IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i12p4990-d373276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Optimal Cost-Benefit Solution for a Low Impact Development Layout by Zoning, as Well as Considering the Inundation Duration and Inundation Depth

Author

Listed:
  • Jiansheng Wu

    (Key Laboratory for Urban Habitat Environmental Science and Technology, School of Urban Planning and Design, Peking University, Shenzhen 518055, China
    Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

  • Ying Chen

    (Key Laboratory for Urban Habitat Environmental Science and Technology, School of Urban Planning and Design, Peking University, Shenzhen 518055, China)

  • Rui Yang

    (Key Laboratory for Urban Habitat Environmental Science and Technology, School of Urban Planning and Design, Peking University, Shenzhen 518055, China)

  • Yuhao Zhao

    (Key Laboratory for Urban Habitat Environmental Science and Technology, School of Urban Planning and Design, Peking University, Shenzhen 518055, China
    Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China)

Abstract

Urban flooding now occurs frequently and low impact development (LID) has been widely implemented as an effective resilience strategy to improve storm water management. This study constructed the inundation curve to dynamically simulate the disaster, and established an inundation severity indicator (ISI) and cost-effectiveness indicator (CEI) to quantify the severity and cost effectiveness at each site. The study set 10 different density scenarios using a zonal approach. The results showed that LID could reduce the overall ISI value, but as the construction increased, the CEI exhibited a downward trend, showing that there is a marginal utility problem in LID. However, the performance of CEI differed slightly in areas of different severity. In the vulnerable resilience zone, the CEI increased initially and then decreased, and the optimal cost–benefit combination was 60% permeable pavement +20% green roof +50% vegetative swale. The mutual effects of LID measures in different zones led to synergistic or antagonistic effects on LID. This study explored the tradeoff between the resilience enhancement effect and strategy transformation cost, and determined the optimal combination of the LID strategy, thereby providing a new analytical perspective for the sustainable development of sponge cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiansheng Wu & Ying Chen & Rui Yang & Yuhao Zhao, 2020. "Exploring the Optimal Cost-Benefit Solution for a Low Impact Development Layout by Zoning, as Well as Considering the Inundation Duration and Inundation Depth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-21, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4990-:d:373276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4990/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4990/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erle Kristvik & Birgitte Gisvold Johannessen & Tone Merete Muthanna, 2019. "Temporal Downscaling of IDF Curves Applied to Future Performance of Local Stormwater Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Johannes Leimgruber & Gerald Krebs & David Camhy & Dirk Muschalla, 2019. "Model-Based Selection of Cost-Effective Low Impact Development Strategies to Control Water Balance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Nurmi, Väinö & Ahtiainen, Heini, 2018. "Distributional Weights in Environmental Valuation and Cost-benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 217-228.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mariusz Starzec & Józef Dziopak, 2020. "A Case Study of the Retention Efficiency of a Traditional and Innovative Drainage System," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Peng Gao & Wei Gao & Nan Ke, 2021. "Assessing the impact of flood inundation dynamics on an urban environment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(1), pages 1047-1072, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Acland, Daniel J. & Greenberg, David H., 2023. "Distributional weighting and welfare/equity tradeoffs: a new approach," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 68-92, March.
    2. Joanna Boguniewicz-Zabłocka & Andrea G. Capodaglio, 2020. "Analysis of Alternatives for Sustainable Stormwater Management in Small Developments of Polish Urban Catchments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Batara Surya & Despry Nur Annisa Ahmad & Harry Hardian Sakti & Hernita Sahban, 2020. "Land Use Change, Spatial Interaction, and Sustainable Development in the Metropolitan Urban Areas, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-43, March.
    4. Jonathan B. Butcher & Tan Zi & Brian R. Pickard & Scott C. Job & Thomas E. Johnson & Bryan A. Groza, 2021. "Efficient statistical approach to develop intensity-duration-frequency curves for precipitation and runoff under future climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Rosanna Bonasia & Lorenzo Borselli & Paolo Madonia, 2023. "Analysis of Flow and Land Use on the Hydraulic Structure of Southeast Mexico City: Implications on Flood and Runoff," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Thijs Dekker & Paul (P.R.) Koster & Niek Mouter, 2019. "The economics of participatory value evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Acland, Daniel & Greenberg, David H., 2023. "The Elasticity of Marginal Utility of Income for Distributional Weighting and Social Discounting: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 386-405, July.
    8. Yaning Qiao & Eshan Dave & Tony Parry & Omar Valle & Lingyun Mi & Guodong Ni & Zhenmin Yuan & Yuefeng Zhu, 2019. "Life Cycle Costs Analysis of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Under Future Climate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Moritz A. Drupp & Ulrike Kornek & Jasper N. Meya & Lutz Sager, 2021. "Inequality and the Environment: The Economics of a Two-Headed Hydra," CESifo Working Paper Series 9447, CESifo.
    10. Zhen, Huayang & Qiao, Yuhui & Zhao, Haijun & Ju, Xuehai & Zanoli, Raffaele & Waqas, Muhammad Ahmed & Lun, Fei & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman, 2022. "Developing a conceptual model to quantify eco-compensation based on environmental and economic cost-benefit analysis for promoting the ecologically intensified agriculture," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    11. Paolo Sospiro & Leonardo Nibbi & Marco Ciro Liscio & Maurizio De Lucia, 2021. "Cost–Benefit Analysis of Pumped Hydroelectricity Storage Investment in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Morello, Thiago & Anderson, Liana & Silva, Sonaira, 2022. "Innovative fire policy in the Amazon: A statistical Hicks-Kaldor analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Väinö Nurmi & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Hilppa Gregow & Adriaan Perrels, 2019. "Overadaptation to Climate Change? The Case of the 2013 Finnish Electricity Market Act," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 161-190, July.
    14. Bartosz Szeląg & Agnieszka Cienciała & Szymon Sobura & Jan Studziński & Juan T. García, 2019. "Urbanization and Management of the Catchment Retention in the Aspect of Operation of Storm Overflow: A Probabilistic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-17, July.
    15. Lena Simperler & Thomas Ertl & Andreas Matzinger, 2020. "Spatial Compatibility of Implementing Nature-Based Solutions for Reducing Urban Heat Islands and Stormwater Pollution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Endre Kildal Iversen & Kristine Grimsrud & Henrik Lindhjem & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Trade-offs between carbon sequestration, landscape aesthetics and biodiversity in a cost-benefit analysis of land use options in Norway," Discussion Papers 915, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "An introduction to Participatory Value Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-024/V, Tinbergen Institute, revised 15 Dec 2019.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4990-:d:373276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.