A robust approach for comparing conventional and sustainable flood mitigation measures in urban basins

Abstract

An integrated methodological framework for assessing different flood mitigation measures in urban catchments is presented. The framework comprises hydrologic, hydraulic and economic indices aiming at quantifying the effect of different alternatives regarding flood hazard mitigation. The alternatives evaluated include both conventional drainage solutions and low impact development measures. The conventional drainage solutions were: (i) off-line detention tanks; and (ii) sewer enlargement. The low impact development measures included: (i) green roofs (GR); and (ii) permeable surfaces (PS). Each solution was modeled using SWMM5 with respect to flood reduction effectiveness, and the results were compared to those of the existing condition (i.e., no flood mitigation measures). All the examined solutions were also compared based on their construction and operation and maintenance costs for a typical lifespan (i.e., 30 years). The results of the simulation revealed that both low impact development measures and conventional drainage solutions were highly effective even for storm events with low probability of occurrence. However, sewer enlargement was found to be the best alternative from an economic perspective. Nevertheless, peak at the sewer exit increased and time to peak remained unchanged; as a result, local flooding problems are resolved but downstream flooding problems may be introduced. If other criteria are considered, i.e., traffic obstruction, noise, construction easiness, co-benefits and downstream impacts, low impact development measures become more attractive compared to conventional drainage solutions.