Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Assessing the Co-Benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable T

urban flood risk management
Alida Alvesa,∗, Berry Gersoniusb, Zoran Kapelanc,d, Zoran Vojinovica, Arlex Sancheza
a
Department of Environmental Engineering and Water Technology, IHE-Delft, the Netherlands
b
Department of Water Engineering, IHE-Delft, the Netherlands
c
Centre for Water Systems, College of Engineering, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
d
Department of Water Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Green-blue infrastructures in urban spaces offer several co-benefits besides flood risk reduction, such as water
Sustainable urban drainage savings, energy savings due to less cooling usage, air quality improvement and carbon sequestration.
Green-blue-grey infrastructure Traditionally, these co-benefits were not included in decision making processes for flood risk management. In
Flood risk management this work we present a method to include the monetary analysis of these co-benefits into a cost-benefits analysis
Co-benefits valuation
of flood risk mitigation measures. This approach was applied to a case study, comparing costs and benefits with
Decision making
Cost-benefits analysis
and without co-benefits. Different intervention strategies were considered, using green, blue and grey measures
and combinations of them. The results obtained illustrate the importance of assessing co-benefits when identi-
fying best adaptation strategies to improve urban flood risk management. Otherwise green infrastructure is likely
to appear less efficient than more conventional grey infrastructure. Moreover, a mix of green, blue and grey
infrastructures is likely to result in the best adaptation strategy as these three alternatives tend to complement
each other. Grey infrastructure has good performance at reducing the risk of flooding, whilst green infrastructure
brings in multiple additional benefits that grey infrastructure cannot offer.

1. Introduction their multiple benefits that the complete net-benefits of GBI can be
understood (Foster et al., 2011). The secondary benefits, besides flood
Currently, most people in the world live in cities and urban popu- management, are called here co-benefits and are the positive side ef-
lation is expected to continue growing in the future (United Nations, fects for people and the environment obtained from GBI application.
2014). We need to enhance liveability and sustainability in cities, en- Economic valuation, including all relevant costs and benefits, is an
suring that urban spaces are safe and attractive places for living and important tool to support decision-making when planning GBI, parti-
working. However, climate change and urbanisation are putting this at cularly when comparing different types of infrastructures investment
risk, through problems such as increasing flood risk, heat stress, water options (Wild et al., 2017). A frequently used method to estimate the
shortages and air pollution (IPCC, 2012). Green and blue infrastructure efficiency of projects is cost-benefit analysis (CBA), being the project
(GBI) offer a multifunctional approach which can reduce vulnerability attractive if the benefits are higher than the costs. In the case of flood
and increase resilience in front of these multiple threats (European management, the comparison is typically between the cost of measures
Commission, 2012a). to increase safety and the reduction of expected damages. This method
Traditionally, flood management was focused on grey or traditional offers significant rational information for decision makers when
solutions, such as pipes. Nowadays, it is understood that this approach choosing among different solutions (Jonkman et al., 2004).
offers low sustainability while GBI provide numerous complementary Despite the challenges to monetise co-benefits it is recognised that
benefits (Vojinovic, 2015). However, in practice, the use of GBI as an monetary valuation helps to raise policy makers awareness regarding
option for climate adaptation is still shadowed by the use of grey in- the economic importance of these associated benefits (Chenoweth et al.,
frastructure. This is because these technologies are often evaluated 2018; Saarikoski et al., 2016). Very few works use net present value
from a single goal perspective, such as storm water management assessment over the lifespan of measures to compare sustainable and
(Engström et al., 2018). But it is through a comprehensive analysis of traditional flood management strategies from a holistic perspective, this

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Alves).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.036
Received 28 December 2018; Received in revised form 28 February 2019; Accepted 7 March 2019
Available online 20 March 2019
0301-4797/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

is including the multiple benefits offered by GBI. For instance,

Urrestarazu Vincent et al. (2017) shown that the economic feasibility of
GBI is significantly improved if multiple benefits are considered. A si-
milar result was obtained by and Ossa-Moreno et al. (2017) but working
only with sustainable measures.
There is still the need to better understand how costs and benefits
change when GBI are combined with grey solutions (Foster et al.,
2011). In this paper we address this gap comparing the economic via-
bility of green, blue and grey flood risk reduction strategies, focusing on
the combination of different measures. We present a method to perform
monetization of co-benefits and to include this into a cost-benefits
analysis. Besides the primary benefit of flood risk reduction, several
secondary benefits, or co-benefits, are considered in this work. An
analysis with and without co-benefits consideration is applied in a case
study comparing different strategies combining green, blue and grey
measures. The work performed falls into the framework of EC-founded
PEARL (www.pearl-fp7.eu; Vojinovic, 2015) and RECONECT (www.
reconect.eu) projects.

2. Methodology

In a traditional flood management measures assessment, only the

primary benefit of flood damage reduction is considered. In this case,
the assessment includes several secondary benefits (i.e. co-benefits), in
addition to flood damage reduction. For instance, heat stress reduction,
air quality improvement and water savings. These co-benefits are as-
sociated with the application of green and blue measures. Fig. 1 sum-
marises the whole methodological process.
The primary benefit, seen here as the benefit obtained from flood
damage reduction, is estimated by expected annual damage (EAD). EAD
is the probabilistic expected flood damage cost per year for all possible Fig. 2. Process for buildings damage calculation.
flooding events and is expressed in monetary terms (Delelegn et al.,
2011). The flood damage reduction is then calculated as the difference usually water depth is the most influential factor in the case of small
between EAD in the case of business as usual (without measures), and scale urban catchments (Delelegn et al., 2011).
EAD after the application of flood reduction measures. Due to the requirements on computational resources and time of 2D
CBA requires the quantification of all costs and benefits in monetary models, in this case we estimate damages using a surrogate model. A sur-
terms. This is achieved here calculating the monetary value per year of rogate model is a model that approximates a more complex and too com-
every relevant co-benefit obtained from GBI application (besides the putationally expensive model, allowing faster approximations (Udoh and
primary benefit). The addition of EAD reduction and annual co-benefits Wang, 2009). In this case, the surrogate model emulates the original 2D one
(ACB), both due to the application of a specific measure or measures and is composed by a much simpler 1D-1D model and look-up curves.
combination, is the value of total expected annual benefits (EAB). The relation between water depth and the number of affected
Meanwhile, the calculation of costs considers investment and main- buildings in different points of the drainage system (look-up points) is
tenance costs of every applied measure. Once total benefits and costs are needed to develop the look-up curves. Then, combining the use of these
estimated, both are converted to the net present value (NPV). This allows look-up curves and depth-damages curves for the area, the value of
the comparison of these figures, seen as present values of costs and benefits, damages is estimated for each one of these points. The total buildings
and to stablish which is higher over the project lifespan. damage is calculated adding the damages in all look-up points for a
given return period rainfall event. Using this method it is not necessary
2.1. EAD calculation to run the 2D model for each green-blue-grey strategy and each rainfall
event, instead the damages are calculated using water depth results
An extensively used method to calculate flood damages comprises from the 1D-1D model, look-up curves and depth damages curves (see
the use of 2D hydrodynamic models and depth-damages curves. In Fig. 2).
practice, the damages of flooding are influenced by several factors, but

Fig. 1. Methodology for total benefits and costs comparison.

245
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

Once total damages for different rainfall events are estimated, the local data is not available, general information form literature review is
expected annual damage is calculated using next equation: used. There are several published works on co-benefits values estima-
n tion, such as Horton et al. (2016), Center for Neighborhood Technology
Di + Di + 1 1 1 (2010), NYC Environmental Protection (2013), CRC for Water Sensitive
EAD = ( ) ( )
i=1
2 RPi RPi + 1 (1) Cities (2016), among other. The values of co-benefits are calculated per
unit area of green infrastructure and per year.
where Di is the damage corresponding to the event of return period RPi,
and n is the number of return periods considered. The damage D is
calculated as the addition of damages in the different look-up points. 2.3. Costs calculation
To apply the concept of EAD, the return periods considered should
cover a range going from frequent and not so damaging events, to a Costs calculation is based on local prices and literature review.
very rare event. Moreover, n should be as large as possible in order to Afterwards, the obtained values are compared with values from other
have a good scatter of events (Delelegn et al., 2011). works for validation. In this work we consider investment and main-
tenance costs through the lifespan period of each infrastructure. All
amounts are converted to the same year valuations using the consumer
2.2. Co-benefits calculation
price index (CPI). Moreover, all values are converted to present values
using NPV for the lifespan period of the measures. Next equations show
The first step to estimate co-benefits is the identification of locally
these two conversions.
relevant benefits and the applicable measures to achieve these benefits.
In this work, this is accomplished through a multi criteria method for Valueyear A = Value year B (CPIyear A/ CPIyear B ) (2)
measures selection (Alves et al., 2018). This method is based on ques-
m
tions regarding local characteristics and preferred benefits. A ranking of Value per year
NPV =
green, blue and grey measures is built using the answers given by de- i=1
(1 + dr /100)i (3)
cision makers to these questions. From this ranking, different combi-
nations of measures are selected for further analysis.
After the selection of measures, and the identification of benefits 3. Case Study
from them provided, the next step is the economic value calculation of
these benefits. This is achieved understanding the relation between 3.1. Description
impacts on the environment and the consequent human welfare. A good
description of these interactions is provided by Defra (2007) through The methodology here presented was applied in a case study in the
the concept of impact pathways (see Fig. 3). Dutch side of Sint Maarten Island, located in the Caribbean region. This
Always when possible, the economic values of benefits are esti- part of the island covers an area of approximately 3380ha. Elevation
mated based on local data, for instance energy and water prices. When ranges from near sea level at the southern end, to hilly areas with until

Fig. 3. Conceptual analysis of five co-benefits monetization: (a) air quality, (b) buildings temperature reduction, (c) carbon sequestration, (d) rainwater harvesting,
(e) heat stress reduction (adapted from Horton et al., 2016).

246
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

380 m at the northern borderline. Stormwater catchments and streams (Charlesworth, 2010). The benefits obtained from this reduction are
have several characteristics contributing to severe flood related im- cooling energy savings, as well as associated carbon dioxide and air
pacts. For instance, urban areas are situated on low-lying zones, with pollutants reduction (USEPA, 2012). Temperature reduction is espe-
not good stormwater drainage infrastructure. Besides, streets in re- cially important for an area with tropical weather and high average
sidential areas are usually narrow allowing very limited further en- temperatures, where the increment of energy consumption can reach
largement of stormwater channels (see also Vojinovic and van 2–4% per each Celsius degree of higher temperature (Akbari et al.,
Teeffelen, 2007). 2001; Santamouris, 2014).
The catchment selected for this study is called Cul De Sac, which is In a previous work, open detention ponds (ODP) were identified as
one of the most vulnerable areas to flooding. This catchment has an applicable flood management alternatives in Cul De Sac catchment
area of 509Ha and the land use is predominantly residential, with some (UNDP, 2012). This was reaffirmed through the measures selection
dispersed commercial areas in the lower part. During small rainfall process applied for this case. As a result, we analysed the application of
events usual impacts include inconveniences such as disruption to several of these structures in available spaces upstream the flat and
transportation systems. However, heavy rainfall causes large-scale more densely populated area. Although multi-functionality can be
flooding with damages to residential and commercial buildings (UNDP, considered for this measure, allowing co-benefits as recreation and li-
2012). veability enhancement, this benefits were not included for the present
The local currency is Netherlands Antillean Guilder. However, in study.
practice USD, Euros and the local currency are accepted. Regarding the Finally, pipes were chosen as grey measure to increase the capacity
data used in this work, damage curves are given in Euros, while other of the existent drainage system in the catchment. This system is com-
information for costs and co-benefits calculations is either in Euros or posed by open channels with limited capacity to convey the excess of
USD. In this work all values are given in Euros. rainfall runoff. Several of these channels are located in narrow streets
which do not allow their enlargement (UNDP, 2012). A single pipe is
3.2. Measures selection and benefits screening planned to follow the main channel path from the mid area of the
catchment until its discharge.
The multi-criteria analysis introduced by Alves et al. (2018) was
used to choose the measures to be studied in this work. To apply this 3.3. Damage calculation
method a questionnaire was answered by local decision-makers. The
questionnaire was focused on the obtention of local physical char- A 1D-1D flood estimation model was developed in Storm Water
acteristics data, such as soil type and water table depth. The re- Management Model (SWMM), version 5.0 (Rossman, 2010). It includes the
spondents also had to define local preferences regarding co-benefits, for main drainage channels in the area, linked to streets and surfaces which
instance choosing which benefit is more important between water represent the floodplain. This model was calibrated with results from an
quality and liveability. The answers were used to develop a ranking of existent 2D model developed in DHI software Mike FLOOD (UNDP, 2012).
green-blue-grey measures. From this ranking, five measures were se- Values of water depths from the previously mentioned 2D model were re-
lected. Green roofs, pervious pavements and rainwater barrels (as green gistered in several points of the drainage system (look-up points) to develop
infrastructure) were chosen to be applied in the flat and more urbanised look-up curves (Water Depth-Buildings Damaged curves). The construction
area of the catchment. Open detention basins (as blue infrastructure) of the curves was done obtaining the number of affected buildings for dif-
and pipes (as grey infrastructure) were selected to manage runoff from ferent flood depths in those points.
steep areas and to increase the capacity of the existent drainage system, One look-up curve was built for each look-up point (represented as a
respectively. This analysis considers the existing channels system node in the 1D model). Fig. 4 shows an example of how to construct
working properly for a two years return period storm. look-up curves. It presents a node location, flooding surfaces for dif-
Next, we analysed the main co-benefits obtained through the se- ferent return periods, buildings in the area, and the resultant curve for
lected measures and their importance for the case under study. Green that node. Once the look-up curves were constructed, the procedure
roofs offer several benefits besides runoff reduction, such as thermal used to calculate damages was as follows. Firstly, changes were made to
insulation of buildings, air pollution reduction and carbon sequestra- the 1D-1D model, adding the selected measures for flood risk man-
tion, as well as longer lifespan than traditional roofs (Bianchini and agement. Secondly, the model was run and maximum water depths in
Hewage, 2012; Kosareo and Ries, 2007; Rowe Bradley, 2011). Buildings each node were registered. With this data, the number of affected
insulation is crucial in this island, which has high temperatures and buildings per node were obtained from the curves previously built.
consequently high energy consumption for cooling. Furthermore, en- To estimate damage costs in buildings, Water Depth – Damage
ergy savings is very important since the island has expensive energy curves for residential and commercial buildings in Sint Maarten were
production. The energy production depends on imported fossil fuel used, these curves were obtained from Huizinga et al. (2017).
which implies high carbon footprint and air pollutants emission. Ad- Combining the results of number of buildings affected and depth-da-
ditionally, the island has one of the highest regional electricity prices mage curves for the area, residential and commercial damages were
and energy consumption rates (Radjouki and Hooft Graafland, 2014). estimated for different return period rainfall events. Other damages
The installation of rainwater harvesting barrels at household level is considered in this study are infrastructure damage and transport da-
a useful measure which allows the reduction of drinking water con- mage. Again, values from Huizinga et al. (2017) and average water
sumption. This is an important benefit in an area where water pro- depths per node from the 1D-1D model were used. Table 1 shows da-
duction and cost have been increasing notoriously in the last 10 years mage values in the case of business as usual, this is without the appli-
(CENTRALE BANK CURAÇAO EN SINT MAARTEN, 2017). The pro- cation of flood management measures.
duction of water in the island is based on reverse osmosis, an expensive The calculation of EAD and its NPV is shown in Table 2. Notice that
technology which implies high energy consumption (Elimelech and this EAD corresponds to the current situation, and is the maximum
Phillip, 2011). Moreover, the Dutch part of the island experiences water value obtained. After applying measures, it is expected the reduction of
shortages during peak consumption hours (European Commission, flooding and consequently the reduction of damages.
2012b). The period used for NPV calculation was 30 years with 5% discount
Regarding the installation of pervious pavements, this measure al- rate (International Monetary Fund, 2016). This period is considered
lows urban cooling through lower reflection and higher evaporation appropriated without replacement of measures when working with
(Foster et al., 2011). This reduction of surface temperature can reach green infrastructure. For instance, different authors establish between
between 8 and 3 Celsius degrees during day and night respectively 30 and 55 years of lifespan for green roofs (Bianchini and Hewage,

247
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

Fig. 4. Example of look-up curve calculation for one node.

Table 1 benefit, we applied the method presented by Center for Neighborhood

Calculated damages for different return period rainfalls. Technology (2010). This method provides a simple estimation of
Damages (1 × 106 €) Return period
building energy savings, seeing green roofs as an insulation and as-
suming that a reduction in heat flux produces direct energy savings (see
5 10 20 50 100 Annex 1). The result for this benefit is 1.61 €/m2/year.
Two indirect benefits are obtained from energy savings because in
Residential 2.8 5.9 13.2 19.7 23.7
this case energy is obtained from fossil fuel power plants. These benefits
Commercial 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.8
Infrastructure 0.8 1.5 2.6 3.5 3.9 are reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and improvement of
Transport 0.1 0.5 1.7 3.3 4.1 air quality. Regarding the later, two pollutants were considered, ni-
Total 4.4 8.8 18.8 28.1 33.5 trogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). Again, we used the
methods presented by Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010) to
calculate the quantities of pollutants avoided and their economic va-
Table 2 lues. Results show that savings due to air quality improvement are 0.08
EAD calculation for current situation and NPV of EAD in a period of 30 years.
€/m2/year; while savings due to CO2 reduction are 0.17 €/m2/year.
Return period Event frequency Damage per event EAD (1 × 106 €) The installation of green roofs also has a direct impact on air quality
(1 × 106 €) improvement. In this case, reductions of four pollutants were con-
sidered: NO2, SO2, ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM). The benefit
2 0.5 0
5 0.2 4.4 0.7 obtained is 0.5 €/m2/year. Another direct impact of green roofs is CO2
10 0.1 8.8 0.7 sequestration. Although there are other types of greenhouse gases
20 0.05 18.8 0.7 contributing to climate change, CO2 is the one most directly affected by
50 0.02 28.1 0.7
green infrastructure (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010). The
100 0.01 33.5 0.3
Total EAD 3.0 direct benefit due to carbon sequestration is 0.03 €/m2/year.
EAD NPV30 46.6 Finally, the implementation of green roofs increases roofs longevity
because the membrane is protected from weather conditions by the soil
layer (Kosareo and Ries, 2007). In this work, an average value of 108
2012; Claus and Rousseau, 2012; Kosareo and Ries, 2007; Porsche and €/m2 applied every 20 years was considered as the investment avoided
Kohler, 2003; Rowe Bradley, 2011). In the case of pervious pavements, for roof retrofitting.
life time before clogging is estimated between 15 and 25 years (Al- More details about these calculations are presented in Appendix A.
rubaei et al., 2013; Pezzaniti et al., 2009; USEPA, 2012; Yong et al., The accumulation of direct and indirect co-benefits related to green
2013). Regarding the discount rate, several studies on this topic were roofs gives a value of 2.91 €/m2/y, and a NPV over 30 years of 447823
considered to validate this discount rate value. Discount rates in these € per hectare of green roof installed.
works vary between 2 and 8% when working with green measures and
flood damage mitigation (Claus and Rousseau, 2012; Bianchini and 3.4.2. Rainwater barrels
Hewage, 2012; Carter and Keeler, 2008; Jonkman et al., 2004). The main co-benefit obtained from applying rain barrels is water
savings. In this case, where water is obtained from seawater desalina-
3.4. Co-benefits calculation tion, the reduction of water production implies energy savings.
Moreover, since energy production is oil based, energy savings cause a
3.4.1. Green roofs reduction on carbon emissions and air pollution. Another benefit from
The main direct benefit obtained from green roofs was energy using rainwater barrels is freedom from water restrictions. This is the
savings due to building temperature reduction. To calculate this economic value of avoiding drought related impacts, such as loss of

248
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

Fig. 5. Benefits calculation due to rainwater barrels installation.

amenity and other lifestyle benefits (CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, cleaning since this measure is susceptible to clogging (Narayanan and
2016). Fig. 5 summarises all the processes considered to calculate these Pitt, 2006).
benefits. In Appendix A more details regarding these calculations are Regarding the cost of rain barrels, we considered the cost of 600lts
presented. The total benefit due to rainwater barrels installation is barrels and the pumping system. The operation cost in this case is the
2.82€/m2 of roof connected to a rainwater barrel. With a NPV over 30 cost of energy needed for pumping. The cost was then calculated per
years of 433621 € per hectar of roof connected to barrels. square meter of roof apporting to the barrel. In the case of green roofs,
materials and installation of extensive green roof were considered for
3.4.3. Pervious pavements investment cost calculation, while maintenance includes mainly in-
The main benefit considered due to pervious pavements installation spection, vegetation care and roof reparations (Narayanan and Pitt,
is heat stress reduction. Cooler pavements reduce outdoor tempera- 2006). To estimate the capital costs of earthen open detention basins,
tures, decreasing the use of air conditioning, hence reducing energy regression equations calculated by Narayanan and Pitt (2006) were
consumption and the emission of CO2 and air pollutants. Santamouris used. This calculation considers soil movement and compactation as-
(2014) indicates that the consumption of energy for cooling is in- suming that the soil needed is available, and there is not rock excava-
creasing de to urban heat insland effect. Moreover, according to Akbari tion nor groundwater problems.
et al. (2001), the demand of electricity in cities is increased by 2–4% Finally, to calculate the cost of pipes, lookup tables for reinforced
per each °C of outdoor temperature. The installation of pervious pa- concrete pipes (Narayanan and Pitt, 2006) were considered together
vements can reduce surface temperatures up to 4 °C, due to lower re- with excavation, bedding and backfill costs. To estimate operation and
flection and evaporation (Foster et al., 2011). Furthermore, since per- maintenance costs an annual value of 3% of capital cost was included. A
vious pavements are more effective on reducing outdoor temperatures summary of results for the costs previously described is presented in
when are wet, better results are obtained in warm and humid climates Appendix B. The costs are in euros and actualized according to con-
(Santamouris, 2013). The results obtained in this work show a reduc- sumer price index (see Eq. (2)).
tion of 12% of energy consumption in impacted houses. This number is
in agreement with Santamouris (2014), who estimates an energy con- 3.6. Strategies development and results comparison
sumption increment of 13% due to urban heat island effect.
Finally, the benefit of having cooled suburbs in summer was con- The evaluation is performed for different alternatives, considering each
sidered (CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, 2016). Details about the cal- measure applied separately and combinations of them. The areas considered
culation of these benefits are presented in Appendix A. The total benefit for each infrastructure are the maximum possible application for each case.
due to pervious pavements installation is 2.87€ per m2 of pavement per In the case of pervious pavements, we assumed that these pavements can be
year, with a NPV over 30 years of 440700 € per hectar of pavement. installed on 50% of roads in zones of low slope. As a result, this measure
covers a maximum of about 5% of the total area. In the case of green roofs
3.5. Costs calculations and rainwater harvesting, the assumption was that these two measures
cover the total area of roofs which represents about 15% of the total area. In
Cost values were taken from local and regional data, combined with the case of detention basins, 12 structures were considered to storage runoff
inputs from literature review. The construction cost of pervious pave- from steep areas, with a total volume of 90,750 m2. Regarding grey infra-
ments considers a layer of permeable asphalt or concrete above a highly structure, a 2500 mm pipe was applied.
permeable layer of gravel. Taking also into account excavation, un- If the ratio between primary benefit and total cost is plotted for each
derdrain construction and contingencies. Maintenance is mainly strategy (in blue in Fig. 6), we observe that the application of pipes (Pi)

249
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

3.0

Values of PB/C and TB/C (unitless)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0 PB/C
TB/C
0.5

0.0

Flood management strategies

Fig. 6. Primary benefit vs. cost (PB/C) and total benefits vs. costs (TB/C) for each strategy.

appears as the best strategy. This option offers benefits more than two measures cannot be placed in steep areas. Runoff from these areas is
times higher than costs. However, when primary benefits and co-ben- managed using open storages, while green and grey measures are
efits are presented together as total benefits, and the ratio of this value placed in the low-lying flat areas. This arrangement can result on a
vs. cost is analysed (in red in Fig. 6), other strategies appear as good lower efficacy of green and grey measures. Another factor that may
options too. In this case, the options of rainwater harvesting (RH) and have influenced these results is the selection of measures through a
its combinations with open detention basins (ODB) and Pi, also offer multi criteria analysis. Perhaps there is a better combination of green
benefits higher than costs. In particular, Pi, RH and the combination of measures to reduce runoff, which could have diminished the advantage
both of them (Pi + RH) appear as the most promising strategies from of the blue and the grey options. A third and final factor that may be
this analysis. affecting these results are the limitations for grey infrastructure design
With the objective of analysing further these options, total cost, damages because of the existent drainage system configuration. Maybe another
reduction, total benefits and residual damages are plotted in Fig. 7. Here we design could have result on a more efficient grey option compared with
can see that the option of RH, which presented the best ratio between total the blue one. In any case, two consequences are observed. First, green
benefits and cost in the previous analysis, does not perform well for the measures appear as considerably less efficient than the grey and blue
primary benefit, since it presents high residual damages. The strategy with ones. Second, the importance of co-benefits to achieve higher benefits
lowest residual damages is the combination of ODB, Pi and RH. Another than costs is more evident. Despite that, the results obtained are in
option, with similar residual damages but lower costs, is the combination of general as expected if we compare with previous studies (Ossa-Moreno
OBD and Pi. But this option does not offer co-benefits. The rest of the al- et al., 2017; Urrestarazu Vincent et al., 2017; Wild et al., 2017). Grey
ternatives present residual losses higher than avoided losses. and blue infrastructures are cheaper than green measures, so it is ex-
There are some case specific characteristics that may explain the pected a higher efficiency from them. Besides, a combination of green,
low effectiveness of most of the alternatives. Due to local topography, blue and grey measures appears as the best alternative.

Fig. 7. Total costs, total benefits (damages reduction + co-benefits) and residual damages for each strategy.

250
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

Table 3 water consumption due to water barrels installation, we obtained 23% of

Rankings according to: societal costs, PB/C (primary benefit/cost), TB/C (total water savings in this case. The same work presents examples with values
benefit/cost). between 15 and 45% of annual energy savings due to green roofs installa-
Societal Cost PB/C TB/C tion, while they obtained 4% of energy reduction because of lower cooling
costs. In this work we obtained annual energy savings of 12% due to green
Pi Pi RH roofs installation. Finally, we assumed 4 °C of surface temperature reduction
Pi + RH Pi + RH Pi + RH
due to pervious pavements application and their impact on heat stress mi-
ODB + Pi ODB + Pi Pi
ODB ODB ODB + RH tigation, again, a similar value than the one obtained by Foster et al. (2011).
RH ODB + Pi + RH ODB + Pi + RH We obtained 12% of energy savings in houses located close to pervious
pavements, a similar result was obtained by Santamouris (2014).
In this work, only case relevant and easily quantifiable co-benefits
Klijn et al. (2015) studied how decision-making changes when dif- were considered. As a result, the values of co-benefits obtained were
ferent criteria are considered. Following a similar analysis, three dif- relatively low. These values can be enlarged if other benefits are con-
ferent rankings were developed (Table 3). The first ranking represents sidered, such as enhancement of biodiversity, groundwater recharge,
the minimisation of societal cost, calculated as the addition of cost water quality, property value, etc. Future work should include a
(implementation plus maintenance) and residual damage. The second broader range of co-benefits.
ranking maximises the ratio between primary benefit and cost, this Concerning runoff reduction, the results obtained indicate low values of
criterion represents the traditional approach, in which the only benefit damages reduction when only green measures were applied. This result is
taken into account is damages reduction. The third ranking maximises adequate considering that five return period rainfalls were used for the
the ratio between total benefits and cost, with total benefits being the analysis, including extreme events with 50 and 100 years return period.
sum of damages reduction plus co-benefits. If only the first and second Other authors have found green and blue-green measures effective on
rankings are considered (traditional approach), pipes (Pi) is the strategy providing flood reduction benefits (Haghighatafshar et al., 2018; Kong
to apply in this case. However, if the first and third rankings are con- et al., 2017), but the reduction of this effectiveness under strong rainfall
sidered, also rain barrels (RH) appear as a good option. Besides, the events has been argued as well (Versini et al., 2018; Zölch et al., 2017).
combination of Pi and RH, which is the second option in both cases, For the case studied here, rainwater harvesting appears as an effi-
seems to be the strategy to choose. Moreover, looking at the third and cient measure if co-benefits are taken into account. However, this
fourth positions in these rankings, open detentions (ODB) should be measure is not effective for flood management. This remarks the im-
included in further analysis as well. This is, combinations of green, blue portance of keeping the focus on the primary function for which the
and grey measures should be evaluated in this case. measures are applied. If the focus is shifted to co-benefits maximisation,
In this work only material damages are considered, including buildings, there is the risk of not achieving the flood mitigation pursued. The
transport and infrastructure. However, if other material damages not con- option with best performance regarding flood damages reduction is the
sidered here, or non-material damages (such as physiological trauma or risk combination of the three measures: rainwater harvesting, open deten-
of life) are considered, the importance of reducing residual damages turns tion basins and pipes. While the second highest value of flood damages
crucial. Besides, open detention basins can offer co-benefits such as re- reduction is obtained combining only open detention basins and pipes.
creational spaces, which are not considered in this work. For these reasons Following a traditional approach, the pipes system appears as the
the option that combines ODB, Pi and RH seems to be the most suitable for only measure which achieves benefits higher than costs and effective
the case under study here, even though it does not offer the lowest societal flood damages reduction. However, through this work we proved that
cost, neither the best ratios PB/C or TB/C. net benefits can be much enlarged if pipes are combined with rainwater
harvesting. As a result, the combination of these two measures is the
4. Discussion best option if the objective is to maximise benefits in the case here
studied. But, if the main objective is to minimise flood damages and
The main goal of this work was to see how economic viability of dif- maximise positive net benefits, the best option will be a combination of
ferent flood management strategies changes when co-benefits are included pipes with rainwater harvesting and open detention basins.
into the analysis. To achieve this, we presented monetary values of flood Future work is needed to further understand how the flood miti-
damages reduction, co-benefits and costs for different combinations of gation and co-benefits can be maximised while costs are minimised.
green-blue-grey infrastructures considering several rainfall intensities. The Urban drainage systems are complex systems and the combination of
analysis of results shows how the selection of strategies changes when co- different strategies to achieve several different benefits makes the
benefits are considered. Only grey measures appear as feasible if co-benefits problem even more complex. Additional work should focus on under-
are not taken into account. However, when these secondary benefits are standing how different combinations of measures can be better de-
included, combinations of green-grey measures and green-blue-grey mea- signed to improve efficiency.
sures appear as economically viable and, at the same time, good to ensure
the primary benefit of flood risk reduction. Similar results have been ob- 5. Conclusions
tained previously by Ossa-Moreno et al. (2017) and Engström et al. (2018).
Our analysis is based on literature review and local and regional data for In this work we present a method to include the monetary analysis of co-
the case studied here. The numerical results obtained, and rankings of benefits into a cost-benefits analysis of flood risk mitigation measures.
measures developed are valid under the assumptions made for this case. Traditionally, the benefits of green infrastructure other than flood risk re-
This study does not attempt to provide precise cost and benefits data. duction were not taken into account in decision making processes. Several
Rather, the objective of this work was to show how a holistic approach can such co-benefits were considered in this work: water savings, energy savings
help to choose sustainable solutions for urban flood mitigation. Moreover, due to less cooling usage, air quality improvement and carbon sequestra-
the analysis presents uncertainties and constraints based on data availability tion. The above approach was then applied to a case study, comparing costs
and particularities about local data and local issues. and benefits with and without co-benefits. Different intervention strategies
Despite these uncertainties and constraints, similar values of costs and were considered, using green, blue and grey measures.
co-benefits have been found in other works. Comparable values of costs and The results obtained illustrate in quantitative terms how the viabi-
lifespans for green roofs and pervious pavements have been presented by lity of green and blue infrastructure for flood mitigation can be im-
Engström et al. (2018) and Foster et al. (2011). Regarding co-benefits, proved substantially when co-benefits are considered. In the case ana-
Foster et al. (2011) mention values between 25 and 50% of reduction in lysed here, costs outweigh benefits for all the green strategies if co-

251
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

benefits are not included. This means that the traditional grey option (and blue) infrastructure excels at reducing the risk of flooding whilst
appears as the only economically viable strategy if co-benefits are not green infrastructure brings in multiple additional benefits that grey
considered. Thus, it is important to assess co-benefits when identifying infrastructure cannot deliver.
best adaptation strategies to improve urban flood risk management,
otherwise green infrastructure is likely to appear less efficient than
conventional grey infrastructure. Acknowledgment
When co-benefits are considered for the same case, the option of
rainwater harvesting offers benefits higher than costs. However, this The research leading to these results has received funding from the
alternative has bad performance achieving the primary benefit (flood European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)
damages reduction). This issue can be solved, and net benefits max- under Grant agreement n° 603663 for the research project PEARL
imised, if rainwater harvesting is combined with pipes, i.e. if green-grey (Preparing for Extreme And Rare events in coastaL regions), and from
strategy is used. Moreover, the reduction of flood damages is maximum, the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
maintaining positive net benefits, if these two measures are mixed with Programme under grant agreement No 776866 for the research project
open detention basins (green-blue-grey strategy). Consequently, a mix RECONECT. The study reflects only the authors' views and the
of green, blue and grey infrastructures is likely to result in the best European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the in-
adaptation strategy as these three tend to complement each other. Grey formation contained herein.

Appendix A: Co-benefits calculation

Green roofs co-benefits

Equation 1.1 presents the calculation of energy savins due to green roofs implementation:
1 1 24hrs
Annual energy savings (kWh /m2 ) = C × [( ) ( )] × × 0.00315
Rconv roof Rgreen roof day (3)
where C = annual number of cooling degree days (°F*days); Rconv roof = thermal resistance for conventional roofs (11.34 SF*°F*hrs/BTU); Rgreen
roof= thermal resistance for green roofs (23.4 SF*°F*hrs/BTU); 0.00315 is factor to convert from BTU/SF to kWh/m2; BTU = British thermal units.
Annual cooling degree days is an estimation of how hot the climate is and is used to calculate the energy needed to keep buildings cool. This value
is calculated as the difference between a balance temperature and the mean daily temperature, and adding only positive values over an entire year.
In this case the estimation of annual cooling savings was done considering four months of 27 celsius degrees as an average (Meteorological
Department St. Maarten, 2018), with 20 celsius degrees as balance temperature.
Table 1.1 shows savings and prices for all the benefits obtained from green roofs installation. For instance, values of energy saved and price
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2015) due to building insulation are presented. Concerning the calculation of carbon dioxide reduction due
to energy savings, emissions due to oil based electricity production were estimated as 1.616 lb CO2/kWh (WNA, 2011). An average carbon price of
0.02 €/lb CO2 was assumed (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010).
Regarding direct air quality improvement, the quantities of air pollutants directly removed per square meter of green roof and per year, as well as
the economic value of these pollutants, are average values provided by Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010). In the case of direct carbon
sequestration, the annual amount of carbon sequestered is calculated as the total area of green roofs times the average annual amount of carbon
sequestered per unit area of green roof. The range of carbon sequestered per area of green roof considered is 162–168 g C/m2 (Getter et al., 2009).
About the calculation of savings due to the increment of roof longevity, a conventional roof has a lifespan of between 10 and 20 years (Claus and
Rousseau, 2012; Kosareo and Ries, 2007). While the lifespan of green roofs is expected to be between 40 and 55 years (Bianchini and Hewage, 2012;
Carter and Keeler, 2008; Claus and Rousseau, 2012; Rowe Bradley, 2011). Finally, values of re-roofing are established between 92 and 160 USD/m2
(Bianchini and Hewage, 2012; Montalto et al., 2007).

Table 1.1
Calculation of green roofs annual benefits

Building temperature: energy savings (direct)

Cooling savings (KWh/m2) 5.38 Energy price (€/KWh) 0.3

Air quality due to energy savings (indirect)
Electricity production by fossil fuel produces the emission of NO2 and SO2
NO2 avoided (g/KWh) 0.88 NO2 value (€/g) 0.0063
SO2 avoided (g/KWh) 2.39 SO2 value (€/g) 0.0039
Carbon reduced due to energy savings (indirect)
Electricity production by fossil fuel produces the emission of CO2
CO2 avoided (g/KWh) 733.02 CO2 value (€/g CO2) 0.00004
Air quality: pollutants removal (direct)
2
NO2 removal (g/m /y) 2.33 NO2 value (€/g) 0.0063
SO2 removal (g/m2/y) 1.98 SO2 value (€/g) 0.0039
O3 removal (g/m2/y) 4.49 O3 value (€/g) 0.0063
PM removal (g/m2/y) 0.65 PM value (€/g) 0.0054
Carbon sequestration (direct)
C sequestered (g C/m2/y) 165 C value (€/g CO2) 0.00004
C to CO2 (g CO2/g C) 3.67
Increment of roof longevity (direct)
Investment avoided (€/20y/roof) 108
Total Benefit Green Roof (€/m2/year) 2.91

252
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

Rainwater barrels co-benefits

Considering a population of 40,009 inhabitants and annual water production of 4836 × 103 m3 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009), the average
consumption of water is 10 m3 per month. Assuming three people per house (Department of Statistics, 2011) and an average water price of 3€/m3,
the cost of water per house and per month is 89€. If a barrel of 600 L is installed, and considering that in average it rains 12 days per month
(Meteorological Department St. Maarten, 2018), about 7.25 m3 are saved per house per month. It means that 22 €/house/year are saved.
Drinkable water is obtained in the island through seawater desalination, in this process energy is consumed and CO2 released. Therefore, savings
on water consumption are indirect savings of energy and less CO2 released. Energy consumption due to seawater desalination is estimated as 3 to
4 kWh/m3 of water produced (Elimelech and Phillip, 2011). Considering the same energy price than in the case of green roofs, 6.5€ are saved per
house and per month. Also, like in the case of green roofs, oil based energy production releases air pollutants, following a similar calculation than for
the case of green roofs, the benefit in this case is 3.9€/house/year. Regarding the decrease of CO2 released, it is estimated that 1.4 to 1.8 Kg of CO2
are released by each m3 of desalinated water (Elimelech and Phillip, 2011). Again, following a similar calculation than in the case of green roofs, the
benefits due to carbon emissions reduction is 5.3 €/house/year.
Finally, for each house free of water restrictions, the benefit is equivalent to the willingness to pay for the impact of droughts avoided, estimated
as 74 to 137 €/house/year (CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, 2016). In this work the benefit considered is 74 €/house/year. The average roofs size is
assumed as 150 m2.

Pervious pavements co-benefits

In this work, energy savings due to pervious pavements installation were calculated considering that the impact of outdoors temperature re-
duction reaches the houses located directly in front of these pavements. Therefore, to estimate the number of houses impacted, the length of pervious
pavements installed was taken into account as well as an area covering about 50 m each side of the pavement. A 3% of energy reduction per each °C
of temperature decreased was assumed. The temperature reduction achieved was assumed as 4 °C per each raining day, with a total of 145 raining
days per year (Meteorological Department St. Maarten, 2018).
The average domestic electricity bill in Sint Maarten is 172€ per month and per house (Radjouki and Hooft Graafland, 2014). Therefore, the
benefit due to energy savings is around 98€ per impacted house and per year. Regarding the indirect benefits of energy savings, the benefit due to air
pollutants reduction is 12.8 €/house/year, while the benefit due to carbon emissions reduction is 22.6 € per year and per impacted house. Regarding
the benefit of having cooled suburbs in summer, the value of this benefit is sustained in the willingness to pay for improvements in human thermal
comfort and avoided halth care costs. This value is established between 30 and 51€/year per house which experiments a reduction of peak summer
temperature of 2 °C (CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, 2016). In this work an average value of 40€/year per impacted house is considered.

Appendix B: Summary of costs for each infrastructure

A summary of results for the costs previously described is presented in Table 1.2. These costs are in euros and actualized according to consumer
price index (see Eq. (2)).

Table 1.2
Total costs presented as net present value over 30 years

Green-Blue infrastructure Total Present Value30 (€/m2)

Pervious pavements 161

Rain barrels 20
Green roofs 278
Open detention basin 349
Grey infrastructure (pipes diameter) Total Present Value30 (€/m)
800 mm 719
1000 mm 894
1500 mm 1534
2000 mm 2947
2500 mm 3615

References Sint Maarten in Data and Charts.

Charlesworth, S.M., 2010. A review of the adaptation and mitigation of global climate
change using sustainable drainage in cities. J. Water Clim. Change 1 (3), 165–180.
Akbari, H., Pomerantz, M., Taha, H., 2001. Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce energy Chenoweth, J., Anderson, A.R., Kumar, P., Hunt, W.F., Chimbwandira, S.J., Moore, T.L.C.,
use and improve air quality in urban areas. Sol. Energy 70 (3), 295–310. 2018. The interrelationship of green infrastructure and natural capital. Land Use Pol.
Al-rubaei, A.M., Stenglein, A.L., Viklander, M., Blecken, G., 2013. Long-term hydraulic 75, 137–144.
performance of porous asphalt pavements in northern Sweden. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. Claus, K., Rousseau, S., 2012. Public versus private incentives to invest in green roofs: a
139 (6), 499–505. cost benefit analysis for Flanders. Urban For. Urban Green., Elsevier GmbH 11 (4),
Alves, A., Gersonius, B., Sanchez, A., Vojinovic, Z., Kapelan, Z., 2018. Multi-criteria ap- 417–425.
proach for selection of green and grey infrastructure to reduce flood risk and increase CRC for Water Sensitive Cities, 2016. “Enhancing the Economic Evaluation of WSUD.”
CO-benefits. Water Resour. Manag. 32 (7), 2505–2522. CRCWSC Research Synthesis. Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities,
Bianchini, F., Hewage, K., 2012. Probabilistic social cost-bene fi t analysis for green roofs : Melbourne, Australia.
a lifecycle approach. Building and Environment, vol. 58. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 152–162. Defra, 2007. An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services. (London, UK).
Carter, T., Keeler, A., 2008. Life-cycle cost – benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof Delelegn, S.W., Pathirana, A., Gersonius, B., Adeogun, A.G., Vairavamoorthy, K., 2011.
systems. J. Environ. Manag. 87, 350–363. Multi-objective optimization of cost-benefit of urban flood management using a 1D2D
Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010. The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide coupled model. Water Sci. Technol. 63 (5), 1054.
to Recognizing its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. Department of Statistics (2011), 2011. “Department of Statistics - Sint Maarten.” Census.
Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009. Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands Antilles 2009. http://stat.gov.sx/, Accessed date: 12 December 2017.
CENTRALE BANK CURAÇAO EN SINT MAARTEN, 2017. The Economy of Curaçao and Elimelech, M., Phillip, W.A., 2011. The future of seawater desalination: energy,

253
A. Alves, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 239 (2019) 244–254

technology, and the environment. SCIENCE 333, 712–718 August. life of permeable pavements. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineering - Water
Engström, R., Howells, M., Mörtberg, U., Destouni, G., 2018. Multi-functionality of Management 162 (3), 211–220.
Nature-Based and Other Urban Sustainability Solutions. Land Degradation and Porsche, U., Kohler, M., 2003. LIFE CYCLE COSTS of GREEN ROOFS - A Comparison of
Development, New York City study, pp. 3653–3662 June. Germany, USA, and Brazil - Ulrich. RIO 3 - World Climate & Energy Event, Rio de
European Commission, 2012. The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure. Science for Janeiro, pp. 461–467.
Environment Policy, Bristol, England. Radjouki, E., Hooft Graafland, C., 2014. National Energy Policy for Country Sint Maarten
European Commission, 2012. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, towards a Sustainable Development.
Building partnerships for change in developing countries.” Single Programming of Rossman, L.A., 2010. Storm Water Management Model. User’s manual. USEPA,
Curacao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba under 10th EDF. Cincinnati, OH.
Foster, J., Lowe, A., Winkelman, S., 2011. The value of green infrastructure for urban Rowe Bradley, D., 2011. Green roofs as a means of pollution abatement. Environmental
climate adaptation. The Centre For Clean Air Policy, pp. 52 February. Pollution, vol. 159. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 2100–2110 8–9.
Getter, K., Rowe, D.B., Robertson, G.P., Cregg, B.M., J.A., A., 2009. Carbon sequestration Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D.N., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gomez-
potential of extensive green roofs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (19), 7564–7570. Baggethun, E., Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., 2016. Multi-Criteria
Haghighatafshar, S., Nordlöf, B., Roldin, M., Gustafsson, L.G., la Cour Jansen, J., Jönsson, Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for
K., 2018. Efficiency of blue-green stormwater retrofits for flood mitigation – con- integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, vol. 22. Elsevier, pp.
clusions drawn from a case study in Malmö, Sweden. J. Environ. Manage. 207. 238–249 November.
Horton, B., Digman, C.J., Ashley, R.M., Gill, E., 2016. BeST (Benefits of SuDS Tool) Santamouris, M., 2013. Using cool pavements as a mitigation strategy to fight urban heat
W045c BeST - Technical Guidance Release Version 2. island - a review of the actual developments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
International Monetary Fund, 2016. KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS –– CURACAO Reviews, vol. 26. Elsevier, pp. 224–240.
AND SINT MAARTEN. (Washington, D.C). Santamouris, M., 2014. On the energy impact of urban heat island and global warming on
IPCC, 2012. In: C.B., P.M.M., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., buildings. Energy and Buildings, vol. 82. Elsevier B.V., pp. 100–113.
Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M. (Eds.), Udoh, E., Wang, F.Z., 2009. Handbook of research on grid technologies and utility
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change computing: concepts for managing large-scale Applications. IGI Global.
Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental UNDP, 2012. Flood Risk Reduction : Innovation and Technology in Risk Mitigation and
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Pres, Cambridge and New York. Development Planning in Small Island Developing States : towards Floor Risk
Jonkman, S.N., Brinkhuis-Jak, M., Kok, M., 2004. Cost benefit analysis and flood damage Reduction in Sint Maarten. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
mitigation in The Netherlands. Heron 49 (1), 95–111. United Nations, 2014. World urbanization prospects. < http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/
Klijn, F., Mens, M.J.P., Asselman, N.E.M., 2015. Flood risk management for an uncertain Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf > (Oct. 6, 2015).
future: economic efficiency and system robustness perspectives compared for the Urrestarazu Vincent, S., Radhakrishnan, M., Hayde, L., Pathirana, A., 2017. Enhancing
Meuse River (Netherlands). Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 20 (6), 1011–1026. the economic value of large investments in sustainable drainage systems ( SuDS )
Kong, F., Ban, Y., Yin, H., James, P., Dronova, I., 2017. Modeling stormwater manage- through inclusion of ecosystems services benefits. Water 9, 841.
ment at the city district level in response to changes in land use and low impact USEPA, 2012. Reducing Urban Heat Islands : Compendium of Strategies - Cool
development. Environ. Model. Softw 95, 132–142. Pavements.
Kosareo, L., Ries, R., 2007. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green Versini, P.A., Kotelnikova, N., Poulhes, A., Tchiguirinskaia, I., Schertzer, D., Leurent, F.,
roofs. Build. Environ. 42 (7), 2606–2613. 2018. A distributed modelling approach to assess the use of Blue and Green
Meteorological Department St. Maarten, 2018. Climatological Summary 2017. http:// Infrastructures to fulfil stormwater management requirements. Landsc. Urban Plann.
www.meteosxm.com/wp-content/uploads/Climatological-Summary- 173 (February), 60–63.
20172.pdf > (Jul. 16, 2018). Vojinovic, Z., 2015. Floor Risk: the Holistic Perspective. IWA Publishing.
Montalto, F., Behr, C., Alfredo, K., Wolf, M., Arye, M., Walsh, M., 2007. Rapid assessment Vojinovic, Z., van Teeffelen, J., 2007. An integrated stormwater management approach
of the cost-effectiveness of low impact development for CSO control. Landsc. Urban for small islands in tropical climates. Urban Water J. 4 (3), 211–231.
Plann. 82 (3), 117–131. Wild, T.C., Henneberry, J., Gill, L., 2017. “Comprehending the multiple ‘values’ of green
Narayanan, A., Pitt, R., 2006. Costs of Urban Stormwater Control Practices. Costs of infrastructure – valuing nature-based solutions for urban water management from
Urban Stormwater Control Practices, Tuscaloosa. multiple perspectives. 158. Environmental Research, Elsevier Inc., pp. 179–187
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2015. Energy snapshot saint-martin/sint November 2016.
maarten. Energy Transition Initiative - Islands. WNA, 2011. Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity
NYC Environmental Protection, 2013. NYC Green Infrastructure Co-benefits Calculator. Generation Sources. (London, UK).
NYC Green Infrastructure Co-Benefits Calculator < http://www.nycgicobene- Yong, C.F., McCarthy, D.T., Deletic, A., 2013. Predicting physical clogging of porous and
fits.net/ > (Aug. 12, 2016). permeable pavements. J. Hydrol. 481, 48–55.
Ossa-Moreno, J., Smith, K.M., Mijic, A., 2017. Economic analysis of wider benefits to Zölch, T., Henze, L., Keilholz, P., Pauleit, S., 2017. Regulating urban surface runoff
facilitate SuDS uptake in London, UK. Sustainable Cities and Society 28. Elsevier B.V., through nature-based solutions – an assessment at the micro-scale. 157.
pp. 411–419. Environmental Research, Elsevier Inc., pp. 135–144 November 2016.
Pezzaniti, D., Beechman, S., Kandassamy, J., 2009. Influence of clogging on the effective

254