Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Critical Review of Nature-Based Systems (NbS) to Treat Stormwater in Response to Climate Change and Urbanization

  • Published:
Current Pollution Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Rapid urban development significantly contributes to the alterations in watershed hydrology by removing vegetation and soil, increasing imperviousness, and reducing natural infiltration capacity. It also generates more pollutants that deteriorate the stormwater quality. In addition, the escalation of the hydrological cycle due to climate change is expected to lead to more frequent intense rainfall. This extreme rainfall generates more stormwater runoff and releases more pollutants from the catchment, which can degrade downstream waterways. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the impact of urbanization and climate change on both the quality and quantity of stormwater to effectively mitigate their severe consequences. Nature-based solutions (NbS) for stormwater management are environmentally sustainable options to capture and treat pollutants from stormwater, reduce stormwater volume, and mitigate floods. However, significant modifications are needed in the existing nature-based treatment solutions to control floods and remove pollutants in rapid urban landscapes and extreme climate conditions. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge by (1) examining the potential impacts of urbanization and climate change on the stormwater quantity and quality; (2) assessing the performance of nature-based treatment systems to treat stormwater pollutants; (3) comparing the effectiveness among different nature-based treatment systems and identifying the best ones depending on the conditions; and (4) suggesting improvements to the design of wetlands to capture higher proportions of pollutants under different scenarios.

Recent Findings

A review of the literature indicates that densely built-up catchments produce increased runoff from impervious surfaces. In addition, industrial catchments generate higher total suspended solids (TSS) loads, while residential and commercial catchments generate more nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Besides this, climate change is projected to increase annual runoff volume and mean annual concentrations of pollutants. For example, in Difficult Run watershed, the largest watershed in Fairfax County VA, an increase of 6.5% annual runoff volume and 7.6%, 7.1%, and 8.1% total suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus mean annual concentrations, respectively, are expected for the simulated time period between 2041 and 2068. NbS such as swales, bioretention, detention ponds, and constructed wetlands have been implemented to remove the pollutants from stormwater, and constructed wetlands (CWs) have shown promising results in removing pollutants compared to other nature-based treatment systems. However, the efficiency of CWs can be improved by changing the filter media and vegetation and modifying the design to adapt to these adverse scenarios generated by rapid urbanization and climate change.

Summary

In the past, researchers have typically examined the impacts of rapid urbanization on stormwater quality, the influence of climate changes on stormwater quality, and the individual performances of various nature-based treatment systems (NbS). However, a comprehensive understanding of stormwater management necessitates exploring the dynamic interactions among multiple factors, including urbanization effects, climate change impacts, stormwater sources, and the effectiveness of NbS. This paper addresses this need by conducting a thorough review of all NbS utilized in stormwater management. The comparison encompasses their scales, performances in flood attenuation, provision of delay time for peak stormwater flow downstream, and the removal of pollutants from stormwater. Furthermore, a critical evaluation of NbS for stormwater management is presented, considering aspects such as urban ecosystem services and the climate-biodiversity-societal nexus. The insights provided in this research aim to inform decision-making processes related to the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of nature-based treatment systems in future stormwater management endeavours.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available in the references cited in the paper.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Fang X, Li J, Ma Q. Integrating green infrastructure, ecosystem services and nature-based solutions for urban sustainability: A comprehensive literature review. Sustain Cities Soc. 2023;98:104843. Research indicates that the shift from urban ecosystem services and green infrastructure to Nature-based Solutions (NbS) reflects the collaborative endeavors of diverse disciplines working towards urban sustainability. Use of bibilimetrics and traditation literature review is highlighted.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Goodwin S, Olazabal M, Castro AJ, Pascual U. Global mapping of urban nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Nat Sustain. 2023;6:458–69. Study suggests that current NbS practices are limited in how they may comprehensively address climate-biodiversity-society challenges, particularly by accounting for multidimensional forms of climate vulnerability, social justice, the potential for collaboration between public and private sectors and diverse co-benefits. Valuable urban NbS projects are used as examples.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Su J, Wang M, Razi MAM, Dom NM, Sulaiman N, Tan L-W. A bibliometric review of nature-based solutions on urban stormwater management. Sustainability. 2023;15:7281. Study emphasizes that future research perspective should focus on interdisciplinary and collaborative research, scaling up and mainstreaming NBS, and exploring new ways of integrating different disciplines and stakeholders in the research process. Usefulness of systematic literature review is highlighted.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yang S, Ruangpan L, Torres AS, Vojinovic Z. Multi-objective optimisation framework for assessment of trade-offs between benefits and co-benefits of nature-based solutions. Water Resour Manag. 2023;37(6-7):2325–45. Study presents a framework designed to enhance the effectiveness of Nature-based Solutions (NBS) for mitigating flood risks and maximizing their associated co-benefits. It aims to identify and assess the trade-offs among these co-benefits. The study's findings demonstrate that the developed framework effectively establishes a connection between the benefits and costs when evaluating different NBS options. Optimisation techniques are discussed.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Constructed (treatment) wetlands, FaFQ Queensland Department of Agriculture, Healthy Waterways and E2DesignLab, Editor. Valuable information on advice on the use of constructed (treatment) wetlands to improve farm run-off water quality, specific to coastal agriculture in the wet/dry tropics region between central and Far North Queensland.

  6. United N. Billions globally lack ‘water, sanitation and hygiene’, new UN report spells out. In: UN news global perspective human stories. Welcome to the United Nations; 2019. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/06/1040701. Accessed 20 Feb 2024.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H.-O. Pörtner DCR, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.) IPCC, 2019: technical summary. In: IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. pp. 39–69. Cambridge University Press; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.002. Accessed 21 Feb 2024. Provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation and therefore very valuable for stormwater management.

  8. Zuo D, Xu Z, Yao W, Jin S, Xiao P, Ran D. Assessing the effects of changes in land use and climate on runoff and sediment yields from a watershed in the Loess Plateau of China. Sci Total Environ. 2016;544:238–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.060.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooper PF, Job G, Green M, Shutes R. Reed beds and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Eur Water Pollut Control. 1997;6(7):49.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wijesiri B, Deilami K, Goonetilleke A. Evaluating the relationship between temporal changes in land use and resulting water quality. Environ Pollut. 2018;234:480–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.096.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu A, Egodawatta P, Guan Y, Goonetilleke A. Influence of rainfall and catchment characteristics on urban stormwater quality. Sci Total Environ. 2013;444:255–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine. Framing the challenge of urban flooding in the United States. The National Academies Press; 2019. p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Arnold CL, Gibbons JC. Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. J Am Plan Assoc. 1996;62(2):243–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blum AG, Ferraro PJ, Archfield SA, Ryberg KR. Causal effect of impervious cover on annual flood magnitude for the United States. Geophys Res Lett. 2020;47(5):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li J, Burian SJ. Effects of nonstationarity in urban land cover and rainfall on historical flooding intensity in a semiarid catchment. J Sustain Water Built Environ. 2022;8(2):04022002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Valtanen M, Sillanpää N, Setälä H. Effects of land use intensity on stormwater runoff and its temporal occurrence in cold climates. Hydrol Process. 2014;28(4):2639–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosendo JCM, da Paz GM, Rosendo A. Constructed wetlands applied on domestic wastewater for decetralized systems: concepts, processes, modalities, combinations and enhancements; a review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2022;21(2):371–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-022-09616-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Alamdari N, Sample DJ, Steinberg P, Ross AC, Easton ZM. Assessing the effects of climate change on water quantity and quality in an urban watershed using a calibrated stormwater model. Water. 2017;9(7):464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. USEPA. Storm water management model (SWMM). In: Water research. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2023. https://www.epa.gov/water-research/storm-water-management-model-swmm. Accessed 21 Feb 2024.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Peck A, Prodanovic P, Simonovic SP. Rainfall intensity duration frequency curves under climate change: City of London, Ontario, Canada. Canadian Water Resources Journal/Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques. 2012;37(3):177–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang M, Zhang DQ, Su J, Trzcinski AP, Dong JW, Tan SK. Future scenarios modeling of urban stormwater management response to impacts of climate change and urbanization. Clean : Soil, Air, Water. 2017;45(10):1700111-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201700111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang M, Liu M, Zhang D, Zhang Y, Su J, Zhou S, Bakhshipour AE, Tan SK. Assessing hydrological performance for optimized integrated grey-green infrastructure in response to climate change based on shared socio-economic pathways. Sustain Cities Soc. 2023;91:104436. Integrated grey-green infrastructure (IGGI) to be a promising tool for mitigating urban flooding during extreme rainfall events.