Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 2505–2522 | Cite as

Multi-criteria Approach for Selection of Green and Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk and Increase CO-benefits

  • Alida Alves
  • Berry Gersonius
  • Arlex Sanchez
  • Zoran Vojinovic
  • Zoran Kapelan
Article

Abstract

Continuous changes in climate conditions combined with urban population growth pose cities as one of the most vulnerable areas to increasing flood risk. In such an atmosphere of growing uncertainty, a more effective flood risk management is becoming crucial. Nevertheless, decision-making and selection of adequate systems is a difficult task due to complex interactions between natural, social and built environments. The combination of green (or sustainable) and grey (or traditional) options has been proposed as a way forward to ensure resilience in advance of extreme events, and at the same time to obtain co-benefits for society and the environment. The present paper describes a novel method for selection of urban flood measures, based on a multi-criteria analysis that includes flood risk reduction, cost minimization and enhancement of co-benefits. The aim of this method is to assist decision makers in selecting and planning measures, which afterwards can be part of either high level scoping analysis or more complex studies, such as model based assessment. The proposed method is implemented within a tool which operates as a standalone application. Through this tool, the method has been applied in three study cases. The findings obtained indicate promising potential of the method here introduced.

Keywords

Decision-making Green-grey infrastructure Urban flooding Co-benefits Multi-criteria analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant agreement n° 603663 for the research project PEARL (Preparing for Extreme And Rare events in coastaL regions). The study reflects only the authors' views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

References

  1. Alves A, Sanchez A, Vojinovic Z et al (2016) Evolutionary and Holistic Assessment of Green-Grey Infrastructure for CSO Reduction. Water 8:402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bana e Costa CA, Antião da Silva P, Nunes Correia F (2004) Multicriteria evaluation of flood control measures: the case of Ribeira do Livramento. Water Resour Manag 18(3):263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casal-Campos A, Fu G, Butler D, Moore A (2015) An Integrated Environmental Assessment of Green and Gray Infrastructure Strategies for Robust Decision Making. Environ Sci Technol 49:8307–8314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Center for Neighborhood Technology & Americans Rivers (2010) The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. Center for Neighborhood Technology, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng M-S, Zhen JX, Shoemaker L (2009) BMP decision support system for evaluating stormwater management alternatives. Front Environ Sci Eng China 3:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chow J, Savić D, Fortune D et al (2014) Using a Systematic, Multi-criteria Decision Support Framework to Evaluate Sustainable Drainage Designs. Procedia Eng 70:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CIRIA (2013) Demonstrating the multiple benefits of SuDS – A business case ( Phase 2 )Google Scholar
  8. Commission of the European Communities (2009) Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for actionGoogle Scholar
  9. Department for Communities and Local Government: London (2009) Multi-criteria analysis : a manual. doi: 10.1002/mcda.399Google Scholar
  10. Elliott A, Trowsdale S (2007) A review of models for low impact urban stormwater drainage. Environ Model Softw 22:394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fletcher TD, Shuster W, Hunt WF et al (2014) SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314
  12. Fratini CF, Geldof GD, Kluck J, Mikkelsen PS (2012) Three Points Approach ( 3PA ) for urban flood risk management : A tool to support climate change adaptation through transdisciplinarity and multifunctionality. Urban Water J.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2012.668913
  13. Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management. Water Resour Manag 21:1553–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters To Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139177245
  15. Jha AK, Bloch R, Lamond J (2012) Cities and Flooding: A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century. The World Bank, Washington.  https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8866-2
  16. Jia H, Yao H, Tang Y et al (2013) Development of a multi-criteria index ranking system for urban runoff best management practices ( BMPs ) selection. Environ Monit Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3144-0
  17. Karavokiros G, Lykou A, Koutiva I et al (2016) Providing Evidence-Based, Intelligent Support for Flood Resilient Planning and Policy: The PEARL Knowledge Base. Water 8:392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu Y, Ahiablame LM, Bralts VF, Engel BA (2015) Enhancing a rainfall-runoff model to assess the impacts of BMPs and LID practices on storm runoff. J Environ Manag 147:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lundy L, Wade R (2011) Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35:653–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin C, Ruperd Y, Legret M (2007) Urban stormwater drainage management : The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. Eur J Oper Res 181:338–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moura NCB, Pellegrino PRM, Martins JRS (2016) Best management practices as an alternative for flood and urban storm water control in a changing climate. J Flood Risk Manag 9:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naumann S, Rayment M, Nolan P, et al (2011) Design , implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final Report. Ecologic institute and GHK ConsultingGoogle Scholar
  23. Recanatesi F, Petroselli A, Ripa MN, Leone A (2017) Assessment of stormwater runoff management practices and BMPs under soil sealing: A study case in a peri-urbanGoogle Scholar
  24. Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2012) State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation. Adv Decis Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/276584
  25. RPA (2004) Evaluating a multi-criteria analysis ( MCA ) methodology for application to flood management and coastal defence appraisals. Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd., Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Simonovic SP (2012) Floods in a Changing Climate: Risk Management. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S et al (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc Urban Plan 81:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. UDFCD (2010) Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3, Stormwater Best Management Practice. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Water Resources Publications, DenverGoogle Scholar
  29. United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). United Nations. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2005.12.9Google Scholar
  30. USEPA (2000) Low Impact Development (LID). A Literature Review. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Vojinovic Z (2015) Flood Risk: The Holistic Perspective. From integrated to interactive planning for flood resilience. IWA Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Vojinovic Z, Keerakamolchai W, Weesakul S et al (2016) Combining Ecosystem Services with Cost-Benefit Analysis for Selection of Green and Grey Infrastructure for Flood Protection in a Cultural Setting. Environment.  https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4010003
  33. Voskamp IM, Van de Ven FHM (2015) Planning support system for climate adaptation: Composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events. Build Environ 83:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woods-Ballard B, Kellagher R, Martin P, et al (2007) The SUDS manual. CIRIA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Young KD, Dymond RL, Asce M et al (2011) Development of an Improved Approach for Selecting Storm-Water Best Management Practices. J Water Resour Plan Manag 137:268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Young KD, Kibler DF, Benham BL, Loganathan GV (2009) Application of the Analytical Hierarchical Process for Improved Selection of Storm-Water BMPs. J Water Resour Plan Manag 135:264–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering and Water TechnologyIHE-DelftDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Water EngineeringIHE-DelftDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Centre for Water Systems, College of EngineeringUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations