Water Resources Management

, Volume 27, Issue 14, pp 4845–4863 | Cite as

Modelling Interactions Between Lot-Scale Decentralised Water Infrastructure and Urban Form – a Case Study on Infiltration Systems

  • Peter M. Bach
  • Ana Deletic
  • Christian Urich
  • Robert Sitzenfrei
  • Manfred Kleidorfer
  • Wolfgang Rauch
  • David T. McCarthy
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Modelling the design and implementation of urban water infrastructure (particularly decentralised systems) for strategic planning and policymaking requires detailed information of the spatial environment and quantitative knowledge of social preferences. Currently available models, however, mostly use land use, population and impervious cover data without much regard for detailed urban form or society. This study develops an algorithm for determining urban form from minimal spatial data input by incorporating local planning regulations. The interaction between urban form and implementation of lot-scale infiltration systems under different social, biophysical and climate constraints is then investigated, firstly by looking at how this varies in different residential land uses and subsequently in a case study of a typical Melbourne residential subdivision of mixed land uses. Feasibility of infiltration and its downstream impact (runoff volume, frequency and pollution) were assessed for a range of social preferences (quantified as allowable garden space) and climate scenarios (30 % increase/decrease in rainfall and evapotranspiration). Performance indicators were determined through long-term simulation with the MUSIC software. Results show how different biophysical, planning, social and climate conditions affect infiltration feasibility as well as system performance. High infiltrating soils, for example, allow smaller, well-performing and socially less-imposing systems. Low infiltrating soils lead to larger system sizes, occupy much of the allotment’s garden space, but nevertheless provide the benefit of runoff frequency reduction. Overall, climate impact was not significant except for areas with poorly infiltrating soils. Joint consideration of social, planning, climate and water management aspects potentially allows more efficient policymaking, as an array of system configurations can be tested against different multi-faceted scenarios. Such models can help facilitate better participatory planning and policymaking.

Keywords

Exploratory modelling Residential density Stormwater management Strategic planning Urban form Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is part of a project funded by the EU Framework Programme 7 PREPARED: Enabling Change. This research is also partly funded by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry Innovation, Science and Research.

