See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329714801

Evaluating Flood Risk Reduction by Urban Blue-Green Infrastructure Using

Insurance Data

Article  in  Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management · December 2018

DOI: 10.1061/%28ASCE%29WR.1943-5452.0001037

CITATIONS READS
0 364

2 authors:

Johanna Sörensen Tobias Emilsson

Lund University Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
21 PUBLICATIONS   193 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   884 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Green Walls (FORMAS) View project

Evaluation of blue-green solutions in urban storm water systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johanna Sörensen on 06 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluating Flood Risk Reduction by Urban Blue-Green
Infrastructure Using Insurance Data
J. Sörensen, Ph.D. 1; and T. Emilsson, Ph.D. 2

Abstract: One of many important features of blue-green infrastructure is the ability to lower flood risks by detention of stormwater.
This ability of flood risk reduction has for the first time been evaluated with empirical data in this study. In 2014, Malmö, Sweden, was
hit with extreme precipitation corresponding to a return period of 50–200 years that led to severe pluvial flooding. This and other large events
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

presented the opportunity to evaluate the efficiency of the 15-year-old stormwater system retrofit in the Augustenborg area (30 ha). Blue-
green infrastructure is widely promoted for climate change adaptation, making this unique case important in the discussion of the capabilities
of the related technical solutions. The long-term trends showed less flood damage in Augustenborg than in similar neighborhoods that have
conventional sewer systems (combined or separate), indicating a direct effect of the retrofit with stormwater control measures. Even though a
few properties were flooded in Augustenborg, it was shown that the retrofitted stormwater system performed successfully during the extreme
event in 2014. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001037. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Extreme precipitation; Pluvial flooding; Best management practices (BMP); Green infrastructure (GI); Low impact
development (LID); Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS).

Introduction very much at the heart of development of the city of Malmö,

The societal consequences of flooding are severe. In the developed
world, flooding primarily causes financial loss, but there are also
reports of direct mortality and indirect health effects from contami-
nation of drinking water and failing sanitation systems (Kunkel
et al. 1999; Schmitt et al. 2016). In Europe, flooding is expected
to increase due to climate change (Jongman et al. 2014). More in-
tense rainfall and more flood events are expected in several regions
worldwide (IPCC 2014). In combination with current land use
changes due to urbanization, this will increase problems with urban
pluvial flooding (Semadeni-Davies et al. 2008).
There is a need for proactive planning, design, and implemen-
tation of a range of solutions to mitigate future problems with urban
pluvial flooding (Sörensen et al. 2016). Blue-green stormwater
control measures, e.g., best management practices (BMP), sustain-
able urban drainage systems (SUDS), water sensitive urban design
(WSUD), and low impact development (LID), are designed and
installed to decrease urban runoff and reduce peak flows but have
also during recent years been put forward as a component of larger
concepts, including green infrastructure and blue-green infrastruc-
ture (Lerer et al. 2015) and nature based solutions, as defined by
the European Union (European Commission 2013; European
Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
2015). These concepts focus on multifunctionality, connectivity,
innovation, social factors, cocreation, and involvement as key suc-
cess factors for implementation of solutions for improved quality of
urban spaces and for combating urban flooding, which have been
1
Dept. of Water Resources Engineering, Lund Univ., P.O. Box 118,
Lund S-221 00, Sweden (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0002-2312-4917. Email: johanna.sorensen@tvrl.lth.se
2
Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish
Univ. of Agricultural Sciences, Box 66, Alnarp S-230 53, Sweden.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 29, 2017; approved on
August 20, 2018; published online on December 14, 2018. Discussion per-
iod open until May 14, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9496.
especially the Augustenborg neighborhood.
Urban flooding can be categorized in many ways: pluvial flood-
ing, fluvial flooding, sewer system failure, flash floods, ground-
water flooding, ice melt flooding, and coastal flooding are often
mentioned in the literature (Douglas et al. 2007; Zevenbergen et al.
2010 (pp. 42–45); Saul et al. 2011). This study focuses on pluvial
flooding, which is caused by extreme local storms when the drain-
age capacity is exceeded (Maksimović et al. 2009). Urban drainage
systems often have a limited hydraulic capacity that is designed to
cope with precipitation with, for example, a 10-year return period
(Svenskt Vatten 2016). This means that even when design standards
are followed, minor and moderate flood events will occur on aver-
age every 10 years.
There have been numerous investigations on the performance
of blue-green infrastructure under moderate rain events (Villarreal
et al. 2004; Shukri 2010; Qin et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2014; Sebti et al.
2014, but to our knowledge, no systems installed with stormwater
control measures have been evaluated during extreme events, as
these events are rare. Past research on flood reduction with storm-
water control measures focused on model simulations, including
three studies made in Augustenborg (Villarreal et al. 2004; Shukri
2010; Haghighatafshar et al. 2018). Hydraulic modeling can give a
rough estimate of the effects of extreme events, but there are some
problems related to such modeling. Beven (2008) divides model
construction into three parts: first, a perceptual model, which is
how observers understand the physical system, including the full
complexity of the system; second, a formal model, which is the
mathematical description of the system; and finally, a procedural
model, which is the model that runs on the computer. As necessary,
approximate numerical solutions are implemented. In all these
parts, extreme event modeling is problematic. As extreme events
are uncommon, modelers’ understanding of how the system be-
haves during extreme situations is limited. As little data is available,
calibration and validation of extreme events is difficult. Despite
this, modeling is a powerful tool to evaluate the hydraulic function
of different measures; however, other methods must be used to

© ASCE 04018099-1 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099

 evaluate flood control effects achieved by blue-green infrastructure
during extreme events.
In this study, we chose to use insurance claims to evaluate the
performance of integrated blue-green infrastructure on urban flood
reduction, because they are a direct, measurable result of extreme
rainfall. Flood insurance data from a long series of flood events,
including one extreme event, are used for this evaluation. In
Sweden, property losses from overland flooding, flooding of drain-
age systems, and flooding from groundwater intrusion are typically
covered by an insurance company. The property owner (e.g., a per-
son or company) can make a claim both to the insurance company
and to the water utility company. The water utility will cover the
deductible from the insurance company. In addition, the water
utility company collects flood reports from other property owners
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and covers claims from insurance companies. Due to this system,
spatial data on flooded properties are available. Similar data sets
have previously been used in several studies, for example, to ana-
lyze the distribution of large claims (Smith and Goodman 2000);
to validate of urban flood inundation and damage models (Chen
et al. 2009; Zhou et al. 2013); to study correlations and links be-
tween extreme rainfall, their characteristics, and flood damage
(Spekkers et al. 2013b, a; Torgersen et al. 2015; Sörensen and
Mobini 2017); and to analyze buildings’ exposure and the influence
of spatial placement variables for vulnerability to lake floods and
extreme rainfall (Grahn and Nyberg 2014; Torgersen et al. 2015).
However, no such studies on the performance of stormwater control
measures during extreme events were found.
The extreme rain event that hit Malmö on August 31, 2014, is
central to this study. Almost the entire city was affected, and about
3 000 properties were reported flooded (SMHI 2014; Lindher
2015; Hernebring et al. 2015; Sörensen and Mobini 2017). Streets,
houses, underground garages, and even the hospital were flooded.
Several families could not move back to their homes for more than
a year. The return period was estimated at 50–200 years. The in-
tense rainfall and the severe flooding following it make this event
suitable for evaluation of flood reduction by blue-green infra-
structure in Augustenborg. The evaluation is also needed given the
current interest in installation of stormwater control measures and
nature-based solutions for the mitigation of problems related to
urbanization and climate change. Few places have been retrofitted
with blue-green infrastructure as extensively as this area. It is hard
to find any similar evaluation of flood reduction with historical data
in the scientific literature.
Thus, the present study was an in-depth analysis of flood claims
from property owners that were affected by the severe storm in
August 2014 as well as by other events during a 20-year period.
The function of the blue-green infrastructure was evaluated by a
combination of insurance data and flood reports in relation to flood
events during the 20-year period, including the severe single storm
event that hit Malmö in 2014. Flood risk was evaluated by studying
the damage during these historical events, which are assumed to
be representative for urban pluvial flood events in the dense urban
fabric of midsize cities in temperate climates.
Our investigation compared a 30-ha area retrofitted according
to typical principles for design of blue-green infrastructure with
stormwater control measures (Stahre 2008) with adjacent conven-
tional neighborhoods where no or very few stormwater control
measures had been installed. The study used insurance claims to
investigate (1) the long-term trends of these claims in the selected
neighborhoods; (2) the direct effect of the retrofit as observed from
preinstallation and postinstallation data; and, in particular; and
(3) the performance of a completely retrofitted neighborhood
during an extreme rainfall event.
© ASCE 04018099-2
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099
Methods
Study Area
This investigation was set in the southern part of Malmö, Sweden
[Fig. 1(a)], where a large-scale retrofit of an existing neighbor-
hood, Augustenborg (55°34′45″N 13°01′30″E), took place in a
project called Eco-City Augustenborg in the late 1990s. Eco-City
Augustenborg was used in this investigation of flood risk reduction
by blue-green infrastructure because the retrofit of the combined
drainage system was completed with stormwater control measures
as an alternative to installation of a conventional separated pipe sys-
tem. To be able to discuss the effects of blue-green infrastructure on
flooding, Augustenborg was compared with the nearby neighbor-
hoods of Persborg, Lönngården, Lindgatan, Södra Sofielund, and
Norra Sofielund [Fig. 1(b)]. These areas are similar to Augustenborg
in several ways, with the exception that stormwater control mea-
sures have not been implemented in them. Fig. 1(b) shows the land
use types from the Urban Atlas (European Commission 2012), with
the degree of sealing for urban fabric noted in parentheses.
About 3,000 people live in the Augustenborg area in 3- to
6-story apartment blocks built in 1948–1952. Lawns, bushes, and
trees were planted around the buildings from the start, but with no
direct function for stormwater drainage. The objectives to renew
Augustenborg in the late 1990s, after a long period of degradation,
were to achieve sustainable urban development, to make the build-
ings energy efficient, to improve solid waste management, to stop
basement flooding, to provide renewable energy, to involve resi-
dents in the development of their neighborhood, and to make the
environment greener. This study focuses mainly on flood reduction
by the blue-green infrastructure that was implemented during the
retrofit of Augustenborg. During the last 15 years, the multifunc-
tional systems in Augustenborg have been investigated in relation
to other aspects such as citizen involvement (Krantz and Hjerpe
2002), environmental assessment (Ludzia et al. 2014), green roof
maintenance (Emilsson et al. 2007), water quality (Berndtsson et al.
2006; Ahmed 2010), water runoff quantity (Bengtsson et al. 2004),
blue-green infrastructure design and maintenance (Söderblom
2004), and biodiversity (Ohlsson 2001, 2002). The area continues
to be developed, most recently by densification of the area by the
construction of a 14-story building in 2016.
The Augustenborg blue-green infrastructure contains flow
detention in ponds and areas for temporary flooding, infiltration on
green roofs, lawns, and parking, as well as slow transport in swales,
ditches, and channels (Stahre 2008). The blue-green infrastruc-
ture was constructed by the end of the 1990s by Malmö Service
Administration and Malmö Water (today the VA Syd utility com-
pany) and MKB (housing company) (Stahre 2008). An existing
combined sewerage system was upgraded and separated with soft
(vegetated) and hard (constructed) features for detention and trans-
portation of stormwater. Low-lying green areas were made avail-
able for controlled inundation. The capacity of the blue-green
infrastructure is unknown, and it was not designed according to
a particular standard. The old combined sewers are still used for
wastewater, and backwater valves are not installed in basements.
Two pictures from the area of the first redevelopment phase are
shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows a sketch of the blue-green infrastruc-
ture. The division between the southern and northern parts of the
system is marked with a dashed line. The main flow direction is
from southeast to northwest in both systems. Minor drains and
small areas for controlled inundation are not shown.
The piped drainage system of Augustenborg is dominated by
a combined system (225–750 mm). However, as the blue-green in-
frastructure manages most of the stormwater, the combined system
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. (a) Malmö, showing study areas, main sewers, and system types, with inset showing Malmö marked on map of Europe; and (b) study areas:
Norra Sofielund, Södra Sofielund, Lönngården, Persborg, Lindgatan, and Augustenborg.

Fig. 2. (a) Channel; and (b) pond in Augustenborg in the southern area, which was redeveloped during the first phase of retrofit. The area shown
in (b) was reconstructed from a wetland to double ponds with a small brook between them for aesthetic and maintenance reasons. (Images by
J. Sörensen.)

acts almost as a separate system for sewerage only. Through the
central part of the area, a stormwater pipe (300–600 mm) con-
structed in 2002–2003 complements the blue-green infrastructure
by draining the main street.
The southern part of Augustenborg’s blue-green infrastructure
consists of an upstream, industrial area with 2,000 m2 of imper-
meable paving in the southeastern corner of the area. At the indus-
trial site there are 1,500 m2 of green roofs. The water is gathered
in two small ponds, interconnected with a channel. From the down-
stream pond, the water is pumped to a small wetland, where a
further 3,000 m2 of paved surfaces and 1,000 m2 of roofs are con-
nected. The discharge is detained in two dry detention ponds. From
the ponds, the main channel leads the stormwater toward two
wet ponds. The channel is 170 m long and slopes approximately
1%. The full capacity of the channel is 200 L=s. Additional storm-
water from 1,500 m2 of permeable paving, 3,000 m2 of roofs, and
1,300 m2 of semipermeable surfaces discharges into the channel.
A miniwetland of 100 m2 is placed along the channel, into which
the channel can overflow. (Bengtsson et al. 2004) The original
blue-green infrastructure was constructed with a large (750 m2 )
wetland at the end of the channel. This wetland was later divided
into two ponds with a grassy area between them and a small brook
interlinking the ponds, for aesthetic and maintenance reasons
(Söderblom 2004; Stahre 2008). After this double pond, the flow
continues via an overflow to a channel. This is a 100-m long chan-
nel with concrete cubes of different heights on the bottom that are

© ASCE 04018099-3 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099

 measures in Augustenborg is unknown. However, the size of the
most important detention basins was measured, and the total stor-
age capacity of ponds and swales in Augustenborg was estimated at
up to 1,000 m3 during extreme rainfall. In addition, the grassy area
that has been lowered in the central public park can probably store
up to 3,000 or 4,000 m3 during extreme rainfall.
Residential area The five nearby areas used for comparison can, similarly to
Augustenborg, be described as urbanized with mostly medium-
dense to dense urban fabric [Fig. 1(b)]. Norra Sofielund has more
Park
continuous urban fabric than the other areas. Land use is predomi-
nantly residential with some industrial and commercial areas. Only
School a few areas are green urban areas or areas for sport and leisure ac-
tivities. The building coverage is 20% in Augustenborg, compared
with 19%–30% in the five nearby areas used as comparison areas
Roof
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Green roof
Swale
Industrial area
Channel
Brook
Pond
Floodable
land
0 500 m
Fig. 3. Augustenborg blue-green infrastructure with swales, channels,
brooks, ponds, and floodable land for controlled inundation marked.
Green roofs in the area are also shown. Minor drains and small areas
for controlled inundation are not shown. The main flow direction is
from southeast to northwest, and the southern and northern system
is divided by a dashed line.
intended to slow down the water flow. The channel ends in a public
park where the grass area has been modified to make space for the
water in a bioswale type of installation. Through the park, a me-
andering swale leads the water toward a pond, from which there
is an overflow to the municipal stormwater pipe system (Stahre
2008). For further description of the southern part of the blue-green
infrastructure in Augustenborg, see Villarreal et al. (2004).
The northern part of Augustenborg’s blue-green infrastructure
consists of a long, grassy swale that has partly been designed as
a rain garden. Stormwater is collected from buildings through small
concrete channels and led to the swale. The uppermost part of the
swale is about 200 m. It leads to an open pond, and from there the
flow goes under a street through a siphon pipe. Another 300 m of
swale leads the water from the siphon pipe to a 60-m long concrete
channel, ending in a small pond. (Stahre 2008).
Due to lack of reports on actual usage during the flood event
on August 31, 2014, the full capacity of the stormwater control
(Table 1). Roads and parking cover between 31% and 42% of the
areas, with the least roads and parking in Lönngården and Persborg
and the most in Lindgatan. The total approximate imperviousness is
57% in Augustenborg and between 50% and 70% in the nearby
areas. Some buildings in Lindgatan and Södra Sofielund were con-
structed in the 1910s and 1920s, but most of the land was agricul-
tural land until the 1930s when this part of Malmö was urbanized.
Augustenborg and later Persborg were not urbanized until late
1940s and early 1950s. All the areas were constructed with a com-
bined sewer system, which was the dominating system in Sweden
until at least the 1950s (Cettner et al. 2012). Later, the sewer sys-
tems in some areas were reconstructed with separate stormwater
and sanitary sewers. Following are descriptions of the five nearby
areas. Information on buildings came from The City of Malmö
Cultural and Environment Department and the County Administra-
tive Board of Skåne (2001, 2002, 2004), and information on the
pipe systems was received from VA Syd.
Lindgatan is part of Augustenborg but was not part of the Eco-
City development, and it is regarded as a separate area in this study.
The oldest stormwater pipes in the area are from 1927, whereas
most of the stormwater pipes (600 mm) and the sewerage pipes
(200 mm) are from 2001. The system has separate stormwater and
sewerage pipes.
Lönngården has combined sewers from 1935–1936. The pri-
vately owned 4-story buildings are placed perpendicular to the
main roads to the north and the south of the area, with green yards
in between. Under each of the roads is a 450-mm pipeline, inter-
connected by 300-mm pipes between the buildings.
Norra Sofielund. The northern half of the area consists of
4-story apartment buildings with closed inner yards. The combined
sewers (225–450 mm) in this area are from 1935–1936. In the
south, the buildings are generally lower and smaller, typically with
two stories. This part of the area has a separate sewer system in
which most pipes were constructed in 1975–1980. The separate

Table 1. Calculated building and road coverage and drainage system details in Augustenborg and the five nearby areas compared in this study
Total
Building Road approximate Maximum pipe
Area coverage coverage imperviousness Period of dimension
Name of area (ha) (%) (%) (%) construction Dominating drainage system type (mm)
Augustenborg 30 20 37 57 1948–1952 Blue-green infrastructure; old combined 750 (pipe in
system used as sanitary sewer combined system)
Lindgatan 3.4 20 42 62 1910s–1960 Separate 600
Lönngården 9.2 19 31 50 1935–1936 Combined 450
Norra Sofielund 25 29 41 70 (1910s)1935–1936 North: combined; south: separate North: 450; south: 600
Södra Sofielund 33 30 38 68 1910s–1950s Combined; west: separate 750; west: 1,000a
Persborg 11 19 31 50 mid-1950s Combined 600
a
One of the main interceptor sewer pipes lies in this area, a 2,000-mm combined stormwater and waste water pipe.

© ASCE 04018099-4 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099

 sewerage pipes are 225–400 mm and the separate stormwater pipes
are mainly 300–600 mm.
Södra Sofielund. The first pipes in the drainage system were
constructed in 1910, whereas most of the system is from the
1930s and 1940s (225–750 mm, combined system). Between 1965
and 1985, the western part of Södra Sofielund, which consists
mainly of small, privately owned houses, was separated with a new
sewerage pipe (225–1,000 mm). The old combined pipes were
turned into stormwater pipes. One of the main interceptor sewer
pipes, a 2,000-mm concrete pipe that drains a large area with the
combined system, runs through the area. This sewer was constructed
in 2000 as a combined stormwater and wastewater pipe. The area
used to consist of mainly industrial buildings and open land until the
1930s and 1950s, when residential buildings were erected. There are
still industrial buildings in the area. The apartment blocks in the area
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
have both closed and half-public courtyards.
Persborg was built upon in the mid-1950s by MKB. The mean-
dering placement of the buildings ensures spacious green yards be-
tween the redbrick buildings. The drainage system consists of a
combined sewer system constructed in 1954, reaching from south
(300-mm concrete pipe) to north (600-mm concrete pipe).
Data
The flood claim data used in this study consist mainly of two data
sets: one from the insurance company Länsförsäkringar Skåne (LF
Skåne) (received March 24, 2015), and the other from the water
utility company, VA Syd (received March 14, 2016). The data set
from LF Skåne, the dominating insurance company in the region,
contains 9,704 reported flooded properties in the Scania Region,
southern Sweden, during a period of 28 years (1987–2015), and
the data set from VA Syd contains 5,868 claims and reports from
Malmö and neighboring municipalities for the period between June
1990 and March 2016 (26 years). In general, there is consistency
between the data from LF Skåne and from VA Syd (Sörensen and
Mobini 2017), and the material provides confidence in estimates of
flood extent from both small and severe flood events. Data from LF
Skåne are not considered as reliable before 2007 as after 2007, and
these data were therefore not used in the study. The data set from
the water utility company covers mostly flooding events in which
water entered the building from the sewerage system. In addition to
the long-term data sets from LF Skåne and VA Syd, data represent-
ing the severe flood event on August 31, 2014, were received from
the Malmö municipal housing company, MKB (25 claims); the
insurance companies Lifra (33 claims), IF Skadeförsäkring (list
of number of flooded properties for each postal code), and Moderna
Försäkring (132 claims); and the municipal property manager
Stadsfastigheter (165 claims). The insurance database covers prop-
erty loss from overland flooding, groundwater intrusion through
basement walls, and flooding from the drainage system, and it was
used as a proxy for flood severity for different events.
Rainfall data were collected from the Swedish Meteorological
and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), which has one station in Malmö
(Station A), and VA Syd, which has eight stationary stations. Station
MA03 Augustenborg Ystadvägen, located in the botanical roof
garden in Augustenborg, is the closest station for all study areas
(<2 km). Data from a mobile station in Söderkulla was also used in
the data analysis of the 2014 event. SMHI measures the volume of
precipitation every 15 min, whereas all VA Syd stations are tipping
buckets with 0.2-mm bucket volume. Data from VA Syd were con-
verted to 5-min precipitation volume before further analysis.
Data on topography in a 2 × 2 m grid were retrieved from the
Swedish official digital elevation model, Ny Nationell Höjdmodell
(NNH). The vertical error of the elevation model is 5 cm and
© ASCE 04018099-5
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099
the horizontal error is 25 cm on average for open, hard surfaces
(Swedish National Mapping, Cadastral, Land Registration Authority
2015).
Analysis
Flood magnitude was defined as the number of flooded properties
per hectare (NFP/ha). For comparison, the number of flooded prop-
erties per number of addresses (NFP/address) was used, as the num-
ber of addresses in an area is (loosely) connected to the number
of sewer connections. Each entrance typically has its own address
(e.g., Augustenborgsgatan 3A, 3B, 3C, etc.). The number of
flooded properties per total number of properties was also consid-
ered as a measure for flood magnitude. However, it turned out that
the size of the properties in the different areas is inhomogeneous,
and the other measures (NFP/ha and NFP/address) therefore gave a
better picture of the flood magnitude.
Thorough quality control was made for all data points in the LF
Skåne data set. This data set contains the Swedish unique identi-
fying numbers for parcels (fastighetsbeteckning). All parcel num-
bers were verified against cadastral data as street addresses were
needed to georeference the data points. The online tool Batchgeo
was used for georeferencing of the LF Skåne data set, and a random
set of the georeferenced data points (∼10%) were then manually
verified. For the VA Syd data set, this procedure was not needed,
as both the flooded addresses and georeferences were given.
To study the flood reduction in Augustenborg after the blue-
green infrastructure was implemented in the district, the flood mag-
nitude during 2007–2015 was compared with the those of nearby
areas Lindgatan, Lönngården, Norra and Södra Sofielund, and
Persborg. Insurance claims and reports from both VA Syd and LF
Skåne were used in this analysis.
A bootstrap resampling technique was used to statistically evalu-
ate long-term differences between flood magnitudes in the retrofit-
ted area Augustenborg and those in the five nearby areas. Flood
magnitudes were listed for each event in each area, and 1,000 ran-
dom samples were taken from the Augustenborg list and the list of
one other area. This procedure was repeated 10,000 times. The com-
parisons with Augustenborg were done independently for all five
nearby areas. As the 2014 event dominated the flood statistics in
Malmö, the bootstrap analysis was done both including and exclud-
ing this event. Data from both VA Syd and LF Skåne were used for
these analyses.
Data from VA Syd were used to compare flood claims during
one period before blue-green infrastructure was implemented in
Augustenborg with flood claims after the implementation. The
comparison was done for Augustenborg as well as the other nearby
areas to assess similarities and differences in detected changes.
Detailed information about the 2014 event is presented in this
study to evaluate the function of the blue-green infrastructure dur-
ing an extreme flood event. This event was of particular interest,
as such extreme events are uncommon and no similar event had
previously been reported in the literature on flood reduction by
blue-green infrastructure.
Results
In this section, we present first the long-term trends of reported
insurance claims in the selected neighborhoods, second, the direct
effect of the retrofit on flood frequency, on the basis of preinstal-
lation and postinstallation data, and finally, the performance of a
completely retrofitted neighborhood during an extreme rainfall
event.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 Table 2. Flood magnitude in Augustenborg and five similar areas for 99% bootstrap confidence interval (Fig. 4) in Augustenborg, com-
2007–2015 with the severe flood event in 2014 shown separately pared with all the nearby areas individually. The test was also per-
Flood magnitude (NFP/ha) formed without the 2014 event, giving the same result.
Area 2007–2015a August 31, 2014
Augustenborg 0.03 0.37 Direct Effect of the Retrofit on Flood Frequency Based
Lindgatan 0.29 3.20 on Pre- and Post-Installation Data
Lönngården 0.87 6.16
Norra Sofielund 0.67 2.99
Augustenborg was more affected by flooding before blue-green in-
Södra Sofielund 2.02 8.96 frastructure was implemented, with five flood claims reported to
Persborg 0.54 3.57 VA Syd before and none after implementation (Table 3). However,
the number of flood claims reported was also low before implemen-
Sources: Data from Helén Nilsson at LF Skåne, personal communication,
tation. In addition, Lindgatan was less affected by flooding after
2015; Stefan Milotti at VA Syd, personal communication, 2015.
a
Does not include August 31, 2014.
implementation, which could be explained by either of two
circumstances: that the area was connected to the same sewer as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Augustenborg downstream, or that the combined sewer in the

Fig. 4. Difference in flood magnitude between Augustenborg and
the other areas. Bootstrap analysis of all events since 2007, including
August 31, 2014, with 99% confidence intervals. (Data from Helén
Nilsson at LF Skåne, personal communication, 2015; Stefan Milotti
at VA Syd, personal communication, 2015.)
Long-Term Trends of Reported Insurance Claims in the
Selected Neighborhoods
Flood reduction after stormwater retrofit in Augustenborg was
evaluated by comparison with the five nearby areas. The flood
event on August 31, 2014, dominated the flood claims in the evalu-
ated period; during 2007–2015, more than 80% of the flood
claims in Augustenborg, Lindgatan, Lönngården, Norra and Södra
Sofielund, and Persborg were reported during this single event.
Therefore, the 2014 event was considered an extreme flood event
and studied separately from the other, less severe flood events.
As presented in Table 2, the flood magnitude (number of flooded
properties per hectare) in Augustenborg was less than 1/10 the
magnitude in the other areas both during the 2014 event and during
the other events in 2007–2015.
All flood events in the period—in total, 36 events—were evalu-
ated with bootstrap statistics. It was found that the flood magnitude
was significantly lower, that is, zero differences were outside the
Lindgatan areas was separated in 2001. For the other four areas,
an equal or greater number of flood claims were reported during
the period after implementation than during the period before im-
plementation. One reason for the increase in two of the areas (Norra
and Södra Sofielund) might be heavier rainfall in the period after
implementation. It should be noted that the rainfall during the two
periods is not necessarily comparable. Another reason for the in-
crease might be degradation of the sewer system. Both these areas
have a mix of combined and separate sewers.
Reporting to VA Syd is slightly different from submitting claims
to an insurance company, as property owners report mainly to VA
Syd, and consequently there is at most one report per sewer con-
nection per event. This limits the number of reports to VA Syd from
Augustenborg, as the area consists of rental apartments owned
by the Malmö municipal housing company. Persborg, an area with
similar owner structure, is thus especially useful for comparison. In
Persborg, flooding was not reduced in the period after the retrofit of
Augustenborg. This strengthens the indication of flood reduction
by blue-green infrastructure in Augustenborg after the retrofit.
It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions on the basis of a com-
parison of flood claims before and after stormwater control mea-
sures were constructed, because there might have been a change in
several other variables such as the tendency to report flooding to VA
Syd, rainfall pattern, etc. Unfortunately, no flow measurements were
made in Augustenborg before the new system was built.
Performance of a Completely Retrofitted Neighborhood
during an Extreme Rainfall Event
The extreme rainfall event on August 31, 2014, made it possible to
evaluate flood reduction of the blue-green infrastructure in Augus-
tenborg. The rainfall corresponded to a rainfall with return period of
50–200 years and had a total volume of 60–120 mm (spatial varia-
tion). This was the biggest rainfall event since measurements started
in the late 1800s and led to severe flooding in most of Malmö as
well as in neighboring villages and in some parts of Copenhagen,
Denmark. In Augustenborg, 116 mm was measured, and most of the
rainfall (100 mm) fell within 3.5 h (Fig. 5). The rainfall was severe,
causing damage spread over all Malmö, with slightly more damage
in areas with a combined system (Sörensen and Mobini 2017). The
maximum rainfall measured at Augustenborg for 1 h was 41.6 mm.

Table 3. Flood claims reported in each area before and after stormwater control measures were constructed in Augustenborg
Period Augustenborg Lindgatan Lönngården Norra Sofielund Södra Sofielund Persborg Total
Before (1994–1999) 5 25 12 23 44 4 113
After (2009–2014) 0 3 10 39 162 3 225
Source: Data from Stefan Milotti at VA SYD, personal communication, 2015.

© ASCE 04018099-6 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Maximum precipitation volumes in Augustenborg (M03_

Augu) and average precipitation measured in Malmö [Augustenborg,
Turbinen, Djupadal, Bellevue, Limhamn, Bulltofta, Hammars Park, Fig. 6. Flood magnitude (NFP/ha) for Augustenborg and five similar
Höja, Söderkulla (mobile station), and SMHI station A] on August areas on August 31, 2014.
31, 2014, for rainfall durations between 15 min and 12 days. For com-
parison, intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves from Hernebring
et al. (2015) are shown. For the average rainfall, a 95% confidence
interval is given, assuming normal distribution of the precipitation Table 4. Number of flooded properties and flood magnitude for
for each duration. Augustenborg and the five nearby areas on August 31, 2014
NFP Flood magnitude
Area LF VA
It can be assumed that the intensity was similar in neighboring areas, Area (ha) Skåne Syd Totala (NFP/ha)b (NFP/address)
as observed at a mobile station nearby. Bengtsson and Milotti (2010) Augustenborg 30 11 0 15 0.5 0.10
reported the maximum rainfall for 1 h to be 28.6 mm (data from Lindgatan 3.4 8 3 11 3.2 0.24
1996–2007, station M03 Augustenborg) and for a nearby station Lönngården 9.2 50 7 59 6.4 0.55
(Turbinen) they found that 41.0 mm could be expected during 1 h Norra Sofielund 25 46 30 85 3.4 0.19
with a 100-year return period. As shown in Fig. 5, the return period Södra Sofielund 33 163 129 300 9.2 0.67
according to Hernebring et al. (2015) is shorter. Only for durations Persborg 11 37 3 41 3.7 0.43
longer than 2 h does the rain event exceed the 100-year rainfall Sources: Data from Helén Nilsson at LF Skåne, personal communication,
threshold. 2015; Stefan Milotti at VA SYD, personal communication, 2015; Joanna
Fig. 6 shows the flood magnitude, that is, the number of flooded Theland, personal communication, 2015.
a
properties per hectare, for August 31, 2014, as reported by five Includes data from Lifra, Stadsfast, and Moderna.
b
sources (LF Skåne, VA Syd, Lifra, Stadsfast, and Moderna). It Values are slightly higher than in Table 2, which includes only data from
LF Skåne and VA Syd.
is apparent that the level was lower in Augustenborg than in the
five nearby areas. The highest flood magnitude was found in Södra
Sofielund, through which one of Malmö’s main sewerage pipes
passes. Table 4 data show that compared with the five nearby areas Stadsfast, and Moderna, as these reports were received as a list
without blue-green infrastructure, in the same part of Malmö, ap- of flooded properties per postal area. Fig. 7 shows the number of
proximately 1/10 the properties were flooded in Augustenborg flooded properties for each postal area. It is apparent that there
during the event. Lindgatan, which was the least flooded apart from was no reported flooding in the postal area that is fully within
Augustenborg, was 6.4 times more flooded than Augustenborg, Augustenborg. From one area that is partly within Augustenborg,
whereas the most heavily flooded area, Södra Sofielund, was 18.4 partly within Södra Sofielund, and partly within Lindvägen, eight
times more flooded than Augustenborg. Flood magnitude was also flood claims were reported to IF Skadeförsäkring. Apart from the
calculated as the number of flooded properties per address (Table 4). fact that many flood claims were reported from Södra Sofielund as
The same pattern appears, although with smaller differences. It compared with all the other areas, and none from the postal area
should be noted that the number of reported flood claims was within Augustenborg, which is consistent with the reports from the
also low in Augustenborg before the blue-green infrastructure was five other sources, there is no clear pattern of flood claims from IF
implemented (Table 3). However, it seems that, in general, the num- Skadeförsäkring.
ber of reported flood claims increased, whereas that was not the Additional information regarding the effects of the flooding was
case for Augustenborg. derived from descriptive, internal reports from the local offices of
The flood reports from IF Skadeförsäkring cannot be inter- Malmö’s biggest housing company, MKB, after the flood event on
preted in the same way as the data from LF Skåne, VA Syd, Lifra, August 31, 2014. Although not all flooded properties are listed in

© ASCE 04018099-7 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Number of flooded properties reported to the insurance com-
pany IF Skadeförsäkring. The reports give only the total number of
flooded properties for each postal area; therefore, the extent of each
postal area is marked.
these reports and therefore no quantitative comparison is possible,
interesting information can still be derived from them.
The MKB flood report from Augustenborg reports that several
basements were flooded, although none of them severely. The report
includes 31 properties in Augustenborg, two properties in Lindga-
tan, and four properties in Lönngården. One garage was severely
flooded in Lindgatan. An elevator was out of order, in Lönngården
and the pavement was undermined at one place in Augustenborg.
The MKB flood report from Möllan includes 51 MKB proper-
ties in the Möllevången (outside the study area) and Norra Sofie-
lund neighborhoods. It reports that all basements were flooded with
up to 10 cm of black sewage, except for six properties. Three of the
flooded properties were in Norra Sofielund. Apart from the flooded
basements, there were few problems in the MKB properties in
Norra Sofielund.
The MKB flood report from Persborg reports that almost all the
25 MKB properties in Persborg were flooded. The basements in 18
properties and some garages were flooded.
The MKB flood report from Seved, an area within Södra
Sofielund, reports that there was 3–25 cm of black sewage in all
basements of MKB-owned properties. In three of them, it was
much worse, with 6 m of water in the most severely flooded base-
ment. In addition, basement apartments were flooded in Seved as
well as garages, although not severely. MKB has 38 properties in
total in Södra Sofielund, of which 37 are in Seved.
The reports from MKB also describe that some buildings lost
electrical power, hot water, and TV connection, that pavements
were damaged, and that elevators were broken. No human injuries
were reported, but one person was stuck in an elevator in Södra
Sofielund and luckily managed to escape by herself as the water
reached her chest (Sydsvenskan 2014). In conclusion, most damage
in Augustenborg reported internally by MKB regards pavement
and other damage outside, whereas several buildings in the other
areas were severely flooded on August 31, 2014.
© ASCE 04018099-8
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099
Discussion
Flood Risk Reduction
Blue-green infrastructure, as constructed in Augustenborg, Malmö,
was proven efficient in flood risk reduction by the analysis of
flood damage during historical flood events registered as insurance
claims. Similar results were found through hydraulic simulation of
the severe flood event in 2014 (Haghighatafshar et al. 2018).
Altogether, the land use and stormwater systems were similar in all
neighboring study areas except for the blue-green infrastructure in
Augustenborg, excluding other determinants of flood risks in neigh-
boring areas. It is interesting to note that Augustenborg was already
rather green and the yards between the buildings had a concave
shape before the blue-green infrastructure was constructed. In gen-
eral, greening of surfaces has a limited effect during extreme events
(Zölch et al. 2017), and green/pervious areas even contribute to run-
off during extreme rainfall (Berggren et al. 2013) if they are not
constructed for stormwater detention as they have been in Augus-
tenborg after the retrofit. From the long-term trends, it can be
concluded that green areas alone do not lower flood risk. The small-
scale topography is also of importance for flood risk reduction.
On the basis of findings from previous studies (Villarreal et al.
2004; Shukri 2010), a reasonable explanation for reduced flood
damage is the reduction in peak flows and total runoff volumes
from blue-green structures for stormwater management. For exam-
ple, in a modeling study of Augustenborg for an up to 10-year de-
sign storm, Villarreal et al. (2004) found that the detention and
retention capacity of the ponds, in combination with the regulation
of the outflows, plays a major role in reducing the flood risk in the
area. In addition, it was shown by hydrograph simulations that the
system is able to detain all runoff from a 10-year event under both
dry and wet initial conditions. Another study used modeling to
compare the blue-green infrastructure in Augustenborg with the
former (combined sewer) system and found a 50% decrease in dis-
charge rate for a heavy rainfall in June 2007 (Shukri 2010). The
peak runoff was delayed by 5–10 min with blue-green infrastruc-
ture in comparison with the combined sewer. For high-intensity
rainfall, the piped system reacted with more flooding than with
the blue-green infrastructure. The storage capacity is probably of
major importance for flood risk reduction by blue-green infrastruc-
ture, which is confirmed by Villarreal et al. (2004). Research from
other places has shown that detention in storage ponds and concave
green space is beneficial for flood reduction (Liu et al. 2014).
Torgersen et al. (2015) showed that precipitation events prior to the
extreme events have a significant impact on insurance claims after
urban flooding. The ability of Augustenborg’s blue-green infra-
structure to handle large storms during wet initial conditions as
modeled by Villarreal et al. (2004) is in line with this previous re-
search. Only a little rainfall was measured before the severe flood
event in 2014, but other events such as one event in 2007 were
affected by rainfall during the weeks before the event (Sörensen
and Mobini 2017).
In addition to storage ponds and concave green space, several
other stormwater control measures have been claimed to have
an impact on flood risk reduction, such as green roofs (Qin et al.
2013), permeable pavement (Qin et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2014;
Zahmatkesh et al. 2014), and infiltration basins (Stewart and
Hytiris 2008); a combination of different measures is recommended
to achieve maximal effects for different kinds of rainfall events
(Qin et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2014). In Augustenborg, the effect
of permeable pavement on flood reduction is probably small. Only
limited parts of the pavements are permeable, and as the underlying
soil is clayey till (County Administrative Board of Skåne 2016),
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 deeper percolation is probably very slow. Limited infiltration is
possible only in the upper soil layer. In addition, no infiltration
from ponds and wetlands was allowed due to concerns about leak-
age into the basements.
Green roofs were one of the main components during retrofit of
Augustenborg and were frequently used in branding the project as
green and sustainable. Runoff from a 30-mm sedum-moss roof
in Augustenborg was measured for 1 year. Compared with runoff
from black roofs, the runoff from the green roofs studied in
Augustenborg was delayed with a time of concentration of up to
20 min (Bengtsson 2005). Approximately 9–10 mm of rainfall is
needed to initiate runoff, corresponding to storage at field capacity
(Bengtsson et al. 2005). It can thus be assumed that the green roofs
in Augustenborg had a minor effect on flood reduction during the
extreme event in 2014. Villarreal (2007) modeled the runoff from
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Augustenborg’s green roofs with the downstream pond complex. To
achieve the same detention for the 10-year event without green
roofs, the pond complex needed to be at least 29% bigger than its
present size. The thickness of the green roof substrate layer as well
as vegetation composition influences the effective storage depth, but
this has the most influence for small and moderate storms (Qin et al.
2013; Stovin et al. 2017). In Augustenborg, close to 14,000 m2
(24%) of the roofs are green roofs, but they could capture only
∼140 m3 of the 35,000 m3 of stormwater that fell over the area
during the extreme rainfall in August 2014, if the results from
Bengtsson et al. (2005) are valid also for this event. In contrast to
this result, Qin et al. (2013) found that green roofs, covering 20% of
the roofs, were effective for flood control. This can be explained by
the thickness of the roof in that study, in which the roofs consist of a
vegetated layer, a soil layer (150 mm), and a storage layer (75 mm)
with an underlying drain, whereas the total height of the Augusten-
borg roofs are 30 mm. It is worth noting that storage capacity was
calculated with a simple formula in the study by Qin et al. (2013),
whereas it was measured in Augustenborg (Bengtsson et al. 2005).
Malmö is situated in a flat landscape where the highest elevation
is 37 m above sea level. In Augustenborg, the elevation is on aver-
age 14.7 m above sea level. This is slightly higher than the other
areas (Persborg, 14.3 m; Lönngården, 12.6 m; Lindgatan, 11.1 m;
Södra Sofielund, 11.1 m; and Norra Sofielund, 10.2 m), but the
difference is small and cannot explain the great difference in flood
magnitude. Two areas next to Augustenborg at higher elevation,
Hindby in the west and Almhög in the south, were heavily affected
by flooding on August 31, 2014, showing that small differences in
altitude do not have a strong impact on flood magnitude. For Södra
Sofielund, however, the elevation might play a role, as a small
stream used to run through this area. This watercourse is now tun-
neled and constitutes one of the main pipelines in the sewer system
of Malmö. Södra Sofielund is situated along the major flow path
through this part of Malmö and is thereby at higher risk of flooding
(Sörensen and Mobini 2017). Norra Sofielund, the lowest area in
this study, was flooded only to half the magnitude of the flooding in
Södra Sofielund, indicating that the main sewers have a greater
influence on flood magnitude than topography. Placement of the
main sewers is governed mainly by topography, but not exclusively.
Flood risk reduction through stormwater management is not
enough to fully protect an area from flooding. The Augustenborg
case shows that excess water still can flow into basements and
garages straight from the streets down ramps to underground parking
garages and down stairs to basement entrances. Water from upstream
areas can enter basements in Augustenborg through the combined
system, as no backwater valves are installed (Haghighatafshar et al.
2018). To avoid all basement flooding during extreme rainfall, when
new flow paths appear on the surface as on August 31, 2014, such
constructions must be reconstructed with a barrier that keeps the
© ASCE 04018099-9
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099
excess water away from buildings, and backwater valves must be
installed.
Villarreal et al. concluded that the 10-year event could have
been handled without risk of flooding with a pipe-bound system
instead of the blue-green infrastructure, through separation of
the combined system. This would, however, have increased flow
downstream of Augustenborg after reconstruction, leading to an
increased flood risk downstream, and the receiving waters would
have suffered from erosion or water quality degradation (Villarreal
et al. 2004). The results from Lindgatan indicate some evidence to
support this theory, as flood risk seems to have decreased in this
downstream area after the retrofit of Augustenborg, but the data are
too weak as the area is small (3.4 ha).
Insurance Data as a Measure for Flood Extent
This study is unique in the sense that extreme events are rare, and no
events with extreme precipitation have been reported from areas
with such an extensive blue-green infrastructure as in this case, mak-
ing this research a novel key to the understanding of flood risk
reduction by blue-green infrastructure. There have been several
studies on flood risk reduction by blue-green infrastructure, but
these have typically been made with modeling, often without any
calibration or validation at all (Liu et al. 2014; Zölch et al. 2017)
or without any measurements to verify impacts of blue-green infra-
structure (Qin et al. 2013; Zahmatkesh et al. 2014). No model
simulations of blue-green infrastructure found were verified with
measurements during an extreme event.
However, insurance claims and flood reports from housing com-
panies, as used in this study, also have some limitations. First, not
everyone is covered by insurance, according to the data provider at
Länsförsäkringar Skåne. People in different housing districts are
probably covered differently by insurance, as the coverage might
be related to the socioeconomic situation for a family. Even though
Sweden is regarded as a country with a high degree of income equal-
ity, residential segregation exists in Malmö (The National Board of
Housing; Building and Planning 2010). However, the differences in
insurance coverage among the areas compared in this study are
probably small, as the socioeconomic status in the areas is even:
the six areas all belong to the lowest quartile of socioeconomic
status (Wallin 2010). Second, property owners who experience only
minor losses might not report these to the insurance company, as the
deductible is high for some insurance policies. Therefore, important
information, especially for smaller events, might be missing in the
data sets. Third, the data sets represent information from buildings
only. There is no data from other societally important public infra-
structure such as roads and railways, power stations, the harbor,
water utilities, and telecommunication installations. As mentioned
previously, however, the areas compared in this study are similar in
many aspects, and the main objective of this study—to analyze what
influences blue-green infrastructure has on flooding—is probably
not affected by this limitation in the data sets.
Conclusions
Flood risk reduction in Augustenborg was achieved through imple-
mentation of an extensive blue-green infrastructure. Five areas
around Augustenborg with similar age, land use, and impervious-
ness were selected for comparison of flood magnitude. All five
areas have combined sewer systems, corresponding to what
Augustenborg had before the blue-green stormwater retrofit. The
direct effect of the retrofit as observed from preinstallation and
postinstallation data indicates that Augustenborg was more affected
by flooding before stormwater control measures were constructed.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 We also showed that most of the unretrofitted neighboring
areas have been more affected by flooding in recent years than
Augustenborg has been. In the long term, reported insurance claims
show that the flood magnitude in Augustenborg was less than 1/10
the other areas both during the extreme event on August 31, 2014,
and during other reported events in 2007–2015. Our data also show
that the system is not perfect, as excess water can reach basements
directly from the streets during extreme events.
Flood insurance data are found to be a useful source of infor-
mation to evaluate flood risk in urban areas. The study can also
conclude that risk levels for the insurance companies are lower in
areas with stormwater control measures, which might increase in-
surance companies’ interest in such retrofit projects.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Helén Nilsson from the insurance company
Länsförsäkringar Skåne and Stefan Milotti from the utility com-
pany VA Syd for flood claim data. Susanne Steen Kronborg and
Tomas Wolf from VA Syd are thanked for valuable data about
the Malmö drainage system, rainfall data, etc. Cooperation with
Länsförsäkringar Skåne was originally established by Joanna The-
land during her master’s thesis and she collected data from several
companies and organizations that were used in this study together
with complementary flood claim data received later. Thanks also
to Malmö municipal housing company (MKB), Lifra (property
manager), IF Skadeförsäkring (insurance company), Moderna
Försäkringar (insurance company), and Stadsfastigheter (property
manager for Malmö City) for data. Lars Bengtsson and Rolf
Larsson are thanked for their valuable comments to the manuscript,
and Cintia Uvo are thanked for help with the statistical analysis.
We would also like to thank Čedo Maksimovic at Imperial College
London for the idea of assessing how Augustenborg was af-
fected during the 2014 flood event. The criticisms from the anon-
ymous reviewer helped in improving the paper. GIS data on urban
areas, streets, etc. were distributed by the Swedish national map-
ping, cadastral, land registration authority: © Lantmäteriet, Dnr:
I2014/00579. This study was supported by a grant from Formas,
No. 942-2015-149 (Sustainable Urban Flood Management) and
a Vinnova project, No. 2016-04254 (Testbädd för grönblå urbana
lösningar).
Supplemental Data
Table S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www
.ascelibrary.org).
References
Ahmed, N. 2010. “Runoff water quality from a green roof and in an open
storm water system.” M.Sc. thesis, Lund Univ.
Bengtsson, L. 2005. “Peak flows from thin sedum-moss roof.” Nordic
Hydrol. 36 (3): 269–280. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2005.0020.
Bengtsson, L., L. Grahn, and J. Olsson. 2005. “Hydrological function of a
thin extensive green roof in southern Sweden.” Nordic Hydrol. 36 (3):
259–268. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2005.0019.
Bengtsson, L., and S. Milotti. 2010. “Extreme storms in Malmö, Sweden.”
Hydrol. Process. 24 (24): 3462–3475. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp
.7768.
Bengtsson, L., P. Stahre, and E. Villarreal. 2004. “Öppen dagvattenav-
ledning i Augustenborg—Open stormwater system in Augustenborg.”
VATTEN J. Water Manage. Res. 60 (3): 163–171.
© ASCE 04018099-10
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099
Berggren, K., S. Moghadas, A. Gustafsson, R. M. Ashley, and M. Viklander.
2013. “Sensitivity of urban stormwater systems to runoff from green/
pervious areas in a changing climate.” In Proc., NOVATECH 2013.
Berndtsson, J. C., T. Emilsson, and L. Bengtsson. 2006. “The influence of
extensive vegetated roofs on runoff water quality.” Sci. Total Environ.
355 (1–3): 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.02.035.
Beven, K. 2008. Environmental modelling: An uncertain future? Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Cettner, A., K. Söderholm, and M. Viklander. 2012. “An adaptive storm-
water culture? historical perspectives on the status of stormwater within
the Swedish urban water system.” J. Urban Technol. 19 (3): 25–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.673058.
Chen, J., A. A. Hill, and L. D. Urbano. 2009. “A GIS-based model for urban
flood inundation.” J. Hydrol. 373 (1–2): 184–192. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.021.
County Administrative Board of Skåne. 2016. “Malmö–Topografi och
jordarter.” Accessed October 2, 2016. http://www.lansstyrelsen.se
/skane.
Douglas, I., M. Kobold, N. Lawson, E. Pasche, I. White. 2007. “Character-
isation of urban streams and urban flooding.” In Advances in urban
flood management, edited by R.Ashley, S. Garvin, E. Pasche,
A. Vassilopoulos, and C. Zevenbergen. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Emilsson, T., J. Czemiel Berndtsson, J. E. Mattsson, and K. Rolf. 2007.
“Effect of using conventional and controlled release fertiliser on nutrient
runoff from various vegetated roof systems.” Ecol. Eng. 29 (3):
260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.01.001.
European Commission. 2012. Mapping guide for a European Urban Atlas.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. 2013. Building a green infrastructure for Europe.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
2015. Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for
nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities final report of the Horizon
2020 expert group on “Nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities:”
(full version). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Grahn, T., and R. Nyberg. 2014. “Damage assessment of lake floods:
Insured damage to private property during two lake floods in Sweden
2000/2001.” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 10 (Part A): 305–314. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.10.003.
Haghighatafshar, S., B. Nordlöf, M. Roldin, L. G. Gustafsson, J. Cour
Jansen, and K. Jönsson. 2018. “Efficiency of blue-green stormwater
retrofits for flood mitigation: Conclusions drawn from a case study
in Malmö, Sweden.” J. Environ. Manage. 207: 60–69. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.018.
Hernebring, C., S. Milotti, S. S. Kronborg, T. Wolf, and E. Mårtensson.
2015. “Skyfallet i sydvästra Skåne 2014-08-31: Fokuserat mot
konsekvenser och relation till regnstatistik i Malmö–The cloudburst
in Southwestern Scania 2014-08-31: With focus on consequences and
in relation to rainfall statistics in Malmö.” VATTEN J. Water Manage.
Res. 71 (2): 85–99.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate
Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III. Assessment Rep. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Geneva: IPCC.
Jongman, B., S. Hochrainer-stigler, L. Feyen, J. C. J. H. Aerts, R. Mechler,
W. J. W. Botzen, L. M. Bouwer, G. Pflug, R. Rojas, and P. J.
Ward. 2014. “Increasing stress on disaster-risk finance due to large
floods.” Nat. Clim. Change 4 (4): 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1038
/nclimate2124.
Krantz, H., and M. Hjerpe. 2002. Hantering av dagvatten i öppna struk-
turer i stadsmiljö: Fallet Augustenborg i Malmö. Rep. No. 002. Malmö,
Sweden: International Green Roof Institute.
Kunkel, K. E., R. A. Pielke, and S. A. Changnon. 1999. “Temporal fluctua-
tions in weather and climate extremes that cause economic and human
health impacts: A review.” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 80 (6): 1077–
1098. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<1077:TFIWAC>2.0
.CO;2.
Lerer, S., K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, and P. Mikkelsen. 2015. “A mapping of
tools for informing water sensitive urban design planning decisions:
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 Questions, aspects and context sensitivity.” Water 7 (3): 993–1012.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w7030993.
Lindher, F. 2015. Granskningsrapport av Stadsrevisionen. Klimatsäkrat
Malmö: Kraftigt skyfall med risk för översvämning. Malmö, Sweden:
Stadsrevisionen.
Liu, W., W. Chen, and C. Peng. 2014. “Assessing the effectiveness of green
infrastructures on urban flooding reduction: A community scale study.”
Ecol. Modell. 291: 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014
.07.012.
Ludzia, A., R. Larsson, and S. Aguayo. 2014. “Utvärdering av dagvatten-
systemets hållbarhet i Augustenborg, Malmö.” [Evaluation of a sustain-
able urban drainage system in Augustenborg, Malmö]. VATTEN J.
Water Manage. Res. 70 (2): 107–112.
Maksimović, Č., D. Prodanović, S. Boonya-Aroonnet, J. P. Leitão,
S. Djordjević, and R. Allitt. 2009. “Overland flow and pathway analysis
for modelling of urban pluvial flooding.” J. Hydraul. Res. 47 (4):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lund University on 12/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
512–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2009.9522027.
Ohlsson, T. 2001. Fågel-och insektsinventering av Augustenborgsparken
2001. International Green Roof Institute Rep. No. 1. Malmö, Sweden:
Augustenborgs Botaniska Takträdgård.
Ohlsson, T. 2002. Fågel-och insektsinventering av Augustenborgsparken
2002. International Green Roof Institute Rep. No. 4. Malmö, Sweden:
Augustenborgs Botaniska Takträdgård.
Qin, H., Z. Li, and G. Fu. 2013. “The effects of low impact development on
urban flooding under different rainfall characteristics.” J. Environ. Man-
age. 129: 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.026.
Saul, A. J., S. Djordjević, Č. Maksimović, and J. Blanksby. 2011. “Inte-
grated urban flood modelling.” In Flood risk science and management,
edited by G. Pender and H. Faulkner, 258–288. New York: Wiley.
Schmitt, L. H. M., H. M. Graham, and P. C. L. White. 2016. “Economic
evaluations of the health impacts of weather-related extreme events: A
scoping review.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13 (11): 1105.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111105.
Sebti, A., S. Bennis, and M. Fuamba. 2014. “Optimization of the restruc-
turing cost of an urban drainage network.” Urban Water J. 13 (2):
119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.923918.
Semadeni-Davies, A., C. Hernebring, G. Svensson, and L.-G. Gustafsson.
2008. “The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in
Helsingborg, Sweden: Combined sewer system.” J. Hydrol. 350 (1–2):
100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.05.028.
Shukri, A. 2010. “Hydraulic modeling of open stormwater system in
Augustenborg.” M.Sc. thesis, Sweden: Division of Water and Environ-
mental Engineering, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engi-
neering, Lund Univ.
SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute). 2014. “Ex-
tremt kraftigt regn över Malmö.” Accessed August 12, 2017. https://
www.smhi.se/nyhetsarkiv/extremt-kraftigt-regn-over-malmo-1.77503.
Smith, R. L., and D. J. Goodman. 2000. “Bayesian risk analysis.” In
Extremes and integrated risk management. Edited by P. Embrechts.
235–251. London: Risk Books.
Söderblom, P. 2004. Skötsel av dagvattensystem. Rep. No. 008. Malmö,
Sweden: International Green Roof Institute and Augustenborgs
Botaniska Takträdgård.
Sörensen, J., et al. 2016. “Re-thinking urban flood management: Time for a
regime shift.” Water 8 (8): 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080332.
Sörensen, J., and S. Mobini. 2017. “Pluvial, urban flood mechanisms
and characteristics: Assessment based on insurance claims.” J. Hydrol.
555: 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.039.
Spekkers, M., Q. Zhou, K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, and M.-C. Veldhuis. 2013a.
“Correlations between rainfall data and insurance damage data related
to sewer flooding for the case of Aarhus, Denmark.” In Proc., Int. Conf.
on Flood Resilience, Experiences in Asia and Europe. Exeter, UK:
Univ. of Exeter.
Spekkers, M. H., M. Kok, F. H. L. R. Clemens, and J. A. E. Ten Veldhuis.
2013b. “A statistical analysis of insurance damage claims related to
© ASCE 04018099-11
View publication stats J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 2019, 145(2): 04018099
rainfall extremes.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17 (3): 913–922. https://doi
.org/10.5194/hess-17-913-2013.
Stahre, P. 2008. Blue-green fingerprints in the city of Malmö, Sweden:
Malmö’s way towards a sustainable urban drainage. Malmö, Sweden:
VA Syd.
Stewart, R., and N. Hytiris. 2008. “The role of sustainable urban drainage
systems in reducing the flood risk associated with infrastructure.”
In Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on Urban Drainage. London: IWA/IAHR.
Stovin, V., G. Vesuviano, and S. De-Ville. 2017. “Defining green roof
detention performance.” Urban Water J. 14 (6): 574–588. https://doi
.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1049279.
Svenskt Vatten. 2016. P110 - Avledning av dag-, drän- och spillvatten.
Stockholm, Sweden: Svenskt Vatten.
Swedish National Mapping, Cadastral, Land Registration Authority. 2015.
Produktbeskrivning: GSD-Höjddata, Grid 2+ [Product description:
GDS Elevation data, Grid 2+]. Gävle, Sweden: Swedish National
Mapping, Cadastral, Land Registration Authority.
Sydsvenskan. 2014. “Batuul var nära att drukna i hissen” [Batuul almost
drowned in the elevator]. Local Newspaper Read Online, August 8,
2016.
City of Malmö Cultural and Environment Department and the County Ad-
ministrative Board of Skåne. 2001. “Bostadsmiljöer i Malmö.”
In Proc., Inventering. Del 1, 1945–1955. Malmö, Sweden: The City
of Malmö Cultural and Environment Department and the County
Administrative Board of Skåne.
City of Malmö Cultural and Environment Department and the County Ad-
ministrative Board of Skåne. 2002. “Bostadsmiljöer i Malmö.” In Proc.,
Inventering. Del 3, 1965–1975. Malmö, Sweden: The City of Malmö
Cultural and Environment Department and the County Administrative
Board of Skåne.
The City of Malmö Cultural and Environment Department and the County
Administrative Board of Skåne. 2004. “Bostadsmiljöer i Malmö.”
In Proc., Inventering. Del 2, 1955–1965. Malmö, Sweden: The City
of Malmö Cultural and Environment Department and the County
Administrative Board of Skåne.
The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. 2010. Socialt
hållbar stadsutveckling (in Swedish, Socially sustainable urban devel-
opment). Karlskrona, Sweden: Boverket.
Torgersen, G., J. T. Bjerkholt, K. Kvaal, and O. G. Lindholm. 2015.
“Correlation between extreme rainfall and insurance claims due to
urban flooding: Case study fredrikstad, Norway.” J. Urban Environ.
Eng. 9 (2): 127–138. https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2015.v9n2.127138.
Villarreal, E. L. 2007. “Runoff detention effect of a sedum green-roof.”
Nordic Hydrol. 38 (1): 99–105. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2007.031.
Villarreal, E. L., A. Semadeni-Davies, and L. Bengtsson. 2004. “Inner city
stormwater control using a combination of best management practices.”
Ecol. Eng. 22 (4–5): 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004
.06.007.
Wallin, M. 2010. “Den delade staden Malmö.” M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of
Human Geography, Lund Univ.
Zahmatkesh, Z., S. Burian, M. Karamouz, H. Tavakol-Davani, and
E. Goharian. 2014. “Low-impact development practices to mitigate
climate change effects on urban stormwater runoff: Case study of
New York City.” J. Irrig. Drainage Eng. 141 (1): 04014043. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000770.
Zevenbergen, C., A. Cashman, N. Evelpidou, E. Pasche, S. Garvin, and
R. Ashley. 2010. Urban flood management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Zhou, Q., T. E. Panduro, B. J. Thorsen, and K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen. 2013.
“Verification of flood damage modelling using insurance data.” Water
Sci. Technol. 68 (2): 425–432. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.268.
Zölch, T., L. Henze, P. Keilholz, and S. Pauleit. 2017. “Regulating urban
surface runoff through nature-based solutions—An assessment at the
micro-scale.” Environ. Res. 157: 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.envres.2017.05.023.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.