4.7 Article

Enhancing a rainfall-runoff model to assess the impacts of BMPs and LID practices on storm runoff

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 147, Issue -, Pages 12-23

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.005

Keywords

Best management practices; Low impact development practices; Modeling; Runoff; Urban areas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Best management practices (BMPs) and low impact development (LID) practices are increasingly being used as stormwater management techniques to reduce the impacts of urban development on hydrology and water quality. To assist planners and decision-makers at various stages of development projects (planning, implementation, and evaluation), user-friendly tools are needed to assess the effectiveness of BMPs and LID practices. This study describes a simple tool, the Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment-LID (L-THIA-LID), which is enhanced with additional BMPs and LID practices, improved approaches to estimate hydrology and water quality, and representation of practices in series (meaning combined implementation). The tool was used to evaluate the performance of BMPs and LID practices individually and in series with 30 years of daily rainfall data in four types of idealized land use units and watersheds (low density residential, high density residential, industrial, and commercial). Simulation results were compared with the results of other published studies. The simulated results showed that reductions in runoff volume and pollutant loads after implementing BMPs and LID practices, both individually and in series, were comparable with the observed impacts of these practices. The L-THIA-LID 2.0 model is capable of assisting decision makers in evaluating environmental impacts of BMPs and LID practices, thereby improving the effectiveness of stormwater management decisions. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available