Cover
Title Page
List of Contributors
About the Editors
Section 1: Introduction to the Book
1. 1 An Overture of Sustainable Surface Water Management
  1. 1.1 Introduction
  2. 1.2 Surface Water Management
  3. 1.3 Sustainable Surface Water Management
  4. 1.4 Organisation of the Book
  5. References
Section 2: Sustainable Surface Water Management in Context
1. 2 Back to the Future? History and Contemporary Application of Sustainable Drainage Techniques
  1. 2.1 Introduction
  2. 2.2 ‘Sustainability’?
  3. 2.3 Rainwater Harvesting in Antiquity
  4. 2.4 Water Quality Improvement
  5. 2.5 Water Quantity Reduction: Sub‐Surface Drainage
  6. 2.6 Water Storage
  7. 2.7 Reduction in Water Demand: Greywater Recycling
  8. 2.8 Reducing Water Velocity
  9. 2.9 Non‐Structural Approaches to Sustainable Water Management
  10. 2.10 Conclusions
  11. References
2. 3 Surface Water Strategy, Policy and Legislation
  1. 3.1 Introduction
  2. 3.2 Legislative Hierarchies
  3. 3.3 Case Study – The United Kingdom
  4. 3.4 Comparison of UK Approaches with Other Countries
  5. 3.5 Conclusions
  6. References
3. 4 Sustainable Drainage Systems
  1. 4.1 Introduction
  2. 4.2 What is Operation and Maintenance and Why is it Important?
  3. 4.3 Inspection, Reporting and Maintenance
  4. 4.4 Maintenance Schedules and Planned Maintenance
  5. 4.5 Other Considerations that Will Impact on Maintenance
  6. 4.6 Conclusions
  7. References
Section 3: Functions of Sustainable Drainage Systems
1. 5 Water Quantity
  1. 5.1 Introduction
  2. 5.2 Conventional Drainage, Water Flow and Volume
  3. 5.3 Existing Flood Management
  4. 5.4 Water Quantity
  5. 5.5 History of SuDS Implementation
  6. 5.6 The Management Train
  7. 5.7 Retrofit
  8. 5.8 New Build
  9. 5.9 Flow Control
  10. 5.10 Conclusions
  11. References
2. 6 Urban Water and Sediment Quality
  1. 6.1 Introduction
  2. 6.2 Sources of Pollutants Mobilised by Urban Runoff
  3. 6.3 Quality of Urban Runoff Originating from a Range of Land Use Types
  4. 6.4 Quality and Behaviour of Sediment in Urban Receiving Water Bodies
  5. 6.5 Treatment of Urban Runoff Using SuDS
  6. 6.6 Pollutant Removal Processes that Occur in SuDS
  7. 6.7 Quality and Behaviour of Sediment in SuDS
  8. References
3. 7 Sustainable Drainage Systems
  1. 7.1 Introduction
  2. 7.2 Getting Better SuDS
  3. 7.3 SuDS and How They Support Biodiversity
  4. 7.4 Involving People
  5. 7.5 Designing SuDS for People and Wildlife
  6. 7.6 SuDS Management Trains and Their Wildlife Benefits
  7. 7.7 Community Managed and Wildlife‐Rich SuDS – a Case Study of Springhill Cohousing, Stroud, Gloucestershire
  8. References
4. 8 Amenity
  1. 8.1 Emergence of the Amenity Concept
  2. 8.2 Amenity, Recreation and Biodiversity in the Built Environment
  3. 8.3 SuDS Amenity and Sustainable Development
  4. 8.4 Reviewing the Public Perception of the Concept of Amenity and SuDS
  5. 8.5 Conclusions
  6. References
5. 9 Biodegradation in Green Infrastructure
  1. 9.1 Introduction
  2. 9.2 Environmental Conditions and Requirements for Biodegradation
  3. 9.3 Biofilms: What They Are, What They Do and How They Work
  4. 9.4 Biodegradation in Green SuDS
  5. 9.5 Nitrogen in Green SuDS
  6. 9.6 Conclusions
  7. References
6. 10 Hydrocarbon Biodegradation in Hard Infrastructure
  1. 10.1 Introduction
  2. 10.2 Hard SuDS Structure, Design and Related Technologies
  3. 10.3 Evidence of Biodegradation in Hard SuDS
  4. 10.4 Hard SuDS Microbiology and Biofilms
  5. 10.5 Design and Diversification from Standard Hard SuDS
  6. 10.6 Other Hard SuDS Biodegradation Studies
  7. 10.7 Design Optimisation for Catastrophic Pollution Events
  8. 10.8 Conclusions
  9. References
7. 11 Use of Geosynthetics for Sustainable Drainage
  1. 11.1 Introduction to Geosynthetics
  2. 11.2 Classifications, Functions and Applications of Geosynthetics
  3. 11.3 Application of Geotextiles in SuDS