References

  1. ABS (2012) Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au. Accessed 16 January 2012
  2. Alberti M (1999) Urban patterns and environmental performance: what do we know? J Plan Educ Res 19:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiri BJ, Nakane K (2009) modeling the linkage between river water quality and landscape metrics in the Chugoku District of Japan. Water Resour Manag 23:931–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnbjerg-Nielsen K (2011) Past, present, and future design of urban drainage systems with focus on Danish experiences. Water Sci Technol 63(3):527–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious surface coverage, the emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plan Assoc 62(2):243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashley RM, Balmforth DJ, Saul AJ, Blanskby JD (2005) Flooding in the future - predicting climate change, risks and responses in urban areas. Water Sci Technol 52(5):265–273Google Scholar
  7. Bamford G (2007) Understanding Housing Density. Paper presented at the 2nd Australasian Housing Researchers’ Conference, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Bankes S (1993) Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Oper Res 41(3):435–449. doi: 10.1287/opre.41.3.435 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown RR, Keath N, Wong THF (2009) Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future regimes. Water Sci Technol 59(5):847–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobbie M, Green R (2013) Public perceptions of freshwater wetlands in Victoria, Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 110:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DPCD (2006) Planning Scheme of Victoria. Victorian Planning Provisions. Department of Planning and Community Development, Melbourne, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  12. eWater (2011) MUSIC by eWater, User Manual. Catchment Modelling Toolkit. eWater, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  13. Goosen H, Janssen R, Vermaat JE (2007) Decision support for participatory wetland decision-making. Ecol Eng 30:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gurran N (2011) Australian urban land use planning: Principles, systems and practice, 2nd edn. Sydney University Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  15. Harvey L, Comley J, Marshall A, Edwards P (2009) Organisational Capacity in Integrated Urban Water Management: The Art of Being Undisciplined. Paper presented at the 6th International Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference and Hydropolis #3, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  16. Last EM (2010) City water balance, a new scoping tool for integrated urban water management options. University of Birmingham, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu A, Goonetilleke A, Egodawatta P (2012) Inadequacy of land use and impervious area fraction for determining urban stormwater quality. Water Resour Manag 26:2259–2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Melbourne Water (2005) Water Sensitive Urban Design Engineering Procedures: Stormwater CSIRO, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  19. Melbourne Water (2010) MUSIC Guidelines, Recommended input parameters and modelling approaches for MUSIC users. Melbourne Water Corporation, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell G, McCarthy DT, Deletic A, Fletcher T (2005) Development of novel integrated stormwater treatment and re-use systems: Assessing storage capacity requirements. ISWR Report 05/01. Institute for Sustainable Water Resources, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitchell VG (2004) Integrated urban water management, a review of current Australian practice. Urban Water Systems & Technologies. CSIROGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell VG, Duncan H, Inman M, Rahilly M, Stewart J, Vieritz A, Holt P, Grant A, Fletcher T, Coleman J, Shiroma M, Sharma A, Deletic A, Breen P (2007) Integrated Urban Water Modelling - Past, Present and Future. Paper presented at the Rainwater and Urban Design 2007, Joint 13th International Rainwater Catchment Systems Conference and the 5th International Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference, Sydney, Australia, 21–23 August 2007Google Scholar
  23. Pauleit S, Duhme F (2000) Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan 52:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Queensland Government (2010) Urban stormwater quality planning guidelines. Healthy water. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, State of QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  25. Rauch W, Bertrand-Krajewski J, Krebs P, Mark O, Schilling W, Schütze M, Vanrolleghem PA (2002) Deterministic modelling of integrated urban drainage systems. Water Sci Technol 45(3):81–94Google Scholar
  26. Ravagnani F, Pellegrinelli A, Franchini M (2009) Estimation of urban impervious fraction from satellite images and its impact on peak discharge entering a storm sewer system. Water Resour Manag 23:1893–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rossman LA (2004) StormWater ManagementModel—User’s Manual Version 5.0. US Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  28. RossRakesh S, Francey M, Chesterfield C (2006) Melbourne water’s stormwater quality offsets. Aust J Water Resour 10(3):241–250Google Scholar
  29. Schwarz N (2010) Urban form revisited - Selecting indicators for characterising European cities. Landsc Urban Plan 96:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sitzenfrei R, Fach S, Kinzel H, Rauch W (2010) A multi-layer cellular automata approach for algorithmic generation of virtual case studies: VIBe. Water Sci Technol 61(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stone BJ (2004) Paving over paradise: how land use regulations promote residential imperviousness. Landsc Urban Plan 69:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sun N, Hall M (2013) Coupling human preferences with biophysical processes: modeling the effect of citizen attitudes on potential urban stormwater runoff. Urban Ecosyst:1–22Google Scholar
  33. Ty TV, Sunada K, Ichikawa Y, Oishi S (2012) Scenario-based impact assessment of land Use/cover and climate change on water resources and demand: a case study in the Srepok river basin, Vietnam - Cambodia. Water Resour Manag 26:1387–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Victorian Building Commission (2006) Building Regulations 2006 S.R. No. 68/2006 - Part 4: Siting. Melbourne, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  35. Victorian Stormwater Committee (2006) Urban stormwater: Best practice environmental management guidelines. CSIRO PublishingGoogle Scholar
  36. Vlachos E, Braga B (eds) (2001) The challenge of urban water management. Frontiers in Urban Water Management: Deadlock or hope? IWA Publishing, CornwallGoogle Scholar
  37. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Ladson AR (2009) Retention capacity: a metric to link stream ecology and storm-water management. J Hydrol Eng 14(4):399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilby RL, Whitehead PG, Wade AJ, Butterfield D, Davis RJ, Watts G (2006) Integrated modelling of climate change impacts on water resources and quality in a lowland catchment: River Kennet, UK. J Hydrol 330:204–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wong THF (2005) Australian runoff quality. Engineers Australia, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong THF, Allen R, Beringer J, Brown RR, Deletic A, Fletcher TD, Gangadharan L, Gernjak W, Jakob C, O’Loan T, Reeder M, Tapper N, Walsh C (2012) blueprint 2012 - Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City. The Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter M. Bach
    • 1
  • Ana Deletic
    • 1
  • Christian Urich
    • 2
  • Robert Sitzenfrei
    • 2
  • Manfred Kleidorfer
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Rauch
    • 2
  • David T. McCarthy
    • 1
  1. 1.MONASH Water for Liveability, Civil Engineering DepartmentMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Unit of Environmental EngineeringUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations