Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

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

Research article

Cost-benefit analysis of low-impact development at hectare scale for urban

stormwater source control in response to anticipated climatic change
Zhilin Wang a, Shiqi Zhou a, Mo Wang a, b, *, Dongqing Zhang c, **
a
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, 510006, China
b
School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China
c
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Petrochemcial Pollution Processes and Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guangdong University of
Petrochemical Technology, Maoming, Guangdong, 525000, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Investigation of the cost-effectiveness of low-impact development (LID) practices at the hectare scale in response
Low impact development to impacts of possible climate change was conducted using representative concentration pathways (RCPs). An
Stormwater LID project in Guangzhou has been selected to illustrate changes in the hydrologic performance for alternative
Climate change
source control strategies for a variety of future climate models and scenarios. Frequent storms of shorter duration
Representative concentration pathways
Life cycle
in RCP 8.5 cause more dramatic fluctuation of hydrologic performance. Hydrologic performance of LID practices
Cost-effectiveness on reducing runoff volume and peak flow in test catchment are different in climate scenarios. Based on the
constraints of life cycle costs and environmental impacts of LID alternatives, comprehensive strategies were
found effective in managing surface runoff at the source to adapt to the influence of climate change. The
methodology described herein could be useful in considering LID practices for critical source management with
limited budgets and considering environmental impacts under long-term climate change.

1. Introduction intense storm events associated with extratropical cyclones in Europe

Because of rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
(GHGs), climate change has resulted in clear fluctuation of rainfall
events (Bengtsson et al., 2006; Shaw et al., 2016; Trenberth et al., 2015).
The increasingly frequent urban flooding caused by climate change
show further complex variability due to natural and human impacts,
with especially severe impacts in high-density urban catchments with a
high proportion of impervious surfaces (Pei et al., 2018; Wang et al.,
2018a). Assessment of urban hydrologic changes caused by uncertain
climate is relevant to risk assessment in stormwater management
(Moore et al., 2016; Walsh et al., 2016). Several studies have investi­
gated the potential impacts from climate change on the frequency and
patterns of storms (Wuebbles et al., 2014; Zahmatkesh et al., 2014).
Ishida et al. (2018) investigated increases of the maximum precipitation
in Northern California based on the Special Report on Emissions Sce­
narios (Dufresne et al., 2013) and projects significant increase in in­
tensity of storms by the end of the century. Using future global warning
scenarios, Hawcroft et al. (2018) predicted much higher frequencies of
and North America. In the analysis of the rainfall-runoff processes in a
catchment, one may consider climate change scenarios modelling using
the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) adopted by the IPCC
for its Fifth Assessment Report for the description of future conditions
based on General Circulation Models (GCMs). These scenarios are cor­
responded to GHG emission levels which in turn reflect setting and
achieving that as policy goals (Moss et al., 2010). RCPs are the primary
GHG emissions with radiative forcing values that all result in greater
global warming and sea level rise projections. Raible et al. (2018) found
a clear increase of extreme cyclone-related precipitation based on the
investigation of extratropical cyclones in the European Atlantic for RCP
8.5 in the 21st century. Selvanathan et al. (2018) developed a hydrologic
method to estimate nationwide flooding extent based on the variability
in simulated storms by RCP 2.6 and 8.5. Such projections could provide
forecasted climate data to better evaluate adaptation/mitigation
response to uncertainties arising from climatic change.
Low-impact development (LID) practices, including bioretention
system, permeable pavement and retention pond, have become

* Corresponding author. College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, 510006, China.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Wangzhilin_00@outlook.com (Z. Wang), zhousq@ztsla.com (S. Zhou), landwangmo@outlook.com (M. Wang), dqzhang3377@outlook.com
(D. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110483
Received 28 November 2019; Received in revised form 17 February 2020; Accepted 22 March 2020
Available online 31 March 2020
0301-4797/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 1. The framework of cost-effectiveness analysis based on climate change and scenario modelling. Note: GCMs ¼ General Circulation Models; RCPs ¼ Repre­
sentative Concentration Pathways; EQM method ¼ Equidistance quantile-matching method; IDF curves ¼ intensity-duration-frequency curves; SWMM ¼ Storm
Water Management Model; LCC ¼ Life cycle costs; and LCA ¼ Life cycle assessment.
increasingly attractive solutions to manage surface runoff at the source
by promoting retention, infiltration, and absorption (Baek et al., 2015;
Eckart et al., 2017). Bioretention system with shallow depressions,
permeable pavement with porous materials, and retention pond
providing retention and storage capacity have been implemented to
control runoff volume, peak flow, and pollutant loads in small urban
catchments (Rosa et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2015a,b). Many studies have
assessed the hydrologic performance of LID using laboratory and field
experiments (LeFevre et al., 2014; Wan et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018b)
and hydrologic models such as the Storm Water Management Model
(SWMM) and Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment LID
(L-THIA-LID) (Huang et al., 2018). Liu et al. (2015a, b) used L-THIA-LID
to assess the performance of LID practices in series with long-term of
daily precipitation data in different land use units and catchments. Li
et al. (2017) and Wang et al. (2018c) investigated the hydrologic per­
formance of retention pond and bioretention system, respectively, to
improve the water quality of storm runoff in China. Lucas and Sample
(2015) reported significant improvements in LID function and perfor­
mance by using the outlet controls approach. Several studies have
examined the cost-effectiveness of LID practices (Mao et al., 2017;
Montalto et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2019a, b). For instance, Huang et al.
(2018) performed a systematic optimization for various combinations of
LID elements to mitigate flooding in a megacity using benefit-cost (C/B)
analysis. There are also studies on the environmental impacts of LID
using life cycle assessment (LCA) (Hengen et al., 2016; O’Sullivan et al.,
2015). Brudler et al. (2016) quantified environmental impacts of climate
change adaptation strategies in Copenhagen using LCA of LID practice,
and reported LID practices have significantly lower impacts than con­
ventional practices. Xu et al. (2017) performed an LCA of LID practices
in China, and illustrated that there are the highest environmental im­
pacts for infiltration pit, whereas grass swale and buffer strip had the
lowest effects. It was noted that most studies mentioned above were
developed based on current and historic climate data.
Climate change is a highly uncertain and dynamic process which
leads to hydrologic outcomes with large uncertainties, making long-
term planning and design of LID practices difficult. Some studies have
recently examined how LID practices can be resilient to future climate
change (Sohn et al., 2019). Liu and Chui (2017) considered the hydro­
logic performance of LID practices under two long-term climate sce­
narios. Hathaway et al. (2014) considered LID practices and uncertainty
under several climate scenarios for North Carolina, USA. Alamdari et al.
(2017) studied downscaled climate models coupled with continuous
2
Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483
simulation of water quantity and quality in urban catchments. Liu et al.
(2017) investigated optimized spatial allocation of LID practices to
minimize the influence of climate and land use changes on hydrologic
processes and water quality in the Spy Run Creek watershed in Indiana.
Some studies have investigated the performance of LID practices for
runoff quality and quantity in urban catchments using future scenario
modelling (Borris et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017). These studies illus­
trated the potential for the use of LID practices to mitigate some of the
negative impacts of climate change on urban hydrology.
In the last three decades, LID projects have been applied in many
countries for runoff source control integrated in urban stormwater
management. However, many of these projects, especially at the hectare
scale, still relied on existing climatic assumptions and ignore climate
change effects, and lack anticipated progress in controlling storm runoff
(Liu et al., 2018; Lim and Lu, 2016). The transformation of land use at
the hectare scale as a basic hydrologic unit may worsen urban hydrology
by increasing highly impermeable surfaces. Meanwhile, there is an op­
portunity to improve stormwater source management with suitable LID
facilities. In recent analysis, it was suggested that the
hydro-performance of these innovative projects should be evaluated
more comprehensively in response to potential uncertainties (Pyke
et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2018). Although overdesign of LID stormwater
controls may results in added resiliency and potential volumetric control
under climate change scenarios. There is still a gap that how to plan and
design of LID systems to future climate change reasonably. Therefore, a
methodology is urgently needed that assesses performance of LID
implementation at the hectare scale for urban stormwater source control
incorporating anticipated changes in climate.
The objectives of this study are: (1) to evaluate the hydrologic per­
formance of LID implementation strategies at the hectare scale under
various climate scenarios that use projected data; (2) to examine the life
cycle costs (LCC) and environment impacts of LID implementation
strategies; (3) to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of LID imple­
mentation strategies considering multiple objectives, such as reducing
runoff volume and peak flow, in the context of the impacts of a changing
and uncertain climates.
2. Materials and methods
RCPs and GCMs were selected to estimate the potential influences of
climate change on a test site in Guangzhou. SWMM was selected to
simulate hydrological processes in response to implementation of LID.
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483

Fig. 2. Master plan of the test catchment.

Finally, the cost-effectiveness of multiple LID implementation strategies

Table 1
was examined based on cost-effectiveness analysis of the life cycle in
Characteristics of the sub-catchments in the test site.
response to anticipated climate changes (Fig. 1).
Sub-catchment 1 2 3 4 5

Area (m2) 4500 2500 2500 2500 3000

Impervious rate (%) 10% 95% 50% 20% 95% 2.1. Test catchment
Primary land use woodland pavement garden lawn pond
The 1.. There is a serious threat of flooding in the urban catchment
because of its high impermeability and inadequat5 ha test site is in

Fig. 3. Four representative development strategies of LID practices ((a) S1, (b) S2, (c) S3, and (d) Basic strategy) in this study.

3
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483

Fig. 4. Synthetic hyetographs of ten design rainfall events (basic scenarios in Guangzhou) used in this study.

Baiyun District, Guangzhou, China (23� 210 N, 113� 240 E). Guangzhou is a
subtropical city with about 1800 mm of annual rainfalle drainage
infrastructure, as well as the uneven spatiotemporal distribution of
storm events (Zhang et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2014).
The test site was mostly occupied by fish ponds, wetlands, grass­
lands, and shrubs until 2015, and then was paved initially flat due to the
change of land use. As a public open space project under urban renewal,
this envisioned scenario is a community park in the residential district,
supporting recreational and social activities for the residents (Fig. 2). In
the master plan, there are five sub-catchments (Table 1), and the scope
of the test site itself, excluded adjacent roads and buildings, is the
catchment area (1.5 ha). Four representative development strategies for
managing runoff from the project site (S1, S2, S3, and the basic strategy,
BS), reflecting different levels of LID, are considered in this study
(Fig. 3).
S1: High level of LID practices
In this strategy (Fig. 3a), runoff from sub-catchments 1 and 3 is
controlled by bioretention system (2500 m2), runoff from sub-catchment
2 is managed by permeable pavement (2500 m2), and the overflow is
discharged to a retention pond, which there is no infiltration capacity
since waterproofing materials are placed in the bottom of retention pond
(3000 m2, with 150 mm of retention depth).
S2: Moderate level of LID practices
This strategy (Fig. 3b) uses permeable pavement in sub-catchment 2,
and retention pond (3000 m2, with 150 mm of retention depth, no
infiltration) in the downstream locations to retain runoff.
2.2. Design storms
The drainage capacity of the area was designed by the Guangzhou
Water Affairs Authority (2011) to resist storms of relatively short return
period (no more than 5 years) and short duration (e.g., 1 h). Future
changes in the regional climate may increase the flood risk of urban
catchments, potentially resulting in flooding during more frequent
extreme storms. Based on these concerns, it is necessary to test different
design storms, including extreme storms, to comprehensively assess the
capacity of runoff quantity management, so that it can withstand
longer-return-period and longer-duration storms. A series of design
storms of different durations and intensities were used. There are ten
design storms, clustered by return period (P: 1 y, 5 y, 10 y, 50 y and 100
y) and duration (1 h and 6 h) based on previous studies (Wang et al.,
2019a). The local formula for storm intensity for Guangzhou (Wang
et al., 2019b) is
a �
i¼ ¼ 14:52 ð1 þ 0:533 � lgPÞ ðt þ 11Þ0:668 (1)
ðt þ bÞc
where i is the storm intensity (mm/min); a, b, and c are the parameters in
Guangzhou; a ¼ 14:52 ð1 þ 0:533 lg P)/167, b ¼ 11, c ¼ 0.668; t is
precipitation duration (h), and P is the return period (y).
The Chicago synthetic rainfall model, which was the closest to the
actual observed conditions, was selected to reflect the hyetographs of
the different design return periods (Keifer and Chu, 1957). The formulas
for the Chicago synthetic rainfall model are
� �
a ð1 cÞ*t b
þb
r
iðtb Þ ¼ � �1þc (2)
tb
þ b
r

S3: Limited LID practices � �

a ð1 1 cÞ*t
r
a
þ b
In this strategy (Fig. 3c) there is only a retention pond (3000 m2, with iðta Þ ¼ � �1þc (3)
150 mm of retention depth, no infiltration) in the downstream locations ta
1 r
þb
to retain surface runoff.
where iðta Þ and iðtb Þ are the storm intensity (mm/min) after and before
BS: Conventional pipe-discharged management with no LID practices the peak time, respectively; r is the time-to-peak factor; and a, b, and c
are as in Eq. (1). A recommended range for r is 0.3–0.5 (Jia et al., 2014;
In this strategy, all surface runoff is collected by pipes (with pipe Mei et al., 2018), and 0.4 was used here.
diameter between 300 mm and 600 mm and slopes between 0.001 and The simulated synthetic hyetographs in Guangzhou, based on his­
0.01) and routed directly to the municipal drainage infrastructure torical climate statistics conditions without consideration of climate
(Fig. 3d). This strategy was selected to compare with other three stra­ change models, are shown in Fig. 4.
tegies (S1, S2, and S3). It was noted that the pond in sub-catchment 5
without any retention and infiltration capability is not used to manage
any surface runoff.

4
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483

Table 2
Variation (%) from the baseline rainfall intensity for RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 in Guangzhou from 2040 to 2059.
Guangzhou (N ¼ 11) 1y 5y 10 y 50 y 100 y

1h 6h 1h 6h 1h 1h 6h 1h 6h 1h

RCP2.6 Min. (%) 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
Ave. (%) 4.9 3.9 4.5 3.6 4.2 2.9 3.7 2.6 3.3 2.3
Max. (%) 9.2 7.5 8.4 6.8 6.9 5.9 6.4 5.5 5.4 4.6
RCP8.5 Min. (%) 6.3 5.3 5.8 4.5 5.2 4.1 4.8 3.7 4.2 3.3
Ave. (%) 16.9 12.9 13.6 11.7 12.1 10.5 10.9 9.6 9.4 8.2
Max. (%) 27.9 21.5 24.6 19.3 22.7 16.9 20.1 14.8 18.8 13.5

Note: data from China Meteorological Data Service Center (data.cma.cn) Guangzhou Meteorology (www.tqyb.com.cn), and Climate Change Knowledge Portal, World
Bank Group, for Guangzhou, China (sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateportal/).

2.3. Climate scenarios
A climate scenario is a description of anticipated developments of
anthropogenic climate change at a projected time in the future. Gener­
ally, future precipitation data were projected based on climate models
and scenarios as well as historical data. The eleven GCMs listed in Fig. 1
were selected as a climate model ensemble at the chosen location
(23� 210 N, 113� 240 E). RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5, a strongly declining emis­
sions scenario and a rising emissions scenario, represented by increasing
greenhouse gas emissions as representative climate change pathway in
the literature leading to radiative forcing of 2.6 and 8.5 W/m2, respec­
tively, by the end of the century, were used to simulate the potential
changes in precipitation patterns (Yu et al., 2018). Meanwhile, current
climate conditions, based on historical climate statistics without
consideration of climate change, were set as the baseline climate sce­
nario (Baseline) to clarify the different impacts compared with RCP 2.6
and RCP 8.5. Since it is expected that extreme precipitation events and
local storm patterns will be altered in climate change scenarios, the
intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves will have to be updated. The
Intensity-Duration-Frequency Climate Change tool developed by Simo­
novic et al. (2016) using the equidistance quantile-matching (EQM)
method to clarify the changes in rainfall intensity was adopted to update
the IDF curves in this study. The EQM method has two main compo­
nents:spatial downscaling of the precipitation of GCM daily maxims and
historical sub-daily maxims; and temporal downscaling of the precipi­
tation of GCM daily maxima and projected daily maxima on GCMs with
RCPs for the simulated period. Maxima of 1-h and 6-h historical pre­
cipitation data from 1981 to 2010 for Guangzhou were collected by the
China Meteorological Data Service Center. The Gumbel distribution is
adopted as the extreme value distribution for rainfall frequency ana­
lyses. LID practices were assumed to be implemented from 2020 to
2049, because the typical life cycle of LID practices is around 30 years
(Vineyard et al., 2015). A simulated period from 2040 to 2059 with the
median to match the assumed end of life cycle for LID practices was
adopted to assess the changes in rainfall intensity (Vineyard et al.,
2015). Table 2 summarizes the variations in rainfall intensity for RCP
2.6 and 8.5 in these GCMs.
2.4. Hydrological model
hectare scale to deal comprehensively with the high uncertainty of
climate change. The purpose is not an accurate prediction of the impacts
on a specific site, but rather hydrologic projections of what could
happen in plausible climate scenarios, and hydro-performance pro­
jections of what should happen through possible LID strategies. How­
ever, the hydrological model parameters were referred from a similar
and adjacent catchment in Guangzhou (Zhu et al., 2019) to enhance the
validity of the current approach. Sub-catchment S05, investigated by
Zhu et al. (2019), is primarily used for green space in a residential dis­
trict with similar land use characteristics to the test site. They selected
rainfall events in 2013 and 2014 to calibrate parameters and then used
ten other events to validate SWMM. There was good fit between the
recorded and simulated events, with Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and
Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) of up to 0.7 for these rainfall events
(Pushpalatha et al., 2012; Gupta et al., 2009), and the relative peak
errors in parameter calibration were less than 10%. Similarly, in SWMM
validation, the NSE and KGE of rainfall events were over 0.6, and the
relative peak errors under 10%. Thus, the best-fit parameters reported
by Zhu et al. (2019) were also chosen for the test site in this study.
Detailed parameters are as follows: Manning’s roughness of impervious
and pervious were set at 0.001, and 0.15, respectively; depression
storage of impervious and pervious were set at 0.567 and 10 mm,
respectively; maximum and minimum infiltration capacity was set at
103.810 and 11.440 mm/h, respectively; and the decay constant was set
at 2.75 days.
2.5. Performance metrics
2.5.1. Hydrological performance analysis
The hydrological performance of Strategies S1, S2, S3, and BS are
evaluated in terms of relevant runoff quantity indices. Percentage re­
ductions of runoff volume and peak flow were selected, following other
studies (Eckart et al., 2018; Palla and Gnecco, 2015). Here, outflow
volume refers to the total amount of discharge at the outlet, and peak
flow refers to the highest flow rate during a rainfall event.
The reduction of runoff volume for event i (ROVðiÞ ) is defined as the
difference in runoff volume for event i in climate scenarios compared
with that for BS, expressed as a percentage:
ROVðiÞ ¼ ðVBs ​ Vi Þ= ​ V ​ � 100 (4)
Bs

Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), version 5.1 is widely
used for analysis, planning, and design of LID practices (Rosa et al.,
2015). The detailed LID parameters of bioretention system, permeable
pavement, and retention pond used in this study are shown in Table 3. In
SWMM, the Horton model was used to estimate infiltration, percolation
is modelled using Darcy’s law, and dynamic wave routing was simulated
by the one-dimensional Saint Venant flow equations (Rossman, 2010). It
was noted that there is a weakness in the study because no rigorous
calibration or verification was conducted due to limited available rain­
fall and runoff data. But this does not invalidate elucidating the impacts
of anticipated climatic change on the test catchment. The focus of this
study was to propose a forward-looking method for LID strategies at the
where VBs is the total runoff volume of rainfall event under BS without
any LID practices, and Vi is the runoff of event i under S1, S2, or S3.
The reduction of peak flow (RPFðiÞ ) was calculated similarly, as
RPFðiÞ ¼ ðPBs Pi Þ=P � 100 (5)
Bs
where PBS is the peak runoff based on BS without any LID practices, and
Pi is the peak flow of event i under S1, S2, or S3.
2.5.2. Life cycle costs analysis
An assessment of the capital costs and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs for LID practices was conducted using LCC. The design life

5
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483

Table 3 of LID practices was assumed to be 30 years (Vineyard et al., 2015). The
Characteristics and life cycle costs of bioretention system, permeable pavement, construction of LID practices was assumed to be completed at year 0,
and retention pond considered in this study. while O&M costs were incurred from year 1 to year 30. A present value
LID Parameter Bioretention Permeable Retention exercise was performed by compiling all LCCs. The LCC of bioretention
system (m2) pavement pond (m2) system, permeable pavement, and retention pond was calculated as
(m2)
X
n
Surface Berm height 150 – 150 LCC ¼ Ccapital þ ​ PVO&M (6)
(mm) t¼1
Vegetation 0.1 – 0.1
volume where Ccapital is the capital cost of LID, PVO&M is the present value of
fraction
O&M costs, and n is the number of service year.
Surface 0.1 0.02 0.1
roughness It has been noted that the land and opportunity costs of LID practices
(Manning’s n) have not been considered in LCC calculations (Chui et al., 2016). The
Surface slope 0.5 0.5 0.5 cost of construction materials, transportation, and labor were also based
(%) on the contractor reports of this construction project. The construction
Soil Thickness of 600 – 900
soil (mm)
costs of LID practices in this project are shown in Table 3. Itemized
Porosity 0.5 – – construction costs were estimated for each LID practice based on ma­
(volume terial quantity. In Guangzhou, the annualized O&M costs were
fraction) expressed as a percentage of the capital costs, i.e., 4% for permeable
Field capacity 0.2 – –
pavement and 8% for bioretention system and retention pond (Houle
(volume
fraction) et al., 2013). Construction and O&M costs were adjusted by bench­
Wilting point 0.1 – – marking the original unit construction and O&M costs to 2017 US dol­
(volume lars using the consumer price index.
fraction)
Conductivity 250 – –
(mm/hr)
2.5.3. Life cycle impact assessment
Conductivity 10 – – Environmental impacts of LID practices under S1, S2, and S3 over the
slope life cycle were assessed using Gabi software (Fig. 5). The LCA quantified
Suction head 87.5 – – the environment impacts of these strategies to show the transparency of
(mm)
their environmental cost. The approach described in ISO 14040 stan­
Pavement Thickness – 100 –
(mm) dards (2006), and available data from China, were used. The Swiss
Void ratio – 0.3 – EcoInvent databases, which contained the comprehensive range of high-
(Voids/Solids) quality data required for LCA, was employed for the pertinent life cycle
Impervious – 0 – inventories.
surface fraction
Permeability – 500 –
The model elements for each LID practice included all raw materials,
(mm/hr) construction, transport, and maintenance for a 30-year design life (Xu
Clogging factor – 0 – et al., 2017). LCA was conducted by applying the ReCiPe midpoint
Storage Thickness 300 300 600 method. The principal midpoint metric of climate change with equiva­
(mm)
lent units for GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq.) calculated using the mass of
Void ratio 0.75 0.40 0
(voids/solids) given GHG multiplied by its global warming potential was selected as
Seepage rate 750 750 – the representative environmental index (Huijbregts et al., 2016). The
(mm/hr) only energy involved in the acquisition of soil and gravel is that used for
Clogging factor – 0 – excavation, screening and transport, so it was modelled as a raw mate­
Underdrain Flow 0.5 0.5
rial. Transport allocations (t km) were considered as a function of the
–
coefficient of
drain mass of the material (t) and the transport distance from source to site
Flow exponent 0.5 0.5 – (km). For the transport of all materials, it was assumed a 20-tonne-ca­
of drain pacity diesel truck with a backhaul ratio of 1 (empty return) (O’Sulli­
Offset height of 150 100 –
van et al., 2015) and a distance of 40 km (Montalto et al., 2007). To
drain (mm)
Quantity of Plant (m2) n – – excavate and emplace the substrate media, we also included a hydraulic
construction Asphalt – 0.1 n – digger and a skid-steer loader. In the LCA modelling, excavation and
works pavement (m3) disposal represented most of the construction cost. Mechanical/­
Soil (m3) 0.6 n – 0.8 n electrical plant was excluded from the LCA model due to limited data.
Gravel (m3) 0.3 n 0.3 n 0.4 n
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi pffiffiffi With respect to O&M, there were pre-treatment units in place for bio­
Pipe (m) n n n
retention system and retention pond. Maintenance of permeable pave­
Geotextile (m2) N N N
Excavation 1.1 n 0.4 n 2.0 n ment requires unclogging of the porous substrate, although influent
(m2) loading will vary greatly depending on season and land use (Hengen
Disposal (m2) 0.9 n 0.4 n 1.2 n et al., 2016). Bioretention system, permeable pavement and retention
Total construction costs ($) 73.9 n þ 31.6 n þ 15 92 n þ 15 pond were treated as independent items for monthly maintenance,
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
15 ​ n n n
pffiffiffi during which regular checks and replacement of materials were con­
Annual O&M costs ($) 5.9 n þ 1.2 n 1.3 n þ 0.6 7.5 n þ 1.2
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi ducted by a single person. A single worker was assumed to remove large
n n
debris and replace raw materials, and the task was reflected in the
Note: Parameters of bioretention system, permeable pavement, and retention transport cost of a 20 km return trip in a light commercial vehicle
pond are summarized from Gupta et al. (2009), Prince George’s County (2002), (Hengen et al., 2016). The end-of-life stage was omitted from the LCA,
and Houle et al. (2013). Data on costs are mainly from a local internet inquiry since it is anticipated that LID strategies will actually function for longer
platform for engineering materials (www.gldjc.com); project life, 30 years; than their 30-year design life with proper maintenance (Sem­
annual O&M costs (present value) are 8% of capital cost for bioretention system adeni-Davies, 2012).
and retention pond, and 4% of capital cost for permeable pavements.

6
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483

Fig. 5. The flow chart of life cycle impact assessment of Strategies S1, S2, and S3 in this study.

Table 4
Mean runoff volume (m3) for Strategies S1, S2, S3, and Basic Strategy (BS) based on climate modelling in response to various design storms.
Scenarios 1y 5y 10 y 50 y 100 y

1h 6h 1h 6h 1h 6h 1h 6h 1h 6h

Baseline BS 729 1129 1040 1862 1184 2240 1501 3317 1600 3741
S1 97 227 213 489 265 625 385 1027 423 1205
S2 314 574 572 1144 690 1446 955 2330 1048 2688
S3 443 771 753 1462 895 1828 1213 2892 1325 3323
RCP 2.6 BS 768 1177 1092 1950 1238 2339 1556 3437 1651 3862
S1 111 244 232 521 286 664 407 1082 446 1264
S2 347 612 614 1216 735 1527 1003 2434 1095 2794
S3 483 817 805 1549 950 1925 1272 3017 1381 3451
RCP 8.5 BS 866 1288 1195 2092 1338 2486 1653 3628 1739 4039
S1 148 283 269 574 323 719 448 1175 484 1359
S2 427 700 699 1330 818 1648 1099 2603 1182 2952
S3 579 923 907 1687 1049 2071 1385 3221 1485 3640

2.5.4. Cost-benefit analysis 3. Results and discussions

Cost-benefit analysis of LID strategies refers to suitable hydro-
performance as a decision-making tool for LID practices. It is used to
measure the runoff management performance of an LID plan in terms of
peak flow and runoff volume reduction, versus the constraints of life
cycle costs and environmental impacts associated with that strategy. The
present value of benefit (PVB), LCC, and LCA were applied to assess the
cost-effectiveness of Strategies S1, S2, and S3, represented here as
cost–benefit (C=B) values:
� volume increased This finding is consistent with other studies of hy­
C BLCC ¼ PVB= (7)
LCC
� The runoff volume reduction (ROV ) under S1, S2, and S3 as compared
C BLCA ¼ PVB=
LCA
where PVB is an index (expressed as a percentage) of hydrological
performance under S1, S2, or S3:
PVB ¼ ðROVðiÞ þ RPFðiÞ ​ Þ 2
=
It was assumed that both indices are equally important in the eval­
uation of water quantity management, so PVB is taken to be the arith­
metic mean of the two indices.
3.1. Performance of LID practices in climate scenarios
3.1.1. Runoff volume reduction
As expected, the mean runoff volumes in response to a design rainfall
event were lowest under S1 and highest under BS (Table 4). Generally,
Strategy S1 should be recommended for runoff volume reduction since
the required levels of LID practices increased as the reductions of runoff
drological performance in controlling runoff (Chui et al., 2016; Winston
et al., 2016).
(8) with BS was calculated using Eq. (4). Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b present the
values of ROV under S1, S2, and S3 in response to design storm events
based on climate modelling. Performance under S1 was distinctly better
than under S2 and S3. For the same design storm, performance under
strategies with LID was slightly better for shorter storms (e.g., 1 h) than
(9) for longer ones (e.g., 6 h). Although the rainfall intensity of shorter
storms is relatively higher, the total rainfall runoff generated is less in
shorter ones than in longer ones. The storage and retention capacity of
LID practices may be exhausted during storms with long duration, and
excessive runoff is hard to control. ROV decreased in this order: Baseline
> RCP2.6 > RCP8.5; it also decreased with longer storm return period.
This illustrates that the adverse effects on urban rainfall-runoff process
of the high-emission scenario reduce the effectiveness of LID practices in
reducing runoff volume. These simulated results are consistent with the

7
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 6. Comparisons of reduction of runoff volumes (a, b) and peak runoff (c, d) for Strategies S1, S2, and S3 in response to design storms corresponding to various
climate scenarios.
findings of earlier studies (Wang et al., 2018d). ROV shows only minor
variation under S1 for shorter-return-period storms (1 y and 5 y). But
there are distinct deviations under S2 and S3 for the same storms, and
especially under S3. Due to the limited history of LID practices, there is
still much uncertainty regarding the effective management of storm
runoff under the strong influence of climate change.
The median ROV is 84.8%, 52.4%, and 33.7% under S1, S2, and S3,
respectively, in RCP 2.6 for the 1 y/1 h event (Fig. 7a). In contrast, the
median ROV is 63.7%, 21.1%, and 2.7% for S1, S2, and S3, respectively,
in RCP 8.5 for 100 y/6 h storms (Fig. 7d). As expected, the corre­
sponding values of ROV in other storms are in between these high and
low values (Fig. 7). These results may be due to the limited capacity of
LID practices to cope with large storms (Ahiablame et al., 2012). And the
hydro-performance of LID facilities is becoming more vulnerable due to
adverse climate change. The findings suggest that LID practices may not
be able to fully retain the volume of runoff that occurs, even with high
levels of LID implementation during larger storms in the climate
scenarios.
3.1.2. Peak flow reductions
Peak runoff was reduced by apportioning the surface runoff from the
test site and storing it in LID facilities. But during high-intensity storms,
the drainage capacity of LID practices may be rapidly exceeded, and the
flow rate of bypass runoff will increase again. Depending on how long
this takes, the temporal and spatial distribution of the hydrograph may
change dramatically, and so will the time to peak and the peak flow rate
(Yang and Chui, 2018).
The performance under S1, S2, S3, and BS for mitigation of peak flow
is shown in Table 5. As in the management of overflow volume, S1
appeared to perform best in peak flow control, while BS showed the
worst performance. This illustrates that LID practices have helped
reduce peak runoff at the source due to its structural retention capacity,
and the performance of peak flow reduction increased as the levels of
8
Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483
LID facilities increased. In the case of relatively frequent storms with
short duration, such as 1 y/1 h storms, there was peak runoff ranging
from 37.8 L/s to 59.8 L/s, 109.1 L/s to 167.3 L/s, and 181.3 L/s to 234.1
L/s under S1, S2 and S3, respectively. The results show significant un­
certainty in reducing runoff velocity based on different climate change
scenarios, and the uncertainty (absolute value) is relatively small with
high levels of LID practices. Thus, a high level of LID facilities could help
reduce the adverse uncertainty in the runoff process. In BS (without any
LID), peak flow could be as high as 1070.9 L/s in RCP 8.5. It was
concluded that effective implementation of LID for managing peak
runoff was particularly critical.
One may also deduce from Fig. 6c and d that peak flow rate reduction
is effective only if larger LID practices are used. This observation is
consistent with the management of overflow volume. There was almost
complete control under S1 in RCP 2.6 in response to most storm events
(RPF > 80% in 1 y/1 h, 1 y/6 h, 5 y/1 h, 10 y/1 h, and 50 y/1 h), and the
median RPF in RCP 2.6 for 100 y/6 h storms was 67.2% (Fig. 7e and f, g,
h). In contrast, the median RPF under S3 in RCP 8.5 was 45.4%, 37.7%,
23.8%, and 0 in response to 1 y/1 h, 1 y/6 h, 100 y/1 h, and 100 y/6 h
storm events, respectively (Fig. 7). One may safely conclude that LID
practices are not always a cost-effective solution for peak discharge
reduction for low-frequency, long-duration storms (Wang et al., 2016).
They are probably more effective at source for more frequent and shorter
storms (Chui et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016). In terms of safety con­
siderations, BS may not be able to replace the conventional stormwater
management infrastructure (e.g., detention), but should be effectively
integrated with it, particularly in extreme unfavorable weather. Also,
the overall performance for peak runoff was better than for overflow
runoff.
3.2. Life cycle cost and environmental impact of LID strategies
The LCCs of different LID strategies were calculated using Eq. (6) to
Z. Wang et al. Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483

Fig. 7. The reduction of runoff volume and peak runoff under Strategies S1, S2, and S3 in response to various climate scenario: (a) 1y-1h; (b) 1y-6h; (c) 100y-1h; (d)
100y-6h; and the reduction of peak runoff under Strategies S1, S2, and S3 in climate scenario modelling: (e) 1y-1h; (f) 1y-6h; (g) 100y-1h; (h) 100y-6h.

Table 5
Mean peak runoff (L3/s) for Strategies S1, S2, S3, and Basic Strategy (BS) based on climate modelling.in response to various design storms.
Scenarios 1y 5y 10 y 50 y 100 y

1h 6h 1h 6h 1h 6h 1h 6h 1h 6h

Baseline BS 429.1 479 633.7 692.8 726.4 781 948.9 974.8 997 1016
S1 37.8 60.2 90.8 146.2 116.4 184.9 172.1 286.5 187.6 318.8
S2 109.1 166.2 237.9 374.4 300.2 478.2 445.5 700.7 495.8 761.7
S3 181.3 226.8 316.5 484.3 394.7 610.2 582 887.4 647.1 961.1
RCP 2.6 BS 458.6 502.6 673.3 728.3 766.1 817.6 985.7 1003.9 1024.9 1037
S1 43.2 64.4 98.3 154 124 206.3 185 304.4 202.1 332.8
S2 125.5 183.2 262 407.7 326.8 512.3 476.8 733.3 527.2 793.2
S3 196.2 248 347.2 524.1 428.5 652.5 621 928.4 686.7 1000.4
RCP 8.5 BS 529.2 557.9 748.7 785.9 838.3 865.4 1027.9 1032.7 1060.1 1070.9
S1 59.8 80.6 117.2 179.6 145.7 231.4 209.5 329.6 223.4 355.3
S2 167.3 223.6 312.3 460.1 377.6 564.6 539.4 787.7 584.7 839.9
S3 234.1 298.6 410.9 590.2 492.2 716.5 699.7 994.8 759.7 1056.2

Table 6
Life cycle cost and environmental impacts of LID practices under Strategies S1, S2, and S3.
Scenarios S1 S2 S3

Bioretention system Permeable pavement Retention pond Permeable pavement Retention pond Retention pond
2
Area (m ) 2500 2500 3000 2500 3000 3000
LCC (105 $) 4.14 1.29 6.17 1.29 6.17 6.17
Raw materials (kg CO2 eq.) 32,725 96,550 61,144 96,550 61,144 61,144
Transportation (kg CO2 eq.) 38,550 61,166 61,680 61,166 61,680 61,680
Construction (kg CO2 eq.) 14,084 5634 27,041 5634 27,041 27,041
O&M (kg CO2 eq.) 51,878 51,878 62,254 51,878 62,254 62,254
LCA (kg CO2 eq.) 137,237 215,228 212,119 215,228 212,119 212,119
Total LCC (105 $) 11.60 7.46 6.17

9
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 8. (a) the life cycle costs under Strategies S1, S2, and S3; (b) the life cycle impacts under Strategies S1, S2, and S3.
Fig. 9. The cost-effectiveness under Strategies S1, S2, and S3 based on life cycle costs.
quantify construction and maintenance costs according to section 2.5.2.
As expected, the LCC and environmental impact of S1 are the highest,
and those of S3 are lowest, given the different levels of LID implemented
(Table 6). Retention pond contributes a major part of LCC under S1, and
the LCC of bioretention system and retention pond is generally similar,
due to the similarity of their structure and scale (Fig. 8 (a)). Therefore,
one may deduce that the LCC can be significantly reduced by limiting
the scale of retention pond implemented.
Within LCA, the results of representative environmental damage
(greenhouse gas emissions) across all life cycle stages of LID strategies
are shown in Fig. 8 (b), using Gabi software according to section 2.5.3.
The relative contributions from each stage to S1, S2, and S3 show the
differences between environmental impacts. Raw materials had the most
significant impact on production of CO2 equivalent. Lower impacts were
observed for construction across all categories. Regarding greenhouse
gas emissions in LCA, S1 contributed a total of 5.65 � 105 kg CO2 eq.
over its 30-year life cycle, with O&M alone contributing 1.66 � 105 kg
CO2 eq. (or 29.4%). Raw material was the largest contributor to climate
change in S1 (1.90 � 105 kg CO2 eq., or 33.7%). Climate change impacts
from transportation (1.61 � 105 kg CO2 eq., or 28.6%) and construction
(0.47 * 105 kg CO2 eq., or 8.3%) were lower under S1. The climate
change impacts of raw materials (28.8%), transportation (29.1%) and
O&M (29.3%) were of similar magnitude, and there was the lowest
impact from construction (12.7%) under S3. LID practices had relatively
10
Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483
higher maintenance costs, resulting in much higher O&M impacts on
environmental damage, because of their longer life cycle. Improvements
in the earlier stages in raw materials, mode of transport, and mainte­
nance could reduce their environmental impact significantly.
3.3. Cost-benefit analysis of LID practices under various climate scenarios
It shows the C/B values in response to climate change based on LCC
under S1, S2, and S3 in Fig. 9. For an assumed investment budget of LCC
of $400,000 with present value, the C/B values decreased with longer
return period and longer duration of storms. In terms of runoff volume,
the C/B values of S1 are close to that for S3 for the 1 y design storm in
response to climate change. However, for extreme storms, the C/B
values of S1 are clearly better than those of S2 for 100 y/6 h storms. In
the budget of LCC $800,000, the C/B values of S1 are better than those
for S2 in most cases, except for 1 y/1 h storms, and the C/B values of S3
are the lowest. In the budget of LCC $1,200,000, the C/B values of S1 are
clearly better, as the budget was increased. However, the C/B values for
S3 remain unchanged.
The findings for reduction in runoff peak flows are different from
those for runoff volume. In the budget of LCC $400,000 and $800,000,
the C/B values of S1 with respect to peak runoff are mostly lower than
those for S2, and close to those for S3 in response to climate change for 1
y/1 h storms. Therefore, to control peak runoff for normal rainfall
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 10. The cost-effectiveness corresponding to Strategies S1, S2, and S3 based on life cycle assessment.
events, S1 and S2 should be recommended based on limited budget.
Considering both runoff volume and peak flow together, the C/B values
under S3 are lower in most cases than under S1 and S2, since of limited
capacity for extreme storms in S3. The C/B values under S1 are close to
those for S2 in relatively limited budgets (LCC $400,000 and $800,000)
for 1 y/1 h and 1y/6 h storms. However, in a well-budgeted situation
(LCC $1,200,000), S1 is more cost-effective than S2.
It illustrates the C/B values in response to climate change based on
LCA under S1, S2, and S3 in Fig. 10. Overall, the results are generally
consistent with the C/B values based on LCC, as larger-scale imple­
mentations of LID practices have greater environmental impacts. But the
degrees of change in C/B values for LCA are not the same as those for
LCC. On the whole, the differences in performance between strategies in
LCA are larger than in LCC. As mentioned, the C/B values of LID prac­
tices are not absolute. For a more comprehensive indicator of benefit, it
was weighted runoff volume and peak flow equally in this study. In other
applications, different weightings may be adopted; depending on the
circumstances, for a more practical weighting of the performance
assessment indices, the opinions of various stakeholders should be
considered.
4. Conclusions
Storms influenced by anticipated climate change were investigated
to assess the performance of various LID strategies at the hectare scale.
More frequent storms of shorter duration in RCP 8.5 have more signif­
icant impacts on urban hydrology. Generally, LID practices are not
effective at retaining runoff volume fully, even with high levels of LID
implementation in the climate scenarios. And rational implementation
of LID practices is effective for reducing peak runoff for frequent rainfall
events for most climate scenarios. Considering life cycle costs and
environmental impacts, as well as climate change impacts, various LID
strategies implemented at the hectare scale can be assessed using mul­
tiple hydrology management objectives (i.e., a combination of runoff
volume and peak flow reduction). These cost–benefit results could be
used to help decision-makers identify suitable LID strategies with
varying budget constraints and environmental impacts in response to
potential climate change. The straightforward and practical method
introduced in this study can be used to assess the potential role of green
11
Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483
infrastructure at the hectare scale for stormwater source control.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Zhilin Wang: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Writing - review & editing. Shiqi Zhou: Software, Data curation, Visu­
alization. Mo Wang: Methodology, Writing - original draft, Supervision.
Dongqing Zhang: Methodology, Validation, Supervision.
Acknowledgment
The writers would like to acknowledge gratefully support rendered
by Prof. Tan Soon Keat, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.This work was supported
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number
51808137], Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [grant
number 2019A1515010873], and China Postdoctoral Science Founda­
tion [grant numbers 2019M651654 and 2019T120377].
References
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.
Alamdari, N., Sample, D.J., Steinberg, P., Ross, A.C., Easton, Z.M., 2017. Assessing the
effects of climate change on water quantity and quality in an urban watershed using
a calibrated stormwater model. Water 9 (7), 464.
Baek, S.S., Choi, D.H., Jung, J.W., Lee, H.J., Lee, H., Yoon, K.S., Cho, K.H., 2015.
Optimizing low impact development (LID) for stormwater runoff treatment in urban
area, Korea: experimental and modeling approach. Water Res. 86, 122–131.
Bengtsson, L., Hodges, K.I., Roeckner, E., 2006. Storm tracks and climate change. J. Clim.
19 (15), 3518–3543.
Borris, M., Leonhardt, G., Marsalek, J., Osterlund,
€ H., Viklander, M., 2016. Source-based
modeling of urban stormwater quality response to the selected scenarios combining
future changes in climate and socio-economic factors. Environ. Manag. 58 (2),
223–237.
Z. Wang et al.
Brudler, S., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Hauschild, M.Z., Rygaard, M., 2016. Life cycle
assessment of stormwater management in the context of climate change adaptation.
Water Res. 106, 394–404.
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.
Dufresne, J.L., Foujols, M.A., Denvil, S., Caubel, A., Vuichard, N., 2013. Climate change
projections using the ipsl-cm5 earth system model: from cmip3 to cmip5. Clim.
Dynam. 40 (9–10), 2123–2165.
Eckart, K., McPhee, Z., Bolisetti, T., 2017. Performance and implementation of low
impact development–a review. Sci. Total Environ. 607, 413–432.
Eckart, K., Mcphee, Z., Bolisetti, T., 2018. Multiobjective optimization of low impact
development stormwater controls. J. Hydrol. 562, 564–576.
Guangzhou Water Affairs Bureau, 2011. The Calculation Formulas and Diagrams of
Urban Stormy of Guangzhou.
Gupta, H.V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K.K., Martinez, G.F., 2009. Decomposition of the mean
squared error and NSE performance criteria: implications for improving hydrological
modelling. J. Hydrol. 377 (1), 80–91.
Hathaway, J.M., Brown, R.A., Fu, J.S., Hunt, W.F., 2014. Bioretention function under
climate change scenarios in North Carolina, USA. J. Hydrol. 519, 503–511.
Hawcroft, M., Walsh, E., Hodges, K., Zappa, G., 2018. Significantly increased extreme
precipitation expected in Europe and North America from extratropical cyclones.
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (12), 124006.
Hengen, T.J., Sieverding, H.L., Stone, J., 2016. Lifecycle assessment analysis of
engineered stormwater control methods common to urban watersheds. J. Water
Resour. Plann. Manag. 142 (7), 04016016.
Houle, J.J., Roseen, R.M., Ballestero, T.P., Puls, T.A., Sherrard, J., 2013. Comparison of
maintenance cost, labor demands, and system performance for lid and conventional
stormwater management. J. Environ. Eng. 139 (7), 932–938.
Huang, C.L., Hsu, N.S., Liu, H.J., Huang, Y.H., 2018. Optimization of low impact
development layout designs for megacity flood mitigation. J. Hydrol. 564, 542–558.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Zelm, R.V., 2016.
Recipe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and
endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22 (2), 1–10.
Ishida, K., Kavvas, M.L., Chen, Z.R., Dib, A., Diaz, A.J., Anderson, M.L., Trinh, T., 2018.
Physically based maximum precipitation estimation under future climate change
conditions. Hydrol. Process. 32 (20), 3188–3201.
Jia, H.F., Ma, H.T., Sun, Z.X., Yu, S., Ding, Y.W., Yun, L., 2014. A closed urban scenic
river system using stormwater treated with lid-bmp technology in a revitalized
historical district in China. Ecol. Eng. 71, 448–457.
Keifer, C.J., Chu, H.H., 1957. Synthetic storm pattern for drainage design. J. Hydraul.
Div. 83 (4), 1–25.
LeFevre, G.H., Paus, K.H., Natarajan, P., Gulliver, J.S., Novak, P.J., Hozalski, R.M., 2014.
Review of dissolved pollutants in urban storm water and their removal and fate in
bioretention cells. J. Environ. Eng. 141 (1), 04014050.
Li, Y.C., Zhang, D.Q., Wang, M., 2017. Performance evaluation of a full-scale constructed
wetlands for treating stormwater runoff. Clean 45 (11), 1600740.
Lim, H., Lu, X., 2016. Sustainable urban stormwater management in the tropics: an
evaluation of Singapore’s ABC Waters Program. J. Hydrol. 538, 842–862.
Liu, C.Y., Chui, T.F.M., 2017. Factors influencing stormwater mitigation in permeable
pavement. Water 9 (12), 988.
Liu, Y., Ahiablame, L.M., Bralts, V.F., Engel, B.A., 2015a. Enhancing a rainfall-runoff
model to assess the impacts of BMPs and LID practices on storm runoff. J. Environ.
Manag. 147, 12–23.
Liu, Y., Bralts, V.F., Engel, B.A., 2015b. Evaluating the effectiveness of management
practices on hydrology and water quality at watershed scale with a rainfall-runoff
model. Sci. Total Environ. 511, 298–308.
Liu, Y., Engel, B.A., Collingsworth, P.D., Pijanowski, B.C., 2017. Optimal implementation
of green infrastructure practices to minimize influences of land use change and
climate change on hydrology and water quality: case study in Spy Run Creek
watershed. Ind. Sci. Total Environ. 601, 1400–1411.
Liu, Y., Engel, B.A., Flanagan, D.C., Gitau, M.W., McMillan, S.K., Chaubey, I., Singh, S.,
2018. Modeling framework for representing long-term effectiveness of best
management practices in addressing hydrology and water quality problems:
framework development and demonstration using a Bayesian method. J. Hydrol.
560, 530–545.
Lucas, W.C., Sample, D.J., 2015. Reducing combined sewer overflows by using outlet
controls for green stormwater infrastructure: case study in Richmond, Virginia.
J. Hydrol. 520, 473–488.
Mao, X., Jia, H., Shaw, L.Y., 2017. Assessing the ecological benefits of aggregate LID-
BMPs through modelling. Ecol. Model. 353, 139–149.
Mei, C., Liu, J., Wang, H., Yang, Z., Ding, X., Shao, W., 2018. Integrated assessments of
green infrastructure for flood mitigation to support robust decision-making for
sponge city construction in an urbanized watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 639,
1394–1407.
Montalto, F., Behr, C., Alfredo, K., Wolf, M., Arye, M., Walsh, M., 2007. Rapid assessment
of the cost-effectiveness of low impact development for CSO control. Landsc. Urban
Plann. 82 (3), 117–131.
Moore, T.L., Gulliver, J.S., Stack, L., Simpson, M.H., 2016. Stormwater management and
climate change: vulnerability and capacity for adaptation in urban and suburban
contexts. Climatic Change 138 (3–4), 491–504.
Moss, R., Edmonds, J., Hibbard, K., Manning, M., Rose, S., van Vuuren, D.P., Carter, T.,
Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., Meehl, G., Mitchell, J., Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K.,
Smith, S., Stouffer, R., Thomson, A., Weyant, J., Wilbanks, T., 2010. The next
generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463
(7282), 747.
12
Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483
O’Sullivan, A.D., Wicke, D., Hengen, T.J., Sieverding, H.L., Stone, J.J., 2015. Life cycle
assessment modelling of stormwater treatment systems. J. Environ. Manag. 149,
236–244.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., 2015. Hydrologic modeling of low impact development systems at
the urban catchment scale. J. Hydrol. 528, 361–368.
Pei, F., Wu, C., Liu, X., Hu, Z., Xia, Y., Liu, L.A., Wang, K., Zhou, Y., Xu, L., 2018.
Detection and attribution of extreme precipitation changes from 1961 to 2012 in the
Yangtze River Delta in China. Catena 169, 183–194.
Prince George’s County, 2002. Bioretention Manual. Prince George’s County (MD)
Government. Department of Environmental Protection, Watershed Protection
Branch, Landover, MD.
Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., Le Moine, N., Andr�eassian, V., 2012. A review of efficiency
criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow simulations. J. Hydrol. 420, 171–182.
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 managing
stormwater with changing precipitation due to climate change. Landsc. Urban Plann.
103 (2), 166e173.
Raible, C.C., Messmer, M., Lehner, F., Stocker, T.F., Blender, R., 2018. Extratropical
cyclone statistics during the last millennium and the 21st century. Clim. Past. 14
(10).
Rosa, D.J., Clausen, J.C., Dietz, M., 2015. Calibration and verification of SWMM for low
impact development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51 (3), 746–757.
Rossman, L.A., 2010. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual, Version 5.0.
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, US Environmental Protection Agency.
Selvanathan, S., Sreetharan, M., Lawler, S., Rand, K., Choi, J., Mampara, M., 2018.
A framework to develop nationwide flooding extents using climate models and assess
forecast potential for flood resilience. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 54 (1), 90–103.
Semadeni-Davies, A., 2012. Implications of climate and urban development on the design
of sustainable urban drainage systems (suds). J. Water Clim. Change 3 (4), 239.
Shaw, T.A., Baldwin, M., Barnes, E.A., et al., 2016. Storm track processes and the
opposing influences of climate change. Nat. Geosci. 9 (9), 656.
Simonovic, S.P., Schardong, A., Sandink, D., Srivastav, R., 2016. A web-based tool for the
development of intensity duration frequency curves under changing climate.
Environ. Model. Software 81, 136–153.
Sohn, W., Kim, J.H., Li, M.H., Brown, R., 2019. The influence of climate on the
effectiveness of low impact development: a systematic review. J. Environ. Manag.
236, 365–379.
Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo, J.T., Shepherd, T.G., 2015. Attribution of climate extreme
events. Nat. Clim. Change 5 (8), 725.
Vineyard, D., Ingwersen, W.W., Hawkins, T.R., Xue, X., Demeke, B., Shuster, W., 2015.
Comparing green and grey infrastructure using life cycle cost and environmental
impact: a rain garden case study in Cincinnati, OH. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51
(5), 1342–1360.
Walsh, C.J., Booth, D.B., Burns, M.J., Fletcher, T.D., Hale, R.L., Hoang, L.N.,
Livingston, G., Rippy, M.A., Roy, A.H., Scoggins, M., Wallace, A., 2016. Principles
for urban stormwater management to protect stream ecosystems. Freshw. Sci. 35 (1),
398–411.
Wan, Z.X., Li, T., Liu, Y.T., 2018. Effective nitrogen removal during different periods of a
field-scale bioretention system. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (18), 17855–17861.
Wang, M., Zhang, D., Adhityan, A., Ng, W.J., Dong, J., Tan, S.K., 2016. Assessing cost-
effectiveness of bioretention on stormwater in response to climate change and
urbanization for future scenarios. J. Hydrol. 543, 423–432.
Wang, M., Zhang, D.Q., Su, J., Trzcinski, A.P., Dong, J.W., Tan, S.K., 2017. Future
scenarios modeling of urban stormwater management response to impacts of climate
change and urbanization. Clean 45 (10), 1700111.
Wang, M., Zhang, D.Q., Adhityan, A., Ng, W.J., Dong, J.W., Tan, S.K., 2018a.
Conventional and holistic urban stormwater management in coastal cities: a case
study of the practice in Hong Kong and Singapore. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 34 (2),
192–212.
Wang, M., Zhang, D., Dong, J., Tan, S.K., 2018b. Application of constructed wetlands for
treating agricultural runoff and agro-industrial wastewater: a review. Hydrobiologia
805 (1), 1–31.
Wang, M., Zhang, D., Li, Y., Hou, Q., Yu, Y., Qi, J., et al., 2018c. Effect of a submerged
zone and carbon source on nutrient and metal removal for stormwater by
bioretention cells. Water 10 (11), 1629.
Wang, M., Zhang, D.Q., Su, J., Dong, J.W., Tan, S.K., 2018d. Assessing hydrological
effects and performance of low impact development practices based on future
scenarios modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 12–23.
Wang, M., Zhang, D., Cheng, Y., Tan, S.K., 2019a. Assessing performance of porous
pavements and bioretention cells for stormwater management in response to
probable climatic changes. J. Environ. Manag. 243, 157–167.
Wang, M., Zhang, D.Q., Lou, S.W., Hou, Q.H., Liu, Y.J., Cheng, Y.N., Qi, J.D., Tan, S.K.,
2019b. Assessing hydrological effects of bioretention cells for urban stormwater
runoff in response to climatic changes. Water 11 (5), 997.
Winston, R.J., Dorsey, J.D., Hunt, W.F., 2016. Quantifying volume reduction and peak
flow mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio. Sci. Total
Environ. 553, 83–95.
Wu, C.H., Huang, G.R., Wu, S.Y., 2014. Risk analysis of combinations of short duration
rainstorm and tidal level in Guangzhou based on Copula function. J. Hydrol. Eng. 33
(2), 33–41.
Wuebbles, D., Meehl, G., Hayhoe, K., Karl, T.R., Kunkel, K., Santer, B., et al., 2014.
CMIP5 climate model analyses: climate extremes in the United States. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 95 (4), 571–583.
Z. Wang et al.
Xu, C., Hong, J., Jia, H., Liang, S., Xu, T., 2017. Life cycle environmental and economic
assessment of a LID-BMP treatment train system: a case study in China. J. Clean.
Prod. 149, 227–237.
Yang, Y., Chui, T.F.M., 2018. Optimizing surface and contributing areas of bioretention
cells for stormwater runoff quality and quantity management. J. Environ. Manag.
206, 1090–1103.
Yu, Z., Gu, H., Wang, J., Xia, J., Lu, B., 2018. Effect of projected climate change on the
hydrological regime of the Yangtze River Basin, China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk
Assess. 32 (1), 1–16.
13
Journal of Environmental Management 264 (2020) 110483
Zahmatkesh, Z., Karamouz, M., Goharian, E., Burian, S.J., 2014. Analysis of the effects of
climate change on urban storm water runoff using statistically downscaled
precipitation data and a change factor approach. J. Hydrol. Eng. 20 (7), 05014022.
Zhang, H., Cheng, J., Wu, Z., Li, C., Qin, J., Liu, T., 2018. Effects of impervious surface on
the spatial distribution of urban waterlogging risk spots at multiple scales in
Guangzhou, south China. Sustainability 10 (5), 1589.
Zhu, Z., Chen, Z., Chen, X., Yu, G., 2019. An assessment of the hydrologic effectiveness of
low impact development (LID) practices for managing runoff with different
objectives. J. Environ. Manag. 231, 504–514.