Evaluating the Effectiveness of Green Roads

for Runoff Control

Jen-Yang Lin, Ph.D. 1; Chi-Feng Chen, Ph.D. 2; and Chia-Chun Ho, Ph.D. 3

Abstract: Green roads can be incorporated into low-impact development (LID) practices to reduce the risk of flood disasters by collecting
rainfall and reusing it as irrigation water for vegetation near the roads. In this study, an elevated expressway in Taichung, a city in central
Taiwan, was selected to evaluate the performance of LID facilities; the storm water management model (SWMM) was applied with real site
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

dimensions to compute possible runoff hydrographs and compare different real rainfall event scenarios. The runoff reductions from infiltra-
tion ponds, infiltration swales, rain barrels, and ecoponds were ranked. The results showed that the annual runoff reduction was 43.5–54.5%,
and all LID facilities collected 5,365 m3 of runoff. Finally, three actual rainfall events in 2015 were simulated to determine drainage
efficiency. The SWMM results showed that the elevated expressway LID facilities would have effectively reduced the flooding risks for
those three actual rainfall events. Moreover, the performance of runoff reduction rate during slow rains with a long duration was higher
than the performance under heavy rains with a short duration. DOI: 10.1061/JSWBAY.0000847. This work is made available under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Author keywords: Green road; Low-impact development (LID); Flood mitigation; Storm-water management model (SWMM).

Introduction
Low-impact development (LID) was introduced in 1999 by Prince
George’s County, Maryland, United States (Prince George’s
County 1999). LID is a storm-water management strategy that
seeks to mitigate the impacts of increased runoff and storm-water
pollution. Traditional storm-water management aims to concentrate
and drain storm water quickly; by contrast, the LID approach seeks
to retain and detain storm water locally and use that water as a re-
source. The main concept of LID is to restore the predevelopment
hydrologic condition both during and after development. Increas-
ing infiltration ability and lengthening concentration time are the
primary measures for minimizing negative water impact by devel-
opment (Prince George’s County 1999; Coffman 2000). Moreover,
LID can replenish aquifers and reduce water pollution through
natural purification systems to achieve the goal of environmentally
sustainable development.
LID can be apply to urban construction projects such as parks,
roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings. In Taiwan, LID is
increasingly accepted and applied, especially in the development
of academic campuses and public spaces; however, LID is rarely
used in the construction of elevated expressways. One of the newly
built elevated expressways in Taichung, a city in central Taiwan, is
considered to be a green road because it was designed with LID
principles to manage the road surface runoff by collecting rainfall
and reusing it as irrigation water for vegetation near the road.
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Taipei Univ. of
Technology, No. 1, Section 3, Zhongxiao E. Rd., Taipei 10608, Taiwan.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Natural Resource, Chinese Culture Univ.,
No. 55, Hwa-Kang Rd., Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei 11114, Taiwan.
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Taipei Univ.
of Technology, No. 1, Section 3, Zhongxiao E. Rd., Taipei 10608, Taiwan
(corresponding author). E-mail: ccho@ntut.edu.tw
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 27, 2016; approved
on August 25, 2017; published online on January 5, 2018. Discussion
period open until June 5, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Sustainable
Water in the Built Environment, © ASCE, ISSN 2379-6111.
After LID facilities have been built, they must be monitored and
assessed to determine their performance and to generate feedback
for future design improvements. However, the green road men-
tioned above did not have any monitoring equipment, and the real
runoff reduction efficiency was unknown. Therefore, the objective
of this study was to assess the performance of the green road by
other simulation tools or methods. Numerous storm-water simula-
tion models have been established, and one of the most widely used
ones is the storm-water management model (SWMM). To optimize
SWMM simulation in light of the promising LID trend, a new LID
simulation module was built and incorporated into the SWMM
(Rossman 2010).
Study Area and LID Facilities Layout
The studied green road (Fig. 1) is located in Taichung; it is an
elevated expressway that connects the inner city of Taichung with
nearby areas. The width of this green road is 33.6 m and the total
length is 4,700 m with 106 bridge spans; each span has an inde-
pendent drain pipe to collect road runoff. The elevated expressway
also has eight drainage subsystems, separated by distances of 440–
600 m. Many LID facilities are included, such as 16 infiltration
ponds, an infiltration swale with a total length of 6,170 m, three
rainfall storage systems, and seven ecoponds. The stored runoff
is filtered and then pumped back to water plants along the roads.
Table 1 lists the layout of these LID facilities.
These facilities are described below:
1. Infiltration ponds (Fig. 2): Fig. 3 shows the details of an infil-
tration pond; each pond is 18 m wide, 35 m long, and 0.30 m
deep. Rainwater flows directly from a drain pipe into the ponds
and replenishes the groundwater. If a pond is full, the excess
rainwater overflows into the infiltration swale.
2. Infiltration swale (Fig. 4): An infiltration swale 1 m wide
and 0.6 m deep was established on both sides of the ground
below this elevated expressway. Additionally, to increase sur-
face roughness results over increased surface contact time,
extra infiltration, evaporation, transpiration, and water quality

