E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

HYDRAULIC CRITERIA IN A HOLISTIC DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
(1)

(2)

IGNACIO ANDRS-DOMNECH , ADRIN MORALES-TORRES , IGNACIO ESCUDER-BUENO

(4)
MOMPARLER

(3)

& SARA PERALES-

(1)

Instituto Universitario de Investigacin de Ingeniera del Agua y Medio Ambiente, Universitat Politcnica de Valncia, Valenc ia, Spain.
igando@hma.upv.es

(2)

Instituto Universitario de Investigacin de Ingeniera del Agua y Medio Ambiente, Universitat Politcnica de Valncia, Valencia, Spain.
admotor@upvnet.upv.es

(3)

Instituto Universitario de Investigacin de Ingeniera del Agua y Medio Ambiente, Universitat Politcnica de Valncia, Valenc ia, Spain.
iescuder@hma.upv.es
(4)

PMEnginyeria, Valencia, Spain.

sperales@pmenginyeria.com

ABSTRACT
Urban development modifies the natural hydrologic patterns by producing higher and more rapid peak discharges with
higher runoff volumes. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) aim at minimizing the impacts on local hydrology by
reducing the amount of impervious surfaces promoting infiltration and disconnecting flow paths to reduce runoff volumes
and peak flows.
Recovering natural hydrology by sustainable stormwater management produces clear benefits in the urban water cycle,
like reduction of combined sewer overflows (CSO), mitigation of flood risk by detaining and reducing stormwater
discharges, and reduction of stormwater inflows into sewer systems, hence reducing the costs and energy consumption in
treating and pumping runoff.
The EU-MED Programme ESTORMED project (improvement of energy efficiency in the water cycle by the use of
innovative storm water management in smart Mediterranean cities, www.e2stormed.eu) has developed a holistic Decision
Support Tool (DST) that includes energy efficiency and environmental criteria in the decision making process for
stormwater management. Within this tool, guidance is provided to estimate the hydraulic performance of drainage
infrastructures, especially SuDS. With this data, economic benefits and energy savings produced by runoff infiltration and
detention are quantified. They include flood protection benefits, aquifer recharge and savings in treating and pumping
runoff. The ESTORMED Decision Support Tool introduces these results in a multi-criteria analysis to support the decision
making process in storm water management.
The paper focuses on the hydraulic features of the DST. The main purpose of the tool is to compare and evaluate different
drainage options for stormwater management, analyzing different drainage system scenarios. Each scenario is defined by
different drainage infrastructures from a catalogue of several types of conventional infrastructures and SuDS. Hydraulic
criteria are based on the estimation of runoff produced, runoff reduction, peak flow reduction and CSO mitigation.
Finally, a case study in Spain is presented to compare two different drainage strategies (conventional vs SuDS). As the
DST results show, hydraulic performance of SuDS provides stormwater management benefits like lower runoff volumes to
be treated.
Keywords: Stormwater management, Decision Support Tool, Sustainable Drainage Systems, multi-criteria analysis, hydraulic criteria.
1.

INTRODUCTION

City and stormwater are not, at first sight, always compatible, since the natural drainage systems (rivers, streams,
wetlands, etc.) are modified and polluted by urban development (Philip, 2011). When land is developed, the hydrology, or
the natural cycle of water, is altered. In general, urban development removes the vegetation that intercepts, slows and
returns rainfall to the air through evaporation and transpiration. Terrain is flattened and natural depressions which slow
and provide temporary storage for rainfall are filled. Therefore, rainfall that once seeped into the ground now runs off the
surface. The addition of buildings, roadways, parking lots and other surfaces that are impervious to rainfall further reduces
infiltration and increases runoff. Furthermore, development increases both the concentration and types of pollutants
carried by runoff (ARC, 2001).
Urban development produces higher and more rapid peak discharge, with higher runoff volume and a more rapid return to
low flows. The alteration of natural flow patterns may lead to flooding and channel erosion downstream of the
development. Moreover, the decrease in percolation into the soil can lead to low baseflows in watercourses and reduced
aquifer recharge (Woods-Ballard, Kellagher, Martin, Jefferies, Bray, & Shaffer, 2007).
1

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

In response to these changes in the local hydrology, cities have generally been designed to remove rainfall from the urban
environment as rapidly as possible using drainage channels and underground pipes. In contrast to this conventional
approach, sustainable stormwater management reduces the amount of impervious surfaces, disconnect flow paths and
treat stormwater at source, helping to minimize the impacts to local hydrology (USDHUD, 2003). Sustainable stormwater
management recognizes stormwater as a resource rather than a nuisance, providing tangible benefits like flood risk
management, environmental protection, urban greening and the provisions of an alternative source of water supply (Philip,
2011).
Stormwater management is directly linked with other parts of the urban management, like water supply, wastewater
treatment, energy supply, urban planning and urban landscape (Philip, 2011). Since multiple stakeholders are involved
and budgets are usually limited, assuring awareness and willingness to make informed decisions is of capital importance.
In this context, robust and transparent integrated decision criteria and methods for informed decisions will improve the
quality of stormwater management.
Furthermore, water and wastewater facilities frequently represent the largest and most energy-intensive loads owned and
operated by water utilities, representing up to 35% of municipal energy use (NRDC, 2009). The EU-MED Programme
ESTORMED project (improvement of energy efficiency in the water cycle by the use of innovative stormwater
management in smart Mediterranean cities, www.e2stormed.eu) aims to improve urban hydrology and energy efficiency in
the urban water cycle and in buildings through the promotion of the use of innovative storm water solutions such as
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in six Mediterranean cities.
ESTORMED should improve the urban hydrology and energy efficiency through the promotion of innovative stormwater
solutions and provide tools that allow more informed decisions to be made. To meet this objective, ESTORMED is
developing a Decision Support Tool (DST) that includes energy efficiency, hydraulic performance and environmental
criteria in urban stormwater management decisions. This tool includes a multi-decision criteria to compare economic costs
with energy consumptions, carbon emissions, ecosystem services provided and hydraulic performance. In this sense, this
DST includes the benefits of Sustainable Drainage Systems in the decision making process.
Finally, in this paper an example is explained on how this Decision Support Tool is used to compare different drainage
scenarios in a real case in Spain.
2.

SUSTAINABLE URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Capturing and reusing stormwater runoff before it flows into surface waters allows its use onsite either to replenish
groundwater supplies through infiltration or for grey-water uses such as landscape irrigation or toilet flushing. Sustainable
Drainage Systems make use of common sense and simple technologies such as beds of native plants, rain barrels, green
roofs, vegetated swales, infiltration areas, retention ponds and porous surfaces for car parking and roads (Woods-Ballard,
Kellagher, Martin, Jefferies, Bray, & Shaffer, 2007; USEPA, 2013). Two examples of SuDS in Benaguasil (Spain), which is
one of the pilot cases of the ESTORMED project, are shown in Figure 1. In addition to reducing potable water use, the
result is less water pollution from contaminated runoff, less flooding, replenished water supplies, and often more naturallooking, aesthetically pleasing cityscapes.
SuDS are designed both to manage the risks resulting from urban runoff and to contribute to environmental and landscape
improvement. SuDS objectives are, therefore, to minimize the impacts from the urban development on stormwater quantity
and quality and maximize amenity and biodiversity opportunities (Woods-Ballard, Kellagher, Martin, Jefferies, Bray, &
Shaffer, 2007), as shown in Figure 2. This type of systems can help to avoid combined sewer overflows and to reduce
runoff volume, contributing to flood control, pollution control and providing an alternative source of water.
The use of natural systems to attenuate runoff facilitates adaptation to climate change and international recommendations
(EC, 2012; USEPA, 2008) have been developed to encourage the implementation of more sustainable, flexible and
efficient drainage systems.

Figure 1. Two examples of Sustainable Drainage Systems in Benaguasil: green roof and infiltration basin.

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Figure 2. Comparison of objectives between Conventional Drainage Systems and Sustainable Drainage Systems.
Currently, knowledge of sustainable stormwater management in the Mediterranean Region is very weak except in certainly
limited number of countries, and stormwater is seen as a problem of waste and damage control. The EU Life+ programme
AQUAVAL project (Perales-Momparler, Jefferies, Perigell-Ortega, Peris-Garca, & Muoz-Bonet, 2013) started to
address the weaknesses by retrofitting seven new SuDS installations into two cities in the Province of Valencia, Spain.
Three demonstration sites were monitored in the small city of Xtiva: an infiltration trench and detention-infiltration basin,
an infiltration trench alongside the ring road and a green roof. In the second city, Benaguasil, the analysis focused on
detention-infiltration basins, a rainwater tank, an infiltration basin and a permeable pavement.
Within the monitoring period, those SuDS which incorporated a storage volume achieved quantity performances close to
100%. This efficiency was close to 90% for the permeable pavement and slightly lower for the green roof. From a quality
point of view, the pilots captured suspended solids, organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus thus improving runoff quality
and reducing pollutant load reaching the receiving waters (Perales-Momparler, y otros, 2014). These results show that
SuDS can also reduce runoff volumes and peaks in Mediterranean drainage systems.
ESTORMED capitalises on the results of AQUAVAL to quantify the benefits of SuDS in water management, especially
the energy savings. Using SuDS can potentially reduce energy consumption in a city by (USEPA, 2013):

Reducing the use of potable water. This will reduce the energy consumed in acquiring and treating drinking water
which will be even higher where desalination is used.

Reducing the inflow of stormwater into sewer systems, hence reducing the energy consumed in treating
wastewater and pumping surface and foul water.

Reducing local temperatures and shading of building surfaces. This will lessen the cooling and heating demand
for buildings, reducing energy needs and decreasing emissions from power plants.

Data on energy consumption in the urban water cycle are rarely available and hard to find, so it is very difficult for local
administrators and decision makers to account for energy efficiency when deciding on alternatives, especially when water
related. ESTORMED is gathering data to address these issues and developing the DST to assist in accounting for energy
and environmental matters in the decision-making process.
3.

ESTORMED DECISION SUPPORT TOOL

The Decision Support Tool (DST) developed within ESTORMED (Escuder-Bueno, Andrs-Domnech, PeralesMomparler, & Morales Torres, 2014) quantifies the economic costs, savings, energy consumptions and carbon emissions
of different drainage scenarios in order to include them in a multi-criteria analysis. Figure 3 shows the general concept of
this tool. The DST includes a catalogue of more than 20 types of drainage infrastructure, including SuDS which are used
to define the different drainage scenarios compared. The following benefits and costs of each scenario are estimated:

Costs, energy consumption and carbon emissions during construction and maintenance.

Costs and energy consumption of stormwater pumping and treatment. Runoff produced in each scenario is
estimated to analyse these costs.

Rainwater reuse benefits and energy savings thanks to rainwater harvesting systems.

Flood protection benefits of the drainage infrastructure.

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Benefits and energy savings produced by the improvement of building insulation that green roofs can provide.

Water quality improvements produced by drainage infrastructures.

Carbon dioxide reduced by SuDS vegetation through carbon sequestration.

Advantages produced by ecosystem services.

This analysis includes the estimation of costs, energy consumption and CO emissions of the main urban water
management processes. These results are used to develop decision criteria based on energy efficiency, economic costs,
ecosystem services and hydraulic performance. They can be complemented with other social and environmental criteria to
support the decision-making process. These criteria are finally used to choose between different drainage scenarios with a
multi-criteria analysis.

Figura 3. Conceptual scheme of the ESTORMED Decision Support Tool.

The ESTORMED Decision Support Tool includes hydraulic criteria that can be included within the multi-criteria analysis in
order to support stormwater management. The following quantitative hydraulic criteria are included in the DST:

Volume of runoff produced: Annual runoff volume produced in each drainage scenario. This volume can be
estimated within the DST using the simplified rational method or it can be computed in an independent detailed
hydraulic model for the drainage infrastructures and then introduced in the DST.

Aquifer recharge and evapotranspiration: Annual runoff volume of stormwater used for aquifer recharge and
evapotranspiration. This value can also be computed within the DST

Volume of water reused: Annual volume of stormwater reused thanks to rainwater harvesting systems and water
butts.

Volume of discharge from Combined Sewer Overflows: Annual volume of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) spills
produced in each drainage scenario.

Number of CSO spills per year: Average number of Combined Sewer Overflow spills per year.

Peak outflow rate: Maximum outflow rate produced in each scenario for the design storm.

Water losses in the network: Percentage of water losses in the sewage network.

Furthermore, water quality processes are analyzed qualitatively in the DST. This tool provides a qualitative guidance about
water quality processes. For a quantitative analysis of water quality processes, a different tool can be used and its results
can be included in the DST as a quantitative decision criterion. In the DST, qualitative estimation of runoff water quality is
made for three different groups of pollutants: suspended soils, nutrients and heavy metals. This estimation is based on the
runoff catchment characteristics, receiving water sensitivity, number of infrastructure components in the management train
and water quality processes in each type of infrastructure.
This tool has a clear and simple graphical interface (Figure 4), to allow the user easily to introduce the data available for
each scenario.
4

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Figure 4. Graphical Interface of the Decision Support Tool.

A sample stormwater management is described to evaluate the DST application scheme. This example compares two
scenarios of stormwater management for a new urban development in Spain. The area of this urban development is
51,200 m and it has 66 households and a school. The first scenario is a development with a conventional drainage
system with pipes and a structural detention facility. The second scenario follows a SuDS approach with two vegetated
swales, a retention pond, a water butt in each household and a green roof in the school. The graphical representation of
these scenarios is shown in Figure 5.
The hydraulic performance of each drainage system scenario was analysed and the urban water cycle has been studied
to estimate the main costs, benefits and energy consumption. This estimation has been based on international references
for similar cases. The principal results of this estimation are shown in Figure 5. The financial cost of each scenario is quite
similar, but the energy consumption is much higher with the conventional system.
In each scenario, water quality processes are evaluated qualitatively. In scenario 2, outflow water quality is evaluated as
high since stormwater quality is improved in the vegetated swales and the retention pond. In scenario 1, outflow water
quality is medium since it is treated in a wastewater treatment plant.
Finally, these two scenarios were compared in a decision criteria analysis. The different stormwater decision criteria are
shown in Figure 5 and it will be seen that scenario 2 (74.1%) has a higher score than scenario 1 (39.7%). This difference
is mainly due to lower energy consumption and emissions and higher ecosystem services in scenario 2.
The ESTORMED DST provides default data when local specific data are not available. This default data is based on
international references and the data obtained applying the tool in six pilot cities in the Mediterranean within the
ESTORMED project.
The local authorities involved in ESTORMED are Benaguasil (Spain), Pisa (Italy), Zabbar (Malta), Old Royal Capital
Cetinje (Montenegro), Zagreb (Croatia) and Hersonissos (Greece). These pilot studies form a heterogeneous group
representing the climatic, political and socioeconomic differences of the Mediterranean area.
They have very different problems related with water management and very different levels of infrastructure development.
For instance, Cetinje has a lack of proper sewage and drainage infrastructures and significant problems with water supply
while Pisa has very modern pump stations to convey stormwater to the sea, since it is located in a poor drained area
where flooding can easily occur. In each pilot area, the ESTORMED Decision Support Tool has been used to compare
different drainage scenarios in two different urban areas: one developed and one new development.
Finally, in each pilot city, a regional working group has been created within the ESTORMED project to allow the
participation of the main actors related to energy, water and urban planning (public as well as private) in the development
of the Decision Support Tool and to engage them in the transition process. In this sense, these groups allows a transition
towards more sustainable and energy efficient water management in each city.

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Scenario 1: Conventional development

Scenario 2: Development with SuDS

Figure 6. Example of application of the ESTORMED Decision Support Tool.

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

4.

CASE STUDY IN SPAIN

In this section, a real case of application of the ESTORMED DST is explained to choose between different options for
stormwater management. This urban area is located in Benaguasil, a city located in the East of Spain. This urban area is
dense, most of the buildings have two to four floors and usually there is an apartment per floor, so there are about 3 or 4
families per building. The urban catchment area analyzed is 11 ha (Figure 6), most of them currently remaining in nearly
natural conditions, which would suppose an impermeable catchment area of around 3 ha. It has around 750 inhabitants
and combines residential use with educational use and parks.

Figure 6. Urban catchment area in the case study.

The main water-related problems in Benaguasil are due to floods produced by the torrential rain, very usual at the end of
summer and the beginning of autumn. During heavy storms, the combined network is overloaded and runoff flows
overland along the streets, flooding some dwellings. In some cases wastewater from the overloaded sewer backs up into
houses through toilets and baths. These pluvial flooding events are quite common (about once each 2-3 years). Another
issue is that during rainfall events, a big amount of water from the combined system is discharged untreated to the
irrigation channel at the West of the urban area (and finally to the Turia River), due to the restricted capacity of the sewer
line that goes to the wastewater treatment plant.
In the analyzed area, it is proposed that a drainage infrastructure is retrofitted in the lower area (small traffic island and the
park next to it) to partially alleviate flooding and combined sewer overflows issues. The aim is to build a retention structure
that can safely store runoff and release it at lower rates after the storm. Therefore, the main objectives are reducing
Combined Sewer Overflows and reduce downstream flooding problems.
Two different drainage scenarios are analyzed: one conventional solution and one SuDS solution. Both solutions have
been designed to provide the same level of flood protection. The proposed conventional solution is building a shallow
structural retention facility that can safely store runoff and release it into the sewer network at lower rates during and after
the storm, in such a way that it is expected it reaches the WWTP. It has been complemented with a sedimentation
manhole upstream the detention structure, to easy maintenance tasks. This solution is shown in Figure 7.
The proposed retrofit solution with SuDS provides local retention for runoff by making the most of landscape integration
opportunities. The facility will be located in the lowest part of this urban area, making use of the small traffic island as well
as of an existing amphitheater located at the park nearby. The proposed solution is a combination of smaller detention
basin (volume: 9.4 m) that serves as a pretreatment infrastructure (mainly sedimentation) and an infiltration-detention
basin (above ground retention volume is 57 m) in the existing amphitheater. This solution is shown in Figure 8.
In both scenarios, MicroDrainage (XP Solutions, 2014), has been used for the hydraulic model to analyze runoff. Modelling
is undertaken with the Wallingford Procedure, using time/area full hydrograph methodology including energy and
momentum equations for dynamic analysis. Rainfall data from year 2013 has been used for the volume calculations, and
peak outflow has been estimated using the 2-year design storm (based on historical rainfall data). The results show that in
the conventional solution the runoff volume produced is 1,175 m/year with a maximum outflow rate of 0.068 m/s. In the
SuDS solution, the runoff volume is 278 m/year and the maximum peak flow is 0.056 m/s.
7

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Next, these results have been introduced in the ESTORMED DST, which has been populated with data for each scenario
about costs, energy consumption and carbon emissions in the construction and maintenance of these infrastructures and
in the urban water cycle facilities, as explained in the previous section. Based on the results obtained with the DST,
decision criteria have been chosen in accordance with the Municipality objectives and including what the costs are, as this
is going to dictate in a big proportion whether the retrofitted proposed action is feasible. These criteria have been decided
with the participation of local and regional stakeholders through the Benaguasils Regional Working Group. Hence,
selected decision criteria are as follows:

Cost of stormwater management (total present value of stormwater management cost obtained adding costs of
infrastructures construction and maintenance and runoff treatment and conveyance): Weight 60%.

Energy consumed by stormwater management (total stormwater management energy consumed obtained
adding energy consumed by infrastructures construction and maintenance and runoff treatment and
conveyance): Weight 15%.

Emissions of stormwater management (total stormwater management CO emissions obtained adding emissions
of infrastructures construction and maintenance and runoff treatment and conveyance): Weight 5%.

Landscaping integration of infrastructures and educational opportunities: Qualitative decision criterion (ecosystem
services). Weight 10%.

Aquifer recharge: Quantitative decision criteria (ecosystem services). Weight 10%.

The results of this multi-criteria analysis are shown in Figure 10. As can be observed, the SuDS scenario has a higher
score (81.2%) than the conventional scenario (42.8%). This is mainly due to lower construction and maintenance costs
and a higher aquifer recharge.

