skip to main content


This content will become publicly available on August 1, 2024

Title: How reliable – and (net) beneficial – is the green in green infrastructure
Abstract

The idea of green infrastructure (GI) has generated great interest and creativity in addressing a range of challenging and expensive environmental problems, from coastal resilience to control of combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The appeal of GI stems from its cost savings compared to traditional “gray” infrastructure and the multiple benefits it provides, including biodiversity, aesthetics, and carbon sequestration. For example, a “green” approach to controlling CSOs in New York City saved $1.5 billion compared to a “gray” approach. Despite these advantages, GI still does not have detailed design and reliability specifications as compared to engineered gray infrastructure, potentially hindering its adoption. In this paper, we review some of the potential applications of GI in modern environmental science and discuss how reliability and associated (un)certainty in net benefits need to be addressed to realize the potential of this new approach.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
1855277 2123318
NSF-PAR ID:
10474026
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Cambridge
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
Volume:
52
Issue:
2
ISSN:
1068-2805
Page Range / eLocation ID:
189 to 200
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    Green infrastructure (GI) practices improve stormwater quality and reduce urban flooding, but as urban hydrology is highly controlled by its associated gray infrastructure (e.g., stormwater pipe network), GI's watershed‐scale performance depends on its siting within its associated watershed. Although many stormwater practitioners have begun considering GI's spatial configuration within a larger watershed, few approaches allow for flexible scenario exploration, which can untangle GI's interaction with gray infrastructure network and assess its effects on watershed hydrology. To address the gap in integrated gray‐green infrastructure planning, we used an exploratory model to examine gray‐green infrastructure performance using synthetic stormwater networks with varying degrees of flow path meandering, informed by analysis on stormwater networks from the Minneapolis‐St. Paul Metropolitan Area, MN, USA. Superimposed with different coverage and placements of GI (e.g., bioretention cells), these gray‐green stormwater networks are then subjected to different rainfall intensities within Environmental Protection Agency's Storm Water Management Model to simulate their hydrological benefits (e.g., peak flow reduction, flood reduction). Although only limited choices of green and gray infrastructure were explored, the results show that the gray infrastructure's spatial configuration can introduce tradeoffs between increased peak flow and increased flooding, and further interacts with GI coverage and placement to reduce peak flow and flooding at low rainfall intensity. However, as rainfall intensifies, GI ceases to reduce peak flow. For integrated gray‐green infrastructure planning, our results suggest that physical constraints of the stormwater networks and the range of rainfall intensities must be considered when implementing GI.

     
    more » « less
  2. Abstract

    Across the world, cities are spending billions of dollars to manage urban runoff through decentralized green infrastructure (GI). This research uses an agent‐based model to explore some of the physical, social, and economic consequences of one such urban GI programs. Using the Bronx, NY, as a case study, two alternative approaches to GI application are compared. The first (Model 1) mimics NYC's current GI program by opportunistically selecting sites for GI within the city's priority combined sewer watersheds; the second (Model 2) features a more spatially flexible approach to GI siting, in which the city attempts to maximize opportunities for co‐benefits within the geographic areas considered in Model 1. The effects of both approaches, measured in terms of stormwater captured and co‐benefits (e.g., carbon sequestered) provided, are tracked over 20‐year simulations. While both models suggest it will be difficult to meet the citywide stormwater capture goals (managing the first 2.5 cm of rainfall from 10% of impervious surfaces) in the Bronx solely through public investment in GI, Model 2 shows that by integrating GI with other city initiatives (e.g., sustainability goals and resilience planning), synergistic outcomes are possible. Specifically, Model 2 produces stormwater capture rates comparable to those obtained under Model 1, but these rates are accompanied by elevated co‐benefits for Bronx communities. The results are discussed in the context of future GI policy development in NYC.

     
    more » « less
  3. null (Ed.)
    Green infrastructure (GI) has become a panacea for cities working to enhance sustainability and resilience. While the rationale for GI primarily focuses on its multifunctionality (e.g. delivering multiple ecosystem services to local communities), uncertainties remain around how, for whom, and to what extent GI delivers these services. Additionally, many scholars increasingly recognize potential disservices of GI, including gentrification associated with new GI developments. Building on a novel dataset of 119 planning documents from 19 U.S. cities, we utilize insights from literature on justice in urban planning to examine the justice implications of criteria used in the siting of GI projects. We analyze the GI siting criteria described in city plans and how they explicitly or implicitly engage environmental justice. We find that justice is rarely explicitly discussed, yet the dominant technical siting criteria that focus on stormwater and economic considerations have justice implications. We conclude with recommendations for centering justice in GI spatial planning. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract Practitioner points

    Combined (CSO) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) pose both environmental and public health risks as untreated water is discharged into lakes and rivers during high‐intensity rain events.

    Current stand‐alone approaches for managing or treating CSOs focus on particulate BOD/COD and solids removal, and do not typically address soluble BOD or emerging contaminants in stormwater and wastewater (including pathogens).

    New wet weather policies and regulations encourage more holistic approaches by wastewater utilities, and future approaches should include a zero‐overflow goal for all CSOs and SSOs.

    To help achieve zero overflows, the concept of the “peaker facility” is proposed.

    Chemical oxidation may be an applicable component of peaker facilities for its short detention time and ability to remove, oxidize, or inactive water impairment‐causing contaminants.

     
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    Researchers and city practitioners are paramount stakeholders in creating urban resilience but have diverse and potentially competing views. To understand varying stakeholder perspectives, we conducted a systematic literature content analysis on green infrastructure (GI) and reflective pavement (RP). The analysis shows a United States (US)-based science-practice disconnect in written communication, potentially hindering holistic decision-making. We identified 191 GI and 93 RP impacts, categorized into co-benefits, trade-offs, disservices, or neutral. Impacts were further classified as environmental, social, or economic. The analysis demonstrates that US city practitioners emphasize social and economic co-benefits that may not be fully represented in the scientific discourse. Scientists communicate a broader range of impacts, including trade-offs and disservices, highlighting a nuanced understanding of the potential consequences. Identifying contrasting perspectives and integrating knowledge from various agents is critical in urban climate governance. Our findings facilitate bridging the science-policy disconnect in the US heat mitigation literature.

     
    more » « less