowsdale, S.,
Barraud, S., Semadeni-Davies, A., Bertrand-Krajewski, J.L., Mikkelsen, P.S.,
Rivard, G., Uhl, M., Dagenais, D., Viklander, M., 2015. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD
and more e the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban
drainage. Urban Water J. 12 (7), 525e542. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1573062X.2014.916314.
Geng, R., Sharpley, A.N., 2019. A novel spatial optimization model for achieve the
trad-offs placement of best management practices for agricultural non-point
14 M. Latifi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 241 (2019) 118323
source pollution control at multi-spatial scales. Clean. Prod. 234, 1023e1032.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.277.
Ghodsi, S.H., Kerachian, R., Malakpour Estalaki, S., Nikoo, M.R., Zahmatkesh, Z.,
2016a. Developing a stochastic conflict resolution model for urban runoff
quality management: application of info-gap and bargaining theories. Hydrol-
ogy 533, 200e212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.11.045.
Ghodsi, S.H., Kerachian, R., Zahmatkesh, Z., 2016b. A multi-stakeholder framework
for urban runoff quality management: application of social choice and bargai-
ning techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 550, 574e585. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2016.01.052.
Harsanyi, J., Selten, R., 1972. A generalized Nash solution for two-person bargaining
games with incomplete information. Manag. Sci. 18 (5), 80e106. Part-2. https://
doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.18.5.80.
Hoang, L., Fenner, R.A., 2016. System interactions of stormwater management using
sustainable urban drainage systems and green infrastructure. Urban Water J. 13
(7), 739e758. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1036083.
Huang, C.-L., Hsu, N.-S., Liu, H.-J., Huang, Y.-H., 2018. Optimization of low impact
development layout design for megacity flood mitigation. J. Hydrol. 564,
542e558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.044.
Jia, H., Lu, Y., Shaw, L.Y., Chen, Y., 2012. Planning of LIDeBMPs for urban runoff
control: the case of Beijing Olympic Village. Separ. Purif. Technol. 84, 112e119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2011.04.026.
Jia, H., Yao, H., Tang, Y., Shaw, L.Y., Field, R., Tafuri, A.N., 2015. LID-BMPs planning for
urban runoff control and the case study in China. J. Environ. Manag. 149, 65e76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.003.
Jiang, C., Han, X., Liu, G., Liu, G., 2008. A nonlinear interval number programming
method for uncertain optimization problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 188, 1e13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.031.
Joksimovic, D., Alam, Z., 2014. Cost efficiency of low impact development (LID)
stormwater management practices. Procedia Eng. 89, 734e741. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.501.
Kaplowitz, M.D., Lupi, F., 2012. Stakeholder preferences for best management
practices for non-point source pollution and stormwater control. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 104 (3e4), 364e372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.013.
Kashani, M., Ghorbani, M.A., Dinpashoh, Y., Shahmoradb, S., 2016. Integration of
Volterra model with artificial neural networks for rainfall-runoff simulation in
forested catchment of northern Iran. J. Hydrol. 540, 340e354. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.06.028.
Khorshidi, M.S., Nikoo, M.R., Ebrahimi, E., Sadegh, M., 2019. A robust decision
support leader-follower framework for design of contamination warning sys-
tem in water distribution. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 666e673. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.01.010.
Larsen, T.A., Hoffmann, S., Lüthi, C., Truffer, B., Maurer, M., 2016. Emerging solutions
to the water challenges of an urbanizing world. Science 352 (6288), 928e933.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8641.
Lee, J.G., Selvakumar, A., Alvi, K., Riverson, J., Zhen, J.X., Shoemaker, L., Lai, F.-H.,
2012. A watershed-scale design optimization model for stormwater best
management practices. Environ. Model. Softw 37, 6e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsoft.2012.04.011.
Li, H., Davis, A.P., 2009. Water quality improvement through reductions of pollutant
loads using bioretention. J. Environ. Eng. 135 (8), 567e576. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000026.
Li, Z., Xu, Sh., Yao, L., 2018. A systematic literature mining of sponge city: trends, foci
and challenges standing ahead. Sustainability 10 (4), 1182. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su10041182.
Liu, Y., Ahiablame, L., Bralts, V., Engel, B., 2015. Enhancing a rainfallerunoff model to
assess the impacts of BMPs and LID practices on storm runoff. Environ. Manag.
147, 12e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.005.
Mallakpour, I., Sadegh, M., AghaKouchak, A., 2018. A new normal for streamflow in
California in a warming climate: wetter wet seasons and drier dry seasons.
J. Hydrol. 567, 203e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.023.
Martin-Mikle, C.J., Beurs, K.M., Julian, J.P., Mayer, P.M., 2015. Identifying priority sites
for low impact development (LID) in a mixed-use watershed. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 140, 29e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.002.
Matsumoto, A., Szidarovszky, F., 2016. Game Theory and its Applications. Springer,
p. 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54786-0. Chapter 9.
Nikoo, M.R., Kerachian, R., 2012. A nonlinear interval model for water and waste
load allocation in river basins. Water Resour. Manag. 26, 2911e2926. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0056-7.
Nikoo, M.R., Karimi, A., Kerachian, R., 2013. Optimal long-term operation of
reservoir-river systems under hydrologic uncertainties: application of interval
programming. Water Resour. Manag. 27 (11), 3865e3883. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11269-013-0384-2.
Nikoo, M.R., Varjavand, I., Kerachian, R., Pirooz, M.D., Karimi, A., 2014. Multi-
objective optimum design of double-layer perforated-wall breakwaters:
application of NSGA-II and bargaining models. Appl. Ocean Res. 47 (9), 47e52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2013.12.001.
Nikoo, M.R., Khorramshokouh, N., Monghasemi, S., 2015. Optimal design of
detention rockfill dams using a simulation-based optimization approach with
mixed sediment in the flow. Water Resour. Manag 29 (15), 5469e5488. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1129-1.
Pendergrass, A.G., Hartmann, D.L., 2014. Changes in the distribution of rain fre-
quency and intensity in response to global warming. J. Clim. 27, 8372e8383.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00183.1.
Petit-Boix, A., Sevigne -Itoiz, E., Rojas-Gutierrez, L.A., Barbassa, A.P., Josa, A.,
Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X., 2017. Floods and consequential life cycle assess-
ment: integrating flood damage into the environmental assessment of storm-
water best management practices. Clean. Prod. (162), 601e608. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.047.
Pyke, C., Warren, M.P., Johnson, T., LaGro, J., Scharfenberg, J., Groth, P., Main, E., 2011.
Assessment of low impact development for managing storm water with
changing precipitation due to climate change. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103 (2),
166e173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.006.
Qin, H.P., Li, Z.X., Fu, G., 2013. The effects of low impact development on urban
flooding under different rainfall characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 129,
577e585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.026.
Randhir, T.O., Raposa, S., 2014. Urbanization and watershed sustainability: collab-
orative simulation modeling of future development states. J. Hydrol. 519,
1526e1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.08.051.
Rossman, L.A., 2015. Storm Water Management Model User's Manual Version 5.1.
EPA, United States.
Rossman, L.A., 2016. Storm Water Management Model Reference Manual Volume III
e Water Quality. EPA, United States.
Sadegh, M., Mahjouri, N., Kerachian, R., 2010. Optimal inter-basin water allocation
using crisp and fuzzy Shapley games. Water Resour. Manag. 24 (10), 2291e2310.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9552-9.
Sadegh, M., Kerachian, R., 2011. Water resources allocation using solution concepts of
fuzzy cooperative games: fuzzy least core and fuzzy weak least core. Water
Resour. Manag. 25 (10), 2543e2573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9826-x.
Sadegh, M., Vrugt, J.A., 2013. Bridging the gap between GLUE and formal statistical
approaches: approximate Bayesian computation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17 (12),
4831e4850. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4831-2013.
Sadegh, M., Majd, M.S., Hernandez, J., Haghighi, A.T., 2018. The quest for hydro-
logical signatures: effects of data transformation on Bayesian inference of
watershed models. Water Resour. Manag. 32 (5), 1867e1881. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11269-018-1908-6.
Sadegh, M., AghaKouchak, A., Flores, A., Mallakpour, I., Nikoo, M.R., 2019. A Multi-
Model Nonstationary Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Framework: Analysis and
Toolbox. Water Resources Management, pp. 1e14. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-019-02283-y.
Safari, N., Zarghami, M., Szidarovszky, F., 2014. Nash bargaining and
leaderefollower models in water allocation: application to the Zarrinehrud
River basin, Iran. Appl. Math. Model. 38 (7), 1959e1968. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apm.2013.10.018.
Sedghamiz, A., Nikoo, M.R., Heidarpour, M., Sadegh, M., 2018. Developing a non-
cooperative optimization model for water and crop area allocation based on
leader-followers game. J. Hydrol. 567, 51e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2018.09.035.
Shen, Z., Hou, X., Li, W., Aini, G., 2014. Relating landscape characteristics to non-
point source pollution in a typical urbanized watershed in the municipality of
Beijing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 123 (96), 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2013.12.007.
Taravatrooy, N., Nikoo, M.R., Adamowski, J.F., Khoramshokooh, N., 2019. Fuzzy-
based conflict resolution management of groundwater in-situ bioremediation
under hydrogeological uncertainty. J. Hydrol. 571, 376e389. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.01.063.
Wang, M., QingZhang, D., Su, J., WenDong, J., KeatTan, S., 2018. Assessing hydro-
logical effects and performance of low impact development practices based on
future scenarios modeling. Clean. Prod. 179, 12e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.01.096.
Xu, T., Jia, H., Wang, Z., Mao, X., Xu, C., 2017a. SWMM-based methodology for block-
scale LID-BMPs planning based on site-scale multi-objective optimization: a
case study in Tianjin. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 11 (4), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11783-017-0934-6.
Xu, C., Hong, J., Jia, H., Liang, Sh., Xu, T., 2017b. Life cycle environmental and eco-
nomic assessment of a LID-BMP treatment train system: a case study in China.
J. Clean. Prod. (149), 227e237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.086.
Yang, D., Jiao, J.R., Ji, Y., Du, G., Helo, P., Valente, A., 2015. Joint optimization for
coordinated configuration of product families and supply chains by a leader-
follower Stackelberg game. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 246 (1), 263e280. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.022.
Zahmatkesh, Z., Burian, S.J., Karamouz, M., Tavakol-Davani, H., Goharian, E., 2014.
Low-impact development practices to mitigate climate change effects on urban
stormwater runoff: case study of New York City. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 1, 141.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000770.