Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 186, Issue 1–4, pp 351–363 | Cite as

Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of Current Research and Recommendations for Future Directions

  • Michael E. DietzEmail author


The low impact development (LID) approach has been recommended as an alternative to traditional stormwater design. Research on individual LID practices such as bioretention, pervious pavements, and grassed swales has increased in recent years. Bioretention cells have been effective in retaining large volumes of runoff and pollutants on site, and consistently reduced concentrations of certain pollutants such as metals. However, retention of certain pollutants such as nitrate–nitrogen and phosphorus has been problematic. Porous pavements have been extremely effective in infiltrating stormwater runoff. Concerns have been raised about groundwater contamination, but research has shown that this is not a problem in most settings. Green roofs have been found to retain a large percentage of rainfall (63% on average) in a variety of climates. A common thread across bioretention, green roofs and grassed swales was found: the export of phosphorus. The issue appears to be linked to high phosphorus levels in the soil media, or possibly to fertilization of turf or planted areas. Solutions to this problem have been recommended. Contrary to popular belief, research has shown that bioretention and pervious pavements continue to infiltrate even with frost in the ground. Although issues have been identified with retention of certain pollutants, the LID approach has been found to result in increased retention of stormwater and pollutants on site, mimicking pre-development hydrologic function. Future research needs have also been identified.


Bioretention Green roof Low impact development Pervious pavement 


  1. Atchison, D., Potter, K. W., & Severson, L. (2006). Design Guidelines for Stormwater Bioretention Facilities. University of Wisconsin Water Resources Institute, WIS-WRI-06-01.Google Scholar
  2. Baladès, J.-D., Legret, M., & Madiec, H. (1995). Permeable pavements: Pollution management tools. Water Science and Technology, 32(1), 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannerman, R. T., Owens, D. W., Dodds, R. B., & Hornewer, N. J. (1993). Sources of pollutants in Wisconsin stormwater. Water Science and Technology, 28(3–5), 241–259.Google Scholar
  4. Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., Au, A., Currie, B. A., & Verrati, M. (2005). Report on the environmental benefits and costs of green roof technology for the city of Toronto. City of Toronto and Ontario Centres of Excellence–Earth and Environmental Technologies.Google Scholar
  5. Bean, E. Z., Hunt, W. F., & Bidelspach, D. A. (2007). Field survey of permeable pavement surface infiltration rates. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 133(3), 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengtsson, L., Grahn, L., & Olsson, J. (2005). Hydrological function of a thin extensive green roof in southern Sweden. Nordic Hydrology, 36(3), 259–268.Google Scholar
  7. Boivin, M., Lamy, M., Gosselin, A., & Dansereau, B. (2001). Effect of artificial substrate depth on freezing injury of six herbaceous perennials grown in a green roof system. Horticulture Technology, 11(3), 409–412.Google Scholar
  8. Booth, D. B., & Jackson, R. (1997). Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33(5), 1077–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth, D. B., & Leavitt, J. (1999). Field evaluation of permeable pavement systems for improved stormwater management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 314–325.Google Scholar
  10. Brattebo, B. O., & Booth, D. B. (2003). Long-term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems. Water Research, 37, 4369–4376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, K. A., Hunt, W. F., & Hathaway, J. M. (2006, November). Evaluation of various types of permeable pavements with respect to water quality improvement and flood control. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, A. P., & McCuen, R. H. (2005). Stormwater management for smart growth. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., & Minami, C. (2001). Laboratory study of biological retention for urban stormwater management. Water Environment Research, 73(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., Minami, C., & Winogradoff, D. (2003). Water quality improvement through bioretention: Lead, copper and zinc removal. Water Environment Research, 75(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Day, G. E., Smith, D. R., & Bowers, J. (1981). Runoff and pollution abatement characteristics of concrete grid pavements. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Project A-090-VA VPI-VWRRC-BULL 135 4C.Google Scholar
  16. Dietz, M. E., & Clausen, J. C. (2005). A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 167(1–4), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietz, M. E., & Clausen, J. C. (2006). Saturation to improve pollutant retention in a rain garden. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(4), 1335–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dietz, M. E., & Clausen, J. C. (2007), Stormwater runoff and export changes with development in a traditional and low impact subdivision. Journal of Environmental Management, (in press). DOI  10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.026.
  19. Dietz, M. E., & Filchak, K. F. (2006). Rain gardens: A design guide for homeowners in Connecticut. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System.Google Scholar
  20. Dreelin, E. A., Fowler, L., & Carroll, C. R. (2006). A test of porous pavement effectiveness on clay soils during natural storm events. Water Research, 40, 799–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferguson, B. K. (2005). Porous pavements. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  22. Fitts, G. (2002). The new and improved open graded friction course mixes. Asphalt, 2002, 16–18, Fall.Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert, J. K., & Clausen, J. C. (2006). Stormwater runoff quality and quantity from asphalt, paver, and crushed stone driveways in Connecticut. Water Research, 40, 826–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haselbach, L. M., Valavala, S., & Montes, F. (2006). Permeability predictions for sand-clogged Portland cement pervious concrete pavement systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 81, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hollis, G. E. (1977). Water yield changes after the urbanization of the Canon’s Brook catchment, Harlow, England. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 22, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hood, M., Clausen, J. C., & Warner, G. S. (2007). Comparison of stormwater lag times for low impact and traditional residential development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(4), 1036–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt, W. F., Jarrett, A. R., Smith, J. T., & Sharkey, L. J. (2006). Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 132(6), 600–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hunt, W. F., & Lord, W. G. (2006). Bioretention performance, design, construction, and maintenance. North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
  29. Hutchinson, D., Abrams, P., Retzlaff, R., & Liptan, T. (2003), Stormwater monitoring two ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon, USA. Paper presented at the First Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  30. Jennings, D. B., & Jarnagin, S. T. (2002). Changes in anthropogenic impervious surfaces, precipitation and daily streamflow discharge: A historical perspective in a mid-Atlantic subwatershed. Landscape Ecology, 17, 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaushal, S. S., Groffman, P. M., Likens, G. E., Belt, K. T., Stack, W. P., Kelly, V. R., et al. (2005). Increased salinization of fresh water in the northeastern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 13517–13520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, H., Seagren, E. A., & Davis, A. P. (2003). Engineered bioretention for removal of nitrate from stormwater runoff. Water Environment Research, 75(4), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Korom, S. F. (1992). Natural denitrification in the saturated zone: A review. Water Resources Research, 28(6), 1657–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuichling, E. (1889). The relation between the rainfall and the discharge of sewers in populous districts. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 20, 1–60.Google Scholar
  35. Kwiatkowski, M., Welker, A. L., Traver, R. G., Vanacore, M., & Ladd, T. (2007). Evaluation of an infiltration best management practice (BMP) utilizing pervious concrete. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, (in press).Google Scholar
  36. LeBlanc, R. T., Brown, R. D., & FitzGibbon, J. E. (1997). Modeling the effects of land use change on the water temperature in unregulated urban streams. Journal of Environmental Management, 49, 445–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legret, M., & Colandini, V. (1999). Effects of a porous pavement with reservoir structure on runoff water: Water quality and fate of heavy metals. Water Science and Technology, 39(2), 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leopold, L. B. (1968). Hydrology for urban land planning—a guidebook on the hydrologic effects of urban land use. Geological Survey Circular, 554.Google Scholar
  39. Makepeace, D. K., Smith, D. W., & Stanley, S. J. (1995). Urban stormwater quality: Summary of contaminant data. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 25(2), 93–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Monterusso, M. A., Rowe, D. B., & Rugh, C. L. (2005). Establishment and persistence of Sedum spp. and native taxa for green roof applications. Horticultural Science, 40(2), 391–396.Google Scholar
  41. Monterusso, M. A., Rowe, D. B., Russell, D. K., & Rugh, C. L. (2004). Runoff water quantity and quality from green roof systems. Acta Horticulturae, 639, 369–376.Google Scholar
  42. Moran, A., Hunt, W., & Jennings, G. (2004). Greenroof research of stormwater runoff quantity and quality in North Carolina. NC State University, A&T State University, Cooperative Extension, ISSN 1062-9149.Google Scholar
  43. Muthanna, T. M., Thorolfsson, S. T., & Viklander, M. (2006, Winter hydrology in a cold climate rain garden. Paper presented at the 2006 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting, paper No. 062309, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  44. Pitt, R. (1999). Small storm hydrology and why it is important for the design of stormwater control practices. In W. James (Ed.), Advances in modeling the management of stormwater impacts, volume 7. Guelph, Ontario: Computational Hydraulics International and Lewis Publishers/CRC Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pitt, R. (2004, September). WinSLAMM and low impact development. Paper presented at the Putting the LID on Stormwater Management, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  46. Pitt, R., Clark, S., & Field, R. (1999). Groundwater contamination potential from stormwater infiltration practices. Urban Water, 1, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prince George’s County. (1993). Design manual for use of bioretention in stormwater management. Prince George’s County, MD Department of Environmental Resources, Watershed Protection Branch, MD Department of Environmental Protection, Landover, MD.Google Scholar
  48. Prince George’s County. (1999). Low-impact development design strategies: An integrated design approach. Prince George’s County, MD Department of Environmental Resources.Google Scholar
  49. Roseen, R. M., Ballestero, T. P., Houle, J. J., Avelleneda, P., Wildey, R., & Briggs, J. (2006). Storm water low-impact development, conventional structural, and manufactured treatment strategies for parking lot runoff. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1984, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rusciano, G. M., & Obropta, C. C. (2005). Efficiency of bioretention systems to reduce fecal coliform counts in stormwater. Paper presented at the North American Surface Water Quality Conference and Exposition, Orlando, FL, July 18–25.Google Scholar
  51. Rushton, B. (2001). Low-impact parking lot design reduces runoff and pollutant loads. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(3), 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. SCS (1986). Urban hydrology for small watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Release No. 55 (revised), 210-VI-TR-55.Google Scholar
  53. Stenmark, C. (1995). An alternative road construction for stormwater management in cold climates. Water Science and Technology, 32(1), 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Toronto and Region Conservation. (2006). Performance evaluation of permeable pavement and a bioretention swale. Seneca College, King City, Ontario. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Interim Report #2.Google Scholar
  55. Traver, R. G., Welker, A. L., Horst, M., Vanacore, M., Braga, A., & Kob, L. (2005). Lessons in porous concrete. Stormwater, July/August, 30–45.Google Scholar
  56. US EPA (1983). Results of the nationwide urban runoff program. United States Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS PB84-185552.Google Scholar
  57. US EPA (2000). Low impact development (LID), a literature review. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-841-B-00-005.Google Scholar
  58. US EPA (2002). National water quality inventory, 2000 report. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-841-R-02-001.Google Scholar
  59. VanWoert, N. D., Rowe, D. B., Andresen, J. A., Rugh, C. L., Fernandez, R. T., & Xiao, L. (2005). Green roof stormwater retention: Effects of roof surface, slope, and media depth. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34, 1036–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waananen, A.O. (1969). Effects of watershed changes on streamflow. In W. L. Moore, & C. W. Morgan (Eds.), Urban effects on water yield (pp. 169–182). Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  61. Winogradoff, D. (2002). The bioretention manual. Prince George’s County, MD Department of Environmental Resources, Watershed Protection Branch, MD Department of Environmental Protection, Landover, MD.Google Scholar
  62. WI DNR. (2003). Rain gardens: A how-to manual for homeowners. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, DNR Publication PUB-WT-776 2003.Google Scholar
  63. WI DNR. (2006). Bioretention for infiltration. Conservation Practice Standard (1004). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environment and SocietyUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations