Main Article Content
Low Impact Development (LID), or green infrastructure, refers to a land planning and engineering design practice to address urban storm runoff. The nature of LID is to mimic the pre-development environment to retain runoff through infiltration, retention, and evaporation. Despite the fact that numerous studies have analyzed the performance of runoff volume reduction and peak flow of various green infrastructures, little is known regarding the economic benefits of adopting LID practices. In this research, three completed construction projects in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area were selected to perform an alternative LID design including extensive green roof (GR) and permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP), to determine the cost effectiveness of using LID to reduce the use of a conventional stormwater storage system. A life cycle cost (LCC) analysis was conducted to better understand the cost benefits of applying LID to meet current drainage design criteria as per the project requirements. The results found that applying LID resulted in an average LCC saving rate of 23% compared to a conventional stormwater storage system over a 50 year service life and 15.1% over a full LID (GR+PICP) strategy. Furthermore, it was discovered that LID has little cost savings benefits when constructing above-ground retention basins due to cheaper associated construction costs.
City of Phoenix. Storm water policies and standards. City of Phoenix City Code, , Phoenix AZ; 2011.
Maricopa County. Drainage design manual. Maricopa County Standards for Hydraulic Design. Maricopa AZ; 2013.
Suripin S, Sachro SS, Atmojo PS, Edhisono S, Budieny H, Kurniani D. Reducing stormwater runoff from parking lot with permeable pavement. E3S Web of Conferences, Semarang, Indonesia; 2018. August 14-15, 2018
Hu MC, Zhang XQ, Siu YL, Li Y, Tanka KJ, Yang H, Xu YP. Food mitigation by permeable pavements in Chinese sponge city construction. Water. 2018;10(2):172.
Lee JY, Moon HJ, Kim TI, Kim HW, Han MY. Quantitative analysis on the urban flood mitigation effect by the extensive green roof system. Environmental Pollution. 2013;181:257-261.
Uda M, Van Seters T, Graham C, Rocha L. Evaluation of life cycle costs for low impact development stormwater management practices. Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; 2013.
Maricopa County. Drainage policies and standards. Maricopa County Standards for Hydrology. Maricopa AZ; 2018.
Li L, Collins A, Cheshmehzangi A, Chan FKS. Identifying enablers and barriers to the implementation of the green infrastructure for urban flood management: a comparative analysis of the UK and China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. Elsevier. 2020;54. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126770
Johnson D, Geisendorf S. Are neighborhood-level SUDS worth it? An assessment of the economic value of sustainable urban drainage system scenarios using cost-benefit analysis. Ecological Economics. Elsevier. 2019; 158:194-205, Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.024
Ossa-Moreno J, Smith KM, Mijic A. Economic analysis of wider benefits to facilitate SuDS uptake in London, UK. Sustainable Cities and Society. Elsevier. 2017;28:411-419, Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.002
Nordman E, Isely E, Isley P, Denning R. Benefit-cost analysis of stormwater green infrastructure practices for Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. Journal of Cleaner Production Elsevier. . 2018;200:501-510. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.152
Alves A, Vojinovic Z, Kapelan Z, Sanchez A, Gersonius B. Exploring trade-offs among the multiple benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for urban flood mitigation. Science of the Total Environment. Elsevier. 2020;702. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134980
PlanSwift®. Takeoff software for construction estimating. Construct Connect, Centerville, Utah; 2020. Available:www.planswift.com
Sena, A. Water Wednesday: Living roofs reduce energy use, stormwater runoff. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Washington DC; 2015.
Berghage R, Beattie D, Jarret R, Thuring A, Razaei F. Green roof for stormwater control. National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Cincinnati OH; 2009.
Getter KL, Rowe DB, Andresen JA. Quantifying the effect of slope on extensive green roof stormwater retention. Ecological Engineering. 2017;31(4):225-231.
Carpenter DD, Kaluvakolanu P. Effect of roof surface type on storm-water runoff from full-scale roofs in a temperate climate. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 2011;137:161–169.
Stovin V, Vesuviano G, De-Ville S. Defining green roof detention performance. Urban Water Journal. 2013;574-588.
Voyde E, Fassman E, Simcock R. Hydrology of an extensive living roof under subtropical climate conditions in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Hydrology. 2010; 394:384–395.
Tyson S, Tayabji S. Permeable interlocking concrete pavement. FHWA-HIF-15-007. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington DC; 2015.
Collins K, Hunt WF, Hathaway JM. Hydrologic comparison of four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern North Carolina. Journal of Hydrological Engineering. 2018;13(12): 1146-1157.
ICPI. Design professional fact sheet. Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute. Burlington, Ontario, Canada; 2008.
Winston RJ, Dorsey JD, Smolek AP, Hunt WF. Hydrologic performance of four permeable pavement systems constructed over low-permeability soils in northeast Ohio. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. 2018;23(4). Available: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001627
Bonnin G, Martin D, Lin B, Parzybok T, Yekta M, Riley D. Precipitation – Frequency Atlas of the United States, Atlas 14, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Version 5.0, , Washington, DC. 2011;1.
City of Phoenix. Triple bottom line cost benefit analysis of green infrastructure/low impact development (GI/LID) in Phoenix, AZ. City of Phoenix Result Report. Phoenix AZ; 2018.