Decision Making on the Gray-Green Stormwater Infrastructure Continuum

Bell, Colin D.; Spahr, K.; Grubert, Emily; Stokes-Draut, Jennifer; Gallo, Elizabeth; McCray, J. E.; Hogue, T. S.

doi:10.1061/jswbay.0000871

Cited by 47 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…30 There are many types of SCMs, which fall on a continuum of design and offer a variety of hydrologic and water quality benefits at different scales, costs, and levels of environmental impact. 31 Historically, municipalities and developers implemented larger, regional SCMs like retention ponds, detention basins, and constructed wetlands downstream of . A majority of concentrations exceed the standards and criteria, highlighting how stormwater quality limits its value as a resource.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biofilters are also often called bioretention basins or rain gardens; a discussion of regional nomenclature for green infrastructure is provided elsewhere. 31 Water infiltrates through to underlying soil or is directed via underdrains to stormwater conveyance systems. 7 Typically, a drawdown time of between 12 and 48 hours is required to minimize insect vector concerns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This shift toward distributed SCMs may be a result of factors such as lower capital costs, smaller footprints compatible with ultra-urban areas, and co-benefits. 31 While the definition and naming convention for different designs of SCMs varies, here we assume that the terms "biofilter" and "bioretention" refer to the same type of SCM, as described above, and use the term "biofilter" throughout.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biochar-augmented biofilters to improve pollutant removal from stormwater – can they improve receiving water quality?

Boehm

Bell

Fitzgerald

et al. 2020

Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biochar-augmented biofilters to improve pollutant removal from stormwater – can they improve receiving water quality?

Boehm

Bell

Fitzgerald

et al. 2020

Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This emphasis on environmental burden associated with some functional unit means that when LCA of mitigation infrastructure is not designed around a functional unit that appropriately communicates the infrastructure's environmental harm mitigation, results can be confusing. For example, LCA results for SCMs are commonly presented as impact per unit of catchment area [29]. Users of these results are likely to understand this framing to be a net impact, accounting for both the investment of environmental burden and return in the form of environmental harm reduction from the SCM, because the SCM explicitly exists to provide some environmental service.…”

Section: Why Lca Is An Appropriate Sustainability Quantification Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation Life Cycle Assessment: Best Practices from LCA of Energy and Water Infrastructure That Incurs Impacts to Mitigate Harm

Grubert

Stokes-Draut

2020

Energies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change will require societal-scale infrastructural changes. Balancing priorities for water, energy, and climate will demand that approaches to water and energy management deviate from historical practice. Infrastructure designed to mitigate environmental harm, particularly related to climate change, is likely to become increasingly prevalent. Understanding the implications of such infrastructure for environmental quality is thus of interest. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) is a common sustainability assessment tool that aims to quantify the total, multicriteria environmental impact caused by a functional unit. Notably, however, LCA quantifies impacts in the form of environmental “costs” of delivering the functional unit. In the case of mitigation infrastructures, LCA results can be confusing because they are generally reported as the harmful impacts of performing mitigation rather than as net impacts that incorporate benefits of successful mitigation. This paper argues for defining mitigation LCA as a subtype of LCA to facilitate better understanding of results and consistency across studies. Our recommendations are informed by existing LCA literature on mitigation infrastructure, focused particularly on stormwater and carbon management. We specifically recommend that analysts: (1) use a performance-based functional unit; (2) be attentive to burden shifting; and (3) assess and define uncertainty, especially related to mitigation performance.

show abstract

“…Gray infrastructure signifies infrastructures that rely upon structures as distinct from GI, which incorporates natural systems. The differences between green and gray infrastructures have been emphasized in the literature, for example by Bell et al [15] (p. 3) in the context of stormwater control systems (SCMs) as follows: "Gray SCMs are larger structures made from conventional construction materials (e.g., concrete, steel, and plastic) that focus on storage and release, whereas green SCMs are typically smaller, consist of media and plants, and focus on reducing runoff and pollutant loads." GI can potentially support connectivity with gray infrastructure, and this connectivity can increase the reduction of negative water-related impacts of gray infrastructure, and potentially open up opportunities for additional funding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green Infrastructure Financing as an Imperative to Achieve Green Goals

Zimmerman

Brenner

Abella

2019

Climate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green infrastructure (GI) has increasingly gained popularity for achieving adaptation and mitigation goals associated with climate change and extreme weather events. To continue implementing GI, financial tools are needed for upfront project capital or development costs and later for maintenance. This study’s purpose is to evaluate financing tools used in a selected GI dataset and to assess how those tools are linked to various GI technologies and other GI project characteristics like cost and size. The dataset includes over 400 GI U.S. projects, comprising a convenience sample, from the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). GI project characteristics were organized to answer a number of research questions using descriptive statistics. Results indicated that the number of projects and overall cost shares were mostly located in a few states. Grants were the most common financial tool with about two-thirds of the projects reporting information on financial tools receiving grant funding. Most projects reported financing from only one tool with a maximum of three tools. Projects primarily included multiple GI technologies averaging three and a maximum of nine. The most common GI technologies were bioswales, retention, rain gardens, and porous pavements. These findings are useful for decision-makers evaluating funding support for GI.

show abstract

Decision Making on the Gray-Green Stormwater Infrastructure Continuum

Cited by 47 publications

References 41 publications

Biochar-augmented biofilters to improve pollutant removal from stormwater – can they improve receiving water quality?

Biochar-augmented biofilters to improve pollutant removal from stormwater – can they improve receiving water quality?

Mitigation Life Cycle Assessment: Best Practices from LCA of Energy and Water Infrastructure That Incurs Impacts to Mitigate Harm

Green Infrastructure Financing as an Imperative to Achieve Green Goals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About