Figure 7. Conventional solution in the case study.

Figure 8. SuDS solution in the case study.

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Figure 10. Multi-criteria analysis result of conventional scenario (left) and SuDS scenario (right).

5.

CONCLUSION

The principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems provided appropriate drainage solutions where enhanced urban
stormwater management is required. SuDS can promote more sustainable urban developments and improve energy
efficiency of stormwater management through reducing the volumes of runoff treated and pumped, and improving the
quality of receiving water bodies although knowledge of the application of SuDS in Mediterranean countries is still limited.
For this reason, ESTORMED is gathering information about the potential use of SuDS in these countries, focusing on
their energy and environmental benefits, while putting a focus on the relation of SuDs and energy efficiency in a novel way
which is robust, practical and yet scientific.
In order to assist local authorities, a Decision Support Tool has been developed to complement financial analyses of
stormwater management projects with energy, emissions and hydraulic criteria with the aim of more sustainable urban
water management. The tool has been developed in collaboration with six Mediterranean cities where pilot actions are
being evaluated. A heterogeneous group of cities has been chosen to develop a tool that is sufficiently flexible for a wide
range of Mediterranean cities. Moreover, in each city, local and regional stakeholders are involved in this process through
the creation of regional working groups.
Finally, this reinforcement of good governance (the identification of barriers and constraints to innovation) is foreseen as
one of the most important contribution of the project. Hopefully it will facilitate the transition to a more sustainable and
energy efficient paradigm not only in the Mediterranean but also in other regions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The ESTORMED project (Reference: 1C-MED12-14) described in this paper is being funded by the MED Programme of
the European Union. Authors would also like to express their gratitude to the ESTORMED project partners for their help
and willingness to collaborate in this work.
REFERENCES
ARC. (2001). Georgia Stormwater Management Manual - Volume 2. Retrieved 5 6, 2013, from
http://documents.atlantaregional.com/gastormwater/GSMMVol2.pdf
EC. (2012). Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. Retrieved 5 14, 2013, from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/guidelines/pub/soil_en.pdf
Escuder-Bueno, I., Andrs-Domnech, I., Perales-Momparler, S., & Morales Torres, A. (2014). ESTORMED Decision
Support Tool Guidelines. Version 1.0.1. . ESTORMED Project. www.e2stormed.eu.
NRDC. (2009). Water Efficiency Saves Energy: Reducing Warming Pollution Through Water Use Strategies. Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Perales-Momparler, S., Hernndez-Crespo, C., Valls-Morn, F., Martn, M., Andrs-Domnech, I., Andreu-lvarez, J., et
al. (2014). SuDS Efficiency during the Start-Up Period under Mediterranean Climatic Conditions. CLEAN Soil Air
Water, 42(2), 178-186.
Perales-Momparler, S., Jefferies, C., Perigell-Ortega, E., Peris-Garca, P., & Muoz-Bonet, J. (2013). Inner-city SUDS
retrofitted sites to promote sustainable stormwater management in the Mediterranean region of Valencia: AQUAVAL
(Life+ EU Programme). 8e Confrence Internationale NOVATECH. Lyon (France).
9

E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,

28 June 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Philip, R. (2011). Module 4. Stormwater- Exploring the options. SWITCH Training Kit. Integrated urban water management
in the city of the future. Retrieved 5 6, 2013, from http://www.switchtraining.eu/modules/module-4/#c68
USDHUD. (2003). The Practice of Low Impact Development. Retrieved 05 14, 2013, from
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/practlowimpctdevel.pdf
USEPA. (2008). Managing wet weather with green infrastructure. Action Strategy 2008. United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. (2013). Green Infrastructures - United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/
Woods-Ballard, P., Kellagher, R., Martin, P., Jefferies, C., Bray, R., & Shaffer, P. (2007). The Suds Manual. Retrieved 06
18, 2013, from CIRIA.
XP
Solutions.
(2014).
MicroDrainage
for
Sustainable
Urban
Drainage
Design.
Retrieved
from
http://xpsolutions.com/Software/MICRO-DRAINAGE/

10