Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Review

Performance and implementation of low impact development – A review☆

Kyle Eckart, Zach McPhee, Tirupati Bolisetti ⁎
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9B3P4, Canada

H I G H L I G H T S

• Reviewed literature on the low impact development strategies for stormwater management.
• Compiled the performance of different LIDs under various conditions.
• Identified research needs and professional practice needs on LIDs.

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

Article history: Climate change, urbanization, and ecological concerns are all driving the need for new stormwater management
Received 6 February 2017 strategies. The effects of urbanization are exaggerated by climate change and thus the development of innovative
Received in revised form 28 June 2017 stormwater management techniques are necessary to mitigate these impacts. One emerging stormwater man-
Accepted 28 June 2017
agement philosophy is low impact development (LID). LID utilizes distributed stormwater controls (often
Available online 27 July 2017
green infrastructure) as well as green spaces and natural hydrologic features in order to bring the hydrology of
Editor: D. Barcelo urban catchments closer to pre-development conditions. The review provides a summary of the knowledge of
LID as a stormwater management technique and climate change mitigation measure as well as the current
Keywords: state of research and implementation of this topic. In order to provide a better understanding of the extensive
Stormwater management scope that should be considered for design of low impact developments, methods of optimization, modelling,
Low impact development monitoring and the performance of LID alternatives is covered. LID has been widely adopted and proven success-
LID ful in many cases; however, there remains uncertainty of its benefits. This review brings together knowledge
SuDS from many sources in order to provide an overview of LID and examine its performance and implementation.
LIUDD
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
WSUD
Green infrastructure
Sustainability
LID implementation

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
2. LID alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
2.1. Infiltration-based techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
2.2. Retention-based techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
3. Factors affecting LIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
3.1. Location dependencies of LID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
3.2. Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
3.3. Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
4. Performance of LID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
4.1. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
4.2. Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
5. Computer modelling of LID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
5.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
5.2. Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

☆ This work was partially supported by the NSERC Canada under Discovery Grant program and the University of Windsor awarded to senior author. The first and second authors were
supported through university scholarships as well as Ontario Graduate Scholarship.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eckartk@uwindsor.ca (K. Eckart), mcpheez@uwindsor.ca (Z. McPhee), tirupati@uwindsor.ca (T. Bolisetti).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.254
0048-9697/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
414 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432

5.3. Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

5.4. Multi-criteria modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
6. Optimization of LID stormwater controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
7. Cost of LID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
8. Implementation of LID strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
9. Barriers to LID adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
9.1. Limitations of LID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
9.2. Community engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
9.3. Municipal and consulting professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
9.4. Monitoring and evaluation shortcomings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
10. Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

1. Introduction
Urban stormwater management (SWM) is an essential part of any
development. It has significant ecological, economical, and social impor-
tance. The vast increase in urbanization around the world and the in-
creasingly more evident effects of climate change are two major
contributors to excessive runoff that conventional stormwater manage-
ment systems cannot adequately handle. Urbanization produces nu-
merous changes in the natural environment putting more stresses on
conventional stormwater management systems (Chen et al., 2016).
The traditional approach to urban stormwater management has been
to use curbs, gutters, other grey infrastructure and sewers to convey
the stormwater through a centralized system as rapidly and safely as
possible. The improved conveyance of stormwater in urban areas com-
bined with the increase in impervious surfaces has resulted in increased
peak flows, reduced times of concentration, reduced infiltration rates
and consequent groundwater recharge rates, and redistribution of the
water balance (Konrad and Booth, 2005; Wong and Eadie, 2000). This
approach generally does not contribute to sustainable urban develop-
ment (Chen et al., 2016; Mitchell, 2006; Paule-Mercado et al., 2017;
van Roon, 2007; Wong and Eadie, 2000). Urban flooding with increased
frequency and severity is intensified by increased urbanization, popula-
tion growth, and climate change (Stovin et al., 2012; Visitacion et al.,
2009).
Methods for urban stormwater management must evolve to meet
the increased demands resulting from urbanization, climate change
and budgetary constraints. One way in which urban stormwater man-
agement has evolved to accommodate this is the increasing use of low
impact development (LID) controls. At its most ambitious, LID aims to
return the developed watersheds to pre-development hydrological con-
ditions (i.e. to mimic natural water cycles or achieve hydrologic neutral-
ity) (Damodaram et al., 2010; Shuster et al., 2008; van Roon, 2005,
2007; van Roon and Knight-Lenihan, 2004). LID is often used as a retro-
fit designed to reduce the stress on urban stormwater infrastructure
and/or create the resiliency to adapt to climate changes. Stormwater
quality regulations are another major driver for the adoption of LID as
some controls have also been implemented to improve water quality.
In order to achieve stormwater objectives, LID relies heavily on infiltra-
tion and evapotranspiration and attempts to incorporate natural fea-
tures into design. Compared with traditional urban stormwater
management patterns, LID alternatives have the function of returning
the runoff to the natural hydrologic cycle, including reduction in runoff
volume (Ahiablame et al., 2013; Jia et al., 2012) infiltration improve-
ment (Ahiablame et al., 2012), reduction in peak flow (Drake et al.,
2013), extending lag time, reduction in pollutant loads (Liu et al.,
2015), and increase in baseflow (Hamel et al., 2013).
Low impact development was first introduced in Maryland as a
means to mitigate the effects of increased impervious surfaces (Prince
George's County, 1999), though some individual techniques were
already in place before the term “low impact development” was coined.
Prince George's County, in an effort to increase adoption of LID, pro-
duced a municipal Low Impact Development Design Manual (Coffman,
1997). This was soon republished and distributed to a national audience
(Coffman, 2000). Low impact development is the North American ter-
minology for a design philosophy that has become popular in many
parts of the world. Other names for LID, or at least similar design philos-
ophies, are urban design and development (LIUDD) in New Zealand,
water sensitive urban design (WSUD) in Australia, and sustainable
urban drainage systems (SuDS) in Europe. These approaches might
also include strategies such as integrated urban stormwater manage-
ment (IUSM) and integrated urban water management (IUWM).
Fletcher et al. (2014) discuss the development and application of
these and other terminology used in the urban drainage field. LID aims
to reduce stormwater management costs by considering a site's natural
features in the design. Small scale stormwater treatment devices that
encourage infiltration and evaporation and are located at or near the
runoff source are considered as LID controls. WSUD is a methodology
that attempts to manage water balance, improve water quality, encour-
age conservation of water and maintain environmental opportunities
related to water. Similar to LID, it sets out to minimize the hydrological
impacts of urban development. SuDs is a range of techniques and tech-
nologies that are applied to drain stormwater in a more sustainable
manner than conventional systems. SuDs aim to replicate the pre-devel-
opment conditions at a site. Best Management Practice (BMP) is a term
used to describe a practice or technique implemented to prevent pollu-
tion. Green Infrastructure (GI) attempts to include as much green space
as possible in urban planning and aims to maximize the benefit from
these green spaces (Fletcher et al., 2014). Henceforth, in some cases,
this paper may refer to any one of these approaches as low impact de-
velopment (LID).
Specific examples of stormwater controls used as part of LID include
green roofs, rain gardens, bioretention cells, soakaways, swales, perme-
able pavements, infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, ponds, rain
barrels or cisterns, tree box filters, curbless roads with swales, down-
spout disconnection, as well as other green infrastructures and even
community education (Debusk and Hunt, 2011; Shuster et al., 2008;
Stovin et al., 2012). CVC (2010) and WEF (2012) are good sources on
the design of these stormwater controls.
In heavily urbanized areas it might be most feasible simply to retrofit
existing infrastructure, such as parking lots, roads, sidewalks and build-
ings (Damodaram et al., 2010). Existing pervious areas, such as parks,
lawns, and gardens might provide additional capacity for infiltration
in urban areas depending on site conditions (Shuster et al., 2008). LID
measures can usually be built into these public spaces without
compromising their primary function (CVC, 2010). Another infiltration
strategy is to direct runoff from impervious surfaces to pervious surfaces
or retention facilities (Brander et al., 2004) before diverting the
stormwater runoff to catch basins/storm sewers. An effective non-
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
structural LID practice is to cluster development at a higher density in
order to leave open more natural land, which could be used for infiltra-
tion and evapotranspiration (van Roon, 2005; Williams and Wise,
2006).
Treatment trains consisting of LID solutions in series or parallel can
be effective in managing runoff (Brown et al., 2012; CVC, 2010). A com-
bination of LID and piped systems or BMPs, such as detention ponds,
will often be the best option for meeting stormwater control objectives
(Ashley et al., 2011a, 2011b; Damodaram et al., 2010; Damodaram and
Zechman, 2013).
Green infrastructure can offer many benefits in addition to
stormwater management. For example, the City of Toronto, Canada
commissioned a study on the costs and benefits of green roofs prior to
the adoption of their green roof policy (Toronto and Region
Conservation, 2006). The study concluded that the benefits included re-
duced stormwater runoff, reduced energy consumption, reduced urban
heat island effect, improved air quality and reduced emissions (Banting
et al., 2005). Charlesworth (2010) and City of Portland Bureau of
Environmental Services (2010) both reported similar benefits as well
as improvements to community liveability and public health. Providing
habitats for wildlife is another potential benefit (CVC, 2010; CNT, 2010).
Green roofs and other green infrastructure might also provide social
capital, such as improved aesthetics, park space or citizen involvement
in the community. To get a more complete view of the benefits of
green infrastructure, the reader is referred to references, such as CNT
(2010), van Roon and van Roon (2009), Moore (2011), CNT (2010)
and Ashley et al. (2011b).
This review provides an overview of the impacts of increasing ur-
banization and climate change on urban stormwater management
while primarily focussing on the performance of low impact develop-
ment as an adaptation strategy for these issues. As low impact develop-
ment has been a popular research topic in recent years, a number of
literature reviews have been published (e.g. Ahiablame et al., 2012;
Barkdoll et al., 2016; Charlesworth, 2010; Elliott and Trowsdale, 2007;
Shafique and Kim, 2015; Vogel et al., 2015; Zhou, 2014). These previous
reviews provide valuable background on the concepts, features, objec-
tives, techniques and tools for sustainable drainage design including de-
sign criteria and various modelling approaches and decision-aid tools
for assessing sustainable alternatives. This review aims to summarize
the literature on LID as a stormwater management technique and cli-
mate change mitigation measure by drawing from many different
sources, and types of sources, in order to provide an overview of the
usefulness of low impact development and the current state of research
and implementation. Methods of optimization, modelling, monitoring
and the performance of LID alternatives is covered to help provide
stakeholders information to comprehend the broad scope of sustainable
design and to promote incorporation of climate change and urbaniza-
tion into the design of low impact developments. This review also di-
rects the reader to other reviews, reports, or textbooks where more
detailed knowledge on some subjects can be found.
2. LID alternatives
LID practices attempt to retain water onsite as much as possible and
use the natural layout of the site to promote filtration in order to protect
water quality. The use of LID will help to maintain the pre-development
runoff volume (Shafique and Kim, 2015) through storage in the ground
or otherwise and the subsequent infiltration and evapotranspiration.
This also contributes to reducing peaks flows (Green, 2010). Conven-
tional stormwater treatment typically only lessens peak flow. Fletcher
et al. (2013) categorized stormwater management technologies into
two categories, infiltration-based technologies and retention-based
technologies. These infiltration-based and retention-based technologies
all reduce the “effective impervious area” (Booth and Jackson, 1997) of a
watershed, or the area that is directly connected to the stormwater sys-
tem and may be applied close to or at source, or at the end of catchment
415
(Fletcher et al., 2013). Burns et al. (2012) noted, however, that a combi-
nation of retention and infiltration-based techniques would be required
to successfully achieve key elements of the natural flow regime.
2.1. Infiltration-based techniques
Infiltration-based LIDs can be characterized as techniques that assist
in the restoration of baseflows through recharging of subsurface flows
and groundwater (Fletcher et al., 2013). Infiltration-based techniques
are highly dependent on site conditions, which is why the range of per-
formance reported for infiltration-based techniques is very large. Infil-
tration-based LID practices include swales, infiltration trenches, basins,
unlined bioretention systems (rain-gardens), sand filters, and porous
pavements.
Swale systems are shallow open channels with mild side slopes,
filled with erosion and flood resistant vegetation. They are designed to
convey, control, and improve stormwater through infiltration, sedimen-
tation, and filtration (Kirby et al., 2005; USEPA, 2000). Swales are gener-
ally used to replace or enhance traditional curbs and gutters for
stormwater transport in urban settings (Ahiablame et al., 2012), how-
ever, in agricultural environments they may be used for erosion control
(Kirby et al., 2005). Swales can also function efficiently under diverse
seasonal conditions (Fach et al., 2011). A typical cross section of a
swale can be seen in Fig. 1. Sometimes the top soil is amended with po-
tentially high infiltration soils, through which the water can infiltrate
(resulting in water quality treatment).
Infiltration trenches generally consist of a channel made of gravel
and covered with soil and vegetation underlain by a geotextile fabric
to help prevent clogging, a typical section is shown in Fig. 2. The gravel
is used to allow for maximum infiltration and can allow for significant
storage in the pore spaces. Design is based on the volume of stormwater
to be captured and soil characteristics to represent the water entering
the trench and traveling through the topsoil layer and storage medium.
These trenches use storage and filtration, which slows the velocity of
stormwater runoff. The reduced velocity and meandering flow path re-
move suspended solids and other contaminants from the stormwater
(Barkdoll et al., 2016).
Bioretention areas or rain gardens are areas in the landscape
lowered to reduce and treat stormwater runoff at the site and also to re-
duce peak flow (Shafique and Kim, 2015; USEPA, 1999). They are bene-
ficial for use in both residential and commercial settings (Dietz, 2007).
Bioretention systems can also be implemented for agricultural water
quality improvement (Ahiablame et al., 2012). A typical section of a
bioretention cell is shown in Fig. 3.The design of bioretention systems
is based on the type of soil, site conditions and the land uses. A
bioretention area can be an arrangement of different components,
each performing separate functions in the removal of pollutants and
lessening of stormwater runoff (USEPA, 2000). These areas are generally
made up of perennials, shrubs, or trees, and are covered with bark
mulch (Shafique and Kim, 2015). Due to the fact that bioretention sys-
tems act similar to natural and undeveloped watersheds (Ahiablame
et al., 2012) they can be efficiently used to capture runoff, encourage in-
filtration, promote evapotranspiration, recharge groundwater, protect
stream channels, reduce peak flow, and reduce pollutant loads
(Ahiablame et al., 2012; Davis, 2005; Dietz, 2007; Dietz and Clausen,
2008).
Sand filters have evolved into many different variations, such as sur-
face sand filter, underground sand filter, perimeter sand filter, organic
filter, and pocket sand filter. Each of these sand filters follow the same
basis with minor differences. The surface sand filters have been around
for a long time, they consist of two chambers: a flow splitter diverts run-
off into a sedimentation chamber where pretreatment occurs. Runoff
then goes into the second chamber where pollutants are strained out
at the surface of the filter bed. Underground sand filters are useful for
sites where space is limited. For this design the sand filter is placed in
an underground vault that can be accessed by manholes. The perimeter
416 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432

Fig. 1. Typical section of a vegetated swale (adapted from Claytor and Schueler, 1996).

sand filter is made up of two parallel trenches, usually installed around
the perimeter of a parking lot. The organic filter is the same as the sur-
face sand filter except it uses compost as the filter media. Finally, the
pocket sand filter is a cheaper, more simplified design that can be
used for smaller sites (Claytor and Schueler, 1996). Fig. 4 shows a com-
parison of the different cross sections for each of these sand filters.
Permeable pavements temporarily store surface runoff, to allow for
the runoff to slowly infiltrate into the subsoil (USEPA, 2000). Fig. 5
shows a typical cross section of a permeable pavement layout. Types
of permeable pavements include block pavers, plastic grid systems, po-
rous asphalts, and porous concretes (Dietz, 2007). Though, permeable
pavements are used as a way to reduce runoff, they can also be used
to eliminate the generation of runoff (Bean et al., 2007) even during
the most intense rainfall events (Brattebo and Booth, 2003). Permeable
pavements allow stormwater to infiltrate into underlying soils promot-
ing the treatment of pollutants and recharge, as opposed to traditional
asphalt and concrete pavements, which produce large volumes of rain-
fall runoff that requires conveyance and treatment (USEPA, 2000).
Fassman and Blackbourn (2010) used permeable pavements to explain
that pre-development hydrology can be achieved with the use of such
technologies (Fassman and Blackbourn, 2010).
2.2. Retention-based techniques
Stormwater-retention based LIDs can be characterized as techniques
that retain stormwater to reduce outflow (Fletcher et al., 2013).
Retention-based technologies include wetlands, ponds, green roofs,
and rainwater harvesting (tanks, storage basins).
Wetlands and ponds have been used extensively for many years.
While being effective for pollutant removal, they have a limited
ability to reduce overall runoff volumes, since their only losses are
due to evapotranspiration (Fletcher et al., 2013). Detention storages
can have substantial influences on the flow regime, with both hy-
drologic and hydraulic consequences. Issues can arise from these
techniques such as reducing the peak flow by storage may result
in an increase in the duration of flow above a critical discharge
(Burns et al., 2012).
Green roofs provide an effective method of reducing urban
stormwater runoff by reducing the percentage of impervious surfaces
in urban areas (USEPA, 2000). A green roof is a building rooftop partially
or completely covered with vegetation over high quality waterproof
membranes to counteract the vegetation that was removed when the
building was constructed (Rowe, 2011; Shafique and Kim, 2015;
USEPA, 2000). Implementing green roofs in urban areas provides a vari-
ety of benefits, such as extending the life of roofs, reducing energy costs
and conserving valuable land that would otherwise require stormwater
runoff controls (USEPA, 2000). Properly designed green roof systems
not only reduce runoff flows, but also can be added to existing rooftops
without additional reinforcement or structural design requirements.
The reduction in runoff from green roofs is directly related to the design
rainfall event used during the design process. Green roof designs should
be developed for the storm events that have the most significant

Fig. 2. Typical section of an infiltration trench (adapted from Eckart, 2015).

 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Fig. 3. Typical section of bioretention cell (adapted from Eckart, 2015).
impacts on the hydraulic infrastructure of the area (USEPA, 2000). A
typical section of a green roof can be seen in Fig. 6.
Stormwater harvesting significantly improves the capabilities of
stormwater retention systems to reduce annual runoff volumes
(Fletcher et al., 2007). Stormwater harvesting systems that supply reg-
ular daily demands, rather than seasonal demand, are more efficient
in terms of the reduction of stormwater runoff. However, the use of har-
vesting for processes, such as irrigation should not be ignored. Upon fur-
ther research into stormwater harvesting it could become a significant
component of managing urban hydrology (Fletcher et al., 2013).
3. Factors affecting LIDs
3.1. Location dependencies of LID
LID solutions for SWM can be very location dependant. Since LID
measures generally rely on infiltration and evapotranspiration, their ef-
fectiveness will be impacted by such things as soil type/conditions, what
types of plants will grow, the amount of sunlight, rainfall patterns, land
use types and other meteorological and hydrological properties. The
Fig. 4. Typical sections of various sand filters (adapted from Claytor and Schueler, 1996).
417
Fig. 5. Typical section of permeable pavement (adapted from Drake et al., 2013).
design of LID stormwater strategies and controls must take such site
specific conditions into consideration in order to be successful.
Zahmatkesh et al. (2015) noted the geophysical location of LID
stormwater controls in a watershed significantly affected their ability
to reduce runoff. Passeport et al. (2013) similarly stressed the impor-
tance of LID location for the purposes of nutrient reduction. The topog-
raphy of the site will affect the LID techniques that should be
implemented, flat areas may have to rely more on detention based man-
agement methods (Bloom, 2006). Trinkaus (2012) demonstrated the
effectiveness of bioretention systems for reducing flooding in a flat to-
pography made up of old tidal marshes. Shallow water tables and im-
permeable soils can also often limit the use of LID strategies, however,
Johnson and Sample (2017) developed a tool to assist with LID imple-
mentation in these kinds of areas and demonstrated that wet ponds
and constructed wetlands were the most viable for this situation. The ef-
fect of sea level rise on the groundwater table could play a role in the in-
corporation of infiltration-based LID alternatives in coastal areas due to
the possibility of higher groundwater tables, thus groundwater analysis
should not be overlooked when implementing LID controls (Joyce et al.,
418 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Fig. 6. Typical section a green roof (adapted from Banting et al., 2005).
2017). Simulation results from Xiao et al. (2007) found that the physical
properties and effective depth of soil were particularly impactful on in-
filtration and surface runoff processes. Brander et al. (2004) highlighted
the importance of underlying soils and groundwater depths for the
placement of infiltration basins in New York City. For these reasons pro-
fessionals often require successful demonstration projects in their own
community before they are comfortable using LID practices (Ewing
and Grayson, 2000). More localized data, which could be obtained
from pilot projects, is still lacking (Binstock, 2011). A study into the
costs of LID projects by the U.S. EPA (2007) found that site-specific fac-
tors influenced the outcomes. Martin-Mikle et al. (2015) developed a
GIS-based approach to identify priority sites for LID stormwater con-
trols. Their approach is transferable to other watersheds and can help
stormwater professionals place LID controls. CVC (2010) includes
guidelines for LID design based on site-specific parameters.
3.2. Rainfall
Rainfall patterns impact the effectiveness of LID solutions and the
size designs which will need to be implemented (Gallo et al., 2012;
Jennings et al., 2012). Qin et al. (2013) modeled the effects rainfall pat-
terns on LID measures in an urbanizing catchment in Shenzhen, China
using SWMM. Rainfall volume, duration, and the time-to-peak ratio all
impacted the performance of grassed swales, green roofs and perme-
able pavement. For example swales performed best when the peak in-
tensity was early whereas permeable pavement performed best with a
time-to-peak ratio of 0.5 and green roofs performed best with an even
slightly later peak. LID may also become less effective for large precipi-
tation events. Hunt et al. (2008) studied a bioretention cell, sited in an
area with a steep hydraulic gradient, connected to a 0.37 ha asphalt
parking lot in Charlotte, N.C. The bioretention cell was able to reduce
the peak flows of precipitation events of 40 mm or less by at least 96%
(comparing the inflow and outflow rates of the bioretention cell) but
would be much less effective for larger events.
3.3. Climate change
The climate is made up of meteorological elements in a region that
characterize average and extreme weather over a long period of time.
A changing climate could potentially cause many manmade structures
(including stormwater infrastructure) that were designed to minimize
the natural environment's impact on human settlements to become in-
effective (Cobbina, 2007). Characteristics of urban watersheds, such as
high percentage imperviousness, intensify the impacts of climate
change on the hydrologic cycle. A slight change in rainfall intensity
and duration can cause severe floods (Karamouz and Nazif, 2013) and
stressing stormwater management systems.
IPCC (2007) showed widespread scientific consensus that the evi-
dence shows "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." More re-
cently the milestone of 400 ppm CO2 was passed in Hawaii and experts
believe significant warming is inevitable (Borenstein, 2013). Climate
change is a topic of great concern for stormwater management. Many
cities, New York, Toronto and London to name just a few, are utilizing
green infrastructure as part of climate change adaptation strategies.
The concerns regarding hydrologic disturbance are consistent with ob-
served and predicted climate change impacts. The IPCC reported vary-
ing precipitation changes but found it likely (N 66% probability of
occurrence) that "heavy precipitation events (or the precipitation total
from heavy falls) have increased in most areas" and very likely (N90%
probability of occurrence) that heavy precipitation events will become
more frequent (IPCC, 2007). Climate change is expected to cause an in-
tensification of the global water cycle. One result is that runoff is widely
expected to increase through the 21st century (Huntington, 2006).
Zahmatkesh et al. (2015) discuss the impact on urban stormwater
management due to a changing climate. They note that the design of
urban stormwater management systems is generally based on historical
climate data, which are assumed to be constant. Climate change impact
studies show that in the near future stormwater management systems,
in the built environment, are most likely going to be required to meet
the performance expectations under climatic conditions that differ
from historical data (Zahmatkesh et al., 2015). Semadeni-Davies et al.
(2008) simulated (using the MOUSE urban drainage model) the impacts
of several climate change and urban development scenarios on the com-
bined sewer network of Helsingborg, Sweden. They found that both ur-
banization and climate change would increase combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) with the worst case scenario (including both factors)
seeing a 450% increase in the volume of CSOs and a 10-fold increase in
the release of ammonia (Semadeni-Davies et al., 2008). Franczyk and
Chang (2009), while modelling the Rock Creek Basin in Oregon U.S.,
concluded that the combination of land-use change and climate change
would amplify runoff even relative to what was found by studies exam-
ining only one of those factors.
Denault et al. (2006) examined the impacts of changes to the precip-
itation patterns (becoming more intense for short storms) in the Mis-
sion/Wagg Creek watershed in British Columbia, Canada using
regression analysis and the U.S. EPA Storm Water Management Model
(SWMM). Their results indicated that with proper planning, infrastruc-
ture could be adequately upgraded at a reasonable cost to account for
urbanization and climate change. However, their study also showed
that the increased runoff would likely damage stream health as in-
creases in runoff might be similar to the effects of increasing the imper-
vious or urbanized area (Denault et al., 2006), which is known to have a
negative effect on stream health (Morley and Karr, 2002). The intensi-
ties of the rainfall in many parts of world are projected to be increasing.
However, though the number of intense rainfall events appears to be in-
creasing, the intensities do not seem to be increasing in Alpine regions
(De Toffol et al., 2009). Overall, while climate change impacts will be
spatially diverse, the literature does seem consistent in re-affirming
that it will add additional stress to urban stormwater management chal-
lenges, especially with the additional factor of increased urbanization.
4. Performance of LID
The effectiveness of LID practices can be determined by evaluating
hydrological function and pollutant removal capabilities (USEPA,
2000). Evaluating the changes to hydrological properties of a site can
be more difficult to quantify than the changes in pollutant concentration
due to the complexity of the changes that need to consider factors that
are not immediately observable such as groundwater flow (Jacobson,
2011). This section describes some of the research done in monitoring
and analysis on actual LID projects. Additional LID performance data is
summarized in the Credit Valley Conservation report (CVC, 2010), the
review papers by Ahiablame et al. (2012) and Brown et al. (2012).
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
4.1. Hydrology
Debusk and Hunt (2011) compared streamflow from three small,
undeveloped watersheds to bioretention outflow from four cells, all in
the Piedmont region of North Carolina. Their comparison showed that
the bioretention cells resulted in flow rates and patterns similar to
those found in natural watersheds. Lenhart and Hunt (2011) found
that a 0.14 ha stormwater treatment wetland in River Bend, North Car-
olina, reduced peak flows and runoff volumes by 80% and 54%, respec-
tively and they suggested that stormwater wetlands should be
considered a viable LID option, especially where there are sandy soils.
Another demonstration project in which the timing of flows were
considered is in Lynbrook Estate, Melbourne, and studied by Lloyd et
al. (2002). The project incorporated 32 ha consisting of 271 medium
density residential lots and parklands. Roof and road runoff systems
were collected by grassed and landscaped swales with underlying grav-
el filled trenches with the system eventually feeding into wetlands. A
paired catchment storm event monitoring program was established in
adjacent sub-catchments to compare the conventional (piped) and
LID (bio-filtration) systems. It was found that runoff from the LID catch-
ment was between 51% and 100% less than the conventional system;
peak discharges from the LID system were consistently lower; and the
stormwater was delayed by an average of 10 min compared to the con-
ventional system, and the LID system consistently had a shorter dura-
tion stormwater discharge (Lloyd et al., 2002, p.22).
In Watford, Connecticut an LID subdivision was compared to the one
with traditional stormwater management. The LID measures included
replacing asphalt roads and gutters with Ecostone® paver road (perme-
able) and grass swales, some driveways used Ecostone® or crushed
rock, a bioretention cul-de-sac was added, rain gardens were used,
and houses were constructed in a clustered layout. Monitoring and anal-
ysis of this site revealed that, due to the LID measures, the runoff did not
increase even as the impervious area increased from zero to 21% (Dietz
and Clausen, 2008). Mayer et al. (2012) ran an extensive six-year before
and after study (three years before, three after) of 1.8 km2 Shepherd
Creek watershed near Cincinnati, Ohio. They monitored hydrological
and ecological indicators in the watershed in which they ran a program,
which saw the installation of 83 rain gardens and 176 rain barrels onto
what amounted to over 30% of the properties. They found that the LID
measures had a "small but statistically significant effect of decreasing
stormwater quantity at the sub-watershed scale" (Mayer et al., 2012,
p.65). This result assumes significance as most of the studies conducted
are on a smaller scale and the cumulative impacts of LID on a watershed
have not been as frequently evaluated. From the Mayer et al. (2012)
study; Shuster and Rhea (2013) also noted that LID practices made a dif-
ference as the distributed stormwater controls added detention capaci-
ty to the system. They also highlighted the importance of transportation
surfaces as a focus point to maximize the efficiency of further retrofits
and that swales may be a good method for the said retrofit (Shuster et
al., 2010; Shuster and Rhea, 2013). Jackisch and Weiler (2015) studied
the hydrologic performance of an LID site in Freiburg Germany. LID
practices included within the study area were permeable pavements,
vegetated and pebble roofs, and bioretention areas. The results showed
that the LIDs in place captured 73% of all rainfall events and that there
was a 66–87% runoff volume reduction. The observed peak discharge
rates were found to be lower than the theoretical predevelopment
rate. These results support that LID can be used as an alternative to con-
ventional stormwater management systems.
Damodaram et al. (2010) compared LIDs (permeable pavement,
rainwater harvesting, and green roofs) to a traditional BMP (detention
pond) and a hybrid scenario for a watershed on the campus of Texas
A&M University. They reported that infiltration based LID measures
were more effective than storage based BMPs for smaller storms
(18 mm, 45 mm) but the BMPs were more effective for larger storms
(114 mm, 185 mm, 279 mm). LID measures appeared to be better at cre-
ating flow timings similar to pre-development conditions for two
419
114 mm design storms (Damodaram et al., 2010). The hybrid scenario
performed the best for each case and still achieved around 50% reduc-
tions in peak flow for the 10-yr (185 mm) and 100-yr (279 mm) events;
however, almost all the reduction for large events is attributable to the
detention pond. Damodaram and Zechman (2013) expanded on this
work and found that LID/BMP hybrids performed the best for peak
flow reduction but noted that the peak flow metrics might not be the
best for judging sustainability.
Line et al. (2012) conducted a comparison between three commer-
cial sites, one with no stormwater control measures, one with a wet de-
tention basin and one with LID measures (including eight bioretention
cells, 0.53 ha of pervious concrete and two constructed stormwater wet-
lands) in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions of central North Caro-
lina. The LID measures throughout the whole site did have a positive
impact; however, there were problems with the LID stormwater con-
trols. These included the lack of a drawdown orifice in the stormwater
wetland and undersized and clogged bioretention cells. These problems
reduced the ability of the LID measures to reduce runoff (Line et al.,
2012). Bergman et al. (2010) evaluated two infiltration trenches in Co-
penhagen over 15 years and observed a significant decrease in the infil-
tration rate which was likely due largely to clogging by fine particles.
They also developed a model to simulate clogging and infiltration. The
model predicted that the infiltration rates will decay at a rate inversely
proportional to time (Bergman et al., 2010).
Using LID stormwater controls in treatment trains can increase their
effectiveness (Brown et al., 2012; CVC, 2010). Brown et al. (2012) com-
pared a treatment train with 0.53 ha of pervious concrete and a 0.05 ha
bioretention cell to using only the bioretention cell. The treatment train
was effective in reducing the runoff volume, peak flow and duration of
elevated outflow rates. The treatment train significantly outperformed
using only the bioretention cell. Jia et al. (2015) studied the urban runoff
control effectiveness of a LID treatment train in China. The train includ-
ed three grassed swales, a buffer strip, a bioretention cell, two infiltra-
tion pits, and a constructed wetland connected in series. They noted
that the bioretention cell provided a peak flow reduction of 50–84%
and a runoff volume reduction of 47–80%; whereas the grassed swales
provided 17–79% reduction in peak flow rate and 9–74% runoff volume
reduction. Table 1 provides a summary of the results and details of these
studies for easy comparison.
4.2. Water quality
One of the major ecological benefits claimed of LID is the ability to
reduce water pollution thereby assisting with the regulation of biogeo-
chemical cycles. Nutrient export was studied by Dietz and Clausen
(2008) in the Watford CT case presented in the previous section. They
found that, for the traditional development case, NO3-N export in-
creased logarithmically as impervious area increased which was also
the case for NH3-N, TN, and TP. For the LID development NO3-N export
did not change, NH3-N export actually significantly decreased and both
TN and TP remained very low. Wilson et al. (2015) studied the water
quality benefits of an LID commercial development compared to a con-
ventional one. They found that the water quality performance of the LID
development was several times greater than the conventional develop-
ment; however, the authors did note that some of the stormwater con-
trols in the LID development were over-designed. Field studies on water
quality were also conducted on the LID demonstration project in Lyn-
wood Estates, Melbourne. Lloyd et al. (2002) found that the system re-
duced the total suspended solids (TSS) with a positive relationship
between dose and removal. More details on the results of these studies
can be found in Table 2. The pollutant load reductions achieved by the
entire LID system in the subdivision exceeded the efficiencies of single
LID controls (Lloyd et al., 2002). In examining factors that affect LID per-
formance Hunt et al. (2008) found reductions in TP but suggested that
the fill soil's low cation exchange capacity would limit long-term TP re-
ductions. When located on a seasonally high water table areas,
420 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432

Table 1
Hydrological performance of LID controls from field studies.

LID information Site characteristics Runoff/outflow Peak flow Other/notes Reference

reduction reduction

Grass swales with underlying gravel trenches were 32 ha site with 271 medium 51% to 100% Consistently Shorter duration for Lloyd et
used to collect roof and road runoff and transport density allotments and lower discharge, average delay al. (2002)
it to wetlands. parklands. of 10 min
Replacing asphalt roads and gutters with Residential subdivision, receives No increase while N/A N/A Dietz and
Ecostone® paver road and swales. Some 1237 mm of annual rainfall impervious area Clausen
driveways used permeable surfaces. A increased from 0% to (2008)
bioretention cul-de-sac and rain gardens were 21%
also used. Houses were clustered.
83 rain gardens and 176 rain barrels which Shepherd Creek watershed 1.8 Small decrease in N/A N/A Mayer et
included over 30% of the properties. km2 residential land use stormwater quantity at al. (2012)
the sub-watershed scale
8 bioretention cells, 2 stormwater wetlands, and 3 commercial sites. With 97%, 34.8% reduction in N/A Detention basin was more Line et al.
some pervious concrete. 90%, and 76% imperviousness. rainfall/runoff ratio effective (2012)
Areas are 3 ha., 6.6 ha., and 7.1
ha.
0.14 ha stormwater treatment wetland 46.5 ha. watershed consisting of 54% (wetland outflow 80% (wetland N/A Lenhart
residential lots, small industrial vs. inflow) outflow vs. and Hunt
area and a golf course. Very inflow) (2011)
permeable watershed
Bioretention cell in area with steep hydraulic 0.37 ha asphalt parking lot. N/A 96.5% for N/A Hunt et
gradient. Receives 1108 mm of annual precipitation al. (2008)
rainfall events under 40
mm (outflow vs.
inflow)
0.53 ha pervious concrete in series with 0.05 ha Nashville, North Carolina, USA. 69% (annual); 35% with N/A Annual untreated runoff Brown et
bioretention cell (0.5 m media) 0.89 ha parking lot. just bioretention with was 1% for the treatment al. (2012)
0.6 m media and 45% train and 12%, or 11% for
with 0.9 m media just bioretention
Large cisterns (total 162,800 L), stormwater use, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2.5 ha 98.3% (over 47 events) 99.8% (over 40 LID development had a Wilson et
wooded area, pre-treatment units, bioswales, commercial development. 84% compared to 51.4% for events) compared very large detention al. (2015)
bioretention cell, underground detention basin imperviousness conventional to 98.7% for capacity
conventional

Table 2
Percent reductions in pollutant loading observed in field studies of LID controls.

LID Information E. coli Fecal TN TKN Soluble NOx-N NH3-N TP Ortho-P TSS Metals # source
coliform N

Grass swales N/A N/A 0a, 70 N/A 29 N/A N/A 47a, 77 N/A 60a, N/A Lloyd et al.
73 (2002)
Permeable pavements, N/A N/A No N/A N/A No Significant No N/A N/A N/A Dietz and
bioretention and swales changeb changeb decreaseb changeb Clausen (2008)
Bioretention cells, wetlands, N/A N/A 42 74 N/A −68 87 (77)c,e 54 0 97 N/A Line et al.
and pervious concrete. (57)c,e (53)c,e (70)c,e (45)c,e (65)c,e (2012)
Stormwater treatment N/A N/A 35.7 34.9 N/A 40.7 41.6 47.2 60.9 49.2 N/A Lenhart and
wetland (NH4-N) Hunt (2011)
a a a a
Bioretention cell 71 69 32 44 N/A limited 73 (NH4-N) 31a,d N/A 60a Zn:77a Cu:54a Hunt et al.
PB:31a Fe: −330a (2008)
Dry detention 1, 2 −22, 0a −45, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hathaway et al.
−20a (2009)
Wet pond 46a 70a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hathaway et al.
(2009)
a a
Wetland 1, 2 96, 33 98, 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hathaway et al.
(2009)
a a
Bioretention 92 89 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hathaway et al.
(2009)
Proprietary 1,2,3 −2a, 59a, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hathaway et al.
−269, −57, (2009)
−7 −62
Pervious concrete with N/A N/A −64e 57e N/A −471e 88e 30e −60e 87 N/A Brown et al.
bioretention cell (2012)
Grass swales, bioretention cell N/A N/A 74 N/A N/A N/A 73 95 N/A 35 Zn: ~100 Jia et al. (2015)
Cu: 69

Table displays reductions in pollutant loadings in %. TSS = Total Suspended Solids, TN = Total Nitrogen, TP = Total Phosphorus, TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, NH3-N = Ammonia Ni-
trogen, NH4-N = Ammonium Nitrogen, NOx-N = Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, Ortho-P = Orthophosphorus.
a
Removal efficiency of LID control.
b
Trend while imperviousness is increasing; no change might mean no relationship with increasing imperviousness.
c
Number in brackets is for the traditional detention basin.
d
Limited long-term potential.
e
Arithmetic reduction.
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432 421

bioretention only reduced total ammoniacal nitrogen and TSS concen-
trations while nitrite, nitrate and TN were increased two to four times
because of contributions from baseflow (Brown et al., 2012). The au-
thors advised against draining groundwater through a bioretention
cell, remarking that it can also damage local hydrology. The LID treat-
ment train studied by Jia et al. (2015) showed excellent removal for
NH3-N (73%), TN (74%), and TP (95%) and fair removal for COD (19%)
and TSS (35%).
LID measures can also be used to reduce concentrations of metals
(Hunt et al., 2008) and bacteria (Hathaway et al., 2009; Hunt et al.,
2008). Maniquiz-Redillas and Kim (2016), in their study in Cheonan,
Korea, monitored six LID systems including infiltration trenches, tree
box filters, rain gardens and hybrid constructed wetlands employed
for management of road, parking lot, and roof runoff for a four year pe-
riod to assess the efficiency of the systems for removing heavy metals
such as Zn, Pb, Cu, Ni, Cr, Cd and Fe from stormwater runoff. They
found that the heavy metal concentration increased proportionally
with the total suspended solids concentration. They noted that the sys-
tems performed well and were more efficient for larger storms. A
bioretention cell was able to reduce Zn, Cu, and PB effluent concentra-
tions; however, Fe increased by 330%, likely because of high Fe concen-
trations in the soil (Hunt et al., 2008). Bioretention cells are also capable
of reducing fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria (Hathaway et al., 2009;
Hunt et al., 2008). Wetlands, particularly those that are shallow (15–
45 cm) and had low vegetative cover, were also effective in reducing
the effluent concentrations of indicator bacteria; however, the environ-
mental conditions found in some LID projects can also breed bacteria
(Hathaway et al., 2009). Both Hathaway et al. (2009) and Hunt et al.
(2008) cautioned about generalizing their results as the studies are lim-
ited in scope and there are not a great deal of other studies testing the
bacterial removal properties of LID measures.
5. Computer modelling of LID
5.1. Overview
Computer modelling is the most effective tool for the design and op-
timization of sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants (Freni et
al., 2010). The following sections present some of the results found via
modelling LIDs as well as looking at how some of the models are used
and the ways in which they represent LID controls. Some of these
models and their details are listed in Table 3.
There are other useful reviews on modelling for the purposes of eval-
uating LID measures. An older review was conducted by (Elliott and
Trowsdale, 2007). They found that available models did not incorporate
a sufficient number of contaminants relating to water quality. They also
found that it was difficult to link hydrologic models to outside process-
es, such as toxicity and habitat models (Elliott and Trowsdale, 2007).
However, since the publication of that review, the gaps in model capa-
bilities have been continuously narrowed. Literature provides a wide
range of monitoring information that covers the beneficial uses of LID
practices. Monitoring practices, however, are limited to certain periods
and conditions due to their high costs. Simulation modelling provides
a valuable method of determining spatial and temporal information
for a variety of scales (Ahiablame et al., 2012). In general, water quality
is modeled less frequently than quantity. One factor likely contributing
to this is that water quality data, with which to calibrate a model, is less
often available than hydrological data. Modelling water quality is rela-
tively more difficult than modelling hydrology (Imteaz et al., 2013).
Obropta and Kardos (2007) reviewed urban stormwater quality models.
Comparing between deterministic, stochastic, and hybrid approaches to
modelling, the authors suggested that hybrid approaches might reduce
prediction error and uncertainty.
The thesis of Bosley (2008) contains an in depth review of the
models ANSWERS, CASC2D, DR3M, HEC-HMS, HSPF, KINEROS2, and
SWMM. More recently, Zhou (2014) included a section on modelling
in their LID literature review. They found that open source models can
be difficult to use and are often lacking in user support while proprietary
models offer greater support but are often too expensive for many po-
tential users. Viavattene et al. (2008 and 2010) discussed the develop-
ment of a GIS decision-making tool. GIS integration would reduce
amount of work required in the processing data to input into the
models. Some proprietary software such as PCSWMM (CHI Water,
2011) offer both GIS integration and LID modelling. A GIS interface
might also help users who are familiar with GIS overcome some of the
technical complexity of many current models. Ellis and Viavattene
(2014) conducted a study using GIS tools. Some non-proprietary
models such as HEC-HMS (Scharffenberg, 2013) and L-THIA (Park et
al., 2013) now offer GIS extensions.
Ahiablame et al. (2013) found little literature where the impacts of
LID had been quantified at a watershed scale. This is an important area
for the use of models because results can be simulated from a lot scale
to a watershed scale and across many temporal scales (Ahiablame et
al., 2012). This differs from field studies, which can be impractical to
apply at larger scales (Ahiablame et al., 2012).

Table 3
LID representation in modelling.

Model Name LID simulation Availability Developer (Info)

SWMM Stormwater Management Process, physically based LID toolbox. LIDs within sub-catchments will be in open source USEPA (Rossman, 2010)
Model parallel and LID simulation for water quality is not yet available.
MUSIC Model for Urban Stochastic, LIDs have individual properties. Used for water quality. Open source eWater (Wong et al., 2002),
Stormwater Improvement with (eWater, 2014)
Conceptualization membership
HEC-HMS The Hydrologic Modelling Aggregate simulation by altering properties. Free US Army Corps of Engineers
System (Scharffenberg, 2013)
PCSWMM PCSWMM Based on SWMM, process driven. Contains LID toolbox for both quality and Commercial CHI Software (CHI Water,
quantity. 2011)
L-THIA-LID L-THIA Low Impact LID screening tool which uses curve number analysis (aggregates properties). Free Purdue University (Fletcher et
Development al., 2014; U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2014)
MOUSE Model of Urban Sewers Simulates surface runoff, flows, water quality and sediment transport. Commercial Danish Hydrological Institute
(Semadeni-Davies et al., 2008)
StormWISE Stormwater Investment LID screening tool that applies optimization methods from the fields of Free and open Swarthmore College
Strategy Evaluation Management Science and Operations Research to develop mathematical models source (McGarity, 2011)
and computer software tools for prioritizing project.
IP Infiltration Patch Computes event runoff volumes, peak flows, and hydrographs from given N/A Brander et al. (2004)
precipitation events for known soil group and land use characteristics.
Rainwater + Rainwater+ Uses the NRCS Curve Number method to calculate runoff depth and can be used Open source Chen et al. (2016)
for early LID design.
422 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Sharma et al. (2008) used three models to evaluate the impact of
stormwater management options in Canberra, Australia. They used
Aquacycle for the urban water balance; Model for Urban Stormwater
Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC) for the stormwater flows,
contaminants, and treatment options; and PURRS for peak stormwater
flows from properties. Another example where multiple models were
used was a study on the campus of Texas A&M University in College Sta-
tion, Texas by (Damodaram et al., 2010). In this case HEC-HMS was used
as a hydrological model with hydraulic routing computed using SWMM.
SWMM was also used in LID studies by (Ahmed et al., 2017; Akhter et
al., 2016; Bosley, 2008; Damodaram et al., 2010; Elliott and Trowsdale,
2007; Karamouz and Nazif, 2013; Maharjan et al., 2009; McGarity,
2010; Palanisamy and Chui, 2015; Palla and Gnecco, 2015;
Paule-Mercado et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2013; Rosa et al., 2015; Wang et
al., 2016; Xu et al., 2017; Zahmatkesh et al., 2015; Zhang, 2009). Some
newer proprietary, integrated models such as MIKE URBAN (DHI,
2014) can be used to model all urban water networks as an integrated
system. For studying LIDs Yazdi and Salehi Neyshabouri (2014) used
HEC-HMS as a hydrological model and MIKE11 as a hydraulic model.
Trinh and Chui (2013) used MIKE SHE to study the hydrological impacts
of urbanization and the potential benefits of LID use.
Another model is the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology developed the MUSIC which was used by (Lloyd et al.,
2002). There has also been work done on developing methods and met-
rics by which to evaluate the performance in a way which is more
meaningful in regards to the ecological benefits claimed of LID
(Giacomoni et al., 2012; Reichold et al., 2009). A different approach is
for researchers to develop their own model. McGarity (2011) developed
the StormWISE model as a screening method to be used to find optimal
strategies to maximize improvements to water quality. Chen et al.
(2016) created a new computer model called Rainwater+. Rainwater
+ uses the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Curve Num-
ber method to calculate runoff depth and is an intuitive and interactive
tool for the use in the early design process. Rainwater + can be used for
design evaluation, decision-making, compliance checking, and rough
cost estimation. Rosa et al. (2015) studies the calibration of an LID wa-
tershed in SWMM. They reported that, in order to accurately simulate
the impact of LID controls, either calibration is required or increased
data on Green-Ampt infiltration parameter values is required. Finally,
Engel et al. (2007) put forward a standard procedure for the application
of hydrologic and water quality models.
Despite the availability of popular and widely used software dedicat-
ed to urban hydrology and stormwater drainage (e.g. SWMM, MUSIC,
MOUSE, HEC-HMS), modelling of rainfall-runoff still requires further re-
search (Fletcher et al., 2013). There have been a number of studies that
have used a variety of modelling techniques to evaluate the effective-
ness of urban LID practices in stormwater management (Ahiablame et
al., 2012). Model calibration, sensitivity and uncertainty analysis are
all vital issues in determining the accuracy and strength of model results
(Fletcher et al., 2013). These issues affect the modelling of LIDs with
conventional hydrologic models; the following section discusses some
ways LIDs have been modeled and the abilities of current hydrologic
models to represent LID practices.
5.2. Hydrology
This section describes the findings of studies that used computer
models to simulate the hydrological process in LID controls. Some of
the results are summarized in Table 4. Xiao et al. (2007) studied some
lot level controls using a model they developed themselves. They re-
ported that increased percolation to groundwater played a larger role
than evapotranspiration (Xiao et al., 2007). This could help with
groundwater recharge; however, care should be taken not to contami-
nate groundwater when runoff is being collected from paved surfaces
in areas with highly permeable soil.
Gilroy and McCuen (2009) developed a model in the Matlab lan-
guage in order to simulate temporal and spatial features of rainfall and
runoff on lot-sized watersheds and study the effectiveness of cisterns
and bioretention cells. The LID measures considered did a much better
job at reducing runoff and peak flows for a 1-year storm than a 2-year
storm; however, the available storage for these events could be in-
creased by placing LID controls in series (sited along the same flow
path). LID design impacts runoff volume and peak flow rates differently
and both runoff volume and timing must be considered in the design.
Additionally, there are vastly diminished returns when adding exces-
sive LID measures (Gilroy and McCuen, 2009).
Qin et al. (2013) found (using SWMM) that swales were not effec-
tive at reducing flood volumes because they received runoff from too
large of an area and quickly overflowed. They did find that permeable
pavement and green roofs were effective at reducing flood volumes
for precipitation events between 70 and 140 mm (Qin et al., 2013).
Palla and Gnecco (2015) used SWMM to study the impacts of LID use
at a catchment level. They reported that the hydrological performance
was linearly dependent on the effective impervious area reduction
and that a reduction of N5% was required to achieve noticeable benefits.
They also reported the improvements in hydrological importance were
driven by the retention capacity of the LID units (Palla and Gnecco,
2015). Zhang et al. (2016) estimated the hydrological effects of typical
LID practices by simulating runoff-generating processes at different
rainfall frequencies and used the results to explore the relevant factors
affecting the performance of LID practices. The authors used the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) model to evaluate the impacts of LID prac-
tices on runoff reduction and increasing baseflow (Zhang et al., 2016).
Another study (which used MIKE SHE) noted the importance of evapo-
transpiration and groundwater in the hydrological systems (Trinh and
Chui, 2013). They reported that with proper planning and design, dis-
tributed LID measures could be used to reshape an outlet hydrograph
for an urban catchment.
Computer simulation has also been used to study the benefits of
clustered development. Brander et al. (2004) compared conventional
curvilinear, urban cluster, coving, and new urbanism development
methods, with and without infiltration based LID measures, using a
model they developed. The model, Infiltration Patch, is a spreadsheet-
based model, which expands on the National Resources Conservation
Service SCS CN method. Once again, the LID measures proved most ef-
fective for smaller storms. The cluster development, which leaves
room for undeveloped space, was the most effective for reducing runoff
(Brander et al., 2004). Williams and Wise (2006) found cluster develop-
ment to reduce runoff volume and peak flows, and LID measures to help
preserve natural hydrological patterns.
While modelling the combined sewer system in Helsingborg, Swe-
den, using the commercial Danish Hydrological Institute's Model of
Urban Sewers (MOUSE), Semadeni-Davies et al. (2008) found that
using LID measures as well as disconnecting stormwater from combined
sewers could limit or eliminate CSOs under future climate scenarios.
Freni et al. (2010) developed a model in order to compare the effective-
ness of decentralized LID measures to centralized, more traditional
stormwater measures and to explore ways to improve stormwater
management practices. The 12.8 ha urban catchment The Parco
d'Orlèans at the University of Palermo, Italy, was used as a case study.
They found that storage tanks connected to centralized systems were
actually more effective at reducing CSO volume and pollutant loads.
Storage tanks can also be more efficient because they can act directly
on would-be CSO volume. For high infiltration soils distributed infiltra-
tion techniques can be more effective; however, over time clogging can
have a significant effect on efficiency and may require maintenance.
Overall, a combination of centralized and distributed SWM measures
can be feasible and effective (Freni et al., 2010).
Stovin et al. (2012) developed a GIS-based tool to model and evalu-
ate retrofit LID measures. These systems were modeled by
disconnecting areas of catchments from the sewer system by creating
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432 423

Table 4
Hydrological performance of LID controls in simulation.

LID Info Study area and model Runoff/outflow Peak flow reduction Other/notes Source
reduction

Decrease impervious area, rain
barrels, routing to pervious,
bioretention cells, increased
storage.
Permeable pavement, green roofs
Infiltration basins to disconnect
impervious areas
Differences in development
density and impervious area.
Rainwater harvesting, permeable
pavement and bioretention.
Dry swales, bioretention, rain
barrels, and green roofs.
Green roofs (14% of area),
bioretention (5% of area)
Bioretention (Mel and Bris),
permeable pavement (Auk,
Scot)
Rain barrels and porous pavement Urbanized watershed,
Green channel cover (modeled
using bioretention LID)
Tree planting
Beijing Olympic Village, 27% 21% Optimization completed on BMP sizes. Jia et al.
China; SWMM, BMPDSS (2012)
Birmingham, U.K., 57% (30 y storm) N/A Developed the SUDSLOC as a decision Ellis and
industrial area; SUDSLOC, 30% (200 y storm) support tool. Viavattene
STORM (2014)
Coventry, U.K., residential 95% (30 y storm) N/A STORM is hydrological model. Ellis and
area; SUDSLOC, STORM 55% (200 y storm) Viavattene
(2014)
South Weymouth Naval 20% to 38% N/A 10% increase in precipitation and 5% Pyke et al.
Air Station, U.S.; increase in intensity could be offset by a (2011)
SGWATER 4% decrease in impervious cover.
Bronx River Watershed, 28% (2 y storm) 8% to 13% Considered climate change. Designed Zahmatkesh
U.S.; SWMM 14% (50 y storm) LIDs based on guides. Reduction greater et al. (2015)
for lower intensity precipitation.
Village at Tom's Creek, 59.1% (unfavourable LID outperformed Used both continuous simulation and Bosley
U.S.; SWMM conditions for both conventional for up to 100 y event modelling. (2008)
LID and conventional) storms. Detention pond was
83.5% (favourable) best.
Singapore Marina 30% to 50% (green Delay of 2 h (green roofs) Combining the LID measures preserved Trinh and
Watershed; Mike SHE roofs) 10% increase in the benefits of each. Chui (2013)
(System Hydrologique infiltration
European)
Melbourne, Brisbane, 59.5% (Melbourne) N/A Compared to experimental results the Imteaz et al.
Auckland, Scotland; 30.4% (Brisbane) model usually estimated flow (2013)
MUSIC 92.9% (Auckland) effectively.
100% (Scotland)
3% to 11% N/A 50% adoption of rain barrels or cisterns Ahiablame
Indianapolis, U.S.; (watershed-wide was the most effective scenario et al. (2013)
L-THIA-LID reduction)
Bukit Timah catchment, Effective in mitigating Peak water level 14%, max Occupies 0.07% of catchment, reduced Palanisamy
Singapore; SWMM runoff outflow 21% max velocity in canal by 0.2 to 0.5 m/s and Chui
(2015)
Residential Los Angeles, Reduction after 15 N/A N/A Xiao et al.
California; self developed years, 26% by year 30 (2007)

pervious area or routing to pervious area (rather than modelling indi-
vidual LID projects). They selected three well-suited catchments within
the London Tideway Improvements area to test. Modelling global dis-
connect scenarios (scenarios that remove stormwater from stormsewer
systems, such as disconnecting downspouts from sewers) proved to be
an efficient way to determine the potential of LID implementation (dis-
connection). Overall, they found large-scale disconnection to be costly
and difficult to implement and suggested that the LID measures might
serve best as a tool to be used alongside centralized sewer systems
(Stovin et al., 2012). The use of satellite imagery can aid the use of
GIS-based models. Khin et al. (2016) used WorldView-2 high-resolution
satellite imagery and a two-stage classification method to extract land
cover types and derive hydrologic parameters in order to model LID per-
formance. The use of satellite imagery allowed for an innovative and au-
tomated way to retrieve land cover information for modelling the urban
drainage system with LID techniques. The classified image from the
two-stage classification method was used in developing three LID sce-
narios of detailed distributed hydrologic models in PCSWMM. Based
on the classified results, critical hydrologic parameters of each
subcatchment, such as area, width, overland flow path, percent imper-
viousness, Manning's n value and depression storage value were manip-
ulated in the GIS software. This study showed that the method used
could be very beneficial when high-quality GIS data of land cover type
is not available.
Modelling tools are necessary to support the selection and evalua-
tion of viable LID options. Computer modelling will help determine
where these LID options are best placed in a watershed in a way that
achieves cost-effectiveness in addressing environmental quality protec-
tion and restoration needs in urban and developing areas (Lee et al.,
2012). Chui et al. (2016) used SWMM coupled with Matlab to assess
the hydrological performance and the cost effectiveness of green roofs,
bioretention and porous pavements in order to determine optimal de-
signs. The authors represented LID practices as vertical layers, whose
water balances and movements are computed for each LID layer during
the simulation. Matlab was programmed to automate the large amount
of SWMM output files. The dimensions and unit costs of the optimal de-
signs of different LID practices were than able to be determined (Chui et
al., 2016). Liu et al. (2016) used L-THIA-LID 2.1 to model the impacts of
land use change and climate change on hydrology and water quality in a
watershed in Indiana. This study was used to determine the optimal se-
lection and placement of green infrastructure practices. The authors de-
veloped an optimization tool and linked it to the L-THIA-LID 2.1 model.
They found from their model that land use changes by 2050 had greater
impacts on runoff volume and pollutant loads than the influences of
predicted climate change. They also determined that the same runoff
volume and pollutant loads as 2001 for 2050 could be achieved by
implementing green infrastructure (Liu et al., 2016).
5.3. Water quality
As previously discussed, water quality as it relates to LID is not
modeled as often as hydrology and it is studied more often through ex-
perimentation. Ahiablame et al. (2012) found that more research was
required on the characterization of runoff water quality from different
types of land uses. Some results on studies that have used computer
models to study stormwater quality are presented in Table 5. Guo et
al. (2014) developed the Water Quality Capture Optimization and Sta-
tistics Model (WQ-COSM) in order to assist in the determination of
424 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432

Table 5
Percent reductions in pollutant loading from simulated LID controls.

LID Info Study area and model TSS reduction TN reduction TP reduction Other/notes Source

Bioretention Melbourne, Australia (3 Model: 91.6% 87.0% 82.6% 1, 2 Imteaz et al.

experiments); MUSIC Experiments: (−162%) (−12%) (2013)
(90%)
Bioretention Brisbane, Australia (1 91.9% (89%) 85.2% (83%) 76.2% (19%) 1, 2 Imteaz et al.
experiment); MUSIC (2013)
Swale Brisbane, Australia(3 52.4% (83.1%) 44.0% 35.8% 1, 2 Imteaz et al.
experiments); MUSIC (63.3%) (53.1%) (2013)
Swale Sweden (1 experiment); 38.0% (−20%) 26.9% (N/A) 35.0% (N/A) 1, 2 Imteaz et al.
MUSIC (2013)
Permeable pavement Auckland, New Zealand (2 99.8% (85.9%) 99.5% (N/A) 99.7% (N/A) 1, 2 Imteaz et al.
experiments); MUSIC (2013)
Permeable pavement Scotland (1 experiment); 100% (99.0%) 100% (82.7%) 100% (52.3%) 1, 2 Imteaz et al.
MUSIC (2013)
Differences in development South Weymouth Naval 18% to 26% 17% to 25% 24% to 34% Water quality is more sensitive to land-use Pyke et al.
density and impervious Air Station, U.S.; SGWATER changes where there is less existing (2011)
area. development.
Rain barrels and porous Urbanized watershed, N/A −1% to 0% −1% to 0% Reductions are given as the reductions in the Ahiablame
pavement Indianapolis, U.S.; (baseflow) (baseflow) flows in brackets. et al. (2013)
L-THIA-LID 3% to 12% 2% to 11%
(runoff) (runoff)
1% to 6% 2% to 9%
(streamflow) (streamflow)

1, When multiple there are multiple tests conducted, the mean results is displayed. 2, The experimental results are shown in brackets, with the simulation results not being in brackts. TSS
= Total Suspended Solids, TN = Total Nitrogen, TP = Total Phosphorus.

the water quality capture volume for the design of BMPs and LID con-
trols. Chen and Lin (2015) used SUSTAIN to model LIDs and water qual-
ity performance for a watershed in Taiwan in order to determine the
best practices for application within the watershed. The study com-
pared the effectiveness of bioretention cells, grass swales, and pervious
pavements at removing TP, TN, SS, and BOD. The results showed that
pervious pavements produced the largest reduction in pollution and
runoff, followed by the bioretention cell and the grass swale. Seo et al.
(2017) developed a procedure to represent LID controls in SWAT and
thus were able to model LID impacts on water quantity and quality.
Their model was able to show how LID practices can reduce pollutant
loadings for multiple different land uses. Carbone et al. (2014) were
able to use laboratory experiments to validate their k-C* model which
simulate permeable pavement systems. The model was determined to
accurately predict total suspended solids concentrations in runoff
through different permeable pavement types.
5.4. Multi-criteria modelling
Spatial multi-criteria analysis is an important aspect of LID planning
and implementation. There is extensive literature on different models
and methods to assist with LID selection, sizing, and placement. Jia et
al. (2013) developed a multi-criteria index system for the selection of
LID controls during planning. The criteria take into account specific
site characteristics and considers site suitability, performance of runoff
controls and the economic feasibility of LID implementation. In terms
of models that contribute to the selection of LID controls,
Charlesworth et al. (2016) developed a large scale site specific model
to determine the optimal treatment train. The model incorporates
ArcGIS maps to better assist with the decision of suitable LID controls.
Their method can be beneficial in the early planning stages and can
identify best locations for controls to be implemented. Johnson and
Sample (2017) developed the BMP Checker in order to simplify the
site locations for BMP devices. The checker uses site characteristics,
such as slope, seasonal high water table depth, soil types and catchment
size and compares them to constraints. By doing this the model can pro-
vide suitable and unsuitable BMPs to be implemented. Joyce et al.
(2017) used scale dependent data combined with the Interconnected
Channel and Pond Routing model to develop a multi-scale modelling
platform that evaluates drainage infrastructure. This model was devel-
oped specifically for coastal regions and demonstrated that rainfall
type, sub-daily rainfall patterns and groundwater analysis are all neces-
sary for proper evaluation of LID implementation. The next section goes
further into the optimizing decision making in LID planning.
6. Optimization of LID stormwater controls
When implementing LID controls there are many selection fac-
tors, such as sizes, number of controls, locations and combinations
of controls and there are a multitude of other possibilities at the wa-
tershed scale due to the variation of characteristics in different wa-
tersheds. With budget being a major limiting factor in stormwater
management projects, the optimal selection and placement of LID
controls is necessary in order to achieve the maximum runoff/peak
flow reductions at the minimum costs. In order to properly evaluate
and compare LID scenarios in watershed optimization tools are nec-
essary. This section will provide some examples and discussion of
optimization in water resource problems and low impact develop-
ment. An approach taken by Zhen et al. (2004) was to use a scatter
search in a single-objective constrained optimization. When single
objective optimization is used additional objectives, which might
otherwise be optimized, are often instead simply constrained to a
target range. Among the most common methods of optimization in
water resources is the use of genetic algorithms. These algorithms
can be linked with simulation models and can optimize one or
more objectives. Kaini et al. (2008) developed an optimal control
model by linking a genetic algorithm with the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (Neitsch et al., 2011). Jia et al. (2012) used an opti-
mization tool called Best Management Practice Decision Support
System (BMPDSS) which assists in the design and placement of
BMPs and requires the user to specify decision variables, assessment
points and evaluation factors, management targets, and cost
functions. BMPDSS uses a metaheuristic and more information is
provided in Cheng et al. (2009). Cano and Barkdoll (2017) developed
a program entitled Multi-Objective, Socio-Economic, Boundary-Em-
anating, Nearest Distance (MOSEBEND) algorithm, which aims to
provide the selection of the optimal BMPs to be implemented in var-
ious subcatchments. The algorithm bases its selection on lowest cost,
highest runoff reduction and highest likelihood of private-owner
maintenance. Another similar tool which uses a genetic algorithm,
GIS integration, and some of the SWMM computational methods is
SUSTAIN or the System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Analysis Integration Model (Lai et al., 2007). A case study using SUS-
TAIN was conducted by Lee et al. (2012); however, SUSTAIN only
runs on ArcGIS 9.x and Windows XP and is no longer supported by
the EPA. Innoyze® has released InfoSWMM Sustain, a decision sup-
port tool that can evaluate the benefits and costs involved with
implementing various LID options (Innoyze, 2015). The program
can provide hydrological modelling of LID controls and identify the
most cost effective methods based on a sites particular goals. Howev-
er, currently commercial license are rather expensive. Another GIS-
integrated decision support system called SUDSLOC was developed
by Ellis and Viavattene (2014). McGarity (2011) developed an opti-
mization model to help determine investment in LIDs to improve
water quality in a watershed.
A popular genetic algorithm is NSGA-II (Deb et al., 2000). This algo-
rithm, and variations of it are used in many studies including SUSTAIN
model. Karamouz and Nazif (2013) used NSGA-II and SWMM with
data envelopment analysis to optimize stormwater management for
flood control under climate change conditions in an urban watershed
in Tehran, Iran. They optimized simulated BMPs based on a reliability
criteria related to flood reduction as well as cost reduction (Karamouz
and Nazif, 2013). Maharjan et al. (2009) also combined a genetic algo-
rithm with SWMM to optimize intervention times and strategies to re-
spond to changes in climate and land use over time. Damodaram and
Zechman (2013) used a genetic algorithm to optimize an optimize
placement of LID measures (permeable pavement and rainwater har-
vesting) and BMP measures (detention ponds) in order to reduce peak
flows while constrained by a budget. This optimization process also
allowed them to learn which stormwater control methods offered the
most flexibility in effective designs (low level LIDs). In the development
of cost-benefit information relating to LID use, Yazdi and Salehi
Neyshabouri (2014) used NSGA-II as well as multi-criteria selection,
an artificial neural network, and fuzzy set theorem.
Coupling SWMM with a multi-objective optimization model has
been a common method for analyzing LIDs. Duan et al. (2016) studied
the multi-objective optimal design of urban stormwater drainage sys-
tems by implementing detention tanks and LID devices. They used
SWMM for the numerical simulation and applied the modified Particle
Swarm Optimization (NPSO) scheme to solve the multi-objective opti-
mization problem. They then applied the optimal design to a real-life
case to validate the developed framework and determined the feasibil-
ity and validity of the proposed method. Baek et al. (2015) combined
SWMM with MATLAB and used the pattern search algorithm to opti-
mize LID sizes in order to mitigate the First Flush Effect (FFE). Jung et
al. (2016) developed an optimization model using the Harmony Search
(HS) algorithm coupled with SWMM to determine the optimal design of
permeable pavement. HS algorithm is used to reduce repeated process-
es to search for the optimal solution. In their model the HS algorithm se-
lects locations where the permeable pavement should be installed and
determines the pavement type and size to meet each condition of the
selected location. SWMM performs rainfall-runoff analysis using the pa-
rameters determined by the HS algorithm and sends the runoff results
back to the HS algorithm, which then generates the more optimal
solution.
A study on stormwater management and non-point source pollu-
tion found that linear and dynamic programming could be as effec-
tive at finding optimal solutions as a genetic algorithm and could
do so in less time (Limbrunner et al., 2013). An elitist version of
NSGA-II, ε-NSGA-II was used by Zhang (2009) for the cost effective-
ness optimization of several LID measures using SWMM. Eckart et al.
(2017) provides a method that uses SWMM coupled with a genetic
algorithm, the Borg MOEA. The model allows users to analyze the
significance of various design parameters for LID controls and is
capable of performing multiobjective optimization to evaluate
potential LID controls in sewersheds by minimizing peak flow in
stormsewers, reducing total runoff, and minimizing cost. This tool
can provide important information about the cost-effectiveness of
425
various LID controls. Many different methods have been used to op-
timize the design characteristics of LIDs, however further research in
this area will assist in improving the implementation of LID systems
for stormwater management.
7. Cost of LID
Significant costs can be attributed to stormwater management.
Though costs are location dependent, it appears that implementing
source controls, such as LID practices is more cost effective than conven-
tional stormwater management systems. The most significant costs of
stormwater management are associated with efforts to reduce flooding
and improve drainage (Visitacion et al., 2009). If LID can reduce the bur-
den on the conveyance network there would be significant cost savings
(Roy et al., 2008). Upgrading existing subterranean stormwater man-
agement infrastructure in densely populated urban areas can be diffi-
cult, disruptive, and costly (Ashley et al., 2011a, 2011b). LID might
reduce the cost of regulatory compliance for areas, such as CSOs for
communities served by combined sewer systems (Smullen et al.,
2008). Despite the economic significance, few jurisdictions have actual-
ly conducted substantive economic analysis of their LID programs
(USEPA, 2013).
Implementing more economic stormwater management practices is
necessary. USEPA (2007) summarizes 17 case studies of developments
that implemented LID strategies and concluded that applying these
LID techniques can reduce costs and improve environmental perfor-
mance. They found that total capital cost savings ranged from 15% to
80% when LID methods were used and significant savings were achiev-
able due to reduced costs for site grading and preparation, stormwater
infrastructure, site paving and landscaping. Furthermore, in 2013 the
USEPA released a study on 13 case studies in the United States to pro-
mote the use of LID to enhance traditional grey stormwater infrastruc-
ture. They noted that with the use of economic analyses of LID
programs significant savings could be made. The report provides multi-
ple economic analysis methods that can be used. For example, Lenexa
Public Works Department in Kansas used a capital cost assessment to
determine savings in site work and infrastructure costs with the appli-
cation of LID for different types of developments. They found that, in
general, the savings more than offset the costs associated with the de-
velopment fees (USEPA, 2013). Similar results were also found for the
other 12 case studies covered and the USEPA (2013) report should be
consulted for more information on these analyses.
Economic analysis of LID implementation has been able to provide
valuable information regarding LID costs. Wright et al. (2016), through
their analysis of LID costs in four neighbourhoods in Lafayette, Indiana,
concluded that the cost per cubic meter of runoff reduction varied
from around $3 to $600. They also reported that as more LID practices
are adopted within an area, the implementation costs were likely to
decrease. Swan and Stovin (2007) ranked LID controls, from the least
to the most expensive, as infiltration basins, soakaways, ponds, infiltra-
tion trenches and porous pavement (some factors such as land acquisi-
tion were not considered). After the closure of the Oslo Airport at
Fornebu in 1998 development plans were made, which included
LID measures. It was estimated that the construction of an open
drainage system (LID alternative) would be 30% cheaper than a tra-
ditional piped system, the operations and maintenance costs would
be similar (AAstebøl et al., 2004). In Lancaster, Pa., the city developed
a green infrastructure calculator to estimate costs and benefits of LID
implementation. They calculated that, in 2010 dollars, their program
would cost $141 million, $77 million of which would be the in-
creased cost from incorporating LID initiatives into infrastructure
and development projects. This works out to a marginal cost of
$0.03/L of stormwater which is much cheaper than what was esti-
mated for the preliminary costs of building grey infrastructure to re-
mediate CSO and water pollution issues (Katzenmoyer et al., 2013).
For CSO reduction they estimated the cumulative cost would be
426 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
$0.05/L for green infrastructure and $0.06/L for a large storage tank.
Brown et al. (2012) found that adding a 0.53 ha of pervious concrete
to create a treatment train with a 0.05 ha bioretention cell increased
the cost of the LID project to five times the cost of using only the
bioretention cell.
Property values have increased in areas recognized for their LID
practices (van Roon, 2005). There is a drawback that property owners
or stormwater managers may be concerned about lost opportunity
costs (losing potential other uses of property) due to designating land
for green infrastructure projects (Roy et al., 2008). Another variable
which impacts the cost is how effectively LID measures are implement-
ed, especially in terms of location and quantity (Gilroy and McCuen,
2009). Reduced lot size from the implementation of open space and
swales reduced sale prices but resulted in lower construction costs
(Williams and Wise, 2009). The ratio of sale price to construction cost
was better with LIDs for part of the study period and worse for part of
the study period. Clustered development consistently outperformed
traditional development (Williams and Wise, 2009).
A few conclusions on LIDs and costs have been drawn based on stud-
ies which included optimization. Karamouz and Nazif (2013) found that
the cost of BMPs was a critical factor in the reliability of flood control
systems. One study found that the LIDs, optimized for cost effectiveness
in runoff reduction, usually had smaller dimensions than the design rec-
ommendation provided in plans (Jia et al., 2012). Finally, Maharjan et al.
(2009) found that optimization for stormwater system intervention
over time allowed for cost savings.
For LID, a significant portion of the infrastructure cost occurs early in
the implementation projects; however, the full environmental benefits
might not be apparent for years (van Roon, 2011). For this reason, im-
proved life-cycle cost benefit analysis might allow a more accurate com-
parison with traditional SWM methods (Wise et al., 2010). The USEPA
(2007) suggests that further research should be done to quantify and
monetize some social and environmental benefits such as improved
downstream environmental protection, flooding damage, aesthetics
and recreation and other factors that might create cost savings over
the life of LID projects. Among work that has been done, Houdeshel et
al. (2011) created a tool with which to calculate the capital costs, oper-
ation and maintenance costs, and life-cycle net present value of some
common LID projects. For looking simply at the costs, Houdeshel et al.
(2011) developed a set of spreadsheet tools to help users conduct life-
cycle cost analysis for several LID stormwater controls. Sample et al.
(2003) developed a costing approach based on land parcels and noted
the importance of accurate unit cost data. Another source for LID cost in-
formation is the international BMP database (bmpdatabase.org, 2014;
Wright Water Engineers Inc. and Geosyntec Consultants, 2010) where
the costs of many LID projects have been logged.
8. Implementation of LID strategies
LID principles are widespread and are beginning to be used more
frequently. Climate change has been a major driver for LID strategies.
Municipalities are planning for future climate changes and starting to
see the effects of more intense storms, which, in many places, have al-
ready increased in frequency.
van Roon (2007) concluded that there had been widespread use of
LIUDD in demonstration projects, which were usually accompanied by
guidelines from local government and developers, but there was not
yet a larger, comprehensive approach to adopting LIUDD. A USEPA
memorandum (USEPA, 2011) related to their release of a green infra-
structure strategic agenda encourages communities to use green infra-
structure and outlines their plans to partner with communities to
assist them with this.
Several major cities around the world are using LID solutions, often
as strategies for climate change adaptation. One of the cities previously
mentioned, Toronto, has a mandatory downspout disconnection
(Toronto, 2007) and a by-law regarding mandatory implementation of
green roofs (Toronto, 2009). USEPA (2010) provides a good overview
of the development of green infrastructure across the U.S. They also
cite changing regulatory frameworks as well as asset management deci-
sions (using green infrastructure to reduce strain on grey infrastruc-
ture) as major drivers for the adoption of green infrastructure
projects. Portland and Seattle are both leaders in LID largely because
of strict stormwater regulations and rainfall profiles which are well suit-
ed for green infrastructure (Gallo et al., 2012). Portland has also devel-
oped tools, which can be used to simplify the design of stormwater
facilities. Wise et al. (2010) reported that, in the U.S., Portland, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Kansas City, New York, Washington, Louisville and many
other cities have included green infrastructure in their control plans
for combined sewer overflows (one of the regulatory areas mentioned
in the EPA report).
9. Barriers to LID adoption
9.1. Limitations of LID
Many stormwater management practices are required throughout
watersheds to achieve the desired flow mitigation and pollutant reduc-
tion. There is no single standardized solution that can be effective in all
locations. As mentioned previously, factors such as watershed size,
scale, human activities, and natural characteristics can vary significantly
from one place to another (Lee et al., 2012). The appropriateness of LID
practices is dependent on site conditions, and is not based strictly on the
available space. The evaluation of soil permeability, slope and water
table depth must be considered in order to effectively use LID practices
(USEPA, 2000).
Concerns of groundwater contamination have also been raised
where infiltration practices such as pervious paving or bioretention
have been recommended or used. Pitt et al. (1999) summarized the re-
sults from a research project on this topic and noted that for residential
and light commercial applications, the pollutants of concern are typical-
ly some nutrients, petroleum residue from automobile traffic, patho-
gens, heavy metals and possibly pesticides. These pollutants are
usually found in low concentrations in stormwater runoff, and are
well retained by soils, therefore the contamination potential is also
low or moderate (Pitt et al., 1999).
9.2. Community engagement
When using a decentralized, source control approach to stormwater
management, community involvement becomes much more important.
Community perception of LID may prevent its implementation. Large-
lots and wide streets have become common and homeowners may con-
sider a reduction of these features as undesirable and even unsafe. Fur-
thermore, it has become common belief that without conventional
stormwater management controls, such as curbs and gutters and end
of pipe BMPs, people will have to deal with basement flooding and sub-
surface structural damage (USEPA, 2000). Montalto et al. (2013) devel-
oped an agent-based model to represent the decision making of
property owners and stochastically simulate LID adoption in a 175 ha
neighborhood in South Philadelphia. Their results highlighted the im-
portance of stakeholder engagement and the importance of considering
both the physical and social characteristics of an area targeted for LID
adoption.
Shuster et al. (2008) suggested that decentralized stormwater man-
agement should be achieved through guided public participation and
local partnerships. Measures such as downspout disconnection, rain
barrels, and rain gardens among others require widespread public par-
ticipation in order to be impactful. This can be a challenge because it
might take a great deal of education to get citizens to recognize the
long-term effects stormwater can have on ecology, human health and
quality of life (Visitacion et al., 2009).
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
A common approach to increase public adoption is financial incen-
tive programs, such as rebates or fees. Shuster et al. (2008) used reverse
auctions (paying people to take parcels, with people bidding down the
amount they will receive as an incentive) to encourage residents to
adopt LID measures, such as rain barrels and rain gardens. During a
full reverse auction of 350 parcels there was a 25% response rate with
about 60% of the bids being for $0. The $0 bids would indicate that
those citizens do value LID as they did not require the added incentive
of being paid. Based on the results of this program Shuster and Rhea
(2013) concluded that novel economic incentive programs could suc-
cessfully initiate the adoption of distributed LID measures in suburban
area. Brown et al. (2016) evaluated householder participation in a
stormwater retrofit programme in Mt. Evelyn, a residential suburb
near Melbourne Australia. The project used an economic incentive pro-
gramme to provoke change in the management of stormwater runoff
from properties. They found that financial incentives and personal co-
benefits, such as future financial savings on water bills from installing
rainwater tanks, were primary motivators while process complexity
and distrust were primary barriers. The literature supports that an ap-
proach combining education, with financial incentives can transform
public behaviour towards more sustainable stormwater management.
Melbourne has been a leader in engaging organizations and the
community around the adoption of LID (Roy et al., 2008). Lloyd et al.
(2002) reported on a survey of 300 property owners and prospective
homebuyers from four LID site developments in Melbourne. N 90% of re-
spondents were in favour of landscaped and grassed bio-filtration sys-
tems for stormwater management and more than two-thirds thought
they would improve neighborhood aesthetics (Lloyd et al., 2002). Over-
all the responses received still indicated a lack of understanding on the
benefits of LID. Cote and Wolfe (2014) surveyed property owners in
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada regarding the use of permeable surfaces.
They found that the greatest barriers were awareness, cost, and techno-
logical acceptance. The characteristics commonly seen to drive adoption
were a perceived need for improved stormwater management and the
will to take ownership of said issue, as well as a willingness to seek
out information and perform maintenance (Cote and Wolfe, 2014).
Frame and Vale (2006) suggested that the largest barriers to sustainable
development are of a social or political nature rather than technical
challenges.
9.3. Municipal and consulting professionals
There are significant barriers to LID becoming more accepted by pro-
fessionals in risk adverse fields, such as engineering, utility operation
and management, and public planning. Some sources of risk (real or
perceived) are a lack of familiarity with new practices, a lack of experi-
enced contractors, uncertainty about maintenance and who is responsi-
ble for maintenance, and liability issues (Binstock, 2011; Line et al.,
2012; Roy et al., 2008; van Roon, 2007). Roy et al. (2008) also found
problems with the distribution of responsibility and authority over
water management within many watersheds. It can also be difficult to
quantify some of the value additions offered by LID (Stovin et al.,
2012). To progress towards resolving these issues there should be a
commonly agreed upon method or framework for examining the poten-
tial environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits of water sys-
tem alternatives over multiple time frames (Mitchell, 2006).
Lloyd et al. (2002) surveyed stormwater professionals as to what
barriers to WSUD (LID) ranked ‘high’ or ‘very high’ in terms of impor-
tance. The response showed a lack of an effective regulatory and operat-
ing environment (76% ranked high or very high importance) as the
most important, followed by limited quantitative data on long-term
performance and best practices (75%), insufficient information on oper-
ation and maintenance and structural best practices (70%), institutional
fragmentation of responsibilities (67%), lacking culture and technical
skills within local governments and water corporations (52%), lack of
ability to factor externality costs into life cycle cost analysis (52%), lack
427
of information of market acceptance of residential properties with
WSUD (52%), and poor construction management leading to reduced
effectiveness (39%) (Lloyd et al., 2002, p.25).
Visitacion et al. (2009) found that most managers of stormwater
programs lack the cost and benefit information they need to make ratio-
nal funding decisions. Binstock (2011) suggested that funding from
higher levels of government would be one effective method by which
to reduce the risk for municipalities experimenting with LID. Roy et al.
(2008) noted a lack of strict regulatory mandates regarding LID. In the
U.S., Washington and Maryland have requirements for LID use; howev-
er, regulations regarding LID use should be flexible (Binstock, 2011).
Sometimes engineering standards and guidelines can prevent the adop-
tion of LID (Roy et al., 2008). For example, in some locations roads might
be required to have continuous curbs, stormwater detention basins
might be required, and any ponding might be discouraged. Many com-
munities have development rules that can make it difficult to imple-
ment innovative practices that could reduce impervious area. A mix of
subdivision codes, zoning regulations, parking and street standards
and other local ordinances that determine how development happens
(CWP, 1998) are examples of documentation restricting the use of LID.
These documents are responsible for wide streets, expansive parking
lots and large-lot subdivisions that reduce open space and natural fea-
tures (USEPA, 2000). It is often difficult to overcome these obstacles.
Any successful implementation of LID practices will require a multi-
disciplinary approach and successful coordination between different
government agencies (likely at multiple levels of government), commu-
nity groups, and the private sector (Brown, 2005; Roy et al., 2008; Wong
and Eadie, 2000). One example of sharing LID information between pro-
fessionals is the International Stormwater BMP Database http://www.
bmpdatabase.org/. This is an open access Microsoft Access database
that contains details from over 500 BMP studies. A valuable resource re-
garding the adoption of LID strategies is the green infrastructure imple-
mentation guide published by the Water Environment Federation
(Water Environment Federation (WEF)., 2014).
9.4. Monitoring and evaluation shortcomings
Monitoring and evaluation of LID projects is extremely important.
One of the greatest barriers to the adoption of LID stormwater manage-
ment techniques is a lack of data regarding their performance in various
situations (Roy et al., 2008). There is no sufficient long-term data to sup-
port meaningful conclusions regarding the claimed benefits of LID
(Clary et al., 2010; Shuster et al., 2008). Reviewing LID adoption in Aus-
tralia, Mitchell (2006) found that monitoring was normally limited to
what was required for operation as dictated by regulations. Mayer et
al. (2012), who ran a six year study on the ecological impacts of distrib-
uted LID measures, suggested that even six years might be too little time
to observe ecological impacts of such measures. They also highlighted
the importance of quantifying environmental benefits and ecosystem
services. Longer monitoring periods might also be required to observe
potential issues with LID maintenance and degrading performance. Re-
call the study by Bergman et al. (2010) included fifteen years of data.
Systemic performance monitoring was lacking aside from a few re-
search projects and there was generally a lack of long term monitoring
and evaluation of projects, possibly due to limited resources (Mitchell,
2006). More specifically resources on demonstration projects might be
used for gathering data but the same projects might lack proper scientif-
ic oversight, negatively impacting the quality of monitoring and evalua-
tion (Shuster et al., 2008). The short time period associated with most
demonstration projects might not allow sufficient time to run meaning-
ful before and after statistical comparisons (Shuster et al., 2008). Since
the goal of LID is often to reproduce predevelopment hydrological con-
ditions, before and after studies might be appropriate to gauge perfor-
mance (Clary et al., 2010). Traditionally, reference or parallel
watershed studies have been more common. Visitacion et al. (2009)
agreed that monitoring and evaluation of stormwater projects was
428 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
lacking such that it is difficult to accurately determine costs, benefits,
and risks. On the modelling side, sewershed level performance data on
LID measures would be helpful to calibrate the performance of LID mea-
sures included in models.
Location dependence, discussed in Section 3.1, means that it is im-
portant to understand unique physiographic characteristics and operat-
ing conditions as part of the monitoring process (Shuster et al., 2008).
One major challenge in monitoring and evaluation measures is that in
large urban areas it can be extremely difficult to detect the impacts of
LID measures in the receiving waters (Walsh and Fletcher, 2006). It
might even be difficult to model LID performance at larger scales, such
as large sites, regions or watersheds (as opposed to individual LID solu-
tions) (Clary et al., 2010; Wise et al., 2010). To aid in the need for cost
effective approaches for long-term monitoring and performance evalu-
ation of LID systems Hakimdavar et al. (2016) demonstrated that their
Soil Water Apportioning Method (SWAM) can provide a low-cost,
long-term monitoring systems for green roofs. For more on the SWAM
approach refer to Hakimdavar et al. (2016).
There is a need for further research on the location and spacing of
stormwater solutions (Gilroy and McCuen, 2009). It is also important
for additional research to be conducted into the quantity of stormwater
controls, especially to determine if there are diminishing returns (Gilroy
and McCuen, 2009). Similarly, Brown et al. (2012) proposed that it is
important to find out how big LID projects should be, relative to their
drainage area, in order to effectively reduce runoff. Goonrey et al.
(2009) suggest that as more information on LID is obtained it should
be incorporated into decision making frameworks, and the authors of
the paper went as far as to develop a decision making framework of
their own.
10. Future research
Future advancement of low impact developments will continue to
encourage the implementation of this concept as an urban stormwater
management technique and as a climate change adaptation strategy.
The literature is consistent in identifying that future research is needed
into spatial and temporal scales and climatic conditions and how LIDs
perform under these different conditions. There is a lack of numerical
data on the performance of stormwater technologies in restoring
water balance and removing emerging and difficult to measure contam-
inants. Long term monitoring studies will help assess the performance
of these technologies (Ahiablame et al., 2012; Dietz, 2007; Fletcher et
al., 2013) as well as contribute to the elimination of current limitations
on low impact developments. There is also a need for further research
into improving modelling techniques for evaluating the performance
of LID practices and the need for easy-to-use decision support tools in-
corporating LID practices. Future studies should also consider scaling
of LID performance from lot scales to watershed and regional scales
(Ahiablame et al., 2012). It is necessary that there be further collection
of important practical field data that contribute to finding the most ef-
fective strategic solution to overcome barriers for widespread promo-
tion and adoption of LID practices (Shafique and Kim, 2015). Low
impact development practices have developed extensively in the last
two decades but continued research and development is still needed
for the widespread implementation of these systems around the world.
11. Conclusions
There are several drivers for finding new approaches to stormwater
management, among them climate change, urbanization, and changing
regulatory environments. Low impact development has emerged as a
popular approach to meet these challenges. Many major cities, around
the world have been incorporating LID measures into their stormwater
management plans and regulatory bodies, such as the EPA in the U.S.,
are encouraging the use of green infrastructure. New approaches to
stormwater management have also become a popular research topic.
The balance of the research reviewed suggests that the stormwater
management benefits attributed to LID, in short reducing runoff, peak
flows and improving water quality, are real qualities; however, LID
alone fails to return watersheds to pre-development conditions in
most cases. The extent of the benefits depends of many factors including
many location dependent properties. This means that information on
the performance of LID stormwater controls under specific environ-
mental conditions is required. LID stormwater controls seem to be
more effective at controlling the hydrological impacts of shorter return
period events. For larger events, LID strategies have performed best
when combined with traditional stormwater best management prac-
tices such as detention ponds. Many low impact development philoso-
phies, such as understanding local hydrological patterns and
incorporating them into stormwater management planning, are synon-
ymous with careful and effective hydrological planning. Overall, LID
practices seem to best serve as a tool to be used in coordination with
more traditional stormwater management practices.
Further research as well as the improvement of design tools will only
make LID a more accessible tool for stormwater professionals. Remain-
ing areas of uncertainty include the ability of LID stormwater controls to
impact hydrology and water quality at a watershed scale and the long-
term performance of LID controls (especially pertaining to water quality
benefits). Continuing to develop performance data for specific environ-
ments and design tools is important to help stormwater managers uti-
lize low impact development.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the Discovery Grant to the senior au-
thor and Ontario Graduate Scholarships to the first two authors. The first
two authors were also supported by the University of Windsor through
entrance scholarships.
References
AAstebøl, S.O., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Simonsen, Ø., 2004. Sustainable stormwater manage-
ment at Fornebu—from an airport to an industrial and residential area of the City of
Oslo, Norway. Sci. Total Environ. 334, 239–249.
Ahiablame, L.M., Engel, B.A., Chaubey, I., 2012. Effectiveness of low impact development
practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water Air Soil Pollut.
223 (7):4253–4273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-012-1189-2.
Ahiablame, L.M., Engel, B.A., Chaubey, I., 2013. Effectiveness of low impact development
practices in two urbanized watersheds: retrofitting with rain Barrel/cistern and po-
rous pavement. J. Environ. Manag. 119:151–161 (April). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.019.
Ahmed, K., Chung, E.-S., Song, J.-Y., Shahid, S., 2017. Ices in two urbanized water-
sheds: retrofitting with rain barrel/cistern and porous pavement. ial Area of
the City of Oslo, Norwaase of Malaysia. Water 9 (3):173. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/w9030173.
Akhter, M., Hewa, G., Shahid, S., 2016. Effective design and planning specification of low
impact development practices using water management analysis module
(WMAM): case of Malaysia. Water 8 (11):511. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w8110511.
Ashley, R.M., Digman, C., Stovin, V.R., Balmforth, D., Glerum, J., Shaffer, P., 2011a.
Retrofitting surface water management measures: delivering multiple value. In
12th Int. Conf on Urban Drainage http://web.sbe.hw.ac.uk/staffprofiles/bdgsa/
temp/12th%20ICUD/PDF/PAP005188.pdf.
Ashley, R.M., Nowell, R., Gersonius, B., Walker, L., 2011b. “A Review of Current Knowl-
edge: Surface Water Management and Urban Green Infrastructure.” FR/R0014. Foun-
dation for Water Research http://www.fwr.org/greeninf.pdf.
Baek, S., Choi, D., Jung, J., Lee, H.J., Lee, H., Yoon, K., Cho, K.H., 2015. Optimizing low impact
development (LID) for stormwater runoff treatment in urban area, Korea: experi-
mental and modeling approach. Water Res. 86 (December):122–131. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.08.038.
Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., Au, A., Currie, B., Michael, V., 2005. Report on the
environmental benefits and costs of green roof technology for the City of Toronto.
Ryerson University http://www.toronto.ca/greenroofs/pdf/fullreport103105.pdf.
Barkdoll, B.D., Kantor, C.M., Wesseldyke, E.S., Ghimire, S.R., 2016. Stormwater low-impact
development: a call to arms for hydraulic engineers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 142 (8):2516002
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001152).
Bean, E.Z., Hunt, W.F., Bidelspach, D.A., 2007. Field survey of permeable pavement surface
infiltration rates. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 133 (3):249–255 (doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9437(2007)133:3(249) C).
Bergman, M., Hedegaard, M.R., Peterson, M.F., Binning, P., Ole, M., Mikkelsen, P.S., 2010.
Evaluation of two stormwater infiltration trenches in central copenhagen after
15 years of operation. Novatech 2010. IWA Publishing, Lyon, France.
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Binstock, M., 2011. Greening stormwater management in Ontario: an analysis of chal-
lenges and opportunities. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.
Bloom, M.F., 2006. Greening stormwater management in Ontario: an analysis of chal-
lenges and opearation. Water Wastewater Int. 21 (4).
Booth, D.B., Jackson, C.R., 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds,
stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Wiley Online Library. http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1997.tb04126.x/abstract.
Borenstein, S., 2013. Experts: CO2 record illustrates “scary” trend. News Daily Retrieved
from http://www.newsdaily.com/article/06b04c0b26ff402cffacd3d8053776f1/
experts-co2-record-illustrates-scary-trend.
Bosley, E.K., 2008. Hydrologic evaluation of low impact development using a continuous,
spatially-distributed model. Master of Science in Civil Engineering. Virginia Polytech-
nic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Brander, K.E., Owen, K.E., Potter, K.W., 2004. Modeled impacts of development type on
runoff volume and infiltration performance. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 40 (4),
961–969.
Brattebo, B.O., Booth, D.B., 2003. Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance
of permeable pavement systems. Water Res. 37 (18):4369–4376. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00410-X.
Brown, H.L., Bos, D.G., Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., Ross-Rakesh, S., 2016. More than money:
how multiple factors influence householder participation in at-source stormwater
management. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 59 (1):79–97 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09640568.2014.984017.
Brown, R.A., Line, D.E., Hunt, W.F., 2012. LID treatment train: pervious concrete with sub-
surface storage in series with bioretention and care with seasonal high water tables.
J. Environ. Eng. 138 (6):689–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.
0000506.
Brown, R.R., 2005. Impediments to integrated urban stormwater management: the need
for institutional reform. Environ. Manag. 36 (3), 455–468.
Burns, M., Fletcher, T.D., Hatt, B.E., Ladson, A., Walsh, C.J., 2012. Hydrologic shortcomings
of conventional urban stormwater management and opportunities for reform.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 230–240.
Cano, O.M., Barkdoll, B.D., 2017. Multiobjective, socioeconomic, boundary-emanating,
nearest distance algorithm for stormwater low-impact BMP selection and placement.
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 143 (1):5016013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.
1943-5452.0000726.
Carbone, M., Mancuso, A., Piro, P., 2014. Porous pavement quality modelling. Proc. Eng.
89:758–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.504.
Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), 2010. The Value of Green Infrastructure: A
Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. http://www.
cnt.org/repository/gi-values-guide.pdf.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), 1998. Better Site Design: A Handbook for Chang-
ing Development Rules in Your Community. http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/Better-Site-Design-Handbook.pdf.
Charlesworth, S.M., 2010. A Review of the adaptation and mitigation of global climate
change using sustainable drainage in cities. J. Water Clim. Change 1 (3):165. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2010.035.
Charlesworth, S., Warwick, F., Lashford, C., 2016. Decision-making and sustainable
drainage: design and scale. Sustainability 8 (782). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
su8080782.
Chief Building Official and Exectuve Director, Toronto Building, Chief Planner and
Executive Director, 2009. City Planning. Staff Report. By-law to Require and Govern
the Construction of Green Roofs in Toronto March 27. http://www.toronto.ca/
legdocs/mmis/2009/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-20562.pdf.
Chen, C.F., Lin, J.Y., 2015. Application of the SUSTAIN model to a watershed-scale case for
water quality management. International Low Impact Development Conference
2015: LID: It Works in All Climates and Soils. ASCE:pp. 11–20 Retrieved from
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1061/9780784479025#page=20.
Chen, Y., Samuelson, H.W., Tong, Z., 2016. Integrated design workflow and a new tool for
urban rainwater management. J. Environ. Manag. 180:45–51 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.059.
Cheng, M.S., Zhen, J.X., Shoemaker, L., 2009. BMP decision support system for evaluating
stormwater management alternatives. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. China 3 (4):
453–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11783-009-0153-x.
Chui, T.F.M., Liu, X., Zhan, W., 2016. Assessing cost-effectiveness of specific LID practice
designs in response to large storm events. J. Hydrol. 533:353–364 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.011.
CHI Water, 2011. PCSWMM 2011: Spatial Decision Support for Urban Drainage and Wa-
tershed Modeling. http://www.chiwater.com/Files/PCSWMMBrochure.pdf.
City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, and Entrix Inc, 2010. Portland's Green
Infrastructure: Quantifying the Health, Energy, and Community LIvability Benefits
(City of Portland).
Clary, J., Quigley, M., Poresky, A., Earles, A., Strecker, E., Leisenring, M., Jones, J., 2010. Inte-
gration of low-impact development into the international stormwater BMP database.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 137 (3), 190–198.
Claytor, R.A., Schueler, T.R., 1996. Design of stormwater filtering systems. Chesapeake Re-
search Consortium.
Cobbina, A.S., 2007. The Impact of Climate Change on Toronto Precipitation Patterns and
Stormwater Infrastructure.
Coffman, L.S., 1997. Low-Impact Development Design: A new Paradigm for Stormwater
Management Mimicking and Restoring the Natural Hydrologic Regime; an Alterna-
tive Stormwater Management Technology. Prince George's County Department of
Environmental Resources, Maryland County, USA.
Coffman, L.S., 2000. Low-Impact Development Design: A New Paradigm For Stormwater
Management Mimicking and Restoring The Natural Hydrologic Regime; An Alterna-
tive Stormwater Management Technology. Prince George's County Department of
429
Environmental Resources and US EPA, Maryland County, USA (Report EPA 841-B-
00-003).
Cote, S.A., Wolfe, S.E., 2014. Assessing the social and economic barriers to permeable sur-
face utilization for residential driveways in Kitchener, Canada. Environ. Pract. 16 (1):
6–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1466046613000641.
Credit Valley Conservation (CVC), and Toronto and Region Conservation (TRC), 2010. Low
Impact Development stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide. Vol. 1.0
http://www.creditvalleyca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/LID-SWM-Guide-v1.0_
2010_1_no-appendices.pdf.
Damodaram, C., Giacomoni, M.H., Prakash Khedun, C., Holmes, H., Ryan, A., Saour, W.,
Zechman, E.M., 2010. Simulation of combined best management practices and low
impact development for sustainable stormwater management1. J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc. 46 (5), 907–918.
Damodaram, C., Zechman, E.M., 2013. Simulation-optimization approach to design low
impact development for managing peak flow alterations in urbanizing watersheds.
J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 139 (3):290–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000251.
Davis, A.P., 2005. Green engineering principles promote low-impact development. Envi-
ron. Sci. Technol. 39 (16):338A–344A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es053327e.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T., 2000. A fast and elitis multi-objective Genet-
ic algorithm: NSGA-II. KanGAL Report 200001. Indian Institute of Technology, Kan-
pur, India.
Debusk, K.M., Hunt, W.F., 2011. Bioretention outflow: does it mimic rural water inter-
flow? Presented at the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Palm
Springs, California, United States:pp. 375–386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
41173(414)41
Denault, C., Millar, R.G., Lence, B.J., 2006. Assessment of posible impacts of climate change
in an urban catchment. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (3), 685–697.
De Toffol, S., Laghari, A.N., Rauch, W., 2009. Are extreme rainfall intensities more fre-
quent? Analysis of trends in rainfall patterns relevant to urban drainage systems.
Water Sci. Technol. 59 (9):1769 http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.182.
DHI, 2014. Mike urban. Product Information. MIKE by DHI http://www.mikebydhi.com/
products/mike-urban.
Dietz, M.E., 2007. Low impact development practices: a review of current research and
recommendations for future directions. Water Air Soil Pollut. 186 (1–4):351–363.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z.
Dietz, M.E., Clausen, J.C., 2008. Stormwater runoff and export changes with develop-
ment in a traditional and low impact subdivision. J. Environ. Manag. 87 (4),
560–566.
Drake, J., Bradford, A., Van Seters, T., 2013. Hydrologic performance of three partial-infil-
tration permeable pavements in a cold climate over low permeability soil. J. Hydrol.
Eng. 19 (9), 4014016.
Duan, H.F., Li, F., Yan, H., 2016. Multi-objective optimal design of detention tanks in the
urban stormwater drainage system: LID implementation and analysis. Water Resour.
Manag. 30 (13):4635–4648 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1444-1.
Eckart, K., 2015. L {"custom":[]} CSL_BIzation of Low Impact Development Stormwater
Controls Under Climate Change Conditions. University of Windsor, Windsor, ON,
Canada.
Eckart, K., McPhee, Z., Bolisetti, T., 2017. Multiobjective Optimization of LID Controls (Re-
view for publication submission).
Elliott, A.H., Trowsdale, S.A., 2007. A review of models for low impact urban stormwater
drainage. Environmental Modelling & Software, Special section: Advanced Technolo-
gy for Environmental Modelling. 22 (3):pp. 394–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2005.12.005.
Ellis, B.J., Viavattene, C., 2014. Sustainable urban drainage system modeling for man-
aging urban surface water flood risk: SUDS modeling for urban runoff manage-
ment. Clean: Soil, Air, Water 42 (2):153–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clen.
201300225.
Engel, B., Storm, D., White, M., Arnold, J., Arabi, M., 2007. A hydrologic/water quality
model applicati1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43 (5):1223–1236. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00105.x.
eWater, 2014. Music overview. Product Information www.ewater.com.au http://www.
ewater.com.au/products/music/music-overview/.
Ewing, S.A., Grayson, R.B., 2000. Science, citizens, and catchments: decision support for
catchment planning in Australia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 13 (5):443–459. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/089419200403857.
Fach, S., Engelhard, C., Wittke, N., Rauch, W., 2011. Performance of infiltration swales
with regard to operation in winter times in an alpine region. Water Sci. Technol.
63 (11).
Fassman, E.A., Blackbourn, S., 2010. Urban runoff mitigation by a permeable pavement
system over impermeable soils. J. Hydrol. Eng. 15 (6):475–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000238.
Fletcher, T.D., Andrieu, H., Hamel, P., 2013. Understanding, management and modelling of
urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: a state of the art. Adv.
Water Resour. 51 (January):261–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.
09.001.
Fletcher, T.D., Mitchell, G., Deletic, A., Ladson, A., Séven, A., 2007. Is stormwater harvesting
beneficial to urban waterway environmental flows? Water Sci. Technol. 55 (2),
65–72.
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., 2014. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and More – the
evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water
J.:1–18 July. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314.
Frame, B., Vale, R., 2006. Increasing uptake of low impact urban design and development:
the role of sustainability assessment systems. Local Environ. 11 (3), 287–306.
430 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Franczyk, J., Chang, H., 2009. The effects of climate change and urbanization on the runoff
of the Rock Creek basin in the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon, USA. Hydrol. Pro-
cess. 23 (6):805–815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7176.
Freni, G., Mannina, G., Viviani, G., 2010. Urban storm-water quality management: central-
ized versus source control. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 136 (2), 268–278.
Gallo, C., Moore, A., Wywrot, J., 2012. Comparing the adaptability of infiltration based
BMPs to various U.S. regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 106 (4):326–335. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.004.
General Manager, Toronto Water, 2007. Implementing a Mandatory Downspout Discon-
nection Program. October 17. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/pw/bgrd/
backgroundfile-7842.pdf.
Giacomoni, M.H., Zechman, E.M., Brumbelow, K., 2012. Hydrologic footprint residence:
environmentally friendly criteria for best management practices. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17
(1):99–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000407.
Gilroy, K.L., McCuen, R.H., 2009. Spatio-temporal effects of low impact development prac-
tices. J. Hydrol. 367 (3), 228–236.
Goonrey, C.M., Perera, B.J.C., Lechte, P., Maheepala, S., Mitchell, V.G., 2009. A technical de-
cision-making framework: Stormwater as an alternative supply source. Urban Water
J. 6 (6), 417–429.
Green, C., 2010. Towards sustainable flood risk management. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 1 (1),
33–43.
Guo, J.C.Y., Urbonas, B., MacKenzie, K., 2014. Water quality capture volume for storm
water BMP and LID designs. J. Hydrol. Eng. 19 (4):682–686. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000847.
Hakimdavar, R., Culligan, P.J., Guido, A., McGillis, W.R., 2016. The soil water apportioning
method (SWAM): an approach for long-term, low-cost monitoring of green roof hy-
drologic performance. Ecol. Eng. 93:207–220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.
2016.05.023.
Hamel, P., Daly, E., Fletcher, T.D., 2013. Source-control stormwater management for mit-
igating the impacts of urbanisation on baseflow: a review. J. Hydrol. 485:201–211
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.01.001.
Hathaway, J.M., Hunt, W.F., Jadlocki, S., 2009. Indicator bacteria removal in storm-water
best management practices in Charlotte, North Carolina. J. Environ. Eng. 135 (12),
1275–1285.
Houdeshel, C.D., Pomeroy, C.A., Hair, L., Moeller, J., 2011. Cost-estimating tools for low-im-
pact development best management practices: challenges, limitations, and implica-
tions. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 137 (3):183–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.
1943-4774.0000179.
Hunt, W.F., Smith, J.T., Jadlocki, S.J., Hathaway, J.M., Eubanks, P.R., 2008. Pollutant removal
and peak flow mititgation by a bioretention cell in urban Charlotte, N.C. J. Environ.
Eng. 134 (5):403–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:
5(403).
Huntington, T.G., 2006. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: review and
synthesis. J. Hydrol. 319 (1–4):83–95 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.
003.
Imteaz, M.A., Ahsan, A., Rahman, A., Mekanik, F., 2013. Modelling Stormwater treatment
systems using MUSIC: accuracy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 71 (February):15–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.11.007.
Innoyze, 2015. Sustainable Urban Stormwater Best Managment Practices with
InfoSWMM Sustain. http://www.innovyze.com/news/showcases/InfoSWMM_
Sustain_InfoSWMM_2D_and_SWMMLive.pdf.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report (Cli-
mate Change 2007: Synthesis Report No. Contributions of Working Groups I, II, and
II). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, U.S.A.; Ge-
neva, Switzerland.
Jackisch, N., Weiler, M., 2015. The hydrologic outcome of a low impact development (LID)
site including superposition with streamflow peaks. Urban Water J.:1–17 http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1080735.
Jacobson, C.R., 2011. Identification and quantification of the hydrological impacts of im-
perviousness in urban catchments: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (6):1438–1448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.018.
Jennings, A.A., Adeel, A.A., Hopkins, A., Litofsky, A.L., Wellstead, S.W., 2012. Rain barrel-
urban Garden Stormwater Management Performance. Http://Dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000663, October. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/
(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000663.
Jia, H., Lu, Y., Yu, S.L., Chen, Y., 2012. Planning of LID–BMPs for urban runoff control: the
case of Beijing Olympic Village. Sep. Purif. Technol. 84 (January):112–119. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2011.04.026.
Jia, H., Yao, H., Tang, Y., Yu, S.L., Zhen, J.X., Lu, Y., 2013. Development of a multi-criteria
index ranking system for urban runoff best management practices (BMPs) selection.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 185 (9):7915–7933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-
3144-0.
Jia, H., Wang, X., Ti, C., Zhai, Y., Field, R., Tafuri, A.N., Cai, H., Yu, S.L., 2015. Field monitoring
of a LID-BMP treatment train system in China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187 (6). http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4595-2.
Johnson, R.D., Sample, D.J., 2017. A semi-distributed model for locating stormwater best
management practices in coastal environments. Environ. Model. Softw. 91 (May):
70–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.015.
Joyce, J., Chang, N.B., Harji, R., Ruppert, T., Imen, S., 2017. Developing a multi-scale model-
ing system for resilience assessment of green-grey drainage infrastructures under cli-
mate change and sea level rise impact. Environ. Model. Softw. 90 (April):1–26. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.11.026.
Jung, Y., Han, S., Jo, D., 2016. Optimal design of permeable pavement using harmony
search algorithm with SWMM. In: Kim, J.H., Geem, Z.W. (Eds.), Harmony Search Algo-
rithm. Vol. 382. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg:pp. 385–394 Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-47926-1_37.
Kaini, P., Artita, K.S., Nicklow, J.W., 2008. Designing BMPs at a watershed scale using
SWAT and a genetic algorithm. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40976(316)125.
Karamouz, M., Nazif, S., 2013. Reliability-based flood management in urban watersheds
considering climate change impacts. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 139 (5):
520–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000345.
Katzenmoyer, C., Marengo, B.G., Potts, A., Finneran, C., 2013. Going green to save green.
Water Environment & Technology April.
Khin, M.M.L., Shaker, A., Joksimovic, D., Yan, W.Y., 2016. The use of WorldView-2 satellite
imagery to model urban drainage system with low impact development (LID) tech-
niques. Geocarto Int. 31 (1):92–108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2015.
1041561.
Kirby, J.T., Durrans, S.R., Pitt, R., Johnson, P.D., 2005. Hydraulic resistance in grass swales
designed for small flow conveyance. J. Hydraul. Eng. 131 (1):65–68. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:1(65).
Konrad, C.P., Booth, D.B., 2005. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological
significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium. Vol. 47 :pp. 157–177 Retrieved
from. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/urban/pdf/157-178_Konrad.pdf.
Lai, F., Dai, T., Zhen, J., Riverson, J., Alvi, K., Shoemaker, L., 2007. SUSTAIN-an EPA BMP pro-
cess and placement tool for urban watersheds. Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2007 (5),
946–968.
Lee, J.G., Selvakumar, A., Alvi, K., Riverson, J., Zhen, J.X., Shoemaker, L., Lai, F., 2012. A wa-
tershed-scale design optimization model for stormwater best management practices.
Environ. Model. Softw. 37 (November):6–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.
2012.04.011.
Lenhart, H.A., Hunt III, W.F., 2011. Evaluating four storm-water peformance metrics with a
north carolina pain storm-water wetland. J. Environ. Eng.:155–162 February. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000307.
Limbrunner, J.F., Vogel, R.M., Chapra, S.C., Kirshen, P.H., 2013. Classic optimization tech-
niques applied to Stormwater and nonpoint source pollution management at the wa-
tershed scale. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 139 (5):486–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000361.
Line, D.E., Brown, R.A., Hunt, W.F., Lord, W.G., 2012. Effectiveness of LID for commercial
development in North Carolina. J. Environ. Eng. 138 (6):680–688. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000515.
Liu, Y., Ahiablame, L., Bralts, V., Engel, B., 2015. Enhancing a rainfall-runoff model to assess
the impacts of BMPs and LID practices on storm runoff. J. Environ. Manage. 147,
12–23.
Liu, Y., Theller, L.O., Pijanowski, B.C., Engel, B.A., 2016. Optimal selection and placement of
green infrastructure to reduce impacts of land use change and climate change on hy-
drology and water quality: an application to the trail creek watershed, Indiana. Sci.
Total Environ. 553 (May):149–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.
116.
Lloyd, S.D., Wong, T.H.F., Chesterfield, C.J., 2002. Water Sensitive Urban Design: A
Stormwater Management Perspective. http://www.catchment.crc.org.au/pdfs/
industry200210.pdf.
Maharjan, M., Pathirana, A., Gersonius, B., Vairavamoorthy, K., 2009. Staged cost optimiza-
tion of urban storm drainage systems based on hydraulic performance in a changing
environment. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13 (4), 481–489.
Maniquiz-Redillas, M.C., Kim, L.-H., 2016. Evaluation of the capability of low-impact de-
velopment practices for the removal of heavy metal from urban stormwater runoff.
Environ. Technol. 37 (18):2265–2272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2016.
1147610.
Martin-Mikle, C.J., de 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 (August):29–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.002.
Mayer, A.L., Shuster, W.D., Beaulieu, J.J., Hopton, M.E., Rhea, L.K., Roy, A.H., Thurston,
H.W., 2012. Building green infrastructure via citizen participation: a six-year
study in the Shepherd Creek (Ohio). Environ. Pract. 14 (1):57–67 doi: 10.
10170S1466046611000494.
McGarity, A.E., 2010. Watershed-based optimal stormwater management: part 1—appli-
cation of StormWISE to little Crum Creek in suburban Philadelphia. World Environ-
mental and Water Resources Congress. 2010, pp. 2502–2512.
McGarity, A.E., 2011. Storm-water investment strategy evaluation model for impaired
urban watersheds. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 138 (2), 111–124.
Mitchell, V.G., 2006. Applying integrated urban water management concepts: a review of
Australian experience. Environ. Manag. 37 (5), 589–605.
Montalto, F.A., Bartrand, T.A., Waldman, A.M., Travaline, K.A., Loomis, C.H., McAfee, C.,
Geldi, J.M., Riggall, G.J., Boles, L.M., 2013. Decentralised green infrastructure: the im-
portance of stakeholder behaviour in determining spatial and temporal outcomes.
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 9 (12):1187–1205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.
2012.671834.
Moore, T.L., 2011. Assessment of Ecosystem Service Provision by Stormwater Control
Measures. Ph.D. North Carolina State University, United States – North Carolina
http://search.proquest.com/pqdtft/docview/921851506/abstract/
13CF93AC5A0639396E0/14?accountid=14789.
Morley, S.A., Karr, J.R., 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the
puget sound basin. Conserv. Biol. 16 (6), 1498–1509.
Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., Agricultural Research Service, Texas
AgriLife Research, 2011. Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation
version 2009. Technical Report 406. Texas Water Resources Institute. Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, Texas http://twri.tamu.edu/reports/2011/tr406.pdf.
Obropta, C.C., Kardos, J.S., 2007. Review of urban stormwater quality models: determinis-
tic, stochastic, and hybrid approaches1: review of urban stormwater quality models:
deterministic, stochastic, and hybrid approaches. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 43 (6):
1508–1523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00124.x.
 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Palanisamy, B., Chui, T.F.M., 2015. Rehabilitation of concrete canals in urban catchments
using low impact development techniques. J. Hydrol. 523 (April):309–319. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.034.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., 2015. Hydrologic modeling of low impact development systems at the
urban catchment scale. J. Hydrol. 528 (September):361–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.050.
Park, Y.S., Lim, K.J., Theller, L., Engel, B.A., 2013. L-THIA GIS Manual. Department of Agri-
cultural and Biological Engineering: Purdue University.
Passeport, E., Vidon, P., Forshay, K.J., Harris, L., Kaushal, S.S., Kellogg, D.Q., Lazar, J.,
Mayer, P., Stander, E.K., 2013. Ecological engineering practices for the reduction
of excess nitrogen in human-influenced landscapes: a guide for watershed man-
agers. Environ. Manag. 51 (2):392–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-
9970-y.
Paule-Mercado, M.A., Lee, B.Y., Memon, S.A., Umer, S.R., Salim, I., Lee, C.-H., 2017. Influence
of land development on stormwater runoff from a mixed land use and land cover
catchment. Sci. Total Environ. 599–600 (December):2142–2155. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.081.
Pitt, R., Clark, S., Field, R., 1999. Groundwater contamination potential from stormwater
infiltration practices. Urban Water J.:217–236 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-
0758(99)00014-X.
Prince George's County, 1999. Low-impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated
Design Approach. MD Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George's
County.
Pyke, C., Warren, M.P., Johnson, T., LaGro, J., Scharfenberg, J., Groth, P., Freed, R.,
Schroeer, W., Main, E., 2011. Assessment of low impact development for manag-
ing stormwater with changing precipitation due to climate change. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 103 (2):166–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.
006.
Qin, H., Li, Z., Fu, G., 2013. The effects of low impact development on urban flooding under
different rainfall characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 129 (November):577–585 doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.026.
Reichold, L., Zechman, E.M., Brill, E.D., Holmes, H., 2009. Simulation-optimization frame-
work to support sustainable watershed development by mimicking the predevelop-
ment flow regime. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 136 (3), 366–375.
Rosa, D.J., Clausen, J.C., Dietz, M.E., 2015. Calibration and verification of SWMM for low
impact development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51 (3):746–757. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/jawr.12272.
Rossman, L.A., 2010. Storm Water Management Model User's Manual, Version 5.0. Na-
tional Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
US Environmental Protection Agency ftp://152.66.121.2/Oktatas/Epito2000/
KozmuhalozatokTervezese-SP2/swmm/epaswmm5_manual.Pdf.
Rowe, D.B., 2011. Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environ. Pollut. 159 (8–
9):2100–2110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.029.
Roy, A.H., Wenger, S.J., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., Ladson, A.R., Shuster, W.D., Thurston,
H.W., Brown, R.R., 2008. Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale
urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States. Envi-
ron. Manag. 42 (2), 344–359.
Sample, D.J., Heaney, J.P., Wright, L.T., Fan, C.-Y., Lai, F.-H., Field, R., 2003. Costs of best
management practices and associated land for urban stormwater control. J. Water
Resour. Plan. Manag. 129 (1), 59–68.
Scharffenberg, W.A., 2013. HEC-HMS User's Manual 4.0. Vol. CPD-74A. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC.
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., Gustafsson, L.-G., 2008. The impacts of
climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: combined
sewer system. J. Hydrol. 350 (1–2):100–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2007.05.028.
Seo, M., Jaber, F., Srinivasan, R., Jeong, J., 2017. Evaluating the impact of low impact
development (LID) practices on water quantity and quality under different de-
velopment designs using SWAT. Water 9 (193). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
w9030193.
Shafique, M., Kim, R., 2015. Low impact development practices: a review of current re-
search and recommendations for future directions. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S 22 (4).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/eces-2015-0032.
Sharma, A.K., Gray, S., Diaper, C., Liston, P., Howe, C., 2008. Assessing integrated water
management options for urban developments–Canberra case study. Urban Water J.
5 (2), 147–159.
Shuster, W.D., Morrison, M.A., Thurston, H.W., 2010. Impacts Saisonniers et Situationnels
D'un Programme de Gestion Décentralisée Des Eaux Pluviales Sur La Réduction Du
Volume Des Ruissellements (Cincinatti, Ohio, USA). 2010. NOVATECH. http://
documents.irevues.inist.fr/handle/2042/35775.
Shuster, W.D., Morrison, M.A., Webb, R., 2008. Front-loading urban stormwater manage-
ment for success–a perspective incorporating current studies on the implementation
of retrofit low-impact development. CATE 1 (2), 8.
Shuster, W.D., Rhea, L., 2013. Catchment-scale hydrologic implications of parcel-level
stormwater management (Ohio USA). J. Hydrol. 485 (April):177–187. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.10.043.
Smullen, J.T., Myers, R.D., Reynolds, S.K., 2008. A green approach to combined sewer over-
flow control: source control implementation on a watershed scale. Proc. Water Envi-
ron. Fed. 2008 (6), 714–725.
Stovin, V.R., Moore, S.L., Wall, M., Ashley, R.M., 2012. The potential to retrofit sustainable
drainage systems to address combined sewer overflow discharges in the Thames
tideway catchment. Water Environ. J. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.
1747-6593.2012.00353.x/full
Swan, A.D., Stovin, V.R., 2007. Retrofit SuDS—cost estimates and decision-support tools.
Proc. ICE - Water Manage. 160 (4):207–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/wama.2007.
160.4.207.
431
Toronto and Region Conservation, 2006. Performance evaluation of permeable pavement
and a bioretention swale. Seneca College, King City, Ontario. Toronto and Region Con-
servation Authority, Interim Report #2.
Trinh, D.H., Chui, T.F.M., 2013. Assessing the hydrologic restoration of an urbanized area
via integrated distributed hydrological model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 10
(4):4099–4132. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hessd-10-4099-2013.
Trinkaus, S.D., 2012. LID demonstration project for Seaside Village in Bridgeport, Connect-
icut. Improving Water Quality and the Environment. Bari, Italy, pp. 477–485.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2014. L-THIA LID Tutorials. Purdue University https://
engineering.purdue.edu/mapserve/LTHIA7/lthianew/lidIntro.htm.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1999. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet.
Bioretention. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2000. Low Impact Development (LID) A
Literature Review. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. Reducing stormwater costs through
low impact development (LID) strategies and practices. EPA 841-F-07-006. Branch,
USEPA Nonpoint Source Control.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2010. In: EPA-F-10-004 (Ed.), Green infra-
structure case studies: municipal policies for managing stormwater with green infra-
structure. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2011. Memorandum: Achieving Water
Quality Through Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Plans October 27.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2013. Case studies analyzing the econom-
ic benefits of low impact development and green infrastructure programs. EPA 841-
R-13-004. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC.
van Roon, M.R., 2011. Water sensitive residential developments: application of LIUDD
principles and methods in the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand. Urban
Water J. 8 (6), 325–335.
van Roon, M., 2005. Emerging approaches to urban ecosystem management: the potential
of low impact urban design and development principles. JEAPM 7 (1), 125–148.
van Roon, M., 2007. Water localisation and reclamation: steps towards low impact urban
design and development. J. Environ. Manag. 83 (4), 437–447.
van Roon, M., van Roon, H., 2009. Low impact urban design and development: the big pic-
ture, an introduction to the liudd principles and methods framework. Landcare Re-
search Science Series No. 37. The University of Auckland, Lincoln, New Zealand
http://www.mwpress.co.nz/store/downloads/Science_Rep_LIUDD_optimised.pdf.
van Roon, M., Knight-Lenihan, S., 2004. Ecological Context of Development: New Zealand
Perspectives. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic.; Auckland, N.Z.
Viavattene, C., Ellis, J.B., Revitt, D.M., Sieker, H., Peters, C., 2010. The Application of a GIS-
based BMP Selection Tool for the Evaluation of Hydrologic Performance and Storm
Flow Reduction. Retrieved from http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6502/.
Viavattene, C., Scholes, L., Revitt, D.M., Ellis, J.B., 2008. A GIS based decision support sys-
tem for the implementation of stormwater best management practices. In 11th Inter-
national Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Retrieved from
http://web.sbe.hw.ac.uk/staffprofiles/bdgsa/11th_International_Conference_on_
Urban_Drainage_CD/ICUD08/pdfs/62.pdf.
Visitacion, B.J., Booth, D.B., Steinemann, A.C., 2009. Costs and benefits of storm-water
management: case study of the Puget sound region. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 135 (4),
150–158.
Vogel, J.R., Moore, T.L., Coffman, R.R., Rodie, S.N., Hutchinson, S.L., McDonough, K.R.,
McLemore, A.J., McMaine, J.T., 2015. Critical review of technical questions facing
low impact development and green infrastructure: a perspective from the Great
Plains. Water Environ. Res. 87 (9):849–862 http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/
106143015X14362865226392.
Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., 2006. Water sensitive urban design: can it really protect the en-
vironmental quality of receiving waters. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Sus-
tainable Water in the Urban Environment. Australian Water Association,
Stormwater Industry Association and Urban Development Institute of Australia,
Sippy Downs, Queensland.
Wang, M., Zhang, D., Adhityan, A., Ng, W.J., Dong, J., Tan, S.K., 2016. The urban environ-
ment. Australianate change and urbanization for future scenarios. J. Hydrol. 543 De-
cember: 423A).
Water Environment Federation (WEF)., 2014. Green infrastructure implementation. WEF
Special Publication. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Water Environment Federation (WEF), Environmental and Water Resources
Institute (U.S.), 2012. Design of Urban stormwater controls. WEF Manual of Prac-
tice, No. 23, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Professional; McGraw-Hill [distributor], New
York: London.
Williams, E.S., Wise, W.R., 2006. Hydrologic impacts of alternative approaches to storm
water management and land development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (2),
443–455.
Williams, E.S., Wise, W.R., 2009. Economic impacts of alternative approaches to storm-
water management and land development. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 135 (6),
537–546.
Wilson, C.E., Hunt, W.F., Winston, R.J., Smith, P., 2015. Comparison of runoff quality and
quantity from a commercial low-impact and conventional development in Raleigh,
North Carolina. J. Environ. Eng. 141 (2):5014005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000842.
Wise, S., Braden, J., Ghalayini, D., Grant, J., Kloss, C., MacMullan, E., Morse, S., Montalto, F.,
Nees, D., Nowak, D., 2010. Integrating Valuation Methods to Recognize Green
Infrastructure's Multiple Benefits. Center for Neighborhood Technology April.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41099(367)98.
Wong, T.H.F., Eadie, M.L., 2000. Water sensitive urban design—a paradigm shift in urban
design. Proceedings of the Xth World Water Congress, [in CD-ROM]. 12:16 . http://
gabeira.locaweb.com.br/cidadesustentavel/biblioteca/%7B30788FE6-98A8-44E5-
861E-996D286A78B3%7D_Wong1.pdf.
432 K. Eckart et al. / Science of the Total Environment 607–608 (2017) 413–432
Wong, T.H.F., Fletcher, T.D., Duncan, H.P., Coleman, J.R., Jenkins, G.A., September 8–13,
2002. A model for urban stormwater improvement conceptualisation. In: Strecker,
E.W., Huber, W.C. (Eds.), Global solutions for urban drainage (CD Rom) Proceedings
of the Ninth International Conference on Urban Drainag, held in Portland, Oregon.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Wright, T.J., Liu, Y., Carroll, N.J., Ahiablame, L.M., Engel, B.A., 2016. Retrofitting LID prac-
tices into existing neighborhoods: is it worth it? Environ. Manag. 57 (4):856–867.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0651-5.
Wright Water Engineers Inc, Geosyntec Consultants, 2010. International Stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMP) Database: User's Guide for BMP Data Entry Spread-
sheets. Release Version 3.2. bmpdatabase.org.
Xiao, Q., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Ustin, S.L., 2007. Hydrologic processes at the
urban residential scale. Hydrol. Process. 21 (16), 2174–2188.
Xu, T., Jia, H., Wang, Z., Mao, X., Xu, C., 2017. 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). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-
0934-6.
Yazdi, J., Salehi Neyshabouri, S.A.A., 2014. Identifying low impact development strategies
for flood mitigation using a fuzzy-probabilistic approach. Environ. Model. Softw. 60
(October):31–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.06.004.
Zahmatkesh, Z., Burian, S.J., Karamouz, M., Tavakol-Davani, H., Goharian, E., 2015. Low-
impact development practices to mitigate climate change effects on urban
stormwater runoff: case study of new York City. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 141 (1):
4014043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000770.
Zhang, G., 2009. Development of a Multi-Objective Optimization Framework for
Implementing Low Impact Development Scenarios in an Urbanizing Watershed.
The Pennsylvania State University https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/10187/5619.
Zhang, X., Guo, X., Hu, M., 2016. Hydrological effect of typical low impact development
approaches in a residential district. Nat. Hazards 80 (1):389–400. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11069-015-1974-5.
Zhen, J.X., Yu, S.L., Lin, J.-Y., 2004. Optimal location and sizing of stormwater basins at
waterhsed scale. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 130 (4):339–347. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/~ASCE!0733-9496.
Zhou, Q., 2014. A review of sustainable urban drainage systems considering the climate
change and urbanization impacts. Water 6 (4):976–992. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
w6040976.