Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Combining Ecosystem Services with Cost-Benefit Analysis for Selection of Green and Grey Infrastructure for Flood Protection in a Cultural Setting
Previous Article in Journal
Bioremoval of Phenol from Aqueous Solutions Using Native Caribbean Seaweed
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigating the Role of the Local Community as Co-Managers of the Mount Cameroon National Park Conservation Project
Article Menu

Export Article

Environments 2017, 4(1), 2; doi:10.3390/environments4010002

Review
Post Construction Green Infrastructure Performance Monitoring Parameters and Their Functional Components
Thewodros K. Geberemariam
Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, P.O. Box 23195 Brooklyn, New York, NY 11202, USA
Academic Editors: Yu-Pin Lin, Dirk S. Schmeller, Wei-Cheng Lo and Wan-Yu Lien
Received: 14 September 2016 / Accepted: 19 December 2016 / Published: 22 December 2016

Abstract

:
Drainage system infrastructures in most urbanized cities have reached or exceeded their design life cycle and are characterized by running with inadequate capacity. These highly degraded infrastructures are already overwhelmed and continued to impose a significant challenge to the quality of water and ecological systems. With predicted urban growth and climate change the situation is only going to get worse. As a result, municipalities are increasingly considering the concept of retrofitting existing stormwater drainage systems with green infrastructure practices as the first and an important step to reduce stormwater runoff volume and pollutant load inputs into combined sewer systems (CSO) and wastewater facilities. Green infrastructure practices include an open green space that can absorb stormwater runoff, ranging from small-scale naturally existing pocket of lands, right-of-way bioswales, and trees planted along the sidewalk as well as large-scale public parks. Despite the growing municipalities’ interest to retrofit existing stormwater drainage systems with green infrastructure, few studies and relevant information are available on their performance and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, this paper aims to help professionals learn about and become familiar with green infrastructure, decrease implementation barriers, and provide guidance for monitoring green infrastructure using the combination of survey questionnaires, meta-narrative and systematic literature review techniques.
Keywords:
green infrastructure; functional components; monitoring; parameters; performance; runoff; uncertainty

1. Introduction

In the past, green space or green infrastructures such as parks, and open playgrounds were created or protected by land use planners, developers or rules and regulations of municipalities to preserve and protect the natural existing landscape and ecosystem functions. Green infrastructure defined as an open green space that can absorb stormwater runoff, includes small scale naturally existing pocket of lands, right-of-way bioswales, and trees planted alongside the sidewalk as well as large scale public parks. Recently, the use of green infrastructure practices to supplement urban stormwater management and retrofitting conventionally engineered drainage system has gained considerable interest in big cities such as New York City, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Montgomery County, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Paris and London [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. In contrast to conventional/gray drainage infrastructure, which usually has only one objective, green infrastructure practices can provide multifunctional benefits for different city agencies and stakeholders. For example green infrastructure can contribute to air pollution control, stormwater runoff volume and discharge rate reduction, water quality improvement, potential flood risk management, urban heat island effects relief, wildlife conservation, and recreational needs [8,9,10,11]. However, despite the growing municipalities’ interest to retrofit existing stormwater drainage systems with green infrastructure, few studies and relevant information are available on their performance and cost-effectiveness [12,13,14,15].

2. Increasing Green Infrastructure Practices in Public Parks: Benefits and Tradeoffs

Most of the green infrastructure practices are consist of wide range of environmental features that function in different scales from minor practices such as infiltration trench to major functional unit ecosystems, such as forests, swamps, wetlands, and public parks [8,14,16,17,18,19]. Figure 1 below shows elements of green infrastructure. For example currently, big cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Georgia, Birmingham, Alabama, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Washington DC. in the USA, and London and Paris in Europe, are retrofitting public park spaces to handle more stormwater runoffs from adjacent streets and surrounding areas using green infrastructure practices. Using these park spaces could present a win-win opportunity for the cities to manage and reduce runoff volume that would have gone to CSO’s and improving water quality in Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) areas, while also meeting residents’ recreation needs. However, modifying current park spaces to handle stormwater run-off or volume have advantages and disadvantages, on the upside; the land is available at no cost and on the downside, the park’s existing features and uses may be altered to current users who then resist any design or management changes. Therefore, green infrastructure practices are not simple, one-size-fits for all solutions. It needs to be carefully designed, implemented and maintained in order to protect the public parks’ resources and at the same time manage stormwater over the long term [18,20,21]. Even if, using cities public parks to manage stormwater is not only a revolutionary step and current time-honored tradition that creates an opportunity for civil engineers and planners to work together with ecologists, recreationists, hydrologists, public health experts and developers, it also requires new rules and regulations, advanced technologies and practices to monitor their performance with academic scientific research involved [8,22,23,24].

3. Barriers to Implementing Green Infrastructure Practices

Generally, the primary barriers to implementing green infrastructure can be categorized as design standards and codes, rules and regulations, community awareness, politics, operation and maintenance and capacity. These barriers could present vital hindrance throughout the processes of planning any particular green infrastructure projects. The nature and effects of these barriers could be so deeply intertwined or serve as a condition to implicitly whether to continue in a project set up and implementation or not [15,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Figure 2 below outlines some of the common barriers to implementing green infrastructure practices. The possible solutions for overcoming or addressing these primary barriers are provided in Figure 3 also.

4. Potential Solutions for Overcoming Barriers

The potential solutions for overcoming the barriers for implementing green infrastructure practices were identified with combination of fifty survey questionnaires, and one hundred ten survey recipients/ professionals included different city agencies, professional engineers, design practitioners and local leaderships (New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Design and Construction, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, New York City Department of Transportation, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, etc.) and meta-narrative and systematic literature review techniques. Meta-narrative reviews “look historically at how particular research traditions have unfolded over time and shaped the kind of questions being asked and the methods used to answer them” [31,32]. Fifty survey questionnaires were distributed among one hundred ten survey recipients/professionals and 101 responded. The questionnaire was designed to assess the potential solutions for overcoming the barriers for implementing green infrastructure practices. After exploring the knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and behavior of a group of geographically dispersed professionals and the range of approaches taken to overcome these barriers and evaluate the mechanisms, contexts and outcomes the summary of the recommended potential solutions are as follows: providing intensive training; improving ordinances; developing successful demonstration sites in all communities such as parks and ROW; cultivating local leadership; exploring uniform funding strategies; working at the watershed level through multi-municipal cooperation; and developing a social marketing strategy and public perception and acceptance of green infrastructure as illustrated in Figure 3.

5. Developing Monitoring and Evaluation

Developing monitoring and evaluation plan are critical to track construction green infrastructure practice’s performance and ease decision-making. Monitoring and evaluation plan describes what the green infrastructure did, how it work, and why the monitoring outcome results matter. It also laying out the components of the green infrastructure practices and the steps needed. The data gathered in an established systematic fashion through these monitoring activities over time about the performance, maintenance and operational issues such as failures in technical implementation, changing funding modalities, change in funding opportunities and different stakeholder interests, etc. can be used to analyze, interpret, and draw conclusions. This allows decision makers to make informed decisions about how to adapt and make the necessary adjustments to the design of future green infrastructure practices [33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. However, a baseline mapping or threshold should be established and defined by the initial state of the Watershed (CSO’s, MS4), or flooded areas before performing monitoring and assess the impacts and benefits of post constructed green infrastructure projects. The monitoring and evaluation of project’s performance program includes several components and models. While the fundamental goals of green infrastructure practices include runoff volume reduction and increase water quality, it also offers an array of added benefits that maximize the value of these investments across multiple sectors. Therefore, identifying and measuring these added benefits through monitoring also contribute to promote and improve the cost benefit analysis and public participation for green infrastructure programs. Therefore, developing post constructed green infrastructure monitoring program must consider a comprehensive plan across goals, benefits and co-benefits beyond stormwater management to create accurate performance standards [40,41,42,43]. Moreover, developing the process of monitoring the performance of post-constructed green infrastructure practices for each site conditions and objectives should be carefully planned and scaled [41,44]. Figure 4 below shows the common components of post constructed green infrastructure monitoring and evaluating programs.
In general monitoring and evaluation of post-construction green infrastructure practices have three step processes. However, additional sub-questions shall be addressed in order to formulate a “well-organized” process see Figure 5 below [8,37,41,43,45]. These three step processes in conjunction with the components of green infrastructure monitoring program (Figure 4) can be elaborated in each step. These steps are fundamentals to create accurate successful and well organize green infrastructure practices monitoring and evaluating programs [36,37,41,46]. Below are the range of supplemental sub questions that should be addressed to create accurate performance standards. (I) The stormwater runoff parameters and constituents to be monitored, (II) The performance design requirements for the candidate green infrastructure practices that going to be monitored such as water quality, runoff volume and peak discharge reduction, and regulatory compliance (III) Data structure and collection plan, (IV) Types, duration and frequencies of data collection such as during which seasons, pre-construction vs. post-construction, influent vs. effluent (V) How we compare performance results to maintenance (VI) What types of monitoring equipment to be used, (VII) Who will Fund it and how much it Cost (VIII) Who will perform work, (IX) How will Data going to be collected/downloaded/and who maintained the equipment.
Designing a monitoring program also must consider many site characteristics and objectives. For monitoring purposes, it is necessary to initially select representative catchments with a different range of green infrastructure in terms of types and areas in the city. Each city agency shall establish a process that accounts for its socioeconomic and biophysical conditions [43,45,47]. Figure 6 show some of the fundamental site characteristics and objectives to design a monitoring program.

6. Quantitative and Qualitative Functional Components of Performance Monitoring Variables

To validate post construction green infrastructure practices are performing per designed objectives, such as minimizing the impact of stormwater runoff volume and discharge rate on the CSO or MS4 drainage areas, performance monitoring shall be performed. Therefore, municipalities need to have effective ways of performance monitoring and validating programs as part of the planning process [20,38,48,49]. Potential green infrastructure projects can be planned and designed in different ways, forms, settings, and technologies and materials depend on their functional goals and objectives. Therefore, the types of performance monitoring variables and their functional components have different identifiable qualitative and quantitative variables [31,41,44,50,51].
Variables are conditions that have an effect on the green infrastructure programs implementation, its functional performance as designed and maintain its functionality over time. Figure 7 above and Figure 8 below show the different qualitative and quantitative monitoring variables and activities. These monitoring activities and their functional parameters can be varied by locations, physical settings, and types of the practices, materials, land use, land cover, policy/partnerships implementation strategies and community acceptance [21,37,43,52,53,54].
For example, if the models set up to monitor the performance of post-constructed green infrastructure practice using quantitative variables such as rainfall and its functional components as hydrology and hydraulics in a particular watershed, model result should provide us information on flow quantities, qualities, and time of concentrations, what is the stormwater runoff flow pattern and how much are going to flow into green infrastructure practices? What will be the volume captured, and velocity of flow in the green infrastructure practices? How will the post-constructed green infrastructure manage and treat the stormwater runoff flows, the volume and concerned pollutants? Moreover, the hydrology and hydraulics (H&H) functional components of the rainfall can also be used to evaluate the performance of post constructed green infrastructure practices proposed as a stormwater runoff volume control measures to provide storage function for a defined storm size in the CSO drainage systems areas. An example of this might be a constructed wetland, retention basin, or right-of-way Bioswales. Since in many cases green infrastructures practices can perform beyond their design objectives of reduction of stormwater runoff volume or rate practices such as rain gardens can allow infiltration and evapotranspiration with different performance monitoring variables and functional components. Therefore, care must be given during identification of appropriate qualitative and quantitative variables to monitoring the performance of post constructed green infrastructure to produce reliable results.

7. Conclusions

Monitoring many aspects and functional performance of post-constructed green infrastructure practices are very complex and need to use an appropriate level of scientific rigor. Although some elements of post constructed green infrastructure practices with simple functions and objectives are easy to measure, it can be challenging to formulate generalized overall performance evaluation methodologies to evaluate using quantitative scientific procedures that encompass all the different green infrastructure practices objectives. Monitoring the performance of post-constructed green infrastructure practices requires a combination of qualitative or descriptive assessments with sound quantitative measures and statistical analysis. However, it is highly recommended to integrate post-normal or contextualized science concept as one of the parameters to evaluate the social robustness of the post-constructed green infrastructure projects in terms of its potential to appeal stakeholders and expand over different geographical areas and municipal laws and regulations.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Renew. Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  2. Coffman, L.; Green, R.; Clar, M.; Bitter, S. Development of bioretention practices for stormwater management. In Water Management in the 90’s: A Time for Innovation; Hon, K., Ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 1993; pp. 126–129. [Google Scholar]
  3. Guo, Q.; Correa, C. The Impacts of Green Infrastructure on Flood Level Reduction for the Raritan River: Modelling Assessment. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2013, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 19–23 May 2013.
  4. Hager, M.C. Low-impact development: Lot-level approaches to stormwater management are gaining ground. Stormwater 2003, 4, 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. James, P.; Tzoulas, K.; Adams, M.D.; Barber, A.; Box, J.; Breuste, J.; Elmqvistf, T.; Frithg, M.; Gordonh, C.; Greeningi, K.L.; et al. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban. For. Urban. Green. 2009, 8, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Weber, T.; Sloan, A.; Wolf, J. Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment: Development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2006, 77, 94–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wright, H. Understanding green infrastructure: The development of a contested concept in England. Local Environ. 2011, 16, 1003–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jaffe, M.S.; Zellner, M.; Minor, E.; Gonzalez-Meler, M.; Cotner, L.; Massey, D.; Ahmed, H.; Elberts, M.; Sprague, H.; Wise, S. Using Green Infrastructure to Manage Urban Stormwater Quality: A Review of Selected Practices and State Programs; Illinois Environmental Protection Agency: Springfield, IL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. LaFortezza, R.; Davies, C.; Sanesi, G.; Konijnendijk, C. Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest 2012, 6, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pugh, T.A.; Mackenzie, A.R.; Whyatt, J.D.; Hewitt, C.N. Effectiveness of green infrastructure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7692–7699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wise, S.; Braden, J.; Ghalayini, D.; Grant, J.; Kloss, C.; Macmullan, E.; Morse, S.; Montalto, F.; Nees, D.; Nowak, D. Integrating Valuation Methods to Recognize Green Infrastructure’s Multiple Benefits; Center for Neighborhood Technology: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  12. Maimone, M.; O’Rourke, D.E.; Knighton, J.O.; Thomas, C.P. Potential Impacts of Extensive Stormwater Infiltration in Philadelphia. Environ. Eng. Appl. Res. Pract. Fall 2011, 14, 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  13. Naumann, S.; McKenna, D.; Kaphengst, T. Design, Implementation and Cost Elements of Green Infrastructure Projects; Contract No. 070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1; Final Report to the European Commission, DG Environment: Brussels, Belgium, December 2011. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nicol, C.; Blake, R. Classification and use of open space in the context of increasing urban capacity. Plan. Pract. Res. 2000, 15, 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wossink, A.; Hunt, B. An Evaluation of Costs and Benefits of Structural Stormwater Best Management Practices in North Carolina; NC Cooperative Extension Service: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Layke, C. Measuring Nature’s Benefits: A Status Report and Action Agenda for Improving Ecosystem Services Indicators. Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services—Policy; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. McCormack, S.M.; Sturgill, R.E.; Howell, B.; Van Dyke, C.W.; Kreis, D. Green Infrastructure; Kentucky Transportation Center: Lexington, KY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Meng, T.; Hsu, D.; Wadzuk, B. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Use and Perception on Related Smart Services: The Case of Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, 22–26 May 2016; pp. 59–68.
  19. Walker, C. The Public Value of Urban Parks. Beyond Recreation: A Broader View of Urban Parks; The Urban Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  20. Struck, S.D.; Field, R.; Pitt, R.; O’Bannon, D.; Schmitz, E.; Ports, M.A.; Moore, G. Green infrastructure for CSO control in Kansas City, Missouri. In Proceedings of the 2009 Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 10–14 October 2009.
  21. Williamson, K.S. Growing with Green Infrastructure; Heritage Conservancy: Doylestown, PA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  22. Andersen, C.T.; Foster, I.D.L.; Pratt, C.J. The role of urban surfaces (permeable pavements) in regulating drainage and evaporation: Development of a laboratory 12 simulation experiment. Hydrol. Processes 1999, 13, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  24. McDonald, L.; Allen, W.; Benedict, M.; O’connor, K. Green infrastructure plan evaluation frameworks. J. Conserv. Plan. 2005, 1, 12–43. [Google Scholar]
  25. Backstrom, M. Grassed swales for stormwater pollution control during rain and snowmelt. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 48, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Lindsay, N.; Suparno, O.; Ningsih, D. An Empirical Investigation of the Barriers to Green Practices in Yogyakarta Leather Tanning SMEs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptive and Intelligent Agroindustry (ICAIA), IEEE Indonesia Section, Bogor, Indonesia, 3–4 August 2015; pp. 260–266.
  27. Perales-Momparler, S.; Andrés-Doménech, I.; Hernández-Crespo, C.; Vallés-Morán, F.; Martín, M.; Escuder-Bueno, I.; Andreu, J. The role of monitoring sustainable drainage systems for promoting transition towards regenerative urban built environments: A case study in the Valencian region, Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sandström, U.G.; Angelstam, P.; Khakee, A. Urban comprehensive planning–identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2006, 75, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thorne, C.R.; Lawson, E.C.; Ozawa, C.; Hamlin, S.L.; Smith, L.A. Overcoming uncertainty and barriers to adoption of Blue-Green Infrastructure for urban flood risk management. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wu, J.S.; Allan, C.J.; Saunders, W.L.; Evett, J.B. Characterization and pollutant loading estimation for highway runoff. J. Environ. Eng. 1998, 124, 584–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Greenhalgh, T.; Robert, G.; Macfarlane, F.; Bate, P.; Kyriakidou, O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004, 82, 581–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Wong, G.; Greenhalgh, T.; Westhorp, G.; Buckingham, J.; Pawson, R. RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013, 11, 1. [Google Scholar]
  33. Barrett, M.E. Comparison of BMP Performance using the international BMP database. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE 2008, 134, 556–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bean, E.Z.; Hunt, W.F.; Bidelspach, D.A. Evaluation of four permeable pavement sites in eastern North Carolina for runoff reduction and water quality impacts. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE 2007, 133, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Birch, G.F.; Fazeli, M.S.; Niatthai, C. Efficiency of an infiltration basin in removing contaminants from urban stormwater. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 101, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Doick, K.J.; Wilson, J. Monitoring and evaluation of green infrastructure: A logic model and ecosystem services approach. In Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; p. 414. [Google Scholar]
  37. Heffernan, T.; White, S.; Krechmer, T.; Manna, N.; Bergerson, C.; Olsen, M.; Cruz, J. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Monitoring of Philadelphia’s Green City, Clean Waters Program. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016, Palm Beach, FL, USA, 22–26 May 2016; p. 115.
  38. Ozdemiroglu, E.; Corbelli, D.; Grieve, N.; Gianferrara, E.; Phang, Z. Green Infrastructure—Valuation Tools Assessment; Natural England: Worcester, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Van Herzele, A.; Wiedemann, T. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2003, 63, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hyland, R.; Zuravnsky, L. Green infrastructure approaches for CSO controlin urban areas. In Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2007; pp. 668–688. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jiang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Piza, H. A Review of Applicability and Effectiveness of Low Impact Development/Green Infrastructure Practices in Arid/Semi-Arid United States. Environments 2015, 2, 221–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, K.; Baskaran, B. Thermal performance of green roofs through field evaluation. In Proceedings of the First North American Green Roof Infrastructure Conference, Awards and Trade Show, Chicago, IL, USA, 29–30 May 2003; pp. 1–10.
  43. McLaughlin, J.; Jones, M.; Leo, W.; Newman, T.; Stein, J. Green Infrastructure to Reduce Stormwater Runoff in New York City: Post-Construction Monitoring over Multiple Years and Lessons Learned. In Proceedings of the ICSI 2014: Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World, Long Beach, CA, USA, 6–8 November 2014; pp. 1001–1009.
  44. Ferreira, A.M.; Pernici, B.; Plebani, P. Green performance indicators aggregation through composed weighting system. In ICT as Key Technology against Global Warming; Springer Berlin-Heidelberg: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 79–93. [Google Scholar]
  45. Beauchamp, P.; Adamowski, J. An integrated framework for the development of green infrastructure: A literature review. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 2, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chen, Y.; Whalley, A. Green infrastructure: The effects of urban rail transit on air quality. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2012, 4, 58–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kubba, S. Green Construction Project Management and Cost Oversight; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M. Tools for modeling of stormwater management and Economics of Green Infrastructure practices: A review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Khandker, S.R.; Koolwal, G.B.; Samad, H.A. Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods and Practices; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hunt, W.F. Pollutant Removal Evaluation and Hydraulic Characterization for Bioretention Stormwater Treatment Devices. Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA, 2 August 2003. [Google Scholar]
  51. Spatari, S.; Yu, Z.; Montalto, F.A. Life cycle implications of urban green infrastructure. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2174–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Mell, I.C. Green infrastructure: Concepts and planning. FORUM Ejournal. 2008, 8, 69–80. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wise, S. Green infrastructure rising. Planning 2008, 74, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
  54. Moffat, A.J.; Pediaditi, K.; Doick, K.J. Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield regeneration to greenspace initiatives. A meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2010, 97, 22–36. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Elements of green infrastructure.
Figure 1. Elements of green infrastructure.
Environments 04 00002 g001
Figure 2. Common barriers for the implementation of green infrastructure initiatives.
Figure 2. Common barriers for the implementation of green infrastructure initiatives.
Environments 04 00002 g002
Figure 3. Potential solution to overcome barriers to implementing green infrastructure initiatives.
Figure 3. Potential solution to overcome barriers to implementing green infrastructure initiatives.
Environments 04 00002 g003
Figure 4. Components of green infrastructure monitoring program.
Figure 4. Components of green infrastructure monitoring program.
Environments 04 00002 g004
Figure 5. Three steps processes of monitoring post-construction green infrastructure and supplementary sub questions.
Figure 5. Three steps processes of monitoring post-construction green infrastructure and supplementary sub questions.
Environments 04 00002 g005
Figure 6. Site characteristics to design a monitoring program.
Figure 6. Site characteristics to design a monitoring program.
Environments 04 00002 g006
Figure 7. Quantitative monitoring variables.
Figure 7. Quantitative monitoring variables.
Environments 04 00002 g007
Figure 8. Qualitative monitoring activities.
Figure 8. Qualitative monitoring activities.
Environments 04 00002 g008
Environments EISSN 2076-3298 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top