Content Server

water
Article
Investigating the Impact of Spatial Distribution of Sustainable
Drainage System (SuDS) Components on Their Flood
Mitigation Performance in Communities with High
Groundwater Levels
Yao Ma 1,2 , Xilin Xia 2, *, Qiuhua Liang 2 and Hongyou Wan 1,3, *
1 School of Ecology and Environment, Zhengzhou University, 100 Kexue Avenue, Zhengzhou 450001, China;
[email protected]
2 School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering, Loughborough University, Epinal Way,
Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK; [email protected]
3 Research Centre of Engineering and Technology for Synergetic Control of Environmental Pollution and
Carbon Emissions of Henan Province, Zhengzhou 450001, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (X.X.); [email protected] (H.W.)
Abstract: This paper investigated the impact of the spatial distribution of SuDS components on their
flood reduction performance and the underlying mechanisms in a community with high groundwater
levels. The effects of SuDS components’ connectivity, decentralized level, and installation position
along the flow direction on the reduction of total discharge volume (TDV), average discharge flow rate
(ADFR), maximum discharge flow rate (MDFR), inundated area (IA), average inundated depth (AID),
and maximum inundated depth (MID) were studied by coupling of the storm water management
model (SWMM) and high-performance integrated hydrodynamic modelling system (HiPIMS). The
Citation: Ma, Y.; Xia, X.; Liang, Q.;
results demonstrate that the connectivity has a positive linear correlation with the reduction of
Wan, H. Investigating the Impact of
Spatial Distribution of Sustainable
TDV (R2 > 0.991), ADFR (R2 > 0.992), and MDFR (R2 > 0.958), while the decentralized level of rain
Drainage System (SuDS) gardens and green roofs present positive one-phase exponential correlation with the reduction of
Components on Their Flood TDV (R2 > 0.935), ADFR (R2 > 0.934) and MDFR (R2 > 0.967). A better-integrated mitigation of TDV
Mitigation Performance in and ADFR could be achieved by installing SuDS upstream along the flow direction. The connectivity
Communities with High from green roofs to rain gardens has a positive effect on the reduction of AID and MID but leads to
Groundwater Levels. Water 2022, 14, the increase of IA. The findings of this study may contribute to the development of general spatial
1367. https://doi.org/10.3390/ distribution guidelines and strategies to optimize the overall performance of SuDS components,
w14091367 especially at a community scale.
Academic Editor: Miklas Scholz
Keywords: sustainable drainage systems; spatial distribution; flood reduction; community scale
Received: 9 March 2022
Accepted: 21 April 2022
Published: 22 April 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

with regard to jurisdictional claims in Flooding is one of the most common hazards in both the natural environment and
published maps and institutional affil-
urban areas [1,2]. The frequency and severity of floods have increased significantly, leading
iations.
to growing concerns about the participation of stakeholders from communities [3], the
effectiveness of traditional urban drainage infrastructure [4], challenges from the complexity
of sustainable technologies [5], and climate change [6]. The recorded floods since 2000 in the
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
UK have affected 433,933 people and caused damage of over 21 million dollars, according
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
to the data from EM-DAT [7]. As greater pressure is put on traditional urban water
This article is an open access article management systems due to the urbanization process and the increase in human activities,
distributed under the terms and the water quality of rivers and coastal aquifers tends to deteriorate [8,9]. Rapid urbanization
conditions of the Creative Commons has brought great landscape changes and land-use adjustment in urban areas [10,11] and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// interacts with climate change to increase the risk of urban flooding [12,13]. These changes
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ include replacement of permeable lands with impervious areas and removal of vegetation,
4.0/). leading to an increase of peak flow and rainwater runoff [14,15]. On the other hand, climate
Water 2022, 14, 1367. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091367 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2022, 14, 1367 2 of 30
changes are widely believed to increase the risk of urban flooding by aggrandizing the
frequency and duration of heavy rainfall events [16] and increasing the difficulty of flood
forecasting [17–19], causing large economic losses due to house collapse and drainage
system maintenance [16,20]. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult for the
traditional urban drainage system to adapt to these changes. Therefore, more countries
have moved towards risk-based sustainable management to improve the flood resilience of
urban areas [21–23]. Among the terminology used to describe the sustainable management
strategies, Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) is used in this paper.
The Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) was designed to minimize the risk of urban
flooding and maximize the opportunities and benefits in terms of water quantity, water
quality, amenity and biodiversity [24,25]. First proposed by the UK government, SuDS
has been proven to be effective in storm water management and flood risk mitigation for
specific precipitation characteristics [26–28]. Zahmatkesh et al. studied the impact of SuDS
implementation on runoff reduction in New York City’s urban catchment for future climate
change prediction and indicated that SuDS has a potential mitigation effect on the runoff
and peak flow [29]. Compared to traditional approaches, SuDS has better performance in
reducing the storm flow, peak discharge and most water quality indicators [30]. The imple-
mentation of SuDS can also mitigate runoff pollutants and heat islands due to urbanization,
having a positive impact on achieving water balance and water reuse [29,31,32].
The spatial distribution of SuDS components within a specific catchment strongly
influences their effectiveness in flood reduction. Recent studies have explored the effect
of spatial distribution patterns on surface runoff, thus providing more general spatial
distribution optimization recommendations for SuDS practices at urban or larger catchment
scales [33,34]. Kim and Park believe that the use of landscape indicators can help the design
of SuDS spatial layouts, especially for urban green infrastructure such as rain gardens and
bio-retentions [35]. They point out that increasing the size, fragmentation and connectivity
of these components can reduce peak runoff on a macro scale [35]. Mejia and Moglen
clarified that when determining the hydrological response of urban watersheds, it is
necessary to consider both the precipitation characteristics and the spatial variability of
impermeability [36]. Similarly, Liang, You and Lee studied the SuDS layout through genetic
algorithm (GA) and hydrological analysis and suggested that SuDS facilities with storage
layers should be concentrated in the middle reaches of drainage trunk lines to efficiently
reduce surface runoff and delay the time to peak flow [37].
Site constraints are important factors in optimizing spatial distribution, as they may
limit the scope of selecting SuDS components and their flood mitigation efficiency. Common
site constraints include land use type, pollution loading, soil type and depth, groundwater
level, topography, available space, drainage system and impervious area [38]. Changes
in land use types often lead to alterations in available space and impervious areas, which
affect the implementation of SuDS and the hydrological response, especially in urban
areas with complex land use types [39]. The research of Zeng, Guo and Dong indicates
that the synergy with urban drainage system can effectively improve the flood reduction
performance of SuDS [40]. Differences in topography and soil conditions will directly
lead to changes in surface runoff and infiltration characteristics, which therefore are other
important factors [41]. Shallow water tables and moisture-saturated soils also often limit the
implementation of SuDS due to the risk of facility failure and groundwater contamination,
especially in coastal areas [42,43]. In this case, SuDS without storage layers may be a more
suitable option, because it normally requires smaller installation depth under the ground.
However, there are few studies focusing on the spatial distribution of SuDS suitable for
areas with high groundwater levels.
Communities are the basic units for urban SuDS planning, and SuDS research at the
community scale has gradually received more attention [44]. Besides the government,
participation and support from different groups and communities are essential to realize
the application of SuDS [45]. Therefore, Latifi et al. proposed a leader–follower game model
to balance the conflicting utility that may exist between various participants [46]. Other
Water 2022, 14, 1367 3 of 30
studies have suggested optimizing the spatial distribution by establishing a multi-standard

evaluation framework based on residents’ willingness [47], site constraints [48], urban
development planning [49] and cost-benefit analysis [50]. However, the custom weights
used in the framework may affect the results of spatial optimization, so its reliability cannot
be guaranteed [38]. In this case, the use of hydrological models to assess SuDS performance
at the community scale is another option [38]. To better evaluate the runoff control of
community-scale SuDS, Yin et al. proposed a SWMM-CADDIES integrated model to
analyze the rainfall runoff process in the community [51]. Chen et al. used the enhanced
L-THIA-LID 2.2 model to study the effectiveness of SuDS in a combined sewer overflow
community and found that the combined implementation of SuDS can reduce runoff and
pollutant load more effectively than individual application [52].
Although SuDS research at the community scale is gaining popularity, existing studies
on the spatial distribution optimization of SuDS at the community scale are limited in
their scope. Some studies have examined the spatial distribution of SuDS components at a
community scale, but few studies specifically analyzed the spatial distribution of suitable
SuDS components in areas with high groundwater levels. Many scholars have conducted
research on the spatial distribution of SuDS at the urban or watershed scales [48,53,54].
However, limited by the diversity of community types and inadequate spatial resolution,
these studies cannot be directly applied to the community scale [53]. Kim and Park
reported the contracting effects of green infrastructure’s connectivity on reducing surface
runoff at different scales [35], highlighting the importance of community-scale study for
SuDS distribution. The lack of such studies hinders the effective design of SuDS spatial
distribution in practice. Only nine urban typologies are provided in the SuDS manual as
design examples to support the specific design of spatial distribution of SuDS components
at the community scale [25]. These typologies cannot cover all the complex patterns seen in
different communities.
To fill these gaps, this study used the SWMM-HiPIMS coupled model to simulate the
impact of SuDS on surface runoff and inundation indicators in different spatial distribution
scenarios of a community with high groundwater level, aiming to reveal the relationship
between the spatial distribution of SuDS components and the flood reduction as well as
the underlying mechanisms from a hydrologic perspective. Green roofs and rain gardens
were chosen as the typical SuDS components without storage layers, which are suitable
for communities with high groundwater levels. The results of the study may help local
designers optimize the spatial distribution of SuDS in communities with high groundwater
levels.
2. Materials and Methods

This study investigated the impact of different spatial distribution scenarios of SuDS
components on flood reduction at the community scale. In this study, SWMM, one of the
most popular rainfall runoff models for urban water resource management, was used to
simulate the response of SuDS components to rainfall with different spatial distributions in
the first stage. Then, the surface runoff data in the SWMM model running results were fed
into the HiPIMS as effective rainfall to simulate the flood inundating process with higher
spatial and temporal resolution. The simulation results give the position and area of flood
inundation.
2.1. Study Area

The study area (51◦ 300 10”, 0◦ 120 37”) is a community-scale area located in an urban
catchment. The urban catchment is part of the drainage system in the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), west London, England (Figure 1). RBKC is the smallest
borough in London and one of the most densely populated administrative areas in Britain,
with more than 150,000 people living on 1213 hectares. It was chosen mainly because of its
relatively high flood risk, according to the 2019 flood risk map for surface water in England
(Figure 2) on the Environment Agency website. As shown in Figure 3, the study area has a
catchment. The urban catchment is part of the drainage system in the Royal Bor
its relatively high flood risk, according to the 2019 flood risk map f
Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), west London, England (Figure 1). RBKC is the
England (Figure 2) on the Environment Agency website. As shown in
borough in London and one of the most densely populated administrative areas in
area has athan
with more total150,000
size ofpeople
28.9 hectares
living on and
1213 includes
hectares. Itthe following
was four la
chosen mainly be
Water 2022, 14, 1367
ings, green land, roads and open space. 4 of 30
its relatively high flood risk, according to the 2019 flood risk map for surface
England (Figure 2) on the Environment Agency website. As shown in Figure 3, t
area has a total size of 28.9 hectares and includes the following four land-use type
total size of 28.9 hectares and includes the following four land-use types: buildings, green
ings,roads
land, green andland,
open roads
space. and open space.
Figure
Figure
Figure 1.The
1. 1.
The The
DSM DSM
DSM
map map map
of the of ofarea
the
study thein study
study area in
RBKC, area
RBKC,
west in west
RBKC,
London, west
London,
England London,[55].
[55]. England England [5
Figure 2. The flood risk map for surface water in the study area in RBKC, west London,
[56].
Figure
Figure 2. flood
2. The Therisk
flood risk
map for map
surface forin surface
water water
the study area in the
in RBKC, west study area in[56].
London, England RBKC, w
[56].
r 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Water 2022, 14, 1367 5 of 30
Figure 3. The land use map of the study area: blue polygons represent buildings; green polygons
Figure 3. The land use map of the study area: blue polygons represent
represent green land; pink polygons represent open space; yellow polygons represent roads.
represent green land; pink polygons represent open space; yellow polyg
2.2. SWMM Simulation
First developed by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States (US
2.2.inSWMM
EPA) Simulation
1971, the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is a dynamic rainfall–runoff
simulation model used for single-event or long-term simulation of runoff quantity and
First
quality from developed
primarily urban areas by[57].the
TheEnvironmental
SuDS components haveProtection
been included inAgency
the o
EPA)
model in 1971,
package the Storm
since Version Water
5.0.22 [37]. The SWMMManagement
software used in Model
this study(SWMM)
is Version is a
5.1.013.
simulation
The setup of themodelSWMMused forbased
model was single-event
on the data from orvarious
long-term simulation
online databases.
Ten subcatchments,
quality from numbered
primarily fromurban
S1 to S10,areas
were defined
[57].byThethe roads
SuDSin the study area,
components h
under the consensus that drainage pipes are normally laid along the roads. The assumed
modelpipelines
drainage package since
were set Version
up along the roads5.0.22 [37].
to estimate Therunoff
the total SWMM volume,software
which u
did not affect
sion 5.1.013. the surface runoff state. The subcatchments and drainage system set in the
SWMM are shown in Figure 4, with blue arrows showing the flow direction in the pipes.
The that
The junctions setupallowofthethe SWMMS1model
subcatchments to S10 to was based
drain are on from
numbered the J1data
to J10.from v
The aerial image from Google Earth, with a resolution of 1 m, was used to classify land-use
Ten subcatchments, numbered from S1 to S10, were defined by th
types and identify impermeable areas (buildings, roads and open space) and permeable
under
areas (greenthe consensus
land). thatofdrainage
The land use map the study areapipes
is shown are normally
in Figure 3. laid along
In this paper, the subcatchment components were defined specifically as ‘mini-catchments’,
drainage pipelines were set up along the roads to estimate the tot
referring to the land use map. They were set to drain to the corresponding junctions, named
J1did
to J10not affect
according the
to the surface runoff
subcatchments state.in.The
they were located subcatchments
The rainwater in the drainageand dr
system discharged to the same downstream outlet, namely the Outfall. In summary, there were
SWMM are shown in Figure 4, with blue arrows showing the flo
10 subcatchments, including 1348 mini-catchments, 13 junctions, 13 conduits and 1 outlet, in the
Thearea.
study junctions that allow the subcatchments S1 to S10 to drain a
J10. The aerial image from Google Earth, with a resolution of 1
land-use types and identify impermeable areas (buildings, road
permeable areas (green land). The land use map of the study are
22, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Water 2022, 14, 1367 6 of 30
Figure 4. The subcatchments and drainage system in the study area: red points represent nodes; blue
Figure 4. The subcatchments and drainage system in the stud
point represents outlet; thick solid blue lines represent pipelines; yellow polygons represent roads;
blue point represents outlet; thick solid blue lines represent pi
pink polygons represent subcatchments; blue arrows represent flow direction in the pipelines.
roads; pinkparameters
The surface polygons of therepresent subcatchments;
mini-catchments were set up based onblue arrows re
the Digital
Surface Model (DSM) and Digital Terrain Model (DTM) data, with a resolution of 1 m,
lines.
which were downloaded from the Defra Data Services Platform. Then the DSM and DTM
data were processed to set up the area and average slope for the mini-catchments. The other
parameters of mini-catchments were set up according to the SWMM User’s Manual Version
In this paper, the subcatchment components were de
5.1. The land use map and the field soil condition were obtained from the Cranfield Soil and
Agrifood Institute [58]. Horton’s equation was used to calculate the infiltration of water
ments’, referring to the land use map. They were set to d
into the soil. A summary of the SWMM model parameter settings for the subcatchment
tions, named J1 to J10 according to the subcatchments the
components are listed in Table S1, while the infiltration parameter settings for Horton’s
equation are summarized in Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials.
in the drainage system discharged to the same downstrea
The pipelines of the drainage system are assumed to be built from concrete. Therefore,
Manning’s roughness coefficient was set to 0.015. It was assumed that every conduit
summary, there were 10 subcatchments, including 1348 m
is equipped with flap gates to prevent the backflow of rainwater. The other assumed
conduits and 1 outlet, in the study area.
parameters are summarized in Table S3.
The study area consisted of 45.6% green land, 26.8% buildings, 11.3% roads and 16.3%
The surface parameters of the mini-catchments were
open space. The large areas of green land had the potential to be converted into rain
gardens (RGs), while the roofs of the buildings were the ideal location for green roofs (GRs).
face Model (DSM) and Digital Terrain Model (DTM) data
The rain garden comprised a surface layer and a soil layer, while the green roof comprised
a surface layer, a soil layer and a drainage mat. Both SuDS components included no storage
were downloaded from the Defra Data Services Platform
layers and thus were suitable for the study area, where the groundwater level is relatively
were processed to set up the area and average slope for
high [58].
parameters of mini-catchments were set up according to

sion 5.1. The land use map and the field soil condition w
Water 2022, 14, 1367 7 of 30
The rainfall runoff on the green roof was to infiltrate into the soil layer and drain
off the roof through the drainage mat, while the rainwater in the rain garden was to
infiltrate through the engineered soil layer quickly and into the natural soil directly [57].
The schematic diagram of the SuDS components in the SWMM model is shown in Figure S1,
and Table S4 summarizes the parameter settings of the SuDS components in the SWMM
model. The porosity of the soil layer was defined according to Table S5 in the Supplementary
Materials [57].
Due to the limited available data, we set up a hypothetical pipeline system based on
data from a similar study [37], as shown in Figure 4 and Table S3 in the Supplementary
Materials. The results of rainwater discharge through the outlet could be used to reflect
the overall situation of the surface runoff in the study area. Considering that the potential
irrationality of the assumed pipeline may be amplified by complex calculations, the rela-
tively simple Kinematic Wave method can not only reduce possible error, but also meet the
research requirements to some extent. Therefore, the Kinematic Wave method was used to
route flows through the conveyance system. A time step length of 5 s was applied to both
the simulations of pipe routing and surface runoff.
2.3. Design Storms

According to the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) [59], the depth-duration-frequency
(DDF) model is recommended to design rainfall events in the UK. The calculated design
rainfall data with various return periods and durations in the study area was accessed
on the website of FEH Web Services [60]. As non-riverine urban flooding is generally
caused by short-term heavy rainfall events, 1 h (36.39 mm of precipitation) and 3 h rainfall
events (52.81 mm of precipitation) with a return period of 30 years were selected as the
input rainfall of the SWMM model. The two rainfall events were designed with even
rainfall intensity.
2.4. Flood Simulation Configuration

The flood simulations were performed by a GPU-based flood model, HiPIMS. De-
veloped by Xia, Liang and Ming (2019), the high-performance integrated hydrodynamic
modelling system (HiPIMS) uses state-of-the-art numerical schemes (Godunov-type finite
volume) to solve the 2D shallow water-type equations for flood and landslide simula-
tions [61]. It was developed to predict the full-scale process of fluvial flooding from
the source (rainfall) to impact (inundation) over a large catchment using a single high-
performance hydrodynamic model driven by rainfall inputs [61].
The same DSM data were used to define the topography of the simulation. The
landcover data were utilized to define the Manning’s roughness coefficient of the areas
with different landcover types (Table S6). The rainfall inputs were obtained by processing
the surface runoff data of the SWMM model for the equivalent rainfall intensity.
2.5. SuDS Spatial Distribution Scenarios

To study the relationship between the spatial distribution pattern of SuDS components
and their overall performance of flood reduction at the community scale, 27 types of spatial
distribution scenarios for SuDS and a blank scenario 0 without SuDS were proposed to
simulate the flood reduction performance in the SWMM model. Nine sketch maps of the
key spatial distribution strategies are provided in Figures 5–7. To facilitate the statistics
and analysis, the area of each SuDS unit was set to 20 m2 due to the area limit (20 m2 )
of the minimum mini-catchment; all the units can treat the runoff drained from other
subcatchments. Each subcatchment could install more than one SuDS unit as long as
the total SuDS area did not exceed the total area of the subcatchment. According to the
principle of single variable, we set up the combination of multiple SuDS units with an area
of 20 m2 to avoid the interference of the area change of SuDS units when studying the
influence of the decentralized distribution strategy.
Water 2022, 14, 1367 8 of 30
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 31
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Sketch
Sketch maps
mapsofofdifferent
differentconnection
connectionstrategies. In In
strategies. scenario
scenario1, neither RG RG
1, neither or GR is con-
or GR is connected;
nected;
Figure scenario
5. Sketch5,maps
526 GRs are connected
of different to nearby
connection RGs; scenario
strategies. 9, 526 GRs
In scenario are connected
1, neither RG or GRto nearby
is con-
scenario
RGs
5, 526
andscenario
GRs
422 RGs5,are
are connected to nearby RGs; scenario 9, 526 GRs are connected to nearby RGs
nected; 526connected to nearbytoRGs.
GRs are connected nearby RGs; scenario 9, 526 GRs are connected to nearby
and 422 RGs are connected to nearby RGs.
RGs and 422 RGs are connected to nearby RGs.
Figure 6. Sketch maps of different decentralized strategies. In scenario 10, 622 GR units are clustered
in 69 mini-catchments
Figure 6. and 527 RGdecentralized
units are clustered in 18
In mini-catchments; scenario 14,clustered
622 GR
Figure 6. Sketch
Sketchmaps
maps of different
of different strategies.
decentralized scenario
strategies. 10, 622 10,
In scenario GR unitsGR
622 areunits are clustered
units
in 69 are decentralizedand
mini-catchments in 622
527mini-catchments and 527
RG units are clustered in RG units are clustered
18 mini-catchments; in 18 mini-catch-
scenario 14, 622 GR
in 69
ments;mini-catchments
scenario
units are and
18, 622 GR
decentralized 527
units
in 622 RG units are clustered
are clustered inand
mini-catchments in 18
69 mini-catchments mini-catchments;
527 RG units areand 527 RGin
clustered unitsscenario
are decen-
18 mini-catch- 14, 622 GR
units are
tralized
ments; indecentralized in 622
unitsmini-catchments
527 mini-catchments.
scenario 18, 622 GR and
are clustered in 69 527 RG units are
mini-catchments andclustered in 18
527 RG units aremini-catchments;
decen-
tralized in
scenario 527
18, mini-catchments.
622 GR units are clustered in 69 mini-catchments and 527 RG units are decentralized in
527 mini-catchments.
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Water 2022, 14, 1367 9 of 30
Figure
Figure 7. 7. Sketch
Sketch mapsmaps of different
of different position position
strategies. strategies. In RGs
In scenario 19, scenario 19, RGs
are applied are app
in up-
mini-catchments along flow direction; scenario 23, RGs are applied in even-numb
stream mini-catchments along flow direction; scenario 23, RGs are applied in even-numbered mini-
catchments along flow
ments along flowdirection; scenario
direction; 27, RGs are
scenario applied
27, RGsinare downstream
appliedmini-catchments
in downstream along mini-ca
flow direction.
flow direction.
The scenarios were designed from three aspects, as shown in Figures 5–7. Scenarios 1
to 9 were
Thedesigned to explore
scenarios were thedesigned
impact of connectivity
from three between
aspects, SuDS ascomponents
shown inonFigures
their flood reduction performance. They were followed by scenarios 10 to 18, which were
1 to 9 were designed to explore the impact of connectivity between SuDS c
designed to study the impact of the clustering level of SuDS components. Scenarios 19 to
their
27 wereflood reduction
designed performance.
to study the SuDS components’ They werealong
position followed
the flowby scenarios
direction. The 10 to 1
detailed descriptions for sketch maps of 27 scenarios can be found
designed to study the impact of the clustering level of SuDS components. in Figures S2–S28 in
the Supplementary Materials. Scenario 0 was also constructed in the SWMM model as
27 were designed to study the SuDS components’ position along the flow
a blank control. The distribution strategies of 27 scenarios were provided in Table 1. To
detailed
ensure descriptions
that only for sketch
the spatial distribution mapsdiffer
strategies of 27 scenarios
in these scenarios,can be found
the number and in Fig
types of SuDS units applied
the Supplementary in the 27 scenarios
Materials. Scenariowere0 controlled
was alsoasconstructed
shown in Tablein S7 the
in SWM
Supplementary Materials.
blank control. The distribution strategies of 27 scenarios were provided in
The connectedness (CONNECT), edge density (ED) and the flow distance (FD) among
sure
the thatand
outlets onlythe the spatial distribution
mini-catchments were chosenstrategies
as indexes to differ
assessin thethese scenarios, th
connectivity,
decentralized level and position along the flow direction of the
types of SuDS units applied in the 27 scenarios were controlled as shown considered scenarios,
respectively [35].
Table 1. Summary of the distribution strategies in scenarios 1 to 27.
Scenarios Strategy for Rain Gardens Strategy for Green R

1 527 units decentralized; disconnected 622 units decentralized; d
622 units decentralized; 151 un
2 527 units decentralized; disconnected
RG
Water 2022, 14, 1367 10 of 30
Table 1. Summary of the distribution strategies in scenarios 1 to 27.
Scenarios Strategy for Rain Gardens Strategy for Green Roofs

1 527 units decentralized; disconnected 622 units decentralized; disconnected
2 527 units decentralized; disconnected 622 units decentralized; 151 units connected to RG
6 527 units decentralized; 139 units connected 622 units decentralized; 526 units connected to RG
10 527 units clustered; 422 units connected 622 units clustered; 526 units connected to RG
14 527 units clustered; 422 units connected 622 units decentralized; 526 units connected to RG
18 527 units decentralized; 422 units connected 622 units clustered; 526 units connected to RG
19 341 units decentralized; 233 units connected; upstream distributed 622 units clustered; 526 units connected to RG
23 341 units decentralized; 233 units connected; alternately distributed 622 units clustered; 526 units connected to RG
24 341 units decentralized; 233 units connected; downstream distributed 622 units clustered; 526 units connected to RG
The connectedness equals the number of functional joins between mini-catchments of

the same type within the catchment, divided by the total number of possible joins between
all corresponding mini-catchments, multiplied by 100 [33]:
∑nj−k Cijk
CONNECT = ni (ni −1)
(1)
2
where
Cijk = number of connections between mini-catchments j and k (0 = disconnected, 1 = connected)
of all corresponding mini-catchments in the study area
ni = number of mini-catchments in the study area
The edge density equals the total length of the edge divided by the area of all mini-
catchments [35]:
E
ED = (2)
A
where
E = the sum of edges (m)
A = total area (m2 )
The flow distance refers to the average distance among the outfall nodes of subcatch-
ments S1 to S10 and the mini-catchments with SuDS components in the study area [37]:
q 2 2
∑ni=0 ∑10
j=1 Xj − xi + Yj − yi
FD = (3)
n
where
Xj = x-coordinate of the outfall nodes in subcatchments S1 to S10 (m)
Yj = y-coordinate of the outfall nodes in subcatchments S1 to S10 (m)
xi = x-coordinate of the SuDS mini-catchments’ drainage locations (m)
yi = y-coordinate of the SuDS mini-catchments’ drainage locations (m)
n = number of mini-catchments in the study area
Water 2022, 14, 1367 11 of 30
The summary of the indexes of the decentralized level, connectivity and the SuDS
components’ position along the flow direction in 27 scenarios is shown in Table S8 in the
2.6. The Performance Assessment Criteria of Spatial Distribution Scenarios

This SWMM’s summary results report includes the results for each subcatchment,
node, and link in the project through a selectable list of tables [57]. Based on this report, the
maximum discharge flow rate (MDFR), the average discharge flow rate (ADFR) and the
total discharge volume (TDV) of flow drained from the downstream outlet were selected as
the main indicators to evaluate the mitigation of surface runoff.
The simulation results at each reporting time step for various variables of subcatch-
ments, nodes, and links are also available to be plotted and statistically analyzed in
SWMM [57]. To analyze the changes in surface runoff over the process of the design rainfall,
the time series results of the discharge flow rate of downstream outlet were selected as
another perspective to assess the flood mitigation performance of the considered scenarios.
The simulation results of HiPIMS include three types: the water depth and velocities
at predefined moments during a simulated event, the maximum water depth and velocities
throughout the event, and the time series of water depth and velocities, including rainfall
over the model domain and inflow and outflow boundary conditions. In this paper, the
changes of average inundated depth (AID), maximum inundated depth (MID) and the
inundated area (IA) during the rainfall events were selected to study the inundated areas
in 27 scenarios.
The simulation results of HiPIMS also reveal the inundated area distribution in these
scenarios. Detailed flood maps when the maximum inundated depth occurs in 28 con-
sidered scenarios in 1 h and 3 h rainfall events are shown in Figures S29–S84 in the
The correlation coefficient (R2 ) was chosen to assess the correlation between SuDS
components’ spatial characteristics and their flood reduction performance:
2
∑ni=1 (yi − ŷi )
R2 = 1 − 2
(4)
∑ni=1 (yi − yi )
where
2
∑ni=1 (yi − ŷi ) = residual sum of squares
2
∑ni=1 (yi − yi ) = total sum of squares
3. Results
3.1. Effectiveness of SuDS in a Single Catchment
In the first step, we simulated the performance of SuDS components under various
rainfall events in a single catchment to determine the physical mechanisms behind the
SuDS performance, which could help to understand the performance of SuDS with various
spatial distributions. The catchment for this part of the study was a hypothetical catchment
that represents the property of the study area. The width of this catchment was estimated
by the GIS data, while the other parameters were set to average values of the subcatchments
in it. In total, 1149 potential sites (22,980 m2 ) for SuDS installation, among which 622 sites
(12,440 m2 ) for green roofs and 527 sites (10,540 m2 ) for rain gardens, were identified and
used. Specifications for the representative catchment and applied SuDS are given in Table 2.
Water 2022, 14, 1367 12 of 30
Table 2. Parameter settings of the hypothetical subcatchment in the SWMM model.
Object Parameter Value Unit

Catchment Area 28.9 ha
Width 200 m
Slope 53.4 %
Percentage of impervious area 54.4 %
Manning’s n value of impervious areas 0.012 none
Manning’s n value of pervious areas 0.389 none
Depression storage of impervious areas 2.54 mm
Depression storage of pervious areas 5.08 mm
Proportion of impervious areas with no
0 %
depression storage
Rain Garden Area 10,540 m2
Percentage of impervious area 100 %
Surface width per unit 0 m
Number of SuDS units 527 none
Green Roof Area 12,440 m2
Percentage of impervious area 0 %
Surface width per unit 5 m
Number of SuDS units 622 none
Detailed reports of the SuDS component from the SWMM are helpful to explicate
their underlying physical mechanisms. The process data of two SuDS components were
compared in 12 rainfall events based on data extracted from SWMM detailed reports. For
1 h and 3 h rainfall events with different return periods, Figures 8 and 9 display the process
data that characterize the performance of rain gardens, while Figures 10 and 11 display the
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWprocess data that characterize the performance of green roofs. The blue dotted horizontal 13 of 31
line was added to the figures as an auxiliary line to represent the water storage limit based
on a given berm height of 150 mm.
Figure8.8.SWMM
Figure SWMMdetailed reports
detailed on rain
reports gardens
on rain in 1 hin
gardens rainfall events.events.
1 h rainfall
SuDS facilities are commonly designed to reduce discharge runoff by increasing the
recharge of subsurface flows and extend the duration of stormwater retention. Rain gar
dens are infiltration-based SuDS facilities with an engineered soil layer to reduce storm
water runoff and peak flow at the site. As shown in Figure 8, the total inflow sequentially
Water 2022, 14, 1367 13 of 30
Figure9.9.SWMM
Figure SWMMdetailed
detailedreports on rain
reports gardens
on rain in 3 hin
gardens rainfall events.events.
3 h rainfall
As the intensity of the rainfall increases, the surface water level will react more
quickly to changes in inflow, thereby reducing the extent of delayed discharge. Regardless
of the return period, the results mentioned above can also be observed in Figure 9. By
comparing the results of 1 h events and 3 h events over the same return period, rain gar
dens are more prone to produce surface runoff in the 3 h events. This means that rainfal
events with longer duration consume more surface storage capacity, leaving the rain gar
den with less remaining storage capacity to accommodate the inflow.
Compared to the rain garden, the green roof has a thinner soil layer and an extra
drainage mat layer under it to drain rainwater. However, for safety reasons, green roofs
are not equipped with berms to create extra storage capacity on the surface like rain gar
dens. Therefore, as retention-based facilities, the main processes in green roofs to mitigate
rainwater are infiltrating into the soil layer, being retained in the soil layer and discharg
ing from the drainage mat. As shown in the results for 2-, 5-, 10- and 30-year events in
Figure 10, when the rainfall intensity is low, all rainwater can infiltrate into the soil layer
of the green roofs and cause an increase in soil moisture and soil percolation. In this case
percolation in the soil layer starts when the soil moisture reaches the threshold of 24.9%
When analyzing the results of soil percolation in Figures 10 and 11, we found that the
threshold (24.3–25.0%) is universal and almost unaffected by rainfall events, and its mag
nitude is primarily affected by soil characteristics. As shown in the results of 50- and 100
year events, with the gradual increase of soil moisture, the infiltration rate of rainwater in
the rain garden suddenly began to decline rapidly, and it began to produce surface runoff
This means that in response to events with high rainfall intensity, the retaining capacity
Figure 10.SWMM
Figure10. SWMM detailed reports
detailed on green
reports roofsroofs
on green in 1 hin
rainfall events.events.
1 h rainfall
of the soil layer may be quickly exhausted.
Water 2022, 14, 1367 14 of 30
Figure 10. SWMM detailed reports on green roofs in 1 h rainfall events.

SuDS facilities are commonly designed to reduce discharge runoff by increasing the
recharge of subsurface flows and extend the duration of stormwater retention. Rain gardens
Similar results
are infiltration-based in thewith
SuDS facilities rainfall events
an engineered soil with
layer toareduce
3 h duration
stormwater can b
When
runoff andthepeaksoil
flow moisture
at the site. As isshown
relatively
in Figurelow8, theand
total there is enough cap
inflow sequentially
undergoes three processes of infiltration into the soil layer, being stored in the surface space,
water,
and it can
generating temporarily
outflow remain
after the it enters the rain in the soil
gardens. Whenlayer instead
the rainfall intensityof per
(mm/h) is lowerAs
mat layer. thanthe
the maximum
rainfallinfiltration
intensity rateincreases,
(mm/h) of thethe surface soil, the
time whentotal the ra
inflow completely infiltrates into the gaps of filler particles in the soil layer and gradually
charged
increases from
the soil thecontent.
moisture drainage mat
It can be gradually
observed advances,
in 5- and 10-year events thatand
when the
the disc
inflow gradually exceeds the soil infiltration rate over time, rainwater begins to accumulate
in the surface storage space formed by the berm, and the surface water level gradually
rises. This means the surface storage space provides the rain gardens with storage capacity,
and the amount of water retained and the delay time of peak runoff mainly depend on
the height of the berms. When the surface water level reaches the berm height after the
peak inflow occurs, rain gardens can simultaneously cause a reduction in surface runoff
and a delay in the appearance of peak runoff, as shown in the results of 30- and 50-year
events. This can be attributed to the accommodation of remaining surface storage space to
the peak flow.
Water 2022, 14, 1367 15 of 30
As the intensity of the rainfall increases, the surface water level will react more quickly
to changes in inflow, thereby reducing the extent of delayed discharge. Regardless of the
return period, the results mentioned above can also be observed in Figure 9. By comparing
the results of 1 h events and 3 h events over the same return period, rain gardens are more
prone to produce surface runoff in the 3 h events. This means that rainfall events with
longer duration consume more surface storage capacity, leaving the rain garden with less
remaining storage capacity to accommodate the inflow.
Compared to the rain garden, the green roof has a thinner soil layer and an extra
drainage mat layer under it to drain rainwater. However, for safety reasons, green roofs
are not equipped with berms to create extra storage capacity on the surface like rain
gardens. Therefore, as retention-based facilities, the main processes in green roofs to
mitigate rainwater are infiltrating into the soil layer, being retained in the soil layer and
discharging from the drainage mat. As shown in the results for 2-, 5-, 10- and 30-year
events in Figure 10, when the rainfall intensity is low, all rainwater can infiltrate into the
soil layer of the green roofs and cause an increase in soil moisture and soil percolation. In
this case, percolation in the soil layer starts when the soil moisture reaches the threshold of
24.9%. When analyzing the results of soil percolation in Figures 10 and 11, we found that
the threshold (24.3–25.0%) is universal and almost unaffected by rainfall events, and its
magnitude is primarily affected by soil characteristics. As shown in the results of 50- and
100-year events, with the gradual increase of soil moisture, the infiltration rate of rainwater
in the rain garden suddenly began to decline rapidly, and it began to produce surface runoff.
This means that in response to events with high rainfall intensity, the retaining capacity of
the soil layer may be quickly exhausted.
Similar results in the rainfall events with a 3 h duration can be observed in Figure 11.
When the soil moisture is relatively low and there is enough capacity to retain the rainwater,
it can temporarily remain in the soil layer instead of percolating to the drainage mat layer.
As the rainfall intensity increases, the time when the rainwater starts to be discharged from
the drainage mat gradually advances, and the discharged flow will reach a higher peak.
When the accumulation of rainwater in the soil layer makes the soil saturated, the buffering
effect of the rain gardens on the peak flow disappears, and the peak flow returns to the
level of total inflow.
Our results demonstrate that the surface storage capacity and the rainwater infiltration
into the soil layer of the rain gardens are the primary mechanisms that affect the reduction of
peak flow and the delayed discharge of surface runoff, while the retention and percolation
of rainwater in the soil layer are the main mechanisms that affect the green roof in reducing
discharge runoff and delaying the appearance of peak flow. By comparing the results
of the two SuDS facilities in 1 h and 3 h events with a 30- to 50-year return period, we
also noticed that rain gardens are more sensitive to the accumulated rainfall, while the
efficiency of the green roofs is primarily affected by the rainfall intensity. This may be
because rain gardens eventually allow infiltration of rainwater into the natural soil to
supplement groundwater, while green roofs can discharge rainwater accumulated in the
soil layer through the drainage mat layer more quickly.
3.2. The Simulation Results of the SWMM Model

3.2.1. The Total Discharge Volume and Discharge Flow Rate
As shown in Figure 12, the reduction rate of total discharge volume (TDV), average
discharge flow rate (ADFR) and maximum discharge flow rate (MDFR) from the down-
stream outlet of 27 considered scenarios are plotted with the connectedness, edge density
and flow distance in scatter diagrams. The solid red line represents the fitting curve of
these results.
As shown in Figure 12, the reduction rate of total discharge volume (TDV),
discharge flow rate (ADFR) and maximum discharge flow rate (MDFR) from the
stream outlet of 27 considered scenarios are plotted with the connectedness, edge
Water 2022, 14, 1367 and flow distance in scatter diagrams. The solid red line represents 16the
of 30fitting c
these results.
Figure 12.
Figure 12. Effect
Effect of connectivity
of connectivity of SuDSof SuDS components
components on TDV, ADFRonand
TDV,
MDFR:ADFR and
(a) GR MDFR:
to RG, in 1 h (a) GR t
event; (b) RG to RG, in 1 h event; (c) GR to RG, in 3 h event; (d) RG to RG, in 3 h event.
1 h event; (b) RG to RG, in 1 h event; (c) GR to RG, in 3 h event; (d) RG to RG, in 3 h event.
As shown in Figure 12, the connectedness of green roofs (GRs) and rain gardens (RGs)
showsAs shown
a strong in Figure
positive 12, the connectedness
linear correlation with TDV, ADFRof green
and MDFRroofs (GRs)
reduction rateand
in rain g
(RGs) shows
most cases. The a strong
results positive
in Figure linear
12 also showcorrelation with
that an increase in TDV, ADFR from
connectedness and GR MDFR re
to RG leads to a greater reduction of TDV and ADFR than an increase
rate in most cases. The results in Figure 12 also show that an increase in connec in connectedness
from RG to RG. This suggests that TDV and ADFR reduction rates are more sensitive to
from GR to RG leads to a greater reduction of TDV and ADFR than an increase
increased connectivity between green roofs and rain gardens than to increased connectivity
nectedness from RGMoreover,
among rain gardens. to RG. This suggestswas
the difference thatnot
TDV and by
affected ADFR reduction
the duration and rates a
sensitive to increased connectivity between green roofs and rain gardens
intensity of rainfall events. Based on the analysis of the physical mechanisms of green roofs than to in
connectivity
and rain gardens among rain
in flood gardens.
reduction Moreover,
mentioned the difference
in Section was
3.1, we believe not
that affected by th
increased
connectedness can enhance the flood reduction efficiency of rain gardens
tion and intensity of rainfall events. Based on the analysis of the physical by increasing themechan
utilization of their remaining surface storage or potential infiltration capacity. As they are
green roofs and rain gardens in flood reduction mentioned in Section 3.1, we beli
connected, rain gardens that have exhausted storage and infiltration capacity can drain the
increased connectedness
outflow to other can enhance
rainwater gardens the floodstorage
that have remaining reduction efficiency
capacity of rain gard
to avoid direct
discharge of rainwater. The connection from green roofs to the rain gardens not only allows
the rainwater discharged from the green roofs to be infiltrated again or temporarily stored
in rain gardens, but also increases the infiltration time of rainwater in rain gardens through
the delayed discharge of the green roofs. This may be one reason why it can achieve better
efficiency in reducing TDV and ADFR than increasing the connection of rain gardens.
As shown in Figure 12, the connectedness from green roofs to rain gardens showed
a strong linear correlation with the reduction rate of MDFR when facing 3 h events. The
reduction of MDFR seems to be more susceptible to connectedness among rain gardens.
This may be due to changes in the number of SuDS, which can buffer rainwater at the MDFR
site. When no SuDS are connected, the peak flow is mainly affected by the infiltration or
temporary storage of rainwater by few SuDS near the MDFR site. When the strategy of
connecting green roofs to rain gardens is adopted, both the few green roofs located near
the MDFR site and their directly connected rain gardens can buffer peak flows. When rain
gardens are also connected, more connected rain gardens can be used to buffer the peak
flow at the MDFR site, even though they may not be near the site. However, there was no
obvious correlation between green roof connectivity and the reduction in MDFR during 1 h
egy of connecting green roofs to rain gardens is adopted, both the few green roofs
near the MDFR site and their directly connected rain gardens can buffer peak flow
rain gardens are also connected, more connected rain gardens can be used to bu
peak flow at the MDFR site, even though they may not be near the site. Howeve
Water 2022, 14, 1367 was no obvious correlation between green roof connectivity and the 17 reduction
of 30 in
during 1 h events. This may be because green roofs in scenarios 1 to 5 have
achieved optimal performance in reducing MDFR. This suggests that when facin
events. This may be because green roofs in scenarios 1 to 5 have already achieved optimal
term heavy rainfall events, increased connectedness from green roofs to rain garde
performance in reducing MDFR. This suggests that when facing short-term heavy rainfall
not enhance
events, increasedMDFR reduction
connectedness fromat green
the community scale. Furthermore,
roofs to rain gardens cannot enhanceincreased
MDFR con
ness has at
reduction a the
slightly greater
community effect
scale. on the reduction
Furthermore, rate of TDV,has
increased connectedness ADFR and MDFR
a slightly
greater effect on the reduction rate of TDV, ADFR and MDFR in 1 h rainfall events
rainfall events than in 3 h rainfall events, both for green roofs and rain gardens. than in
3 h rainfall events, both for green roofs and rain gardens.
The results in Figure 13 show that increasing the edge density of rain garden
The results in Figure 13 show that increasing the edge density of rain gardens has a
better promoting
better promoting effect
effect on TDV,
on TDV, ADFR and ADFRMDFRand MDFR than
reduction reduction than green roofs.
green roofs.
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Effect
Effect of decentralized
of decentralized level oflevel
SuDSof SuDS components
components on TDV,
on TDV, ADFR ADFR
and MDFR: (a) and MDFR:
GR, in (a
11 hhevent; (b) RG, in 1 h event; (c) GR, in 3 h event; (d) RG, in 3 h event.
event; (b) RG, in 1 h event; (c) GR, in 3 h event; (d) RG, in 3 h event.
Obviously, as the green roofs become more decentralized from scenario 11 to 14, they
Obviously,
can receive as theofgreen
a wider range roofs
rainwater andbecome more
temporarily decentralized
store from
it in the soil layer. scenario
However, in 11 to
can
thesereceive
scenarios,a wider range
rain gardens areofcentrally
rainwater andon
installed temporarily storesoitnot
large green lands, in all
thedelayed
soil layer. Ho
rainwater discharge from green roofs can flow into the rain gardens
in these scenarios, rain gardens are centrally installed on large green lands, and be infiltrated or so no
stored. In this case, the increase in the dispersion of green roofs only slightly prompts
the reduction rates of TDV, ADFR and MDFR, as shown in the results of increasing GR
edge density in Figure 13. On the other hand, the results of increasing RG edge density
show that the decentralized distribution of rain gardens can lead to a greater reduction of
TDV, ADFR and MDFR. This may be because the decentralized distribution of rain gardens
not only increases the receiving range of rainwater, but also receives surface runoff over a
larger area. In addition, rainwater received by green roofs is likely to be discharged as free
flow for a short period of time, while rainwater received by rain gardens can eventually
be infiltrated into the natural soil instead of becoming surface runoff again. Moreover,
increasing the edge density of the two SuDS components helps reduce TDV, ADFR and
MDFR in 1 h rainfall events slightly more than in 3 h rainfall events. This indicates that the
duration and intensity of precipitation events are related to this difference.
In summary, the results demonstrate that the increase of both connectedness and edge
density would promote the decrease of TDV, ADFR and MDFR, although the performance
of GR and RG is different. For a certain increase in connectedness, GR had greater potential
in reducing TDV and ADFR, while RG reduced MDFR. From the perspective of edge
density, RG presented a more significant effect than GR in reducing TDV, ADFR and MDFR.
In summary, the results demonstrate that the increase of both connectedn
edge density would promote the decrease of TDV, ADFR and MDFR, although
formance of GR and RG is different. For a certain increase in connectedness,
greater potential in reducing TDV and ADFR, while RG reduced MDFR. From
Water 2022, 14, 1367 18 of 30
spective of edge density, RG presented a more significant effect than GR in reducin
ADFR and MDFR. The effect of the enhancement of connectedness and edge den
flood
The reduction
effect performance
of the enhancement seems to be more
of connectedness noticeable
and edge in 1flood
density on h events.
reduction
From the
performance seemsaspect of flow
to be more distance,
noticeable in 1 Figure
h events.14 demonstrates that flow distance h
From
linear the aspect of
correlation flowthe
with distance, Figure of
reduction 14 demonstrates
TDV, ADFRthat flow
and distanceexcept
MDFR, has a fair
the redu
linear correlation with the reduction of TDV, ADFR and MDFR, except the reduction of
MDFR in 1 h events. The linear fitting result between flow distance and redu
MDFR in 1 h events. The linear fitting result between flow distance and reduction of MDFR
MDFR shows
shows a weak a weak
positive positive
linear linear correlation.
correlation.
Figure 14.
Figure 14.Effect of rain
Effect gardens’
of rain positionposition
gardens’ along thealong
flow direction
the flow on direction
TDV, ADFRon
andTDV,
MDFR: (a) 1 hand MD
ADFR
rainfall event; (b) 3 h rainfall event.
h rainfall event; (b) 3 h rainfall event.
As shown in Figure 14, the reduction rates of TDV and ADFR decrease as rain gardens’
averageAsflow
shown
distancein Figure
increases.14, thesuggests
This reduction ratesrain
that when of TDV
gardensandare ADFR
installeddecrease
down- as r
dens’
stream average
of surface flow
runoff,distance
they can beincreases. Thisinsuggests
more effective reducing TDVthat and
when rainSince
ADFR. gardens
the are i
rainfall events in this study are set as spatially uniform precipitation,
downstream of surface runoff, they can be more effective in reducing TDV and we believe that the
main reason for this difference is the difference in surface runoff flowing into rain gardens.
Since the rainfall events in this study are set as spatially uniform precipitation, we
When rain gardens are installed downstream, the higher inflow rate can rapidly increase
that theofmain
the rate reason
rainwater for this difference
accumulation is the
in the surface difference
storage in surface
space of rain gardensrunoff
and make flowing i
gardens. When
them discharge rainHowever,
earlier. gardensasare raininstalled downstream,
gardens only the higher
buffer and attenuate inflow
the inflow fromrate can
upstream their
increase installation
the rate sites, rainaccumulation
of rainwater gardens installedindownstream
the surface canstorage
receive andspacetreatof rain g
inflow from a wider range of surface runoff, resulting in greater TDV and ADFR reduction
and make them discharge earlier. However, as rain gardens only buffer and atten
rates. The effect of increasing flow distance on reducing TDV and ADFR in 1 h events is
inflow from
greater than in 3upstream
h events fortheir installation
rain gardens. sites,that
This means rain
the gardens installed
flood reduction downstream
effect caused
ceive and treat
by the location inflow
of the from amay
rain gardens wider range
be more of surface
sensitive runoff,rainfall
to short-term resulting
events.in greater T
ADFR On reduction
the contrary,rates. Theresults
the fitting effectofofMDFR
increasing
reduction flow
rate distance onpresent
in Figure 14 reducinga nega-TDV and
tive correlation between flow distance and MDFR. Therefore, the reduction
in 1 h events is greater than in 3 h events for rain gardens. This means that the f rate of MDFR
decreases as the installation location of rain gardens shifts from upstream to downstream.
duction effect caused by the location of the rain gardens may be more sensitive t
As mentioned above, when the rain gardens are installed downstream of surface runoff,
term rainfallacquires
the rainwater events.a large inflow velocity through the accumulation of gravitational
potential energy before flowing into the rain gardens. This strategy allows rain gardens to
reduce ADFR more effectively, but it also accelerates the depletion of surface storage space.
As shown in Figures 8 and 9, when the storage capacity of rain gardens is exhausted before
peak flow occurs, there is some time for discharge runoff to accumulate kinetic energy and
reach the MDFR. Therefore, the reduction rate of MDFR will decrease as the time to speed
up the discharge flow rate increases.
Among these 27 scenarios, the SuDS components in scenario 18 achieved the greatest
reduction of TDV, ADFR and MDFR, except scenario 17 achieved the greatest reduction of
MDFR in a 3 h rainfall event.
3.2.2. The Changes of Discharge Flow Rate in Downstream Outlet Versus Time
According to the time series results reported by SWMM, the scatter charts are plotted
to illustrate the variation trend of discharge flow rate (DFR) in the considered simulation
process, as shown in Figures 15 and 16.
3.2.2. The Changes of Discharge Flow Rate in Downstream Outlet Versus Time
3.2.2.According
The Changes of Discharge
to the time seriesFlow Rate
results in Downstream
reported by SWMM,Outlet Versus
the scatter Timeare plotted
charts
to illustrate the to
According variation
the timetrend
seriesofresults
discharge flow by
reported rateSWMM,
(DFR) in
thethe considered
scatter simulation
charts are plotted
process,
to
Water 2022, 14, 1367 as shown
illustrate in Figures
the variation 15of
trend and 16.
discharge flow rate (DFR) in the considered simulation 19 of 30
Figure 15. The time series plot of DFR in 1 h event in considered scenarios of (a) connectedness of
GR; (b)15.
Figure connectedness of RG;
The time series
Figure plot
15. (c)
The edge
oftime
DFR density
in 1plot
series ofof
h event GR;
DFR (d) edgeindensity
ininconsidered
1 h event of RG;
scenarios
considered (e)connectedness
of (a)
scenarios flow
of (a) distance of of
connectedness
RG. (b) connectedness
GR; of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of RG.
RG.
Figure 16. The time Figure

series 16.
plot oftime
The DFR in 3plot
series h event
of DFRininconsidered scenariosscenarios
3 h event in considered of (a) connectedness of of
of (a) connectedness
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow
Figure 16. The time series plot of DFR in 3 h event in considered scenarios of (a) connectedness of RG.
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) distance
flow distanceof
RG. (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of
GR;
As shown in Figure 15a,b and Figure 16a,b, the flow rate curve of Sc-0 and Sc-1 share a
RG. similar variation trend, but with different values. The discharge flow rate in both scenarios
increases sharply as the rainfall event starts and then climbs to the maximum DFR. This
means that installing unconnected SuDS at the community scale can reduce the discharge
flow rate but has limited buffering effect on the rapid rising of DFR at the beginning of the
rainfall event. As the connectivity of SuDS components in Sc-2 to Sc-9 increases, the sharp
increasing trend of DFR at the beginning of 1 h events becomes a slower increasing trend.
The results in Figure 15a,b show that GR connectivity could mitigate the increasing trend
of DFR from 6 to 40 min since the beginning of rainfall, while RG connectivity tends to
mitigate the increasing trend of DFR from 40 to 60 min. As shown in the results of scenario 9
in Figure 15, when all rain gardens and green roofs were connected, SuDS achieved the best
DFR reduction among Sc-1 to Sc-9. Similar results can also be observed in scatter graphs
in Figure 16a,b. When facing 3 h events, GR connectivity can reduce the increasing trend
of DFR from 10 to 80 min since the beginning of the rainfall, while RG connectivity tends
to reduce the increasing trend of DFR from 50 to 180 min. Compared to the green roofs,
Water 2022, 14, 1367 20 of 30
the rain garden’s surface storage capacity composed of berms helps to buffer the inflow
during high flow rates and increases the infiltration time. This suggests that increasing GR
connectivity can improve the mitigation efficiency of SuDS against runoff with a low flow
rate, while increasing RG connectivity can help reduce inflow with a high flow rate.
Comparing the results in Figure 15c,d and Figure 16c,d, respectively, the edge density
of rain gardens has a more significant effect on slowing down the rise of DFR than that
of green roofs. In 1 h events, the increase of the edge density of RG can more effectively
reduce the DFR during rainfall, including the peak discharge flow rate. In the 3 h event, the
increase in the edge density of RG obviously leads to a less significant reduction of the peak
discharge flow rate. This may be due to the exhausted infiltration and storage capacity of
rain gardens before the peak flow appears, caused by the longer rainfall duration. Although
the mitigation effect of flow distance is not as notable as for connectedness and edge density,
its increase changes the upper concave, increasing the curve to a lower concave one, as
shown in Figure 15e. Similar variation trends can also be seen in the 3 h rainfall event,
as shown in Figure 16. This can be attributed to the fact that the rain gardens installed
downstream can receive more runoff from the upstream region, thus increasing their
chances of storing and absorbing surface runoff. The maximum discharge flow rate in the
whole rainfall event in 28 scenarios including Sc-0 appears after the rain stops for 1 min.
However, the delay in maximum flow rate is not observed.
3.3. The Simulation Results of the HiPIMS Model

3.3.1. The Proportion of the Inundated Areas
ER REVIEW 21 of 31
According to the time series results reported by Hi-PIMS, the line graphs are plotted
to illustrate the variation trend of the inundated area (IA) in the considered simulation
Figure 17. The time series

Figureplot of IA
17. The inseries
time 1 h event ininconsidered
plot of IA scenarios
1 h event in considered of (a) connectedness
scenarios of (a) connectednessofofGR;
GR;
(b) connectedness
(b) connectedness of RG; of RG; (c)
(c) edge density of edge
GR;density of GR;
(d) edge (d) edgeof
density density
RG; of(e)RG; (e) flow
flow distanceofofRG.
distance RG.
WaterFigure
2022, 14, 17.
1367 The
time series plot of IA in 1 h event in considered scenarios of (a) connectedness of GR;
21 of 30
(b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of RG.
Figure
Figure 18. The time series 18. The
plot time
of IA inseries plot of IA
3 h event in in 3 h event in considered
considered scenariosscenarios of (a) connectednessof
of (a) connectedness ofGR;
GR;
(b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG;
(b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of RG.(e) flow distance of RG.
As shown in Figure 17a–e, the increase of connectivity between SuDS components

As shown in Figure
can lead 17a–e, the increase
to the increase of connectivity
of the inundated percentage,between
while the SuDS components
edge density and flow
distance have almost no effect on it. The results of Sc-0 in Figure 17 show the variation
can lead to the increase of the inundated percentage, while the edge density and flow
trend of the inundated area without SuDS. With the beginning of the rainfall, the inundated
distance have almost no effect
percentage onstudy
in the it. Thearea results of Sc-0
first increases in and
rapidly Figure 17 showgradually,
then decreases the variation
because
trend of the inundated area without SuDS. With the beginning of the rainfall, the inun-
surface runoff under the influence of gravity will converge to lower places and cause the
decrease of the inundated area. The rainwater convergence is also accompanied by an
dated percentage in the study area first increases rapidly and then decreases gradually,
increase in the inundated depth at the converging sites. Thus, despite causing an expansion
because surface runoff under
of the inundatedthearea,
influence of gravityofwill
the implementation SuDSconverge
can delay and to slow
lower theplaces and
convergence
cause the decrease ofofthe inundated
surface runoff andarea. The rainwater
the formation convergence
of deep inundated is also
sites, which accompanied
is also supported by
the results shown in Figures 19 and 20. Moreover, the results in Figure 17a,b indicate that
by an increase in the inundated depth at the converging sites. Thus, despite causing an
the inundated area in the study area gradually expands with the increase of connectivity
expansion of the inundated
from greenarea,
roofs tothe implementation
rain of SuDSthe
gardens. However, increasing can delay and
connectivity slow
among the
rain con-
gardens
vergence of surface on
runoff andhas
this basis the noformation
effect on the of deep
change of inundated
the inundatedsites, whichresults
area. Similar is also cansup-
also
ported by the resultsbe shown
observedin in Figure
Figures 18. Interestingly,
19 and 20. asMoreover,
green roofs are
theincreasingly
results inconnected
Figure to17a,b
rain
gardens, we observe less inundated area between 0 and 90 min in Sc-5 than in Sc-0 in 3 h
indicate that the inundated
events. Thisarea
meansin that
the instudy area gradually
the low-intensity expands
rainfall events, withconnectivity
improved the increase of
has the
connectivity from green
potentialroofs to the
to reduce rain gardens.
inundated However,
area for increasing
a certain time the connectivity
since the beginning of rainfall.
among rain gardens 3.3.2.
on this basis has no effect on the change of the inundated area. Similar
The Inundation Depth of the Study Area
results can also be observed
Accordingin toFigure
the time18. Interestingly,
series results reported byas HiPIMS,
green the roofs are increasingly
line graphs are plotted to
connected to rain gardens,
illustrate we observe
the variation lessofinundated
trend area depth
average inundated between
(AID) 0 andand 90 min
maximum in Sc-5
inundated
depth (MID) in the considered simulation process, as shown
than in Sc-0 in 3 h events. This means that in the low-intensity rainfall events, improved in Figure 19.
The results in Figure 19a,b and Figure 20a,b show that increased connectedness from
green roofs to rain gardens significantly results in a decrease in the average inundated depth,
while increased connectedness among rain gardens hardly reduces the average inundated
depth. This means that connecting green roofs to rain gardens is a more efficient way to
reduce the average inundated depth than increasing connectivity among rain gardens.
3.3.2. The Inundation Depth of the Study Area
3.3.2.According
The Inundation
to the Depth of theresults
time series Studyreported
Area by HiPIMS, the line graphs are plotted
to illustrate the to
According variation
the timetrend
seriesofresults
average inundated
reported depth (AID)
by HiPIMS, and
the line maximum
graphs inun-
are plotted
dated depth
to14,illustrate
Water 2022, 1367 (MID) in the considered simulation process, as shown in Figures
the variation trend of average inundated depth (AID) and maximum inun- 19– 22. 22 of 30
dated depth (MID) in the considered simulation process, as shown in Figures 19–22.
Figure 19. The time series plot of AID in 3 h event in considered scenarios of (a) connectedness of
GR; (b)19.
Figure connectedness of RG;
The time Figure
series plot (c) edge
oftime density
AIDseries
in 3plot of GR; (d) edge density
h event of RG; (e)connectedness
flow distance of
19. The of AIDininconsidered scenarios
3 h event in considered of (a)
scenarios of of
RG.
GR; (b) connectedness
GR;of
(b)RG; (c) edge of
connectedness density of GR;
RG; (c) edge (d) of
density edge
GR; density of RG;of(e)
(d) edge density RG;flow distance
(e) flow distanceof
of RG.
RG.
Figure 20. The time Figure

series 20.
plot oftime
The AIDseries
in 3plot
h event
of AIDininconsidered scenariosscenarios
3 h event in considered of (a) connectedness of of
GR; (b) connectedness
GR;of
(b)RG; (c) edge
connectedness density
of of GR;
RG; (c) edge (d)
density edge
of GR; density of RG;
(d) edge density of(e)
RG;flow distance
(e) flow
Figure 20. The time series plot of AID in 3 h event in considered scenarios of (a) connectedness of
distanceof
of RG.
RG.
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of
As shown in Figure 19c,d and Figure 20c,d, the increase of green roofs’ edge density
RG. has a slight contribution to the decrease of AID. This means that decentralized green roofs
The results incanFigures
reduce19a,b and 20a,b
the average showdepth
inundated that better
increased
at the connectedness
community scale. from green the
Interestingly,
roofsThe
to rain gardens
results significantly
inincrease
Figures in19a,b
the edgeandresults
20a,bofin
density thea rain
show decrease
garden
that in
canthe
increased average
slightly inundated
contribute
connectedness to the
from depth,
decrease
green in the
while increased AID during
connectedness the 1 h
amongevent, but
raininmay cause
gardens a slight
hardly increase in the AID during the 3 h event.
roofs to rain gardens significantly results a decrease in reduces
the averagethe average
inundated inundated
These results suggest that the effect of decentralized rain gardens on AID may be reversed
depth,
depth. This means that
while increased connectednessconnecting green roofs to rain gardens is a more efficient way to
with increasingamongdurationrain gardens
of rainfall hardly
events. reduces
Moreover, thethe average
results inundated
in Figures 19e and 20e
reduce the average
depth. This meansshowinundated
that that flowdepth
connecting than
green
distance increasing
roofs
has no toonrain
effect connectivity
the gardens ofisthe
efficiency aamong
more rain gardens.
efficient
rain gardens way toAID.
in reducing
As shown in Figures 19c,d
The results
reduce the average inundated and 20c,d,
in Figure
depth than the
21a,b increase of green
show thatconnectivity
increasing roofs’
with the increase edge density
of connectedness
among rain gardens. has green
from a
slight contributionroofs to rain
to the gardens,ofthe
decrease maximum
AID. inundation
This means thatdepth in the study area
decentralized
As shown in Figures 19c,d and 20c,d, the increase of green roofs’ edge density has a shows
green a decreasing
roofs can
slight contribution to the decrease of AID. This means that decentralized green roofs can
Water 2022, 14, 1367 23 of 30
trend between 0 and 45 min in 1 h rainfall events. However, GR connectivity has little
correlation with the MID from 45 to 120 min of the rainfall event. By examining the map
of inundated depth distribution for 1 h events as reported by HI-PIMS, we found that
the location and depth of the MID after 45 min changed with the progress of the rainfall.
Therefore, we speculate that the variation of MID after 45 min may be more affected by
its location and topographic conditions. This indicates that when the rainfall intensity is
high, due to the impact of topographic factors, increasing the connectivity of rain gardens
may not always achieve a stable effect of MID reduction. Similar results are observed in
Figure 22. The results of graphs (a)–(c) show that the MID decreases significantly with
the increase of green roof connectivity during 0–120 min of a 3 h rainfall event, and its
correlation with green roof connectivity begins to weaken after 120 min. This difference
may be related to the saturation of green roofs’ soil layer and the depletion of rain gardens’
surface storage. By examining the map of inundated depth distribution, we also find that
the MID in 3 h events always appears at a certain location in the sub-catchment S10 during
the rainfall process. This indicates that the connectivity from green roofs to rain gardens
ER REVIEW 24 of 31
is positively correlated with the decrease of MID when its appearance location is steady.
However, in both 1 h and 3 h events, increased connectivity among rain gardens cannot
reduce the maximum inundated depth.
Figure 21. The time series

Figureplot of time
21. The MIDseries
in 3plot
h event
of MIDinin 3considered scenarios
h event in considered of (a)ofconnectedness
scenarios of
(a) connectedness of
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG;
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of (e) flow distance of RG.
RG. As shown in Figure 21c,d and Figure 22c,d, although the effect of the increase of GR
edge density on the reduction of MID is not obvious in 1 h rainfall events, this effect was
clearly observed in the results of 3 h rainfall events. This indicates that when the location of
the maximum inundation depth does not change with the rainfall process, the increase of
the GR edge density contributes to the decrease of the MID. However, the increased edge
density of rain gardens does not affect the MID of the study area in both 1 h and 3 h events.
Meanwhile, the results in Figures 21e and 22e also indicate that the flow distance of the rain
gardens has no effect on reducing the maximum inundation depth. Interestingly, we find
that the spatial distribution of rain gardens (indicated by connectedness, edge density and
flow distance) does not seem to affect the inundated depth. However, this does not mean
that changing the spatial distribution of green roofs is a more effective way of reducing the
MID than changing the spatial distribution of rain gardens. Considering that the location
Water 2022, 14, 1367 24 of 30
whereplot
Figure 21. The time series the MID appears
of MID in 3ishalways
eventinintheconsidered
sub-catchment S10, the inconspicuous
scenarios effect of rain
of (a) connectedness of
gardens on MID may be due to the small area of sub-catchment S10.
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance ofThe lack of potential
installation location for rain gardens could be the main reason why MID is not sensitive to
RG. the change of their connectivity, edge density and flow distance.
Figure 22. The time series 22. The

Figureplot of time
MIDseries
in 3plot of MIDin
h event in 3considered
h event in considered scenarios
scenarios of (a)ofconnectedness
(a) connectedness of
of
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG;
GR; (b) connectedness of RG; (c) edge density of GR; (d) edge density of RG; (e) flow distance of (e) flow distance of RG.
RG. 4. Discussion
In terms of the impact of the spatial distribution of SuDS components on their flood
4. Discussion reduction performance, there is currently a lack of a general guide and recommendations to
support the spatial distribution design of SuDS components, especially at the community
In terms of the scale.
impact of the to
According spatial
the SuDSdistribution
design process ofprovided
SuDS components on their
in the SuDS manual, flood
the spatial
distribution
reduction performance, there design of SuDS acomponents
is currently lack of a should
generalproceed
guide in the
andoutline design stage [25].
recommendations
However, as for the specific design of the spatial distribution of SuDS components at
to support the spatial distribution design of SuDS components, especially at the commu-
the community scale, only nine urban typologies are provided in the SuDS manual as
nity scale. Accordingdesign
to the SuDS [25].
examples designTheseprocess provided
typologies in the
cannot cover SuDS
all the complexmanual,
contextsthe spatial
in different
distribution design of SuDS components should proceed in the outline design stage [25].
communities, especially old ones.
Based on the understanding of the primary flood reduction mechanisms of green roofs
However, as for the and
specific design of the spatial distribution of SuDS components at the
rain gardens, we analyzed the effect of spatial distribution characteristics (connectivity,
community scale, only nine urban
decentralization typologies
and areflow
position along provided
direction)in the SuDS
of green manual
roofs and as design
rain gardens at the
examples [25]. Thesecommunity
typologies scalecannot
on floodcover all performance
reduction the complex (TDV,contexts in different
ADFR, MDFR, com-
and increasing
munities, especially trend of DFR, IA, AID and MID) of SuDS systems. Increased connectivity can effectively
old ones.
increase the reduction rates of TDV, ADFR and MDFR, mainly because the delayed dis-
Based on the understanding
charge of rainwaterof thegreen
from primary flood
roofs and reduction
the sharing of surfacemechanisms
storage capacityof among
green
roofs and rain gardens, we analyzed the effect of spatial distribution characteristics (con-
rain gardens helps to increase the time for rainwater to be retained and infiltrate, thus
increasing the infiltration and reducing runoff flow rate. Previous studies have shown that
nectivity, decentralization and position along flow direction) of green roofs and rain gar-
connectivity between SuDS components can effectively reduce peak runoff in mesoscale
dens at the community scale oncatchments
and macroscale flood reduction performance
such as cities and watersheds(TDV, ADFR,
[33,35], while our MDFR, and
results suggest
increasing trend of DFR, IA, AID
that increased and MID)
connectivity of SuDS
can also improve systems. Increased
the flood reduction connectivity
performance of SuDS can
at
the community scale. In our study, the decentralized level is increased under the premise
that SuDS is connected. So, as the decentralized level of SuDS components increases, they
can receive surface runoff inflows from a larger area of subcatchments, thus more effectively
buffering and reducing TDV, ADFR and MDFR at the community scale. Previous studies
Water 2022, 14, 1367 25 of 30
have indicated that decentralized SuDS can better reduce peak runoff when facing small
rainfall events (total precipitation <27 mm) at the urban scale than clustered SuDS, while
the clustered SuDS performs better in large rainfall events (total precipitation >27 mm) [34].
Therefore, decentralized distribution strategies can promote the flood reduction perfor-
mance of SuDS at both urban and community scales in small rainfall events. The results of
our study further indicate that at the community scale, decentralized SuDS components
still have better performance than clustered SuDS when faced with large rainfall events
with total precipitation of 36.39 mm and 52.81 mm. Our study demonstrates that the
effect of location of rain gardens along the flow direction on their flood reduction at the
community scale is mainly attributed to the difference of inflow. When rain gardens are
installed downstream, their flood reduction potential can be better exploited to reduce
TDV and ADFR, because surface runoff from a larger area can be received. However,
downstream installation also means that it will receive inflows with greater flow rates,
which may cause the rain garden’s infiltration capacity and surface storage to saturate
before the peak flow occurs, resulting in an increase in MDFR. However, a previous study
showed that concentrated retention ponds and permeable pavements in the middle stream
can better reduce peak runoff at the community scale [37]. The different results may be
due to the use of different SuDS components. Since the selected SuDS components in our
study (rain garden and green roof) do not depend on underground storage layers, our
results can better provide theoretical support for the design of SuDS spatial distribution in
communities with high groundwater levels.
Previous studies mostly used peak runoff and discharge volume as the main indicators
to study SuDS performance [36,37], while our study also focused on the response of
inundated depth and inundated area to different spatial distribution strategies of SuDS,
providing a more comprehensive evaluation. As shown in the time series diagram of DFR
under different scenarios, the increase of GR connectivity contributes to the reduction of
DFR at the beginning of rainfall, while the reduction of DFR in the middle and late of
rainfall is mainly affected by RG connectivity. This may be because rainwater entering
green roofs could be temporarily retained and the discharge delayed. Then, the discharged
rainwater begins to infiltrate into the soil layers of rain gardens. Furthermore, the IA
is positively affected by the connectivity from GR to RG when facing rainfall events,
whereas the AID will decrease as the connectivity increases. The reason is that increased
connectivity from GR to RG can facilitate rainwater retention and infiltration in both
SuDS components to reduce the AID more efficiently. By examining the flood maps
in the Supplementary Materials, we find that the MID in 1 h events does not decrease
as the connectivity increases, which may be due to the irregularly change of the MID
occurrence location. In the simulations of 3 h events where MID location does not change,
the obvious positive correlation between increased connectivity and reduced MID can
also prove this point. However, it is not clear why IA, AID and MID are not sensitive to
the changes of connectivity, decentralized level and flow distance of rain gardens. One
possible hypothesis is that areas that remain inundated after SuDS are implemented may
lack potential installation sites for rain gardens.
5. Conclusions
This study aims to explore the relationship between different spatial distribution
scenarios of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) and the flood reduction perfor-
mance at a community scale. Using the stormwater management model (SWMM) and
the high-performance integrated hydrodynamic modelling system (HI-PIMS), different
spatial distributions scenarios of rain gardens and green roofs at the community scale were
simulated in a community in the Kensington and Chelsea Royal District (RBKC), west
London, UK. The 27 design scenarios consider different connectivity, decentralized level,
and SuDS component locations along the flow direction. Each scenario was simulated in
1 h and 3 h rainfall events with a 30-year return period.
Water 2022, 14, 1367 26 of 30
The total discharge volume (TDV), average discharge flow rate (ADFR) and maximum
discharge flow rate (MDFR) of the 27 considered scenarios were plotted and fitted with
the connectedness, edge density and flow distance. We also plotted the scatter charts
and line graphs to illustrate the variation trend of discharge flow rate (DFR), inundated
area (IA), average inundated depth (AID) and maximum inundated depth (MID) in the
considered simulation process. These results demonstrate that SuDS would have the best
comprehensive performance in the studied community-scale catchment when applying
connected and decentralized distribution strategies.
Specifically, the connectivity between SuDS components had a positive correlation
with the TDV, ADFR, and MDFR in short-term rainfall events. It was also revealed that the
positive correlation only existed between the connectivity from green roofs to rain gardens
and the reduction of AID and MID. The connectivity of green roofs to rain gardens also
had a negative effect on the reduction of IA. However, the connectivity of rain gardens
had no correlation with IA, AID and MID. The increased connectivity of GR could slow
down the increasing trend of DFR at the beginning of the rainfall event, while the increased
connectivity of RG could mitigate the increasing trend of DFR at the middle and late periods.
On the other hand, the decentralized level of SuDS components had a positive correla-
tion with the reduction of TDV, ADFR and MDFR in short-term rainfall events. However,
the positive correlation only existed between the decentralized level of green roofs and the
mitigation of AID and MID, while the decentralized level of rain gardens had no correlation
with IA, AID and MID. The increase of the decentralized level of green roofs had no effect
on the inundated area. The increase of the decentralized level of rain gardens could slow
down the increasing trend of DFR more efficiently than that of green roofs during the
rainfall events.
As for the position of rain gardens along the flow direction, opposite effects on the
indicators of flood events were observed in the simulation results. The upstream installation
of rain gardens along the flow direction had the best performance on the reduction of TDV
and ADFR at community scale, whereas the downstream installation strategy had the best
performance on the reduction of MDFR and the mitigation of the increasing trend of DFR.
The flow distance of SuDS components presented no correlation with IA, AID and MID.
This paper will contribute to the improvement of the spatial distribution design
process of SuDS at a community scale by contributing to the general design guidelines.
Our findings demonstrate the effect of SuDS components’ connectivity, decentralized level
and position along the flow direction on their flood reduction performance through seven
indicators (the reduction rate of TDV, ADFR, MDFR, IA, AID, MID, and the mitigation of
the increasing trend of DFR). These findings will improve the guidelines and support the
work of designers in a more universal way, especially when the local contexts do not match
the nine typologies of the SuDS manual very well.
This paper also reveals the possible mechanisms of spatial distribution affecting the
flood reduction performance of SuDS components based on the analysis of hydrological
processes. We believe that connectivity improves the efficiency of buffering and mitigating
the effects of heavy rain primarily through the coupling of green roofs with rain gardens and
sharing of surface storage capacity among rain gardens. The contribution of decentralized
level to flood reduction performance can be attributed to the fact that the decentralized
SuDS components can receive rainwater and surface runoff from a larger area. The different
locations of rain gardens along the flow direction mainly affect the inflow characteristics of
surface runoff. For example, rain gardens located downstream receive inflow with high flow
rate, while rain gardens located upstream receive runoff flow with low flow rate. However,
further research is needed to explore the principles of spatial distribution affecting the
performance of SuDS components through the combined use of model simulation and in
situ experiments.
Water 2022, 14, 1367 27 of 30
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w14091367/s1, Table S1: Parameter settings of subcatchment
components in the SWMM model; Table S2: Infiltration parameter settings in the SWMM model;
Table S3: Parameter settings of junctions and conduits in the SWMM model; Table S4: Parameter
settings of the SuDS components in the SWMM model; Table S5: Summary of Manning’s n in the
SWMM user’s manual; Table S6: Summary of soil characteristics in the SWMM user’s manual;
Table S7: Summary of types and number of SuDS components applied in the 27 scenarios; Table S8.
Summary of the spatial characteristics in the considered scenarios; Figure S1: Schematic diagram
of the rain garden and green roof; Figure S2: The sketch map of Scenario 1; Figure S3: The sketch
map of Scenario 2; Figure S4: The sketch map of Scenario 3; Figure S5: The sketch map of Scenario
4; Figure S6: The sketch map of Scenario 5; Figure S7: The sketch map of Scenario 6; Figure S8: The
sketch map of Scenario 7; Figure S9: The sketch map of Scenario 8; Figure S10: The sketch map of
Scenario 9; Figure S11: The sketch map of Scenario 10; Figure S12: The sketch map of Scenario 11;
Figure S13: The sketch map of Scenario 12; Figure S14: The sketch map of Scenario 13; Figure S15: The
sketch map of Scenario 14; Figure S16: The sketch map of Scenario 15; Figure S17: The sketch map of
Scenario 16; Figure S18: The sketch map of Scenario 17; Figure S19: The sketch map of Scenario 18;
Figure S20: The sketch map of Scenario 19; Figure S21: The sketch map of Scenario 20; Figure S22:
The sketch map of Scenario 21; Figure S23: The sketch map of Scenario 22; Figure S24: The sketch map
of Scenario 23; Figure S25: The sketch map of Scenario 24; Figure S26: The sketch map of Scenario 25;
Figure S27: The sketch map of Scenario 26; Figure S28: The sketch map of Scenario 27; Figure S29:
Flood map of scenario 0 at the time of 2 h (1-h rainfall event); Figure S30: Flood map of scenario 1 at
the time of 2 h (1-h rainfall event); Figure S31: Flood map of scenario 2 at the time of 2 h (1-h rainfall
event); Figure S32: Flood map of scenario 3 at the time of 2 h (1-h rainfall event); Figure S33: Flood
map of scenario 4 at the time of 2 h (1-h rainfall event); Figure S34: Flood map of scenario 5 at the
time of 2 h (1-h rainfall event); Figure S35: Flood map of scenario 6 at the time of 2 h (1-h rainfall
Water 2022, 14, 1367 28 of 30
event); Figure S84: Flood map of scenario 27 at the time of 4 h (3-h rainfall event).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.M. and X.X.; methodology, Y.M.; software, Y.M., X.X.
and Q.L.; validation, Y.M. and X.X.; formal analysis, Y.M.; investigation, Y.M.; resources, Y.M.; data
curation, Y.M.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.M.; writing—review and editing, X.X., Q.L. and
H.W.; visualization, Y.M.; supervision, X.X. and Q.L.; project administration, X.X.; funding acquisition,
H.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF
HENAN PROVINCE, grant number 20210485A.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The Digital Surface Model (DSM) and Digital Terrain Model (DTM)
data with a resolution of 1 m were downloaded from the Defra Data Services Platform (https:
//environment.data.gov.uk/, accessed on 15 August 2020). The calculated design rainfall data with
various return periods and durations in the study area were accessed on the website of FEH Web
Services (https://fehweb.ceh.ac.uk/, accessed on 15 August 2020).
Acknowledgments: I would like to take this opportunity to thank the following people for their
support and contributions to this study: my supervisor in ZZU, Wei Zhang; the entire WEDC staff,
who were very friendly and helpful throughout the MSc program; my family for their unconditional
love in helping me complete my research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Wheater, H.S. Flood Hazard and Management: A UK Perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2006, 364,
2135–2145. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Yin, J.; Yu, D.; Yin, Z.; Liu, M.; He, Q. Evaluating the Impact and Risk of Pluvial Flash Flood on Intra-Urban Road Network: A
Case Study in the City Center of Shanghai, China. J. Hydrol. 2016, 537, 138–145. [CrossRef]
3. Maskrey, S.A.; Mount, N.J.; Thorne, C.R. Doing flood risk modelling differently: Evaluating the potential for participatory
techniques to broaden flood risk management decision-making. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2022, 15, e12757. [CrossRef]
4. Mahmood, M.I.; Elagib, N.A.; Horn, F.; Saad, S.A.G. Lessons Learned from Khartoum Flash Flood Impacts: An Integrated
Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601, 1031–1045. [CrossRef]
5. Jiang, Y.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ma, Y. Urban Pluvial Flooding and Stormwater Management: A Contemporary Review of China’s
Challenges and “Sponge Cities” Strategy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 80, 132–143. [CrossRef]
6. Zhou, Q.; Leng, G.; Huang, M. Impacts of Future Climate Change on Urban Flood Volumes in Hohhot in Northern China: Benefits
of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 305–316. [CrossRef]
7. EM-DAT The International Disaster Database. Available online: https://www.emdat.be/ (accessed on 16 June 2020).
8. Burak, S.; Doǧan, E.; Gazioǧlu, C. Impact of Urbanization and Tourism on Coastal Environment. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2004, 47,
515–527. [CrossRef]
9. Klein, R.D. Urbanization and Stream Quality Impairment. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1979, 15, 948–963. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Peng, J. Impervious Surface Impact on Water Quality in the Process of Rapid Urbanization in Shenzhen,
China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 68, 2365–2373. [CrossRef]
11. Skougaard Kaspersen, P.; Høegh Ravn, N.; Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K.; Madsen, H.; Drews, M. Comparison of the Impacts of Urban
Development and Climate Change on Exposing European Cities to Pluvial Flooding. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 4131–4147.
[CrossRef]
12. Arnone, E.; Pumo, D.; Francipane, A.; La Loggia, G.; Noto, L.V. The Role of Urban Growth, Climate Change, and Their Interplay
in Altering Runoff Extremes. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 1755–1770. [CrossRef]
13. Zhou, Q.; Leng, G.; Su, J.; Ren, Y. Comparison of Urbanization and Climate Change Impacts on Urban Flood Volumes: Importance
of Urban Planning and Drainage Adaptation. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 658, 24–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Barbosa, A.E.; Fernandes, J.N.; David, L.M. Key Issues for Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management. Water Res. 2012, 46,
6787–6798. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Burns, M.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Walsh, C.J.; Ladson, A.R.; Hatt, B.E. Hydrologic Shortcomings of Conventional Urban Stormwater
Management and Opportunities for Reform. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 230–240. [CrossRef]
Water 2022, 14, 1367 29 of 30
16. Miller, J.D.; Hutchins, M. The Impacts of Urbanisation and Climate Change on Urban Flooding and Urban Water Quality: A
Review of the Evidence Concerning the United Kingdom. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2017, 12, 345–362. [CrossRef]
17. Jung, I.W.; Chang, H.; Moradkhani, H. Quantifying Uncertainty in Urban Flooding Analysis Considering Hydro-Climatic
Projection and Urban Development Effects. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 617–633. [CrossRef]
18. Mahmoud, S.H.; Gan, T.Y. Urbanization and Climate Change Implications in Flood Risk Management: Developing an Efficient
Decision Support System for Flood Susceptibility Mapping. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 152–167. [CrossRef]
19. Wu, X.; Wang, Z.; Guo, S.; Liao, W.; Zeng, Z.; Chen, X. Scenario-Based Projections of Future Urban Inundation within a Coupled
Hydrodynamic Model Framework: A Case Study in Dongguan City, China. J. Hydrol. 2017, 547, 428–442. [CrossRef]
20. Chan, F.K.S.; Yang, L.E.; Scheffran, J.; Mitchell, G.; Adekola, O.; Griffiths, J.; Chen, Y.; Li, G.; Lu, X.; Qi, Y.; et al. Urban flood risks
and emerging challenges in a Chinese delta: The case of the Pearl River Delta. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 122, 101–115. [CrossRef]
21. Won, Y.-M.; Lee, J.-H.; Moon, H.-T.; Moon, Y.-I. Development and Application of an Urban Flood Forecasting and Warning
Process to Reduce Urban Flood Damage: A Case Study of Dorim River Basin, Seoul. Water 2022, 14, 187. [CrossRef]
22. Dieperink, C.; Mees, H.; Priest, S.J.; Ek, k.; Bruzzone, S.; Larrue, C.; Matczak, P. Managing Urban Flood Resilience as a Multilevel
Governance Challenge: An Analysis of Required Multilevel Coordination Mechanisms. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 230131. [CrossRef]
23. Munawar, H.S.; Khan, S.I.; Anum, N.; Qadir, Z.; Kouzani, A.Z.; Parvez Mahmud, M.A. Post-Flood Risk Management and
Resilience Building Practices: A Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4823. [CrossRef]
24. Fletcher, T.D.; Shuster, W.; Hunt, W.F.; Ashley, R.; Butler, D.; Arthur, S.; Trowsdale, S.; Barraud, S.; Semadeni-Davies, A.; Bertrand-
Krajewski, J.-L.; et al. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and More—The Evolution and Application of Terminology Surrounding Urban
Drainage. Urban Water J. 2015, 12, 525–542. [CrossRef]
25. Ballard, B.W.; Wilson, S.; Udale-Clarke, H.; Illman, S.; Scott, T.; Ashley, R.; Kellagher, R. The SuDS Manual; Department for
Environment Food & Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2015; pp. 1–964.
26. Maqbool, R.; Wood, H. Containing a sustainable urbanized environment through SuDS devices in management trains. Sci. Total
Environ. 2022, 807, 150812. [CrossRef]
27. Seyedashraf, O.; Bottacin-Busolin, A.; Harou, J.J. Many-Objective Optimization of Sustainable Drainage Systems in Urban Areas
with Different Surface Slopes. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 35, 2449–2464. [CrossRef]
28. Jato-Espino, D.; Toro-Huertas, E.I.; Güereca, L.P. Lifecycle sustainability assessment for the comparison of traditional and
sustainable drainage systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 817, 152959. [CrossRef]
29. Zahmatkesh, Z.; Burian, S.J.; Karamouz, M.; Tavakol-Davani, H.; Goharian, E. Low-Impact Development Practices to Mitigate
Climate Change Effects on Urban Stormwater Runoff: Case Study of New York City. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2015, 141, 04014043.
[CrossRef]
30. Bedan, E.S.; Clausen, J.C. Stormwater Runoff Quality and Quantity from Traditional and Low Impact Development Watersheds.
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2009, 45, 998–1008. [CrossRef]
31. Hou, J.; Mao, H.; Li, J.; Sun, S. Spatial Simulation of the Ecological Processes of Stormwater for Sponge Cities. J. Environ. Manag.
2019, 232, 574–583. [CrossRef]
32. Zubelzu, S.; Rodríguez-Sinobas, L.; Andrés-Domenech, I.; Castillo-Rodríguez, J.T.; Perales-Momparler, S. Design of Water Reuse
Storage Facilities in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems from a Volumetric Water Balance Perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,
663, 133–143. [CrossRef]
33. Haghighatafshar, S.; Jansen, J.L.C.; Aspegren, H.; Jönsson, K. Conceptualization and Schematization of Mesoscale Sustainable
Drainage Systems: A Full-Scale Study. Water 2018, 10, 1041. [CrossRef]
34. Loperfido, J.V.; Noe, G.B.; Jarnagin, S.T.; Hogan, D.M. Effects of Distributed and Centralized Stormwater Best Management
Practices and Land Cover on Urban Stream Hydrology at the Catchment Scale. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 2584–2595. [CrossRef]
35. Kim, H.W.; Park, Y. Urban Green Infrastructure and Local Flooding: The Impact of Landscape Patterns on Peak Runoff in Four
Texas MSAs. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 77, 72–81. [CrossRef]
36. Mejia, A.I.; Moglen, G.E. Impact of the Spatial Distribution of Imperviousness on the Hydrologic Response of an Urbanizing
Basin. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24, 3359–3373. [CrossRef]
37. Liang, C.Y.; You, G.J.Y.; Lee, H.Y. Investigating the Effectiveness and Optimal Spatial Arrangement of Low Impact Development
Facilities. J. Hydrol. 2019, 577, 124008. [CrossRef]
38. Chen, P.Y.; Tung, C.P.; Li, Y.H. Low Impact Development Planning and Adaptation Decision-Making under Climate Change for a
Community against Pluvial Flooding. Water 2017, 9, 756. [CrossRef]
39. Kong, F.; Ban, Y.; Yin, H.; James, P.; Dronova, I. Modeling Stormwater Management at the City District Level in Response to
Changes in Land Use and Low Impact Development. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 95, 132–142. [CrossRef]
40. Zeng, S.; Guo, H.; Dong, X. Understanding the Synergistic Effect between LID Facility and Drainage Network: With a Compre-
hensive Perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 849–859. [CrossRef]
41. Eckart, K.; Mcphee, Z.; Bolisetti, T. Performance and Implementation of Low Impact Development—A Review. Sci. Total Environ.
2017, 607, 413–432. [CrossRef]
42. Johnson, R.D.; Sample, D.J. Environmental Modelling & Software A Semi-Distributed Model for Locating Stormwater Best
Management Practices in Coastal Environments. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 91, 70–86. [CrossRef]
Water 2022, 14, 1367 30 of 30
43. Joyce, J.; Chang, N.B.; Harji, R.; Ruppert, T.; Imen, S. Developing a Multi-Scale Modeling System for Resilience Assessment of
Green-Grey Drainage Infrastructures under Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Impact. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 90, 1–26.
[CrossRef]
44. Johnson, D.; Geisendorf, S. Are Neighborhood-Level SUDS Worth It? An Assessment of the Economic Value of Sustainable Urban
Drainage System Scenarios Using Cost-Benefit Analyses. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 158, 194–205. [CrossRef]
45. Guo, R.; Ding, Y.; Shang, L.; Wang, D.; Cao, X.; Wang, S.; Bonatz, N.; Wang, L. Sustainability-Oriented Urban Renewal and
Low-Impact Development Applications in China: Case Study of Yangpu District, Shanghai. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2018,
4, 5017006. [CrossRef]
46. Latifi, M.; Rakhshandehroo, G.; Nikoo, M.R.; Sadegh, M. A Game Theoretical Low Impact Development Optimization Model for
Urban Storm Water Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118323. [CrossRef]
47. Kaykhosravi, S.; Abogadil, K.; Khan, U.T.; Jadidi, M.A. The Low-Impact Development Demand Index: A New Approach to
Identifying Locations for LID. Water 2019, 11, 2341. [CrossRef]
48. Martin-Mikle, C.J.; De Beurs, K.M.; Julian, J.P.; Mayer, P.M. Identifying Priority Sites for Low Impact Development (LID) in a
Mixed-Use Watershed. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 140, 29–41. [CrossRef]
49. Hou, J.; Zhu, M.; Wang, Y.; Sun, S. Optimal Spatial Priority Scheme of Urban LID-BMPs under Different Investment Periods.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 202, 103858. [CrossRef]
50. Jia, H.; Yao, H.; Tang, Y.; Yu, S.L.; Zhen, J.X.; Lu, Y. Development of a Multi-Criteria Index Ranking System for Urban Runoff Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Selection. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 7915–7933. [CrossRef]
51. Yin, D.; Evans, B.; Wang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Jia, H.; Chen, A.S.; Fu, G.; Ahmad, S.; Leng, L. Integrated 1D and 2D Model for Better
Assessing Runoff Quantity Control of Low Impact Development Facilities on Community Scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720,
137630. [CrossRef]
52. Cai, Y.; Lin, X.; Yue, W.; Zhang, P. Inexact Fuzzy Chance-Constrained Programming for Community-Scale Urban Stormwater
Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 937–945. [CrossRef]
53. Zellner, M.; Massey, D.; Minor, E.; Gonzalez-Meler, M. Exploring the Effects of Green Infrastructure Placement on Neighborhood-
Level Flooding via Spatially Explicit Simulations. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2016, 59, 116–128. [CrossRef]
54. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Spatial Planning for Multifunctional Green Infrastructure: Growing Resilience in Detroit. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2017, 159, 62–75. [CrossRef]
55. Defra Data Service Platform. Available online: https://environment.data.gov.uk/DefraDataDownload/?Mode=survey (accessed
on 15 August 2020).
56. Flood Risk Maps for Surface Water in England—December 2019. Available online: https://environment.maps.arcgis.com/apps/
MapSeries/index.html?appid=bfe44552ba1849d594de7b40fdcfa685# (accessed on 14 August 2020).
57. Rossman, L.A. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual Version 5.1; National Risk Management Research Laboratory; Office
of Research and Development; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2015; pp. 1–327.
58. Soilscapes—Cranfield Soil and Agrifood Institute. Available online: http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/index.cfm (accessed
on 15 August 2020).
59. Faulkner, D. Flood Estimation Handbook 2: Rainfall Frequency Estimation; Centre for Ecology & Hydrology: Oxford, UK, 2008;
pp. 1–110.
60. Flood Estimation Handbook Web Service. Available online: https://fehweb.ceh.ac.uk/ (accessed on 15 August 2020).
61. Xia, X.; Liang, Q.; Ming, X. A Full-Scale Fluvial Flood Modelling Framework Based on a High-Performance Integrated Hydrody-
namic Modelling System (HiPIMS). Adv. Water Resour. 2019, 132, 103392. [CrossRef]
Copyright of Water (20734441) is the property of MDPI and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Content Server

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Content Server

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Content Server

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

water

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

Water 2022, 14, 1367. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091367 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

studies have suggested optimizing the spatial distribution by establishing a multi-standard

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

parameters of mini-catchments were set up according to

2.3. Design Storms

2.4. Flood Simulation Configuration

2.5. SuDS Spatial Distribution Scenarios

Table 1. Summary of the distribution strategies in scenarios 1 to 27.

Scenarios Strategy for Rain Gardens Strategy for Green R

Table 1. Summary of the distribution strategies in scenarios 1 to 27.

Scenarios Strategy for Rain Gardens Strategy for Green Roofs

The connectedness equals the number of functional joins between mini-catchments of

2.6. The Performance Assessment Criteria of Spatial Distribution Scenarios

Table 2. Parameter settings of the hypothetical subcatchment in the SWMM model.

Object Parameter Value Unit

Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 31

Figure 11. SWMM detailed reports on green roofs in 3 h rainfall events.

3.2. The Simulation Results of the SWMM Model

Figure 16. The time Figure

3.3. The Simulation Results of the HiPIMS Model

Figure 17. The time series

As shown in Figure 17a–e, the increase of connectivity between SuDS components

Figure 20. The time Figure

Figure 21. The time series

Figure 22. The time series 22. The

You might also like