© ASCE 04018001-1 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001

 Infiltration area
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Onsite photos of the infiltration swales

Fig. 1. Onsite photo of the studied green road

Table 1. Quantity of LID Facilities for Each Subdrainage System

LID facilities
Number of
subdrainage Distance Infiltration Infiltration Rainfall
system (km) ponds swale (m) storage system Ecopond
I 0.00–1.11 3 820 1 2
II 1.11–1.67 — 780 — 2
III 1.67–2.15 — 680 — —
IV 2.15–2.67 4 800 1 —
V 2.67–3.31 — 940 — —
VI 3.31–3.71 3 620 — —
VII 3.71–4.16 4 680 1 1
VIII 4.16–4.75 2 850 — 2
Total 16 6,170 3 7

Fig. 5. Onsite photos of the rainfall storage system

Fig. 2. Onsite photos of the infiltration pond

Fig. 6. Onsite photos of the ecopond

enhancement prior to the runoff entering another storm-water

management facility is facilitated. Specifically, infiltration areas
measuring 1 × 1 m were set up every 6 m along the infiltra-
tion swale.
3. Rainfall storage systems (Fig. 5): To collect rainfall and reuse
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of infiltration pond detail
it as irrigation water for vegetation below the road, three

© ASCE 04018001-2 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001

 Table 2. SWMM Model Parameters Used in the Case Study
Facility Watershed Infiltration pond Infiltration swale Ecopond Rainfall storage system
Area (ha) 0.1008 0.063 Depend on 0.096 0.024
each unit size
Slope (%) — 0.8 0.8 0.8 —
N-imperv 0.011 — — 0.01 —
N-perv — 0.05 0.1 0.17 —
Infiltration rate (mm=h) — 34 34 — —
Soil layer (mm) — 750 1,500 — —
Storage layer (mm) — 750 — — —
Runoff weigh (m) 40 — — — —
Depth (cm) — 35 60 35 —

underground rainfall storage systems were established. Each sys-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Rainfall Data for Three Rainfall Events

tem consists of 12 1.1-m-diameter and 8-m-long storage tanks.
Accumulated Rainfall Maximum hourly
Event Rainfall date rainfall (mm) duration (h) rainfall (mm)
If the storage tanks are full, the water overflows to the other LID
facilities such as infiltration ponds or infiltration swales.
1 05/12/2015 67.6 5.2 44.0 4. Ecoponds (Fig. 6): Each ecopond is 40 m wide, 24 m long, and
2 05/20/2015 129.4 33.6 23.0 0.35 m deep. They can collect 336 m3 of rainwater, and also
3 08/08/2015 68.6 27.8 8.8
create an ecologically sustainable area.

Fig. 7. Runoff simulation results in 2005

© ASCE 04018001-3 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Runoff simulation results in 2011

Infiltration is the most crucial mechanism of LID design factors. The SWMM model was developed by the U.S. Environmental
A geological survey report (Construction and Planning Agency Protection Agency, and the LID simulation module was included
2009) indicated that the topsoil at this site is silty sand to an in the new version in 2009. The SWMM is a rainfall-runoff model
approximate depth of 2 m, followed by a gravel sand layer more that is able to simulate single storm events or simulation with long-
than 20 m thick. For fairly uniform sand (i.e., sand with a small term precipitation continuous. Moreover, this is a watershed model,
uniformity coefficient), Hazen (1930) proposed an empirical rela- which indicates that both the watershed data and the hydrographic
tionship for hydraulic conductivity in the form of data of the studied watershed are required. In this study, an elevated
road was the watershed, and several subwatersheds were delineated
kðcm=sÞ ¼ cD210 ð1Þ
according to the real drainage routes. The green road is 4,750 m
where k = permeability coefficient of soil; c = constant that varies long and has 106 spans, each of which is 40 m and including 255 m
from 1.0 to 1.5; and D10 = effective size (mm). The geological of the approach road at both ends of the green road. There are also
survey report indicated that the average effective size from five
boreholes was 0.0087 mm. The permeability coefficient (k) of this
Table 4. Runoff Reduction Efficiency per Unit Surface Area for Different
site was 7.56 × 10−4 –1.13 × 10−3 cm=s (9.43 × 10−4 cm=s on LID Facilities
average).
Runoff reduction Runoff reduction
Surface per area per area
SWMM Type area (m2 ) (in 2005) (m3 =m2 ) (in 2011) (m3 =m2 )
The applications of the SWMM model are numerous and various Infiltration pond 630.0 26.22 16.70
studies can be found (Campbell and Sullivan 2002; Choi and Infiltration swale 822.0 10.97 7.50
Ball 2002; Hwang 2005; Jang et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2012, 2014; Rainfall storage 211.2 5.99 5.58
Lo 2013). Therefore, SWMM was used to evaluate the LID perfor- system
Ecopond 960.0 0.65 0.59
mance of the green road in this study.

© ASCE 04018001-4 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001

 eight drainage subsystems along the road; thus, eight subwater-
sheds were represented in the SWMM.
Two infiltration calculation methods can be chosen in the
SWMM; for this study, Green-Ampt was used as the infiltration
equation. The model parameters were set according to real onsite
data and reference data from Rosa et al. (2015) (Table 2).
The rainfall data were taken from the Taichung meteorological
station, and the most recent 10 years of data were collected.
During those 10 years, the highest annual rainfall was in 2005,
which measured 2,575 mm with relatively strong rainfall inten-
sity. The lowest rainfall was in 2011, which measured 1,205 mm
with relatively weak rainfall intensity. The LID efficiency of
the green road was simulated under these two extreme rainfall
years.

2 0

1.8 Rainfall 20
1.6 Scenario B
Scenario C 40
1.4

Rainfall (mm)
Runoff (cms)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.2 60

1
80
0.8
100
0.6

0.4 120

0.2
140
0

(a) 05/12/2015

1 0

0.9 Rainfall 20
0.8 Scenario B
40
0.7 Scenario C

Rainfall (mm)
Runoff (cms)

0.6 60

0.5
80
0.4
100
0.3

0.2 120

0.1
140
0

(b) 05/20/2015 05/21/2015 05/22/2015

0.35 0

0.3 Rainfall 10
Scenario B
0.25
Scenario C 20
Rainfall (mm)
Runoff (cms)

0.2
30
0.15

40
0.1

50
0.05

0 60

(c) 08/08/2015 08/09/2015

Fig. 9. Runoff simulation results in three actual rainfall events: (a) Event 1; (b) Event 2; (c) Event 3

© ASCE 04018001-5 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001

 Table 5. Simulation Results of Three Actual Rainfall Events
Event 1 2 3
Scenario B C B C B C
Runoff (CMS) 2.17 1.20 4.05 2.22 2.12 0.89
Volume of runoff (m3 ) 7,800.6 4,311.9 14,588.9 7,987.1 7,639.6 3,216.3
Runoff reduction volume (m3 ) 3,488.7 6,601.9 4,423.3
Reduction rate (%) 44.7 45.3 57.9

Moreover, three actual rainfall events from 2015 were used to
analyze the risk of flooding of the green road (Table 3). These rain-
fall events occurred with three different rainfall patterns. Events 1
and 3 had almost the same total rainfall amount but with a substan-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
escapes the LID facilities. Therefore, the total runoff reduction rate
would be lower in a year with heavy rainfall than it would be in a
year with light rainfall. In the predevelopment scenario, no runoff
occurs because the water collection area is small and the original

tial difference in rainfall duration; specifically, the rainfall intensity infiltration rate is high.
of Event 1 was higher than that of Event 3. By contrast, Event 2 was The individual LID units have different sizes; one can compare
a long-duration heavy rainfall with the highest amount of rainfall their efficiencies with their surface areas. A quotient can be defined
and the longest rainfall duration. as the runoff conservation volume (by either infiltration or storage)
Three scenarios were used to compare the LID performance in divided by the surface area (Table 4). In the simulation results of
this study. Scenarios A, B, and C represented the predevelopment data from 2005, the unit efficiency quotients of each type of LID
site, the site as developed without LIDs, and the site as developed facility were 26.22 m3 =m2 for infiltration ponds, 10.97 m3 =m2 for
with LIDs, respectively. Scenario A refers to the land condition be- infiltration swales, 5.99 m3 =m2 for rainfall storage systems, and
fore road construction, with no artificial construction. Scenario B 0.65 m3 =m2 for ecoponds. In the results of data from 2011, the unit
refers to a road constructed without LID design, from which all efficiency quotients of each type of LID were 16.70 m3 =m2 for in-
runoff is collected and drained to traditional concrete drainage filtration ponds, 7.50 m3 =m2 for infiltration swales, 5.58 m3 =m2
ditches on the ground. Scenario C is the current condition, in which for rainfall storage system, and 0.59 m3 =m2 for ecoponds. These
the road surface runoff is directed into LID systems, such as infil- efficiency quotients demonstrate the various runoff reduction abil-
tration swales, infiltration ponds, ecoponds, and rainfall storage ities of different types of LID facilities; the results also prove that
systems. runoff is most effectively reduced by infiltration ponds. Indeed, in-
filtration ponds offer relatively high infiltration rates and relatively
deep depths; thus, they contribute greater runoff infiltration and
Results and Discussion
larger storage volumes than do other facilities.
SWMM was applied in this study with real site dimensions to com-
pute the possible runoff hydrographs and compare different scenar- Results of Reduction Flooding Risk
ios. Although the runoff values were not proven by observations,
the relative performance still can be compared. Therefore, this To understand the performance of LID facilities in reducing
study focused on relative differences and used comparisons to draw flooding hazards, three actual rainfall events from 2015 were also
conclusions. simulated in this study. Fig. 9 and Table 5 show the results of the
simulations for Scenarios B and C. A comparison of Events 1 and 3
shows that, even though their accumulated rainfalls were roughly
Annual Runoff Simulation Results
the same, the runoff reduction for Event 3 (57.9%) was signifi-
Some SWMM parameters were determined from onsite measure- cantly more effective than that of Event 1 (44.7%). Thus, for a
ments, and some were from suggested reference values. In simu- heavy rainfall over a short time (Event 1), infiltration facilities ap-
lations of the 2005 rainfall events, the modeled total runoff in parently function poorly and flooding is likely. The runoff reduc-
Scenario A was zero, meaning that all rainfall stayed onsite and tion rate of Event 2 was almost the same as that of Event 1 owing to
no water flowed out. Scenario A showed a high infiltration rate the pattern of heavy rainfall over a long time. The runoff reduction
attributable to the sandy gravel formation, which provided a large rates of all drainage subsystems using LID facilities are shown in
underground storage volume. Because the site area is small and the
rainfall volume can be stored underground or in depressions, the
surface runoff becomes very small. The total simulated runoff
volume of Scenario B was 276,996 m3 , but simulated runoff after Table 6. Runoff Reduction Rate of Each Subdrainage System Using LID
LID placement was reduced to 156,557 m3 (Scenario C). The si- Facilities
mulated runoff reduction rate was 43.5%. Similarly, the simulations Number of Reduction rate (%)
of 2011 rainfall events showed that Scenario A had no runoff. subdrainage
However, the total simulated runoff volume of Scenario B was system Event 1 Event 2 Event 3 Average
124,013 m3 , and the simulated runoff volume of Scenario C I 71 71 69 71
was 56,376 m3 . The simulated runoff reduction rate was 54.5%. II 51 38 37 42
These simulation results are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. III 33 16 17 22
The simulated runoff reduction rate was higher for 2011 than IV 79 60 62 67
that for 2005, implying that the performance of LID would be V 36 25 17 26
higher in years with relatively little rainfall. This is because in years VI 73 55 60 63
with heavy rainfall, the rainfall intensity is higher, the infiltration VII 87 65 67 73
VIII 82 64 69 72
rate is lower than the rainfall rate, and more water overflows and

© ASCE 04018001-6 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001

 Table 6, which clearly reveals that the runoff reduction rates of
drainage subsystems with infiltration ponds were greater than the
rates of subsystems without infiltration ponds. This result indi-
cates that infiltration ponds have a preferable runoff reduction
effect.
A drainage ditch is designed to drain excess runoff from an im-
pervious surface and from the surface of the ground. Once the water
level is higher than the designed height of the ditch, the ditch
overflows, which increases the risk of flooding in the surrounding
area. The most downstream drainage system (i.e., the eighth

2.5 0

Rainfall
Water level in the ditch / swale (m)

20
2 Scenario B
Scenario C 40

Rainfall (mm)
1.5 60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

80
1
100
height of the ditch/swale = 0.6 m
0.5 120

140
0

(a) 05/12/2015

2.5 0

Rainfall
Water level in the ditch / swale (m)

20
2 Scenario B
40
Scenario C

Rainfall (mm)
1.5 60

80
1
100
height of the ditch/swale = 0.6 m
0.5 120

140
0

05/20/2015 05/21/2015 05/22/2015

(b)

2.5 0
Water level in the ditch / swale (m)

Rainfall 10
2
Scenario B
Scenario C 20
Rainfall (mm)

1.5

30

1
40
height of the ditch/swale = 0.6 m
0.5
50

0 60

(c) 08/08/2015 05/12/2015 08/09/2015

Fig. 10. Water level in the ditch/swale during three actual rainfall events: (a) Event 1; (b) Event 2; (c) Event 3

© ASCE 04018001-7 J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.

