4.0 Article

Evaluating the multiple benefits of a sustainable drainage scheme in Newcastle, UK

Publisher

ICE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1680/jwama.16.00103

Keywords

floods & floodworks; hydrology & water resource; infrastructure planning

Funding

  1. Northumbrian Water Group
  2. Blue-Green Cities Research Consortium
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K013661/1]
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/P004180/1, EP/K013661/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. EPSRC [EP/P004180/1, EP/K013661/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sustainable drainage systems and 'blue-green' infrastructure provide a range of environmental, economic and social benefits in addition to managing water quantity and quality. Recognition of the multi-functionality of these systems and their multiple benefits could lead to joint efforts to deliver infrastructure that meets the strategic objectives of both public and private organisations. This paper reports on the evaluation of the multiple benefits of the Killingworth and Longbenton surface water management scheme, a partnership project in north-east England jointly funded by Northumbrian Water, the Environment Agency and North Tyneside Council. Using complementary assessment tools, the evaluation quantified and monetised six key benefits, assessed two qualitative benefits, illustrated the spatial distribution of five non-flood benefits and highlighted locations with the greatest opportunity for multi-beneficial intervention. It was found that the scheme generates significant flood damage reduction benefits, improves water quality, habitat size, carbon dioxide sequestration and amenity, and reduces noise pollution. Use of the tools for multiple benefit evaluation shows promise as an aid to facilitate partnership working towards implementation of multi-functional sustainable drainage systems and blue-green infrastructure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available