  4. 11.4 Secondary Uses for Urban Water
  5. 11.5 Conclusions
  6. References
Section 4: Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Drainage Systems
1. 12 Natural Flood Risk Management and its Role in Working with Natural Processes
  1. 12.1 Introduction
  2. 12.2 Defining NFRM
  3. 12.3 Examples of NFRM Studies
  4. 12.4 Significance of NFRM in Meeting Policy Agendas
  5. 12.5 Conclusions
  6. References
  7. Statuses
2. 13 Sustainable Drainage Systems and Energy
  1. 13.1 Introduction
  2. 13.2 Ground Source Heat Extraction
  3. 13.3 Pervious Paving Systems
  4. 13.4 Results of Monitoring the EcoHouse
  5. 13.5 The Hanson Stewartby Office, Bedford, UK
  6. 13.6 Reducing Energy Use: The Use of Green and Blue Infrastructure on Buildings
  7. 13.7 Conclusions
  8. References
3. 14 Carbon Sequestration and Storage
  1. 14.1 Introduction
  2. 14.2 The Importance of Carbon Sequestration
  3. 14.3 Coupling the Stormwater Management Benefits of Green Roofs with Carbon Sequestration
  4. 14.4 Carbon Sequestration on Green Roofs
  5. 14.5 Embodied Energy
  6. 14.6 Improving Carbon Sequestration Potential
  7. 14.7 Conclusions
  8. References
4. 15 Dual‐Purpose Rainwater Harvesting System Design
  1. 15.1 Introduction
  2. 15.2 RWH and SuDS in England and Wales
  3. 15.3 Approaches to Stormwater Source Control Using RwH in England and Wales
  4. 15.4 Integrating Stormwater Source Control into RwH System Design
  5. 15.5 Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References
5. 16 Progress with Integration of Ecosystem Services in SuDS
  1. 16.1 Introduction
  2. 16.2 Potential Contribution of SuDS Types to Ecosystem Services
  3. 16.3 Analysis of Ecosystem Service Outcomes from SuDS Schemes
  4. 16.4 Recognising the Multi‐Functional Opportunities of SuDS
  5. 16.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
  6. References
Section 5: Integrating Sustainable Surface Water Management into the Built Environment
1. 17 Whole Life Costing and Multiple Benefits of Sustainable Drainage
  1. 17.1 Introduction
  2. 17.2 Whole Life Costing
  3. 17.3 Multiple Benefits of SuDS
  4. 17.4 Conclusions
  5. Acknowledgement
  6. References
2. 18 Green Roof and Permeable Paving Retrofit to Mitigate Pluvial Flooding
  1. 18.1 Introduction
  2. 18.2 Types of Green Roof for Stormwater Management
  3. 18.3 Building Retrofit Characteristics
  4. 18.4 Drivers and Barriers to the Uptake of SuDS in Melbourne
  5. 18.5 Estimation of Runoff Under Different Scenarios
  6. 18.6 Conclusions and Further Research
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
3. 19 Contemporary Landscapes and Buildings of Motorway Service Areas
  1. 19.1 Introduction
  2. 19.2 Motorway Service Areas in the UK
  3. 19.3 Exemplar Motorway Service Areas
  4. 19.4 Conclusions
  5. References
4. 20 Modelling for Design
  1. 20.1 Introduction
  2. 20.2 One‐Dimensional Modelling
  3. 20.3 Two‐Dimensional Flood Modelling
  4. 20.4 One‐Dimensional and Two‐Dimensional Modelling
  5. 20.5 Three‐Dimensional Modelling
  6. 20.6 Modelling Uncertainty
  7. 20.7 Validation of Models: Monitoring of SuDS Management Trains
  8. 20.8 Scale of Drainage Modelling
  9. 20.9 Issues with SuDS Modelling
  10. 20.10 Case Study: Modelling the Impacts of a SuDS Management Train at Prior Deram Park, Coventry, UK, Using Microdrainage®
  11. 20.11 Case Study: Decision Support Tool for Coventry, UK
  12. 20.12 Site Design
  13. 20.13 Conclusions
  14. References
5. 21 Public Perceptions of Sustainable Drainage Devices
  1. 21.1 Introduction
  2. 21.2 Public Preferences and Understanding of Flood Risk Management
  3. 21.3 The Sustainability of SuDS
  4. 21.4 Attitudes and Behaviour: Portland, Oregon, USA
  5. 21.5 Co‐development and Co‐ownership
  6. 21.6 Conclusions
  7. References
Section 6: Global Sustainable Surface Water Management
1. 22 Sustainable Drainage Out of the Temperate Zone
  1. 22.1 Introduction
  2. 22.2 Modification of the Urban Hydrological Cycle by Urbanisation in Tropical Countries
  3. 22.3 Vegetated Devices
  4. 22.4 Case Study: Sustainable Drainage in Malaysia
  5. 22.5 Conclusions
  6. References
2. 23 Sustainable Drainage Systems in Brazil
  1. 23.1 Introduction
  2. 23.2 The History of SuDS in Brazil – an Academic Perspective
  3. 23.3 Legal Framework
  4. 23.4 Case Examples
  5. 23.5 Concluding Remarks
  6. References
3. 24 Interim Measures Towards Sustainable Drainage in the Informal Settlements of South Africa
  1. 24.1 Introduction
  2. 24.2 Overview of the Development of Informal Settlements in South Africa
  3. 24.3 Co‐Management of Drainage
  4. 24.4 Langrug: A Case Study of an Informal Settlement
  5. 24.5 Research‐Led Efforts: First Approach
  6. 24.6 Discussion on Research‐Led Approach to Drainage
  7. 24.7 Building Partnerships: A Second Approach
  8. 24.8 Provincial Government Intervention
  9. 24.9 Biomimicry at Work: Greywater Swales
  10. 24.10 Sustainable Urban Drainage Centre
  11. 24.11 Discussion
  12. 24.12 Conclusions
  13. References
4. 25 Low Impact Development in the USA
  1. 25.1 Introduction
  2. 25.2 Unifying Legislation
  3. 25.3 Stormwater Management Practices
  4. 25.4 Low‐Impact Development
  5. 25.5 Stormwater and Urban Agendas
  6. 25.6 Choices in Challenging Urban Districts
  7. References
5. 26 Sustainable Drainage Systems in Spain
  1. 26.1 Introduction
  2. 26.2 SuDS Case Studies in the Northern Regions of Spain
  3. 26.3 Integration of SuDS into New Urban Developments
  4. 26.4 SuDS Retrofitting Case Studies in the Mediterranean Region
  5. 26.5 Conclusions
  6. References
6. 27 Sustainable Drainage at the City Scale
  1. 27.1 Introduction
  2. 27.2 SuDS and Legislation
  3. 27.3 The Importance of Multi‐Functionality
  4. 27.4 Design Studies
  5. 27.5 Nitshill Design Study
  6. 27.6 City Centre Surface Water Management
  7. 27.7 Funding
  8. 27.8 The Future
  9. References
7. 28 Water Sensitive Design in Auckland, New Zealand
  1. 28.1 Introduction
  2. 28.2 WSD in Auckland: Drivers of Design
  3. 28.3 Case Study: Wynyard Quarter
  4. 28.4 Conclusions and Parting Thought
  5. References
Section 7: Summary of the Book
1. 29 Challenges for the Future
  1. 29.1 Introduction
  2. 29.2 Barriers and Drivers
  3. 29.3 What is the Future for SuDS?
  4. 29.4 Conclusions
  5. References
Index
End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 01
1. Table 1.1 Examples of the benefits offered by sustainable drainage systems.
2. Table 1.2 Examples of the challenges posed by sustainable drainage systems.
Chapter 03
1. Table 3.1 Example surface water quality legislation hierarchies.
2. Table 3.2 Summary of the number of water authorities at the different hierarchy levels in the German states.
3. Table 3.3 Regulations used to transpose EU water directives into UK national law.
4. Table 3.4 Implementation in 2016 of some SuDS provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
5. Table 3.5 Some key differences between detailed SuDS regulation in England and Scotland.
Chapter 04
1. Table 4.1 Inspection skill level descriptions (adapted from the Centre for Watershed Protection Stormwater Pond and Wetland Maintenance Guidebook, 2004).
Chapter 05
1. Table 5.1 Conventional drainage design storms for different land uses (adapted from Schmitt et al., 2004).
2. Table 5.2 Site characteristics and SuDS devices used in the management trains at Wheatley and Hopwood Motorway Service Areas.
3. Table 5.3 SuDS devices, their role in the management train, efficiency in reducing water quantity and potential to be retrofitted (Woods Ballard et al., 2007).
4. Table 5.4 Swale design criteria (Escarameia et al., 2006).
5. Table 5.5 Potential for a variety of retrofit SuDS devices (adapted from Environment Agency, 2007).
Chapter 06
1. Table 6.1 Pollutant concentrations and loadings determined in runoff from a variety of urban surfaces (taken from Revitt et al., 2014).
2. Table 6.2 Minimum and maximum total concentrations of metals measured in a selection of urban stream and river sediments (µg/g dry weight) (after Scholes et al., 2008a).
3. Table 6.3 Performance efficiency of a range of types of SuDS (after Revitt et al., 2003). ND = no data; TSS = total suspended solids; TN = total nitrogen; HC = hydrocarbons; TM = total metals.
4. Table 6.4 Maximum concentrations of metals in sediments from various SuDS sites (WERF, 2005).
Chapter 11
1. Table 11.1 Classification of geosynthetics according to permeability (ISO, 2006).
Chapter 12
1. Table 12.1 The two main approaches to natural flood risk management (WWF, 2007).
2. Table 12.2 Information of various NFRM studies, adapted from Iacob et al. (2012) and Environment Agency (2014) to consider catchment specifics (CEH 2009). With the exception of Poyo, Spain and Kamp, Austria as FEH catchment descriptors are only applicable in the UK.
3. Table 12.3 FEH catchment descriptors (NRFA, 2015).
Chapter 13
1. Table 13.1 Statistical analysis of the ambient air and the ground temperatures (°C) throughout the monitoring period (n = 2,449).
Chapter 15
1. Table 15.1 Site characteristics, parameters and global design criteria.
2. Table 15.2 Sample simulation results of 1 in 100 year storm events controlled by a RwH tank with a 20 mm orifice. (* = critical rainfall event).
3. Table 15.3 Summary of results: Drainage designs for Option 1 and 2.
Chapter 16
1. Table 16.1 ‘Traffic lights’, signalling outcomes for ecosystem services from drainage options.
Chapter 17
1. Table 17.1 List of categories of benefits from SuDS (after Abbott et al., 2013).
Chapter 18
1. Table 18.1 Characteristics of extensive and intensive green roofs.
2. Table 18.2 Retrofit characteristics in existing Melbourne office buildings.
3. Table 18.3 Technical features for green roof retrofit.
4. Table 18.4 Rank order of year of construction for buildings in Melbourne.
5. Table 18.5 Potential benefits of, and drivers for, green roof retrofit.
6. Table 18.6 Potential barriers to green roof retrofit.
7. Table 18.7 Runoff calculations for Melbourne, showing estimated percentage of total rainfall falling on the CBD managed by potential retrofit under two scenarios.
Chapter 19
1. Table 19.1 Contaminant concentrations in sediment (mg kg⁻¹ dry weight) in the HGV park and coach park management trains.
Chapter 20
1. Table 20.1 Devices used in the SuDS management train at Prior Deram Park, Coventry, UK, their purpose and modelled volumes.
Chapter 22
1. Table 22.1 Urban drainage problems associated with the humid tropics (after da Silveira et al., 2001).
Chapter 23
1. Table 23.1 Types of compensatory techniques (adapted from Baptista et al., 2005).
Chapter 25
1. Table 25.1 Common types of stormwater controls that have exclusively or primarily stormwater management functions, and do not necessarily influence human accommodation.
2. Table 25.2 Common types of stormwater controls that are selected and arranged at least partly for human accommodation.
3. Table 25.3 Contrasting hydroclimatic conditions in six cities (data from US NOAA National Weather Service, Precipitation Frequency Data Server, hdsc.nws.noaa.gov).
4. Table 25.4 Examples of websites presenting ongoing research and technical guidance.
Chapter 26
1. Table 26.1 Main SuDS application in Spain (Castro‐Fresno et al., 2013).
Chapter 28
1. Table 28.1 Technical guidance and specification for water sensitive design in Auckland, New Zealand.
2. Table 28.2 Technical reports underpinning water sensitive design in Auckland, New Zealand.
3. Table 28.3 Proposed design requirements for stormwater detention and retention in the Auckland region (Auckland Council 2013).
4. Table 28.4 Proposed design effluent quality requirements for stormwater discharged to rivers and streams (Auckland Council, 2013).

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01
1. Figure 1.1 An example of a flooded car park where the impermeable asphalt surface is retaining stormwater runoff.
2. Figure 1.2 The SuDS surface water management train.
3. Figure 1.3 Goals of the SuDS management train (a) the SuDS triangle (CIRIA, 2001); (b) the SuDS square (Woods Ballard et al., 2015); (c) the SuDS rocket (Charlesworth, 2010).
Chapter 02
1. Figure 2.1 Cistern complex near Chersonisos, Crete.
2. Figure 2.2 A large cistern from the Nabataean city of Little Petra.
3. Figure 2.3 Terracotta pipe for rainwater harvesting from roofs at Pompeii, Italy. The pipes would have directed water into cisterns to service individual buildings.
4. Figure 2.4 Cistern from Tylissos, Crete.
5. Figure 2.5 Stilling basin at the outlet of Wadi Jilf (Petra, Jorban). Bioretention is provided by the plants growing in the basin at the present day. Two outlets can be seen in the cross‐drainage structure in the background.
6. Figure 2.6 Settling tank at Petra, Jordan, along the aqueduct in the Siq.
7. Figure 2.7 Sedimentation basin, Petra, Jordan, High Place to Triclinium.
8. Figure 2.8 Water hyacinth and water lilies in a moat at Angkor Thom.
9. Figure 2.9 Water lilies, Angkor Wat.
10. Figure 2.10 (a) Machu Picchu, Peru, locating the central plaza; (b) cross‐section through the drainage structure underneath the central plaza.
11. Figure 2.11 (a) Terraces, Machu Picchu, Peru; (b) cross‐section through two terraces to show underlying drainage structure.
12. Figure 2.12 West baray, Angkor Wat, Cambodia, still containing water. (Wikimedia by Dario Severi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WestBaray.jpg).
13. Figure 2.13 Prean Khan baray north‐east of Angkor Thom and west of Jayatataka baray.
14. Figure 2.14 Cumbe Mayo meandering channel. (Luis Padilla – own work, CC BY‐SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8069762).
15. Figure 2.15 Pompeii raised kerbs with stepping stones.
Chapter 03
1. Figure 3.1 The strategy and policy context for surface water management in England and Scotland. A hierarchy of organisations is related to their role and level in the policy‐ and strategy‐making institutional structures. The Organisation column defines the bodies responsible for creating the policies/strategies/plans at that level. Examples of key development‐related and surface water‐related policies and strategies are identified. The term ‘local authorities’ simplifies the mixture of one‐tier unitary and two‐tier county/district councils present in England.
Chapter 04
1. Figure 4.1 Integration of inspection and maintenance activity during the SuDS development process [author’s image].
2. Figure 4.2 Maintenance requirements from SuDS.
Chapter 05
1. Figure 5.1 The evolution of SuDS from conventional drainage in the 1970s to its development in the mid 1990s (after Stahre, 2008).
2. Figure 5.2 Wheatley MSA, Oxford.
3. Figure 5.3 Hopwood MSA, Bromsgrove.
4. Figure 5.4 SuDS management train.
5. Figure 5.5 Cross‐section through a typical PPS with block paver surface layer.
6. Figure 5.6 Bioretention system, installed in a central reservation, Emeryville, California, USA (freely available).
7. Figure 5.7 Schematic diagram of flow of water through a green roof (after Stovin, 2009).
8. Figure 5.8 Schematic diagram of a swale (after Woods Ballard et al., 2007).
9. Figure 5.9 Weir at the SuDS management train in Hamilton, Leicester, UK.
Chapter 06
1. Figure 6.1 Principal stormwater pollutant sources and types.
2. Figure 6.2 Fundamental unit processes in relation to SuDS characteristics and pollutant behaviour (after Scholes et al., 2008b).
Chapter 07
1. Figure 7.1 Wetland and swale in a housing estate, N. Hamilton Leicestershire, UK.
2. Figure 7.2 Green roof at Coventry University.
3. Figure 7.3 Plantings in the Northampton rain gardens (John Brewington STW).
4. Figure 7.4 Formal engineered bioretention area, N. Hamilton, Leicestershire.
5. Figure 7.5 Detention basin, known as ‘The Dip’, in Coventry, UK. Local children use it as a football field and general play area.
6. Figure 7.6 (left) Engineered feature leading down to (right) small wetland area, swale and filter strips, N. Hamilton, Leicestershire, UK.
7. Figure 7.7 (left) Swale with leaky stone dam creating downstream wetland area, Oxfordshire, UK. (right) Wood and metal dam across a swale, N. Hamilton, Leicestershire.
Chapter 08
1. Figure 8.1 Conceptual overlaps between the three value areas: ecology, community, delight (after Thompson, 2002); and quality, quantity, amenity of SuDS (after Charlesworth, 2010).
Chapter 09
1. Figure 9.1 Biofilm development: (a) the surface of a geotextile fibre showing the pits in which biofilm begins to grow (b) vertical geotextile fibres with interwoven biofilm (c) a single geotextile fibre with microorgansims attached (d) sheet of geotextile with biofilm growing on the surface.
Chapter 10
1. Figure 10.1 The layers in an idealised pervious pavement system. The overall depth would typically be 450 mm.
2. Figure 10.2 A contaminated field car park showing oil staining on permeable blocks and on the gravel bedding layer.
3. Figure 10.3 Carbon dioxide evolution and oxygen consumption in a model PPS over 750 days.
4. Figure 10.4 Results from a fluorescein diacetate assay (FDA) to determine PPS system activity, comparing inoculated and non‐inoculated models.
5. Figure 10.5 (a) SEM biofilm (b) TEM bacteria from effluent (c) cilliate of genus Colpoda (d) testate amoeba genus Euglypha (e) rotifer.
6. Figure 10.6 Scanning electron micrographs of bacterial biofilm growing on floating mats with oil contamination in PPS.
7. Figure 10.7 A section through a macro‐pervious pavement showing interception, storage and treatment areas.
8. Figure 10.8 Oil in PPS with sub‐base replacements following high oil application and mobilisation of oil by detergents (Wilson, S., Newman, A.P., Puehmeier, T. and Shuttleworth, A. (2003) Performance of an oil interceptor incorporated into a pervious pavement, ICE Proc: Engineering Sustainability, 156, (ES 1), pp. 51–58. Figure 7. ICE Publishing).
9. Figure 10.9 The impact of acute oil contamination on bacterial numbers and CO₂ evolution in a field‐based PPS.
Chapter 11
1. Figure 11.1 Examples of geosynthetics.
2. Figure 11.2 Time series for carbon dioxide monitoring of the two sets of models from Newman et al. (2011).
3. Figure 11.3 Growth of fungi on phosphate treated geotextile.
Chapter 12
1. Figure 12.1 Catchment‐scale classification of NFRM measures.
2. Figure 12.2 LWDs near Stroud, Gloucestershire (TL), where the red arrow illustrates interruption of high‐flow pathways.
3. Figure 12.3 Off‐line storage pond, Honeydale Farm.
4. Figure 12.4 Factors that influence farmer’s decisions on the implementation of NFRM features. This illustrates the balance of all factors for farmer engagement and support.
Chapter 13
1. Figure 13.1 Vertical structure of a pervious paving system showing the position of the slinky coils that can be used to harvest GSH.
2. Figure 13.2 The EcoHouse, showing the location of the pervious paving.
3. Figure 13.3 Differences between daily indoor and outdoor temperatures for days on which heating was provided to the EcoHouse (n = 702).
4. Figure 13.4 The main temperature features of the ambient air and the ground throughout the monitoring period (n = 2449).
5. Figure 13.5 Three‐storey office block at Stewartby, Bedfordshire, UK, showing the construction of the combined PPS/GSHP system.
6. Figure 13.6 Green roof in Valencia, Spain.
7. Figure 13.7 Relationship between properties of street or urban trees, improvements to the environment and reductions in overall energy use (after Akbari (2002)). UHI = Urban Heat Island.
Chapter 14
1. Figure 14.1 Intensive green roofs, such as the roof of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‐day Saints Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, include shrubs and trees, and appear similar to landscapes found at ground level.
2. Figure 14.2 Extensive green roofs such as this one on the Plant and Soil Sciences Building at Michigan State University are generally built with substrate depths less than 15 cm. Because of the shallower depth, plant species are limited to grasses, herbaceous perennials, annuals and drought‐tolerant succulents such as sedum. They have less potential to sequester carbon.
Chapter 15
1. Figure 15.1 A dual‐purpose rainwater harvesting system.
2. Figure 15.2 A typical SuDS solution used in England and Wales – a detention basin at Newcourt, Exeter, Devon, England.
3. Figure 15.3 Flow chart illustrating a design method for dual‐purpose RwH systems.
4. Figure 15.4 For the development assessed, the final size of each RwH tank is illustrated in Figure 15.5 and a summary of the results described above is set out in Table 15.3.V_SC and maximum discharge rates for the range of orifices tested.
5. Figure 15.5 Illustration of the proposed retention and throttle RwH tanks for the case study development.
Chapter 16
1. Figure 16.1 Challenges of urban water management.
Chapter 18
1. Figure 18.1 Cumulative frequency of Melbourne CBD Buildings by number of storeys.
2. Figure 18.2 Proportion of buildings judged suitable for green roof option through roof inspection.
3. Figure 18.3 Overshadowing of roofs
Chapter 19
1. Figure 19.1 Decorative balancing pond outside the main amenity building at Hopwood Park MSA (M42).
2. Figure 19.2 Views of the newly built Gloucestershire southbound MSA (M5).
3. Figure 19.3 Devices used for the SuDS management train at the newly built Gloucestershire southbound MSA (M5).
Chapter 20
1. Figure 20.1 Series of levels that modelling can occur at: regional, strategic and local.
2. Figure 20.2 The map creation process in the GIS system using geological data for the detention SuDS map as an example. More and less suitable areas were determined independently, and their geographical overlaps removed.
3. Figure 20.3 The output map for Coventry, UK, with potential locations for both vegetated (darker colours) and engineered (lighter colours) detention SuDS. Unshaded locations (in white) are regarded as unsuitable for any form of detention or retention SuDS.
4. Figure 20.4 Daybrook rain garden, Nottingham, UK.
Chapter 21
1. Figure 21.1 Bioswales in Portland, Oregon and preplanting information.
Chapter 22
1. Figure 22.1 Blocked drainage system in Ijora, Lagos State, Nigeria.
2. Figure 22.2 (a) (top) Aloe sp. (freely available: Erin Silversmith); (b) (bottom) Tectorum sp. By Andrew massyn – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2091770.
3. Figure 22.3 Vetifer grass (Vetiveria fulvibarbis) (Wikimedia Commons).
4. Figure 22.4 (a) Bermuda grass (top). (Mike (Own work) [CC BY‐SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons; (b) Lemon grass (below). (Vaikoovery – Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons).
5. Figure 22.5 Cow grass (Axonopus compressus) as used in the bioecological swale component of BIOECODS (freely available: Harry Rose, South West Rocks, Australia).
6. Figure 22.6 BIOECOD design for the USM campus.
7. Figure 22.7 Cross‐section of a biological swale with underground storage.
8. Figure 22.8 Design concept of the drainage system for the Taiping Health Centre.
Chapter 23
1. Figure 23.1 Illustrative plan view from Iguaçu Project, showing the designed urban floodable parks working as multifunctional landscapes and the proposed new urban zoning defining a restricted occupation area at the downstream portion of the watershed.
2. Figure 23.2 Concept image from the 1st of May Creek watershed: a detention reservoir in a new park integrated with the urban landscape.
3. Figure 23.3 Concept image for Nossa Senhora da Piedade Park, showing a retention reservoir with a permanent lake.
4. Figure 23.4 “Piscinão” Sharp.
5. Figure 23.5 Typical cross section designed for Tijuco Preto Creek, São Carlos.
Chapter 24
1. Figure 24.1 Location map of Franschhoek, South Africa.
2. Figure 24.2 Map showing Langrug informal settlement in the north adjacent to the suburb of Groendal with the stormwater pipeline discharging into the Franschhoek River, and the proposed SuDS Centre. The town of Franschhoek is located 3 km east of Langrug.
3. Figure 24.3 A drainage culvert alongside the road leading to the top of the settlement.
4. Figure 24.4 An example of a crate and trench soakaway.
5. Figure 24.5 A conceptual diagram of fragmented interrelationships.
6. Figure 24.6 A community‐led initiative to create a greywater discharge catchpit linked to a shallow pipeline.
7. Figure 24.7 A micro‐wetland surrounding the base of newly planted trees that form a node linked to a shallow stormwater pipeline.
8. Figure 24.8 SuDS treatment principles applied to the SuDS Centre.
9. Figure 24.9 A schematic of the proposed SuDS Centre at the Franschhoek WWTW.
10. Figure 24.10 Showing connections and purposae strengthened for stakeholder engagement.
Chapter 25
1. Figure 25.1 Rain gardens in Portland, Oregon.
2. Figure 25.2 LID at the Morton Arboretum in Lisle, Illinois.
3. Figure 25.3 Infiltration basin in a suburban residential neighbourhood near Boise, Idaho.
4. Figure 25.4 Retrofit construction in South Grand Boulevard, St Louis, Missouri.
Chapter 26
1. Figure 26.1 (a) Sports Centre, Gijón car park (b) La Zoreda car park (Oviedo).
2. Figure 26.2 (a) General view of Las Llamas Park (Santander) and the experimental parking area integrated in the park (b) artificial wetland and retention pond.
3. Figure 26.3 (a) Permeable pavement scheme (Sañudo‐Fontaneda et al., 2014a) (b) monitoring manhole (Sañudo‐Fontaneda et al., 2014a) (c) Cross‐section of the permeable parking bays.
4. Figure 26.4 Cross‐section and picture of the SuDS used in La Zoreda car park (Oviedo): (a) filter drain (b) swale.
5. Figure 26.5 (a) Filter drains and infiltration pond (b) Retention pond at the end of filter drains (c1) Starting of construction of infiltration well (c2) Finishing of infiltration well (c3) Infiltration well integrated in the park.
6. Figure 26.6 Costa Ermita park before (left) and after (right) retrofitting three infiltration basins.
7. Figure 26.7 Notice board located at Benaguasil Youth Centre retrofitted site.
8. Figure 26.8 Hydraulic performance during the 25–29 April 2013 rainfall event.
9. Figure 26.9 Retrofitting a green roof in Benaguasil: construction stages and roof layers.
Chapter 27
1. Figure 27.1 A new swale that will form part of a central amenity area in a new development Dalmarnock in the East End.
2. Figure 27.2 A new SuDS pond under construction on the south side of Glasgow.
3. Figure 27.3 An artist’s impression of part of regenerated Nitshill with flood zones designed and green infrastructure installed.
4. Figure 27.4 The new linear water feature and pond in the Athletes’ Village.
Chapter 28
1. Figure 28.1 Densely planted rain gardens and swales are the most common devices used in Auckland projects with WSD. Native plants are usually used in public spaces to reinforce sense of place.
2. Figure 28.2 Volume of water detained (uppermost, deep grey bars) and retained and transpired by plants (middle, white bars) for, from left to right, natural (ultic) soils, pumice sand, non‐vesicular beach sand, and three manufactured bioretention blends using pumice sands.
3. Figure 28.3 Green roofs are relatively uncommon in New Zealand. The New Zealand green roofs shown increase in depth and cost from left to right: Auckland commercial building with lightweight sedum and succulent roof; Auckland café turf roof with sculpture and lift; Wellington commercial building roof garden.
4. Figure 28.4 Densely planted rain gardens are used at Wynyard Quarter’s Karanga Plaza, Auckland, to create the vision of ‘a pedestrian‐focused boulevard that uses Auckland’s indigenous flora to create a memorable enveloping landscape’.
Chapter 29
1. Figure 29.1 Fencing and fringing vegetation preventing access to open water around a SuDS pond, Scotland.

List of Contributors

Valerio C. Andrés‐Valeri
Construction Technology Applied Research Group, Department of Transports, Projects and Processes Technology, Universidad de Cantabria, ETSICCP, Avenida de los Castros 44, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

Ignacio Andrés‐Doménech
Instituto Universitario de Investigación de Ingeniería del Agua y Medio Ambiente (IIAMA). Universitat Politècnica de València. Spain

Stella Apostolaki
Department of Science, Technology and Mathematics, The American College of Greece – DEREE, 6 Gravias street, GR‐153 42 Aghia, Paraskevi, Greece

Neil Berwick
Urban Water Technology Centre, University of Abertay Dundee, DD1 1HG, UK

Elena Blanco‐Fernández
Construction Technology Applied Research Group, Department of Transports, Projects and Processes Technology, Universidad de Cantabria, ETSICCP, Avenida de los Castros 44, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

Colin A. Booth
School of Architecture and the Built Environment, and the Centre for Floods, Communities and Resilience, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

David Butler
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, North Park Road, Exeter, EX6 7HS, UK

Jaime Carpio‐Garcia.
Construction Technology Applied Research Group, Department of Transports, Projects and Processes Technology, Universidad de Cantabria, ETSICCP, Avenida de los Castros 44, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

Daniel Castro‐Fresno
Construction Technology Applied Research Group, Department of Transports, Projects and Processes Technology, Universidad de Cantabria, ETSICCP, Avenida de los Castros 44, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

Susanne M. Charlesworth
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Stephen J. Coupe
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Alison Duffy
Urban Water Technology Centre, School of Science Engineering and Technology, Abertay University, Dundee, DD1 1HG, UK

Ignacio Escuder‐Bueno
Instituto Universitario de Investigación de Ingeniería del Agua y Medio Ambiente (IIAMA). Universitat Politècnica de València. Spain

Mark Everard
Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment and Technology, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Glyn Everett
Centre for Floods, Communities and Resilience, Faculty of Environment and Technology, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Amal Faraj‐Lloyd
Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Bruce K. Ferguson
College of Environment and Design, University of Georgia, 285 Jackson Street, Athens GA 30602, USA

Andy Graham
Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK

Hazem Gouda
Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment and Technology, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Jessica E. Lamond
Architecture and the Built Environment, Faculty of Environment and Technology, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK

Craig Lashford
Faculty of Engineering and Computing, School of Energy, Construction and Environment, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Tom Lavers
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Lian Lundy
School of Science and Technology, Natural Sciences, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, London, NW4 4BT, UK

Larry W. Mays
Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering Group, School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Robert J. McInnes
RM Wetlands and Environment Ltd., 6 Ladman Villas, Littleworth, Oxfordshire, SN7 8EQ, UK

Anne‐Marie McLaughlin
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Neil McLean
MWH, Eastfield House, Associate WSP‐Parsons Brinckerhoff, Newbridge, Edinburgh, EH28 8LS, UK

Peter Melville‐Shreeve
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, North Park Road, Exeter, EX6 7HS, UK

Margaret Mezue
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Marcelo Gomes Miguez
Polytechnic School and COPPE – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Alan P. Newman
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Sara Perales‐Momparler
Green Blue Management, Avda. del Puerto, 180 pta. 1B, 46023 Valencia, Spain

David G. Proverbs
Faculty of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Millennium Point, Curzon Street, Birmingham B4 7XG, UK

Jorge Rodriguez Hernandez
Construction Technology Applied Research Group, Department of Transports, Projects and Processes Technology, Universidad de Cantabria, ETSICCP, Avenida de los Castros 44, 39005 Santander, Cantabria, Spain

Brad Rowe
Michigan State University, Department of Horticulture, A212 Plant and Soil Sciences Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

Luis Angel Sañudo Fontaneda
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Robyn Simcock
Landcare Research, Auckland, Private Bag 92170, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

Aline Pires Veról
Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Sarah Ward
Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, North Park Road, Exeter, EX6 7HS, UK

Frank Warwick
Faculty of Engineering and Computing, School of Energy, Construction and Environment, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK

Sara Wilkinson
Faculty of Design Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney, POB 123 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia

Kevin Winter
University of Cape Town, Environmental and Geographical Science, Cape Town, South Africa.

Sustainable Surface Water Management

A Handbook for SuDS

List of Contributors

About the Editors

Section 1
Introduction to the Book