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McCarthy DT, Hathaway JM, Hunt WF, Deletic A. Intra-event variability of Escherichia coli and total suspended solids in urban stormwater runoff. Water Res. 2012;46(20):6661–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.01.006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Spahr S, Teixidó M, Sedlak DL, Luthy RG. Hydrophilic trace organic contaminants in urban stormwater: Occurrence, toxicological relevance, and the need to enhance green stormwater infrastructure. Environ Science Water Res Technol. 2020;6(1):15–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sabin LD, Lim JH, Stolzenbach KD, Schiff KC. Contribution of trace metals from atmospheric deposition to stormwater runoff in a small impervious urban catchment. Water Res. 2005;39(16):3929–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.07.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sidhu V, Barrett K, Park DY, Deng Y, Datta R, Sarkar D. Wood mulch coated with iron-based water treatment residuals for the abatement of metals and phosphorus in simulated stormwater runoff. Environ Technol Innov. 2021;21:101214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.101214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu D, Lee LY, Lim FY, Lyu Z, Zhu H, Ong SL, Hu J. Water treatment residual: A critical review of its applications on pollutant removal from stormwater runoff and future perspectives. J Environ Manag. 2020;259:109649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109649.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Grogan AE, Alves-de-Souza, C., Cahoon, L.B., Mallin, M.A. Harmful Algal Blooms: A Prolific Issue in Urban Stormwater Ponds. Water 2023; 15: 2436. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15132436

  29. Drapper D, Olive K, McAlister T, Coleman R, Lampard J-L. A review of pollutant concentrations in urban stormwater across eastern australia, after 20 years. Front Environ Chem. 2022;3:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvc.2022.853764. Analysis of large data set confirms lower TSS, TN, TP values in urban residential, commercial and industrial catchments.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Brezonik PL, Stadelmann TH. Analysis and predictive models of stormwater runoff volumes, loads, and pollutant concentrations from watersheds in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Minnesota, USA. Water Res. 2002;36(7):1743–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Okaikue-Woodi FEK, Cherukumilli K, Ray JR. A critical review of contaminant removal by conventional and emerging media for urban stormwater treatment in the United States. Water Res. 2020;187:116434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116434.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Khan S, Ahmad I, Shah MT, Rehman S, Khaliq A. Use of constructed wetland for the removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewater. J Environ Manag. 2009;90(11):3451–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.026.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gnecco I, Berretta C, Lanza LG, La Barbera P. Storm water pollution in the urban environment of Genoa, Italy. Atmos Res. 2005;77(1):60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2004.10.017.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Strategy NWQM. Australian guidelines for water recycling. In: Managing health and environmental risks (Phase 2) stormwater harvesting and reuse; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Göbel P, Dierkes C, Coldewey WG. Storm water runoff concentration matrix for urban areas. J Contam Hydrol. 2007;91(1):26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2006.08.008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Koryto KM, Hunt WF, Arellano C, Page JL. Performance of regenerative stormwater conveyance on the removal of dissolved pollutants: field scale simulation study. J Environ Eng (New York, N.Y.). 2018; 144(6): 4018039. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001374

  37. Yang Y-Y, Lusk MG. Nutrients in urban stormwater runoff: current state of the science and potential mitigation options. Curr Pollut Rep. 2018;4(2):112–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-018-0087-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jani J, Yang Y-Y, Lusk MG, Toor GS. Composition of nitrogen in urban residential stormwater runoff: Concentrations, loads, and source characterization of nitrate and organic nitrogen. PloS One. 2020;15(2):e0229715–e15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229715.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Landsman MR, Davis AP. Evaluation of nutrients and suspended solids removal by stormwater control measures using high-flow media. J Environ Eng. 2018;144(10):04018106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Agency MPC. Minnesota stormwater manual: total suspended solids (TSS) in stormwater. 2021. https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Total_Suspended_Solids_(TSS)_in_stormwater. Accessed 19th Jan 2022

  41. Nyström F, Nordqvist K, Herrmann I, Hedström A, Viklander M. Removal of metals and hydrocarbons from stormwater using coagulation and flocculation. Water Res. 2020;182:115919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115919.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Azah E, Kim H, Townsend T. Source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon in roadway and stormwater system maintenance residues. Environ Earth Sci. 2015;74(4):3029–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4336-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee S, Suits M, Wituszynski D, Winston R, Martin J, Lee J. Residential urban stormwater runoff: A comprehensive profile of microbiome and antibiotic resistance. Sci Total Environ. 2020;723:138033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138033.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sidhu JP, Hodgers L, Ahmed W, Chong M, Toze S. Prevalence of human pathogens and indicators in stormwater runoff in Brisbane, Australia. Water Res. 2012;46(20):6652–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ahmed W, Hamilton K, Toze S, Cook S, Page D. A review on microbial contaminants in stormwater runoff and outfalls: Potential health risks and mitigation strategies. Sci Total Environ. 2019;692:1304–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.055.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Fardel A, Peyneau P-E, Béchet B, Lakel A, Rodriguez F. Analysis of swale factors implicated in pollutant removal efficiency using a swale database. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26(2):1287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3522-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Australia WSAo. Integrated water management: Principles and best practice for water utilities. Publications & Appraisals; 2020. https://www.wsaa.asn.au/publication/integrated-water-management-principles-and-best-practice-water-utilities. Accessed 20 Feb 2024

    Google Scholar 

  48. Government VS. Integrated water management framework for Victoria an IWM approach to urban water planning and shared decision making throughout Victoria. The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; 2017. https://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/663556/integrated-water-management-framework-for-victoria-an-iwm-approach-to-urban-water-planning-and-shared-decision-making-throughout-victoria.pdf.

  49. Yarra Co. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Guidelines for City of Yarra Works. Yarra City Council: Strategies; 2012. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0gND_mbuEAxU63zgGHRYcBJ4QFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yarracity.vic.gov.au%2F-%2Fmedia%2Ffiles%2Fycc%2Fabout-us%2Fstrategies%2F73-water-sensitive-urban-design-guidelines-city-of-yarra-as-amended-from-time-to-time.pdf%3Fla%3Den&usg=AOvVaw0gDbGWt3Ys7_UjErhejhl6&opi=89978449. Accessed 21 Feb 2024.

  50. Rau S. Sponge cities: Integrating green and gray infrastructure to build climate change resilience in the People’s Republic of China. Asian Development Bank; 2022. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/838386/adb-brief-222-sponge-cities-prc.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2024

  51. Shahmohammad M, Hosseinzadeh M, Dvorak B, Bordbar F, Shahmohammadmirab H, Aghamohammadi N. Sustainable green roofs: a comprehensive review of infuential factors. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29:27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Guillette A. Low impact development technologies. In: Resource pages. Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG); 2016. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/low-impact-development-technologies. Accessed 21 Feb 2024.