J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001

 drainage subsystem) of this green road was analyzed for its flood
potential in Scenarios B and C. Fig. 10 shows the water levels of a
traditional concrete drainage ditch (Scenario B) and of an infiltra-
tion swale (Scenario C) during three simulated rainfall events mod-
eled on real data. For rainfall Event 1, the height of the water level
in Scenario B was significantly higher than the height of the drain-
age ditch at 09:00, which may have flooded the surrounding roads.
However, the water level was lower than the height of the infiltra-
tion swale in Scenario C, where LID facilities were used. Rainfall
Event 2 shows the same situation as Event 1. In short, if this
elevated expressway had a traditional drainage system without
LID facilities, it would likely produce flooding problems around
the vicinity of the road. It may be concluded from this argument
that a green road using LID facilities can reduce the risk of flooding
of the surrounding area. As it turned out, this area had no flooding
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 223.225.34.218 on 12/22/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in 2015, which was consistent with the results of numerical
simulations.
Conclusion
The green road with complete LID facilities considered in this
study is located in Taichung. The road surface runoff is collected
and reused for plant irrigation; however, this road has no onsite
monitoring plan, and no quantitative assessment of its performance
has been made. Therefore, this study applied the SWMM to present
the LID potential of the green road. Up to 50% of the annual runoff
may be reduced by these LID facilities.
The water conservation quotients of different LID facilities
could be a helpful metric for understanding the performance
of LID facilities, and for future designs. The quotients are
16.70–26.22 m3 =m2 for infiltration ponds, 7.50–10.97 m3 =m2
for infiltration swales, and 0.59–0.65 m3 =m2 for ecoponds, accord-
ing to the simulated experiments. The water storage ability of a
rainfall storage system is entirely dependent on its size. Thus, if
available land area is limited, LID facilities with high runoff reduc-
tion efficiency, such as infiltration ponds, are suggested.
Finally, because infiltration does not seem to function well in
infiltration facilities under heavy rainfall over a short period of
time, green roads can be expected to have more effective runoff
reduction under slow rain with a long duration than under a heavy
rain with a short duration.
© ASCE 04018001-8
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ., 2018, 4(2): 04018001
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
c = constant that varies from 1.0 to 1.5;
D10 = effective size (mm); and
k = permeability coefficient of soil.
References
Campbell, C. W., and Sullivan, S. M. (2002). “Simulating time-varying
cave flow and water levels using the storm water management model.”
Eng. Geol., 65(2–3), 133–139.
Choi, K.-S., and Ball, J. E. (2002). “Parameter estimation for urban runoff
modeling.” Urban Water, 4(1–3), 31–41.
Coffman, L. (2000). Low-impact development design strategies: An
integrated design approach, Dept. of Environmental Resource,
Programs and Planning Division, Prince George’s County, MD.
Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior. (2009).
Planning report on Huangjong elevated express way in Taichung city,
Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
Hazen, A. (1930). Water supply: American civil engineers handbook,
Wiley, New York, 1444–1518.
Hwang, C. C. (2005). “Assessing the performance of a porous pavement on
pollution control and runoff abatement.” J. Chin. Inst. Civ. Hydraul.
Eng., 17(3), 529–535 (in Chinese).
Jang, S., et al. (2007). “Using SWMM as a tool for hydrologic impact
assessment.” Desalination, 212(1–3), 344–356.
Lo, W. J. (2013). “Optimal spatial and volume design of rainwater
catchment systems for flood mitigation in Zhonghe dist.” M.S. thesis,
National Taiwan Univ., Taipei, Taiwan.
Prince George’s County. (1999). Low impact development hydrologic
analysis, Dept. of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning
Division, Prince George’s County, MD.
Rosa, D. J., Clausen, J. C., and Dietz, M. E. (2015). “Calibration and veri-
fication 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, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Wang, C. W., Chen, C. F., and Lin, J. Y. (2014). “Effects of buffer strips on
reducing nonpoint source pollution and improving water quality in
Feitsui reservoir.” J. Soil Water Conserv., 45(3), 207–215 (in Chinese).
Wang, W. W., Zhao, Z., and Qin, H. (2012). “Hydrological effect assess-
ment of low impact development for urbanized area based on SWMM.”
Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 48(2), 303–309
(in Chinese).
J. Sustainable Water Built Environ.