Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Despite increased understanding and adoption of nature‐based solutions (NBSs) within urban and coastal areas, large‐scale NBS for fluvial flood mitigation remain challenging to study and implement. A stronger evidence base is needed to identify critical research gaps and to best inform the design and deployment of NBS on the watershed scale. We synthesize evidence of the performance and co‐benefits of NBS for fluvial flood mitigation based on a systematic review of 131 peer‐reviewed papers worldwide, developing an Ecosystem Focus Type (EFT) to compare flood mitigation across large‐scale NBS. While we find that NBS can mitigate fluvial floods across all EFTs, our study also highlights that inconsistencies in measurement methods, a dearth of empirical case studies, and large variability in reported values limit generalization and comparison across NBS. Co‐benefits for fluvial flood NBS are numerous, but few are quantified, and study methods vary with regard to specific NBS. Social benefits of NBS, including benefits to communities most in need of support, are infrequently part of these studies. There is a clear need to develop common design and performance standards for large‐scale NBS and for guidance on which measures are key to consider and monitor for flood mitigation and co‐benefits. The success of large‐scale NBS for fluvial flood mitigation will depend on research and practice guided by transdisciplinary systems thinking approaches that can deliver evidence‐based, community‐driven outcomes. 

ABSTRACT The importance of subsurface water dynamics, such as water storage and flow partitioning, is well recognised. Yet, our understanding of their drivers and links to streamflow generation has remained elusive, especially in small headwater streams that are often data‐limited but crucial for downstream water quantity and quality. Large‐scale analyses have focused on streamflow characteristics across rivers with varying drainage areas, often overlooking the subsurface water dynamics that shape streamflow behaviour. Here we ask the question:What are the climate and landscape characteristics that regulate subsurface dynamic storage, flow path partitioning, and dynamics of streamflow generation in headwater streams?To answer this question, we used streamflow data and a widely‐used hydrological model (HBV) for 15 headwater catchments across the contiguous United States. Results show that climate characteristics such as aridity and precipitation phase (snow or rain) and land attributes such as topography and soil texture are key drivers of streamflow generation dynamics. In particular, steeper slopes generally promoted more streamflow, regardless of aridity. Streams in flat, rainy sites (< 30% precipitation as snow) with finer soils exhibited flashier regimes than those in snowy sites (> 30% precipitation as snow) or sites with coarse soils and deeper flow paths. In snowy sites, less weathered, thinner soils promoted shallower flow paths such that discharge was more sensitive to changes in storage, but snow dampened streamflow flashiness overall. Results here indicate that land characteristics such as steepness and soil texture modify subsurface water storage and shallow and deep flow partitioning, ultimately regulating streamflow response to climate forcing. As climate change increases uncertainty in water availability, understanding the interacting climate and landscape features that regulate streamflow will be essential to predict hydrological shifts in headwater catchments and improve water resources management. 

Abstract The study compared the life cycle environmental impacts of three coastal flood management strategies: grey infrastructure (levee), green–grey infrastructure (levee and oyster reef), and a do-nothing scenario, considering the flood damage of a single flooding event in the absence of protection infrastructure. A case study was adopted from a New Orleans, Louisiana residential area to facilitate the comparison. Hazus software, design guidelines, reports, existing projects, and literature were utilized as foreground data for modelling materials. A process-based life cycle assessment was used to assess environmental impacts. The life cycle environmental impacts included global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, smog formation, resource depletion, ecotoxicity, and various human health effects. The ecoinvent database was used for the selected life cycle unit processes. The mean results show green–grey infrastructure as the most promising strategy across most impact categories, reducing 47% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to the do-nothing strategy. Compared to grey infrastructure, green–grey infrastructure mitigates 13%–15% of the environmental impacts while providing equivalent flood protection. A flooding event with a 100-year recurrence interval in the study area is estimated at 34 million kg of CO₂equivalent per kilometre of shoreline, while grey and green–grey infrastructure mitigating such flooding is estimated to be 21 and 18 million kg, respectively. This study reinforced that coastal flooding environmental impacts are primarily caused by rebuilding damaged houses, especially concrete and structural timber replacement, accounting for 90% of GHG emissions, with only 10% associated with flood debris waste treatment. The asphalt cover of the levee was identified as the primary contributor to environmental impacts in grey infrastructure, accounting for over 75% of GHG emissions during construction. We found that there is an important interplay between grey and green infrastructure and optimizing their designs can offer solutions to sustainable coastal flood protection. 

In 2021, Environmental Science & Technology convened an ACS Global Webinara on green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) as a tool for environmental justice. Since then, we researchers have continued to discuss advancing GSI science, practice, and priorities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1) describes green infrastructure as “the range of measures that use plant or soil systems, permeable pavement or other permeable surfaces or substrates, stormwater harvest and reuse, or landscaping to store, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate stormwater and reduce flows to sewer systems or to surface waters.” GSI systems use a variety of names both within the United States and worldwide (e.g., low-impact development, sponge cities, water sensitive cities) and encompasses concepts from physical stormwater design/management practices to sustainable urban planning and urban ecology. (2,3) GSI and, more broadly, other nature-based solutions offer possibilities for improving urban hydrologic function and water quality while providing multiple co-benefits; (4) however, we contend the most important benefit is as a tool to advance environmental justice (EJ). Indeed, if these benefits lack intentionality in process and placement to repair past harms, we miss the greatest opportunity of all. Here we present summarized thoughts concerning strengths, weaknesses and threats, and opportunities for GSI (Figure 1). 

Abstract Since the 1987 Clean Water Act Section 319 amendment, the US Government has required and funded the development of nonpoint source pollution programs with about $5 billion dollars. Despite these expenditures, nonpoint source pollution from urban watersheds is still a significant cause of impaired waters in the United States. Urban stormwater management has rapidly evolved over recent decades with decision-making made at a local or city scale. To address the need for a better understanding of how stormwater management has been implemented in different cities, we used stormwater control measure (SCM) network data from 23 US cities and assessed what physical, climatic, socioeconomic, and/or regulatory explanatory variables, if any, are related to SCM assemblages at the municipal scale. Spearman’s correlation and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to investigate relationships between explanatory variables and SCM types and assemblages of SCMs in each city. The results from these analyses showed that for the cities assessed, physical explanatory variables (e.g. impervious percentage and depth to water table) explained the greatest portion of variability in SCM assemblages. Additionally, it was found that cities with combined sewers favored filters, swales and strips, and infiltrators over basins, and cities that are under consent decrees with the Environmental Protection Agency tended to include filters more frequently in their SCM inventories. Future work can build on the SCM assemblages used in this study and their explanatory variables to better understand the differences and drivers of differences in SCM effectiveness across cities, improve watershed modeling, and investigate city- and watershed-scale impacts of SCM assemblages.