    Google Scholar 

  53. EPA. Nonpoint source: Urban area. In: Polluted runoff: Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. EPA United States Environmental Protection. 2023. https://www.epa.gov/nps/nonpoint-source-urban-areas#LID. Accessed 21 Feb 2024.

  54. Survey B. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). BGS Research. British Geological Survey; 2023. https://www.bgs.ac.uk/geology-projects/suds/. Accessed 21 Feb 2024.

    Google Scholar 

  55. EPA. What is green infrastructure? In: Green infrastructure. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 2024. https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure. Accessed 21 Feb 2024.

  56. Missa V, Tarnaras I, Papavasiliou C, Papatzani S, Aftias E Methodology for adapting hydrological impacts and adapting hydrological model to risk assessment. 2005, France and UK: Daywater-EU RTD 5th Framework Programme

    Google Scholar 

  57. Yuan D-h, He J-w, Li C-w, Guo X-j, Xiong Y, Yan C-l. Insights into the pollutant-removal performance and DOM characteristics of stormwater runoff during grassy-swales treatment. Environ Technol. 2019;40(4):441–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1395481.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Lucke T, Mohamed MAK, Tindale N. Pollutant removal and hydraulic reduction performance of field grassed swales during runoff simulation experiments. Water. 2014;6(7):1887–904.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Fassman E, Liao M. Monitoring of a series of swales within a stormwater treatment train. In: Proceedings of the 32nd hydrology and water resources symposium, Newcastle. Adopting to change. Barton: Engineers Australia; 2009. pp. 368–78. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.751077419595143.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Barrett ME. Comparison of BMP performance using the international BMP database. J Irrig Drain Eng. 2008;134(5):556–61. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:5(556).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Fletcher TD, Peljo L, Fielding J, Wong TH, Weber T. The performance of vegetated swales for urban stormwater pollution control. In: Global solutions for urban drainage; 2002. p. 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Li J, Davis AP. A unified look at phosphorus treatment using bioretention. Water Res. 2016;90:141–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.015.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Leroy M-c, Portet-Koltalo F, Legras M, Lederf F, Moncond'huy V, Polaert I, Marcotte S. Performance of vegetated swales for improving road runoff quality in a moderate traffic urban area. Sci Total Environ. 2016;566-567:113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.027.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Gaborit E, Muschalla D, Vallet B, Vanrolleghem PA, Anctil F. Improving the performance of stormwater detention basins by real-time control using rainfall forecasts. Urban Water J. 2013;10:230–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2012.726229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Missa V, Tarnaras I, Papavasiliou C, Papatzani S, Aftias E. Methodology for adapting hydrological impacts and adapting hydrological model to risk assessment. France and UK: DaywaterEU RTD 5th Framework Programme; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sharior S, McDonald W, Parolari AJ. Improved reliability of stormwater detention basin performance through water quality data-informed real-time control. J Hydrol. 2019;573:422–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.012.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Morse NR, McPhillips LE, Shapleigh JP, Walter MT. The role of denitrification in stormwater detention basin treatment of nitrogen. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(14):7928–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01813.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Winston RJ, Dorsey JD, Hunt WF. Quantifying volume reduction and peak flow mitigation for three bioretention cells in clay soils in northeast Ohio. Sci Total Environ. 2016;553:83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.081.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Porter K. Tennessee permanent stormwater management and design guidance manual. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Resources; 2014. https://app.box.com/s/pdl1afehg00s1wwqa94d8qmizyptxw3i/file/25367692645

    Google Scholar 

  70. Rommel SH, Stinshoff P, Helmreich B. Sequential extraction of heavy metals from sorptive filter media and sediments trapped in stormwater quality improvement devices for road runoff. Sci Total Environ. 2021;782:146875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146875.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Lim HS, Lim W, Hu JY, Ziegler A, Ong SL. Comparison of filter media materials for heavy metal removal from urban stormwater runoff using biofiltration systems. J Environ Manag. 2015;147:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.04.042.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Mohanty SK, Cantrell KB, Nelson KL, Boehm AB. Efficacy of biochar to remove Escherichia coli from stormwater under steady and intermittent flow. Water Res. 2014;61:288–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.026.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Gui R, Pan Y-x, Ding D-x, Liu Y, Zhang Z-j. Experimental study on bioclogging in porous media during the radioactive effluent percolation. Adv Civ Eng. 2018;2018:9671371. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9671371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Davis AP, Shokouhian M, Sharma H, Minami C. Water quality improvement through bioretention media: nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Water Environ Res. 2006;78(3):284–93. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143005X94376.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Guo H, Lim FY, Zhang Y, Lee LY, Hu JY, Ong SL, Yau WK, Ong GS. Soil column studies on the performance evaluation of engineered soil mixes for bioretention systems. Desalin Water Treat. 2015;54(13):3661–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.922284.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Li Y, Deletic A, McCarthy DT. Copper-zeolite integrated stormwater biofilter for nutrient removal – the impact of intermittent wetting and drying conditions. Blue-Green Systems. 2020;2(1):352–63. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2020.016. Good analysis on biofilters with different options.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Dalrymple B, Wicks M, Jones W, Allingham B. Biofiltration’s effect on removing pollutants in stormwater. Water e-Journal. 2022;8(1). https://doi.org/10.21139/wej.2022.033. Long term monitoring as well as good comparison of the performance of biofilters at different locations.

  78. Roundtable FRT. Constructed wetlands. In: Technology screening matrix. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable; 2021. https://frtr.gov/matrix/Constructed-Wetlands/. Accessed 21 Feb 2024.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Parde D, Patwa A, Shukla A, Vijay R, Killedar DJ, Kumar R. A review of constructed wetland on type, treatment and technology of wastewater. Environ Technol Innov. 2021;21:101261.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Dotro G, Langergraber G, Molle P, Nivala J, Puigagut J, Stein O, Von Sperling M. Treatment wetlands. IWA Publishing; 2017.

  81. Enrique A. Artificial or constructed wetlands : A suitable technology for sustainable water management. In: Kappelmeyer U, Aylward LA, editors. Rhizospheric processes for water treatment background principles, existing technology, and future use. Taylor & Francis Group; 2018.

  82. Gabriela Dotro GL, Molle P, Nivala J, Puigagut J, Stein O, von Sperling M. Treatment wetlands. London: IWA Publishing; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Langergraber G, Dotro G. Wetland technology: practical information on the design and application of treatment wetlands. IWA Publishing; 2019.

  84. Sharma R, Vymazal J, Malaviya P. Application of floating treatment wetlands for stormwater runoff: A critical review of the recent developments with emphasis on heavy metals and nutrient removal. Sci Total Environ. 2021;777:146044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146044.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Vacca G, Wand H, Nikolausz M, Kuschk P, Kästner M. Effect of plants and filter materials on bacteria removal in pilot-scale constructed wetlands. Water Res. 2005;39(7):1361–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Chen X, Peltier E, Sturm BSM, Young CB. Nitrogen removal and nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria quantification in a stormwater bioretention system. Water Res. 2013;47(4):1691–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.12.033.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Milandri S, Winter K, Chimphango S, Armitage N, Mbui D, Jackson G, Liebau V. The performance of plant species in removing nutrients from stormwater in biofiltration systems in Cape Town. Water SA. 2012;38(5):655–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Hunt W, Smith J, Jadlocki S, Hathaway J, Eubanks P. Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a bioretention cell in urban Charlotte, NC. J Environ Eng. 2008;134(5):403–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Liu Y, Ahiablame LM, Bralts VF, Engel BA. Enhancing a rainfall-runoff model to assess the impacts of BMPs and LID practices on storm runoff. J Environ Manag. 2015;147:12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Committee VS, Urban stormwater: Best-practice environmental management guidelines. CSIRO Publishing; 1999. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VS8ImoNhg5QC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1&dq=Urban+Stormwater:+Best+Practice+Environmental+Management+Guidelines+(1999)&ots=K5tkD0M5-F&sig=1BWCSje4w1qtcPueEVESeMg7pkc#v=onepage&q=Urban%20Stormwater%3A%20Best%20Practice%20Environmental%20Management%20Guidelines%20(1999)&f=false

  91. Crites RW. Design criteria and practice for constructed wetlands. Water Sci Technol. 1994;29(4):1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Cooper P. The performance of vertical flow constructed wetland systems with special reference to the significance of oxygen transfer and hydraulic loading rates. Water Sci Technol. 2005;51(9):81–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Weedon C. Compact vertical flow reed beds: design rationale and early performance. IWA Macrophytes Newsletter. 2001;23:12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Grant N, Griggs J. Reed beds for the treatment of domestic wastewater. CRC, Construction Research Communications Limited; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Platzer C. Design recommendations for subsurface flow constructed wetlands for nitrification and denitrification. Water Sci Technol. 1999;40(3):257–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Boutin C, Liénard A. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: the French experience. In: 1st international seminar on the use of aquatic macrophytes for wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Pant HK. Estimation of internal loading of phosphorus in freshwater wetlands. Curr Pollut Rep. 2020;6(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-020-00136-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Vo H-N-P, Bui X-T, Nguyen T-M-H, Koottatep T, Bandyopadhyay A. Insights of the removal mechanisms of pharmaceutical and personal care products in constructed wetlands. Curr Pollut Rep. 2018;4(2):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-018-0086-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Yang F, Gato-Trinidad S, Hossain I. New insights into the pollutant composition of stormwater treating wetlands. Sci Total Environ. 2022;827:154229.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Li YC, Zhang DQ, Wang M. Performance evaluation of a full-scale constructed wetland for treating stormwater runoff. CLEAN–Soil, Air, Water. 2017;45(11):1600740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Kabenge I, Ouma G, Aboagye D, Banadda N. Performance of a constructed wetland as an upstream intervention for stormwater runoff quality management. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25:36765–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Walker C, Tondera K, Lucke T. Stormwater treatment evaluation of a constructed floating wetland after two years operation in an urban catchment. Sustainability. 2017;9(10):1687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Sullivan C, McDonald W. Hydrologic and water quality performance of a subsurface gravel wetland treating stormwater runoff. J Environ Manag. 2022;322:116120.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Schwammberger PF, Tondera K, Headley TR, Borne KE, Yule CM, Tindale NW. Performance monitoring of constructed floating wetlands: Treating stormwater runoff during the construction phase of an urban residential development. Sci Total Environ. 2023;865:161107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

RMIT University, Australia provided a scholarship for the first author to conduct her PhD study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Shamima Moazzem, Muhammed Bhuiyan & Veeriah Jegatheesan

  2. College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, 8001, Australia

    Shobha Muthukumaran

  3. North East Water, Wodonga, VIC, 3690, Australia

    Jill Fagan

Authors
  1. Shamima Moazzem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammed Bhuiyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shobha Muthukumaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jill Fagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Veeriah Jegatheesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.M. wrote the main manuscript, V.J. prepared Figs. 2 and 7 as well as reviewed and revised several versions of the manuscript, and all authors reviewed the manuscript as well as provided feedback on the revised manuscript and response to reviewers’ comments.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veeriah Jegatheesan.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moazzem, S., Bhuiyan, M., Muthukumaran, S. et al. A Critical Review of Nature-Based Systems (NbS) to Treat Stormwater in Response to Climate Change and Urbanization. Curr Pollution Rep 10, 286–311 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-024-00297-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-024-00297-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation