sustainability
Article
Assessing Hydrological Performances of Bioretention Cells to
Meet the LID Goals
Yanwei Sun 1, *, Qingyun Li 1 , Furong Yu 1 , Mingwei Ma 1 and Cundong Xu 2
Citation: Sun, Y.; Li, Q.; Yu, F.; Ma,
M.; Xu, C. Assessing Hydrological
Performances of Bioretention Cells to
Meet the LID Goals. Sustainability
2023, 15, 4204. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su15054204
Academic Editor: Francesco Faccini
Received: 13 December 2022
Revised: 16 February 2023
Accepted: 23 February 2023
Published: 26 February 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054204
1 College of Water Resources, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power,
Zhengzhou 450011, China
2 School of Water Conservancy & Environment Engineering, Zhejiang University of Water Resources and
Electric Power, Hangzhou 310018, China
* Correspondence: sunyanwei83@163.com; Tel.: +86-15188325603
Abstract: BRCs (bioretention cells), one of many low-impact development (LID) practices, are
increasingly utilized to lessen the amount of runoff while simultaneously improving the runoff
quality. Because the goal of BRCs and LID designs, in general, is to mimic or replicate the pre-
development hydrology, it is critical to evaluate the hydrologic and ecologic performances of the BRC
facility from the perspective of replicating the pre-development hydrology. The metrics developed
in this study were intended to represent the hydrologic regime including the runoff volume control
metrics, peak flow frequency exceedance curve, and flow duration curve. We also used a hydrological
indicator of T0.5 , the fraction of a multi-year period in which the flow exceeds the 0.5-year return
period storm to represent the performances regarding downstream ecology. The indicators were
compared to their pre-development values to determine how closely they reflected and replicated the
pre-development state. A long-term stormwater management model (SWMM) model was developed
to examine conditions before and after development and water movement in BRCs. When the BRCs
facilities areas are 5% of the entire impervious study area, key findings show that: (1) BRCs have
significant runoff volume control performances. (2) The peak flow frequency exceedance curve
with BRCs could fully match the pre-development scenario for minor rainfall events compared to
the 0.1-year storm. Flow duration curves with BRCs showed that, the frequency, magnitude, and
duration of small flows that occurred for more than 90% of the total time closely matched those of
pre-development hydrology. (3) T0.5 with BRCs showed significant improvement compared with the
value of the area with no BRCs and was close to the pre-development T0.5 . The findings presented in
this study indicated the significant performance of BRCs in improving downstream ecology.
Keywords: bioretention; low-impact development; peak discharge curve; flow duration curve
1. Introduction
The impervious areas created by the urbanization of a watershed significantly decrease
natural detention and infiltration. These alterations lead to an increase in the amount of
stormwater runoff, which is one of the primary contributors to the ecological degradation
of receiving waters, including the ecology of streams and water bodies [1–3]. To solve
the ecological problems caused by urbanization, the natural flow regime emerged, which
postulates that “the ecological integrity of river ecosystem depends on their natural dy-
namic character” [4,5]. There has been a recent uptick in the number of studies looking
into the possibility of managing water resources based on a flow pattern in its natural and
pre-developed state [6].
Stormwater management practices, such as various infiltration or retention systems,
have been developed to facilitate the achievement of this objective. This development
coincides with the emergence of the natural flow paradigm and the subsequent interest
in it [7]. One of them is known as low-impact development (LID), a site design strategy
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 2 of 14

that aims to preserve or recreate the pre-development hydrology through the use of design
strategies to create a hydrologic landscape that is functionally identical [8]. Typical LID
practices (LIDs) include bioretention facilities, grass swales, detention ponds, and infiltra-
tion trenches, which adequately take advantage of natural processes and receive and deal
with surface runoff generated by urbanization near its sources. Consequently, LIDs are
regarded as ideal measures to solve the problems caused by urbanization [9].
“Rain gardens,” also known as bioretention cells (BRCs), are a widespread LID practice
used in urban areas to mitigate the runoff yield and improve water quality in a way that is
both natural and visually beautiful [10]. It is quickly becoming one of the most widespread
LID techniques [11–15]. Various studies have demonstrated the advantages of bioretention
performances, including reducing peak flow, increasing infiltration, and reducing contami-
nant and temperature [16–19]. Numerous field and laboratory investigations have proven
the enhancements to both the runoff volume and the water quality of BRCs on a number of
spatial levels [16,20–25]. A series of hydrological indicators have been used in the study,
for example, flow reduction and reduction efficiency [26–28], and the cited research shows
that runoff reduction rates for BRCs range from 40% to 99%. Recently, some researchers
used a series of indicators developed by ecologists, such as cyclicity, generalization, vulner-
ability, ascendency, development capacity, and robustness, to characterize and compare the
ecological impacts of LIDs as ecosystems [29].
All studies linked peak flow and total volume to evaluate LID effects. Still, they
mostly saw LIDs as traditional stormwater management practices rather than innovative
technologies replicating the pre-development hydrograph. The initial objective of LIDs
to sustain pre-development hydrology and improve downstream ecology has largely
significantly been ignored. The currently used performance evaluation indicators discussed
here cannot demonstrate and evaluate performances of bioretention as the LID practice
since the hydrologic regime is complicated and may not be evaluated by a set of single-
event-based indicators. Even if a stormwater management method satisfies its design goals
for flood mitigation and quality improvement, it may not be effective. Many downstream
impacts must be considered, such as geomorphology, hydrogeology, water, and ecology [30].
However, accessing the effects of one of the primary LIDs, BRCs, in mimicking flow regimes
is crucial for urban planners and watershed managers.
Regarding the BRC performances, the monitoring strategy is the most popular but
is restricted by long-term data and effort [31]. Especially for the area where LIDs will
be established, the only way to predict the performance is by simulation using realistic
models [15,28,32]. Performance evaluations of BRCs require long-term runoff data to rep-
resent the hydrological regime, a consequence being that the simulation using the model
is the only approach. LID models must accurately depict pre- and post-development
situations [33], which becomes vital when evaluating the performance of LIDs in sustaining
a pre-development hydrology. Amongst all hydrologic models, the Stormwater Manage-
ment Model (SWMM) is regarded as one of the most successful examples to represent the
radically different hydrology of both pre-developed and developed lands [34].
An SWMM model was developed in the following study to provide continuous hy-
drologic simulation utilizing a long-term record. This modeling approach had two goals:
(1) to develop an indicator system to evaluate BRCs’ performance in replicating the pre-
development hydrology and improving downstream ecology, and (2) to evaluate the BRCs’
hydrologic performance to determine whether they replicated the pre-development scenario.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description and Data Source
The study area is located in the Little Mill Creek Watershed in the United States
of America, and a 0.36 km2 urban catchment was selected for this study. Little Mill
Creek drains an area of 92.40 km2 , with a mean yearly precipitation of 1180 mm. The
topographic wetness index is 494.65, and about 14% of the watershed is dominated by
forest. For the study area, 45% is impervious, contributed by roads, roofs, and parking lots.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 3 of 14

The pervious location is mainly the medium-density residential land distributed evenly.
We used hypothetical on-site BRCs and a natural catchment to simulate sub-catchments
and drainage elements. Hourly rainfall and temperature data were collated from U.S
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). We chose 1968 to 1977 for the long-term simulation
considering the lack of data and storm patterns. The mean annual precipitation for this
period is 94.84 cm, only 2.62 cm more than the average yearly precipitation for the entire
record. The evaporation rate was modeled as a set of monthly average values, listed in
Table 1.

Table 1. Evaporation parameters.

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Evaporation (cm/day) 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.51 0.71 0.94 0.97 0.69 0.66 0.43

2.2. Modeled Scenarios

This study examined the differences in catchment response when BRCs were placed
using a theoretical modeling scenario. The model was based on the developed condition,
which has been established and implemented without BRC practices using the SWMM
developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with an emphasis
to examine how the rainfall and catchment characteristics will impact the hydrological
performances of BRCs, but in this paper, we tried to examine how close the BRCs will
replicate the pre-development hydrology [35,36]. A time step of 15 min was chosen for the
wet period, and a time step of 30 min was chosen for the dry period to stress the dry gaps
between the precipitation events.
In particular, LIDs in an urban catchment should mimic the pre-development hydrol-
ogy. It is crucial to achieve this in the model hydrologic regime of pre-developed conditions
and developed with BRC scenario. The performances of BRCs can be assessed by com-
paring how the hydrographs of the BRCs treatment scenario match the pre-developed
scenario. Consequently, as a contrast, the pre-developed condition was also modeled as
a comparison.
(1) Developed Model
This scenario simulated the current conditions in the study area. Field research was
conducted to collect data, including aerial images, pipe information, soil physical and
chemical properties, open channels, and land-use types. We then used a geographic
Information System (GIS) to process and validate all the data, and 21 subcatchments were
delineated, shown in Figure 1.
We built up an SWMM model and used Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficients (Ens) for
the validation of the model. Six rainfall events covering different magnitude and duration
were selected. It was found that Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficients (Ens) for the flow
of the selected six single precipitation events were greater than 0.78, demonstrating a
favorable simulation effect. The main calibrated parameters are listed in Table 2.
(2) Pre-developed model
The pre-developed SWMM model was based on the developed model and was de-
veloped to represent the pre-development hydrology. Considering imperviousness is an
important indicator in assessing urbanization, we set the imperiousness of the study area
as 5%. Other parameters of this model were the same as the developed model except for a
different site imperviousness of 5%.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

Max.Infil.Rate Maximum infiltration rate 10.26 cm/h

Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 Min.Infil.Rate Minimum infiltration rate 0.64 4 ofcm/h
14

Decay Constant Decay constant of Horton infiltration model 4.14 ,

Figure
Figure1.1.Location
Locationand
andthe
the schematic diagramofofthe
schematic diagram thestudy
studyarea.
area.

(2)Table 2. Main input parameters

Pre-developed model of SWMM subcachment.
The pre-developed SWMM model
Parameters wasDescription
Parameters based on the developed model Value and was de-
Unit
veloped Slope
to represent the pre-developmentSlope hydrology. Considering imperviousness
2.8 % is an
important indicator in
N-Imperv assessing
Manning’s n ofurbanization, we set
depression storage thepervious
in the imperiousness
area of the study
0.05 / area
as 5%. Other
N-Pervparameters of this
Manning’s model
n of werestorage
depression the same
in theas the developed
pervious area model except
0.1 / for
Destore-Imperv Depth of depression
a different site imperviousness of 5%. storage in the impervious area 5.1 cm
Desore-Perv Depth of depression storage in the pervious area 1.7 cm
(3) Max.Infil.Rate
Developed with BRCs Maximum infiltration rate 10.26 cm/h
This model is approached based on the developed model by hypotheticallycm/h
Min.Infil.Rate Minimum infiltration rate 0.64 placing a
Decay Constant Decay constant of Horton infiltration model 4.14 ,
BRC in the possible subcatchment. We used a high-resolution imagery and measurement
tool of ArcGIS to determine the applicable BRCs surface area for each subcatchment. Two
of(3)the Developed
twenty-one with BRCs
subcatchments were open land, and no BRCs were simulated. In
SWMM, Thiswemodel
usedisa approached
storage unit,based
an outlet
on theand a node to
developed embed
model each outflow placing
by hypothetically series. a
BRC in the possible
RECARGA, subcatchment.
a tool We used
for bioretention, wasautilized
high-resolution imagery
to design all BRCsandtomeasurement
ensure a drain-
tool
age of ArcGIS
duration of to determine
fewer than 48 the
h applicable BRCssurface
[37]. The BRC surfacearea
areaand
for each subcatchment. Two
the subcatchement imper-
of the twenty-one subcatchments were open land, and no BRCs were simulated.
viousness where it lay are shown in Figure 2. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (min- In SWMM,
we used
imum a storagerate)
infiltration unit,ofannatural
outlet and
soil aisnode to embed
0.64 cm/h, andeach outflow series.
the diameter of the underdrain hole
RECARGA, a tool for bioretention, was utilized to design all BRCs to ensure a drainage
is 1.27 cm, 1.91 cm, or 2.54 cm. The planting media depth is 1.2 m with a minimum infil-
duration of fewer than 48 h [37]. The BRC surface area and the subcatchement impervious-
tration rate of 0.305 m/d.
ness where it lay are shown in Figure 2. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (minimum
infiltration rate) of natural soil is 0.64 cm/h, and the diameter of the underdrain hole is
1.27 cm, 1.91 cm, or 2.54 cm. The planting media depth is 1.2 m with a minimum infiltration
rate of 0.305 m/d.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 5 of 14
Sustainability
Sustainability2023,
2023,15,
15,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 55 of
of 15
15

Figure
Figure2.
Figure 2.BRC
2. BRCsurface
BRC surfacearea
surface areaand
area andsubcatchment
and subcatchment imperviousness.
subcatchment imperviousness.
imperviousness.

Dueto
Due
Due tothe
to thecomplexity
the complexityof
complexity ofwater
of watermovement
water movementin
movement inbiological
in biologicalretention
biological retentionponds,
retention ponds,SWMM
ponds, SWMMhas
SWMM has
has
certain
certain limitations in accurately simulating water movement and
certain limitations in accurately simulating water movement and water volume changein
limitations in accurately simulating water movement and water
water volume
volume change
change in
in
biological
biological retention
retention ponds.
ponds. Therefore,
Therefore, in
in this
this paper,
paper, RECARGA,
RECARGA,
biological retention ponds. Therefore, in this paper, RECARGA, a design and simulation aa design
design and
and simulation
simulation
software for for biological
biological retention
retention ponds,
ponds, was was used
used to
to simulate
software
software for biological retention ponds, was used to simulate
simulate the the water
the water movement and
movement and
water movement and
water
water volume change in biological retention ponds. The results were then embedded
water volume
volume change
change in in biological
biological retention
retention ponds.
ponds. The
The results
results were
were then
then embedded
embedded in in
in the SWMM
the model for further analysis. The simulation included following
the following steps:
the SWMM
SWMM model model for for further
further analysis.
analysis. The The simulation
simulation included
included the the following steps: steps: (1)
(1)
(1) developed
the the developed model was used to simulate the runoff of series of each subcatchments
the developedmodel modelwas wasusedusedtotosimulate
simulatethe therunoff
runoffseries
series ofeach
eachsubcatchments
subcatchmentsduring during
during 1968–1977,
1968–1977, with interval
a time interval of 1 the
h; (2) the runoff series was edited in the format
1968–1977, with a time interval of 1 h; (2) the runoff series was edited in
with a time of 1 h; (2) runoff series was edited in the
the format
format re-re-
required
quired by by RECARGA;
RECARGA; (3)(3) theparameters
the parametersininRECARGA RECARGAwere wereedited
editedaccording
accordingto to BRCs
BRCs
quired by RECARGA; (3) the parameters in RECARGA were edited according to BRCs
and subcatchment characteristics;
and (4) RECARGA was used to simulate the water movement
and subcatchment
subcatchment characteristics;
characteristics; (4) (4) RECARGA
RECARGA was was used
used to to simulate
simulate the the water
water move-
move-
in
menteach BRC; (5) the results of RECARGA were used to obtain the outflow series after
ment in in each
each BRC;
BRC; (5) (5) the
the results
results of of RECARGA
RECARGA were were used
used to to obtain
obtain thethe outflow
outflow series
series
the
after treatment of BRCs; and (6) the outflow series was input into the developed model for
afterthe
thetreatment
treatmentof ofBRCs;
BRCs;and and(6)(6)the
theoutflow
outflowseries
serieswas
wasinput
inputinto
intothe
thedeveloped
developedmodel model
further analysis.
for For each subcatchment, thethe SWMM uses a storage pool, an outlet, and a
forfurther
furtheranalysis.
analysis.For Foreach
eachsubcatchment,
subcatchment, theSWMM SWMMuses usesaastorage
storagepool,
pool,an anoutlet,
outlet,and
and
node
aa node to
toaccept
accept the
the runoff
runoff series
series from
from the
the BRCs.
BRCs. Figure
Figure 3 displays the procedure used to
node tothe
simulate accept the runoffperformances
hydrological series from the of BRCs.
BRCs. Figure 3 displays the procedure used to
3 displays the procedure used to
simulate
simulate the the hydrological
hydrological performances
performances of of BRCs.
BRCs.

Figure
Figure3.
3.Simulation
Simulationand
andperformance
performanceof
ofBRCs
BRCs based
basedon
onSWMM
SWMMand
andRECARGA.
RECARGA.

2.3.
2.3. Performances
2.3. PerformancesIndicator
Performances IndicatorSystem
Indicator System
System
As stated
As stated
As before,
stated before,
before, thethe
the most
most critical
most critical goal
critical goal of
goal of LID
of LID is
LID is to
is to sustain
to sustain the
sustain the regional
the regional hydrology
regional hydrology
hydrology
before
before development. Prince George’s County suggests evaluating if LIDs accomplish the
before development.
development. Prince
Prince George’s
George’s County
County suggests
suggests evaluating
evaluating if LIDs
if accomplish
LIDs accomplish the
goal
goal by
by comparing
the goal by comparing
comparing the
the pre-development
the pre-development
pre-development and post-development
andand post-development
post-development hydrologyhydrology
hydrology [35]. We
We de-
[35].[35]. We
de-
developed
veloped
veloped a series
aaseries
series of of indicators
ofindicators
indicators to to facilitate
tofacilitate
facilitate thesethese
these comparisons.
comparisons.
comparisons. First,
First,we First,
weassessed we assessed
assessed how
howmuch how
much
much
flow flow would flow through and then leaves BRCs (underdrain
flow would flow through and then leaves BRCs (underdrain flow), which contributes to
would flow through and then leaves BRCs (underdrain flow), flow),
which which contributes
contributes to
to the
the
the regional
regional
regional surface,
surface,
surface, butbut
but BRCs
BRCsBRCs
have
have have improved
improved
improved the the water
the water
water quality.quality.
quality. We
We also We examined
also also examined
examined how
how
how much
much
much flow flow
flow would
would would contribute
contribute
contribute to
to the
thetoregional
the regional
regional runoff,
runoff,
runoff, including
including
including underdrain
underdrain
underdrain flowflow
flow andand
and the
the
the water
water flow flow the
over over the surface
BRCs BRCs surface
without without infiltration.
infiltration. We used We
R used
reduction , R Rreduction
overflow, and , RRunderdrain
overflow,
water flow over the BRCs surface without infiltration. We used Rreduction, Roverflow, and Runderdrain
and Runderdrain
to to examine theperformances
hydrological performances ofisBRCs. Rreduction is an overall
to examine
examine the the hydrological
hydrological performances of of BRCs.
BRCs. RRreduction an overall indicator
reduction is an overall indicator repre-
repre-
indicator
senting the representing
runoff the runoff
reduction due reduction
to the due to the
application of application
BRCs. R overflowofis BRCs.
an Roverflowtoisde-
indicator an
senting the runoff reduction due to the application of BRCs. Roverflow is an indicator to de-
indicator
scribe the to
partdescribe
of waterthe contributing
part of water to contributing
regional to regional
surface runoff surface
without runoffbeing without
treated being
by
scribe the part of water contributing to regional surface runoff without being treated by
treated by BRCs,
BRCs, and Runderdraintherepresents the water contributing
to regionaltosurface regional surface runoff
BRCs, andand RRunderdrain represents water contributing
underdrain represents the water contributing to regional surface runoff with the
runoff with the
with
water the water
quality quality
improved improved
since it since
flows it flows
through through
the plantingthe planting
media of media
the BRCs.of the BRCs.
water quality improved since it flows through the planting media of the BRCs.
Rreduction = (1=−
RRreduction (1V− VVoutflow
reduction = (1 −out
//VVi nflow
f low /V
outflow iin
))××100
f low
nflow
×%
)100%
100% (1)
(1)
(1)

Rover f R = V==over
Roverflow
low VVoverflow //VViinnflow
f low /V ××100
f low 100%
× 100%
% (2)
(2)
overflow overflow i nflow (2)
Runderdrain = Vunderdrain /Vin f low × 100% (3)
RRunderdrain ==VVunderdrain //VVi nflow ××100%
i nflow 100%
underdrain underdrain
(3)
(3)
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 6 of 14

where Voverflow refers to the water flowing out of the facility from the surface without
infiltration; Vinflow refers to the total water flowing into the BRCs; Vunderdrain refers to the
water flowing out of the facility through the underdrain in the bottom of BRCs; and Voutflow
refers to water flowing out of the BRCs, including Roverflow and Runderdrain .
The flow regime’s condensing frequency, magnitude, and duration are also crucial
characteristics. We used the peak flow frequency exceedance curve to depict the peak
discharge’s frequency distribution and magnitude. The peak flow frequency exceedance
curve shows flow peaks and associated exceedances per year or simulation period. These
are essential components for the flow regime, account for the ecological benefits, and were
applied in this study as one performance evaluation indicator. The flow duration graph
illustrates the percentage of time flows equaled or exceeded during simulation. It shows
the flow magnitude, duration, and frequency and expresses the hydrologic spectrum [36].
Palhegyi [38] tested the flow duration curves of a bioretention cell by comparing pre-
developed and developed runoff time series based on single precipitation events. The flow
duration curves closely reproduce the pre-developed hydrologic time series. Flow duration
curves have also been used in evaluating stormwater management practices’ impacts and
are considered an efficient tool for watershed calibration. Therefore, they were applied in
this study as one performance evaluation indicator.
We also developed an ecology indicator to represent whether BRCs will promote the
downstream ecology. T0.5 , the fraction of a multi-year period in the flow that exceeds the
0.5-year return period storm, was calculated as a measure of the influence of urbanization
because high flows tend to increase in frequency but are shorter in duration. Research
showed that T0.5 was a great predictor of biotic diversity, a measure of water quality [35].
Similar findings were also noticed in the study area, indicating a high correlative relation-
ship between T0.5 and biological indices MBI (Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index), FBI (Family
Level Biotic Index), and KBI (Kansas Biotic Index) in the East Lenexa study [36]. Therefore,
T0.5 served as the hydrologic indicator for quantifying the ecological benefits of bioretention
cells in the study area.
Bioretention performance in mimicking an pre-development hydrology was deter-
mined by comparing three management scenario metrics: pre-developed, developed
condition, and developed with BRCs. It was considered that the closer the indicators of the
scenario are to the pre-developed situation, the better their hydrological performances.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Runoff Mitigation and Water Quality Improvement
Models under the three scenarios discussed here were executed with a 15 min time
step for the precipitation data set from 1968 to 1977. The results were listed in Table 3.
Reduction expressed runoff mitigation; the flow ratio remained in the BRCs to the total
regional surface flow. Figure 4 shows the runoff. The runoff reduction for the whole study
area was 53.4%, ranging from 42.1% to 57.2% for each BRC. To be more specific, 599,180 m3
of water was retained in the BRCs, whereas 1,282,480 m3 of runoff was recorded across the
whole study area. Of the 19 BRCs, the minimum reduction was 42.7%, while the maximum
was 57.2%. Most concentrated between 48.2% and 55.1%, with little variation.
Overflow refers to the water flowing across the BRC surface area without infiltrat-
ing, which may be caused by a filled BAV and the precipitation intensity exceeding the
infiltration rate of native soil. Overflow contributed to the direct surface runoff and was
thus used as an indicator to represent the performances of BRCs. We used Roverflow , the
ratio of overflow to the total inflow to the BRCs, for the analysis. The results are shown in
Figure 5. The cumulative Roverflow for the study period was 30.55%, which accounted for
65.6% of surface runoff. For single BRC, Roverflow ranged from 24.7% to 39.5%. Significant
differences were noticed between BRCs, mainly caused by the BAV of BRCs. A strong
negative correlation with the fitness square R2 of 0.99 indicated that less water flowed out
of the facility directly with the increase in the reduction rate.
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 7 of 14

Table 3. Runoff control performances of bioretention.

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Vinflow Voverflow Vunderdrain Roverflow Runderdrain

BRC Rreduction (%)
(1000 m3 ) (1000 m3 ) (1000 m3 ) (%) (%)
B12 B1 99.01 33.130.29 12.7513.01 6.21 56.28 42.7 30.59 38.53 13.1418.76
B13 B2 124.25 54.54 33.71 21.5219.95 8.66 56.8 43.64 27.13 39.47 16.06 15.88
B14 B3 44.56 60.1612.04 21.598.57 9.48 53.75 48.33 27.02 36.89 19.2315.76
B4
B15 71.38 46.0321.84 18.18
10.79 7.74
53.27 43.65 30.61 39.51 15.1216.82
B5 72.41 26.12 10.59 49.34 36.05 14.63
B16 B6 39.42 10.5210.67 3.91 7.94 2.18 52.79 42.05 27.06 37.18 20.1420.72
B17 B7 77.29 34.0122.75 11.3811.63 4.98 55.53 51.91 29.43 33.46 15.0514.64
B18 B8 57.42 54.816.54 16.849.89 9.48 53.96 51.96 28.81 30.75 17.2217.30
S19 B9 66.26 132.716.35 36.1413.94 20.65 53.28 57.23 24.68 27.22 21.0415.56
B10 90.03 27.08 12.48 56.05 30.08 13.86
Sum B11
1282.48 114.53 391.83 32.11 207.35 19.16 53.28 55.24 30.55 28.04 16.1716.73
B12 99.01 30.29 13.01 56.28 30.59 13.14
Reduction
B13 expressed
124.25 runoff33.71
mitigation; 19.95
the flow ratio56.8
remained in the BRCs to
27.13 the
16.06
B14
total regional 44.56
surface 12.04
flow. Figure 4 shows the8.57
runoff. The53.75 27.02 for the whole
runoff reduction 19.23
B15 was 53.4%,
study area 71.38ranging from
21.84 42.1% to10.79 53.27 BRC. To30.61
57.2% for each 15.12
be more specific,
B163 39.42 10.67 7.94 52.79 27.06 20.14
599,180 m of water was retained in the BRCs, whereas 1,282,480 m3 of runoff was recorded
B17 77.29 22.75 11.63 55.53 29.43 15.05
across the
B18whole study57.42area. Of 16.54
the 19 BRCs,9.89
the minimum reduction28.81
53.96 was 42.7%, 17.22
while
the maximum
S19 was 57.2%.
66.26 Most concentrated
16.35 between 48.2%
13.94 and 55.1%,
53.28 with little 21.04
24.68 varia-
tion. Sum 1282.48 391.83 207.35 53.28 30.55 16.17

60 60

56 56
Rreduction(%)

52
Rreduction(%)

52

48
48
44
44
40
40
B1 B3 B5 B7 B9 B11 B13 B15 B17 B19 BRCs
BRCs
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15
(a) (b)
Figure 4. R4.eduction
Figure of BRCs.
Reduction (a) R(a)
of BRCs. for all for
Rreduction
reduction BRCs; (b) range
all BRCs; and distribution
(b) range of Rreduction.
and distribution of Rreduction .

Overflow
40 refers to the water flowing across the 40 BRC surface area without infiltrating,
which may be caused by a filled BAV and the precipitation intensity exceeding the infil-
tration36rate of native soil. Overflow contributed to 36 the direct surface runoff and was thus
used as an indicator to represent the performances of BRCs. We used Roverflow, the ratio of
Roverflow(%)
Roverflow(%)

overflow
32
to the total inflow to the BRCs, for the analysis.
32
The results are shown in Figure
5. The cumulative Roverflow for the study period was 30.55%, which accounted for 65.6% of
surface runoff. For single BRC, Roverflow ranged from 24.7% to 39.5%. Significant differences
28 28
were noticed between BRCs, mainly caused by the BAV of BRCs. A strong negative cor-
relation with the fitness square R2 of 0.99 indicated that less water flowed out of the facility
24 24
directly with
B1 B3theB5increase in the
B7 B9 B11 B13 reduction
B15 B17 B19 rate. BRCs
BRCs
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Roverflow
Figure of BRCs.
5. Roverflow (a) Roverflow
of BRCs. (a) Rfor all BRCs; (b) range and distribution of Roverflow.
overflow for all BRCs; (b) range and distribution of Roverflow .

Additionally, we we
Additionally, wanted to analyze
wanted another
to analyze flowflow
another indicator, underdrain
indicator, flow,
underdrain which
flow, which
is easily ignored.
is easily Underdrain
ignored. flow refers
Underdrain to the to
flow refers water
the flowing throughthrough
water flowing BRCs but still but
BRCs con-still
tributes to the surface runoff. However, it was noted that the underdrain flow was differ-
ent from the overflow because the water quality was greatly improved by flowing through
the planting zone of BRCs. We introduced Runderdrain, the ratio of underdrain flow to the
total inflow, to represent the treated water that contributed to runoff. Figure 6 shows that
 24 24
B1 B3 B5 B7 B9 B11 B13 B15 B17 B19 BRCs
BRCs
(a) (b)
Figure 5. Roverflow of BRCs. (a) Roverflow for all BRCs; (b) range and distribution of Roverflow.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 8 of 14
Additionally, we wanted to analyze another flow indicator, underdrain flow, wh
is easily ignored. Underdrain flow refers to the water flowing through BRCs but still co
tributes to the surface runoff. However, it was noted that the underdrain flow was diff
contributes to the surface runoff. However, it was noted that the underdrain flow was
ent from the overflow because the water quality was greatly improved by flowing throu
different from the overflow because the water quality was greatly improved by flowing
the planting zone of BRCs. We introduced Runderdrain, the ratio of underdrain flow to
through the planting zone of BRCs. We introduced Runderdrain , the ratio of underdrain
total inflow, to represent the treated water that contributed to runoff. Figure 6 shows t
flow to the total inflow, to represent the treated water that contributed to runoff. Figure 6
the accumulated Runderdrain was 16.1%, accounting for 34.6% outflow, indicating a noticea
shows that the accumulated Runderdrain was 16.1%, accounting for 34.6% outflow, indicating
improvement in water quality. Figure 6 shows that the underflow ranged from 13.1%
a noticeable improvement in water quality. Figure 6 shows that the underflow ranged
21.0%, mainly concentrated between 15.0% and 18.9%, with significant fluctuations, b
from 13.1% to 21.0%, mainly concentrated between 15.0% and 18.9%, with significant
no significant trend was noticed between BRCs.
fluctuations, but no significant trend was noticed between BRCs.

22 22

20 20
Runderdrain(%)

Runderdrain(%)
18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12
B1 B3 B5 B7 B9 B11 B13 B15 B17 B19 BRCs
BRCs

(a) (b)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Underdrain Underdrain
flow of BRCs. flow of BRCs. (a)flow
(a) Underdrain Underdrain flow
ratio of the ratio of the subcatchments;
subcatchments; (b) range and(b) range a
distribution of underdrain
distribution of underdrain flow ratio. flow ratio.

To test the hydrological

To test the hydrological impacts
impacts of BRCs, weofconducted
BRCs, weaconducted
significance a significance
test for the test for
water quantity entering and leaving biological detention
water quantity entering and leaving biological detention ponds. There was a significant ponds. There was a signific
difference between the two groups of data when p < 0.5.
difference between the two groups of data when p < 0.5. The significance test revealed The significance test revealed
−
p = 2.40 × 102.407 × 10 , confirming
−7
, confirming that thethat the volume
volume of water
of water exitingexiting the BRCs
the BRCs was was significantly smal
significantly
smaller than than the volume
the volume entering
entering the BRCs.
the BRCs. As As expected,
expected, positive
positive linear
linear relationships were
relationships
were observed served
between between the inflow
the inflow and outflow (R2 =(R0.979,
and outflow where R2 is
2 = 0.979, where R2the
is the coefficient
coefficient of of determ
determination) nation) and inflow
and inflow and overflow (R2 = (R
and overflow 2 = 0.927).
0.927). This This
impliedimplied thatoutflow
that the the outflow
would would sign
significantly increase with the inflow. It can be easily speculated that the BRCs might have have li
icantly increase with the inflow. It can be easily speculated that the BRCs might
ited hydrological
limited hydrological performances performances
during largeduring large
storms, storms,
which whichlikely
are more are more likely to gener
to generate
more runoff. more runoff.
To evaluate the study area’s BRC runoff volume control, the runoff coefficients under
the three different scenarios were calculated and listed in Table 4. The runoff coefficients
under the scenarios of a pre-developed, developed, and developed with BRCs were 0.081,
0.358, and 0.165, respectively. These numbers indicated a significant improvement in
the runoff coefficient for the study area. While BRCs decreased the runoff coefficient
significantly, it remained much higher than in the pre-developed condition, suggesting
that 5% of the study area’s impervious area as the BRC surface area may not be enough to
reduce the developed runoff coefficient to the pre-developed value.
Figure 7 displays the distinctions between each situation more explicitly. Significant
fluctuations were noticed for the developed conditions. BRCs significantly decreased
the runoff coefficient and generated a more concentrated distribution. These findings
indicate that BRCs could mimic the pre-developed hydrology to some extent, especially for
low-impervious subcatchments such as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, and S6.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 9 of 14

Table 4. Runoff coefficient for the three scenarios.

Runoff Coefficients Results

Subcatchments Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Pre-Developed Developed Developed with BRCs
S1 0.07 0.188 0.108
S2 0.067 0.185 0.102
S3 0.069 0.241 0.125
S4 0.069 0.187 0.105
S5 0.066 0.239 0.121
S6 0.077 0.209 0.121
S7 0.072 0.343 0.165
S8 0.07 0.387 0.186
S9 0.073 0.716 0.306
S10 0.064 0.501 0.22
S11 0.077 0.729 0.326
S12 0.072 0.509 0.223
S13 0.07 0.698 0.302
S14 0.08 0.575 0.266
S15 0.058 0.347 0.159
S16 0.076 0.535 0.253
S17 0.072 0.532 0.237
S18 0.073 0.502 0.231
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW S19 0.073 0.724 0.331 10 of 15
Overall 0.081 0.358 0.165

1.0 Pre-developed Developed

Developed with BRCs 0.8
0.8
Runoff Coefficient

Runoff Coefficient

0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
S1 S3 S5 S7 S9 S11 S13 S15 S17 S19 Pre-developed Developed BRCs
Subcatchements

(a) (b)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Runoff
Runoff coefficients
coefficients under
under different
different scenarios.
scenarios. (a)
(a) Runoff
Runoffcoefficients
coefficientsfor
fordifferent
differentsub-
subcatch-
catchments; (b) range and distribution of runoff coefficients
ments; (b) range and distribution of runoff coefficients.

3.2. Peak
3.2. Peak Flow Frequency Exceedance
Exceedance Curve
Curve
Figure 8 depicts the frequency
Figure frequency of of peak
peakflow
flowexceedance
exceedancefor forthe
thethree
threescenarios
scenarioseval-
eval-
uated in
uated in the
the study
study area. As anticipated,
anticipated, the
the lowest
lowestpeakpeakdischarge
dischargevaluevalueoccurred
occurredunder
under
the pre-developed
the pre-developed scenario,
scenario, and
and aa more
more significant
significantincrease
increasein inpeak
peakdischarge
dischargevalue
valuewaswas
observed for
observed for the developed scenario
scenario without
without stormwater
stormwatercontrols.
controls.Figure
Figure88demonstrates
demonstrates
that the
that the BRCs
BRCssignificantly
significantlyreduced
reducedthe thepeak
peakdischarge
dischargefor forstorms
stormswith withaareturn
returnduration
durationof
of less
less than
than oneone year.
year. When
When thethe storm
storm return
return period
period exceededone
exceeded oneyear,
year,the
thepeak
peakdischarge
dischargeof
of the
the BRC-controlled
BRC-controlled scenario
scenario approached
approached thethe scenario
scenario ofof developed
developed areawithout
area withoutstormwa-
storm-
water controlled. Additionally, when the storm
ter controlled. Additionally, when the storm was smaller was smaller than the
the 0.1-year stormvalue,
0.1-year storm value,
the peak
the peak discharge of the BRC-controlled
BRC-controlled scenario
scenario could
couldbe bethe
thesame
sameasasthe thepre-developed
pre-developed
scenario. These
scenario. Thesefindings
findingsconfirmed
confirmed that when
that when thethe
BRCsBRCscellscells
areaarea
waswas5% of 5%theoftotal
the im-
total
pervious area,
impervious thethe
area, performance
performance inin
peak
peakdischarge
dischargeduringduringlarge
largestorms
stormswas waslimited
limitedandand
was capable
was capable of
of handling
handling storms smaller than the the one-year
one-year storm.
storm.
 of less than one year. When the storm return period exceeded one year, the peak discharge
of the BRC-controlled scenario approached the scenario of developed area without storm-
water controlled. Additionally, when the storm was smaller than the 0.1-year storm value,
the peak discharge of the BRC-controlled scenario could be the same as the pre-developed
scenario. These findings confirmed that when the BRCs cells area was 5% of the total im-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 10 of 14
pervious area, the performance in peak discharge during large storms was limited and
was capable of handling storms smaller than the one-year storm.

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure
Figure8.8.Performances
Performancesofofbioretention
bioretentioncells
cellsononpeak
peakflow
flowfrequency
frequencyexceedance
exceedancecurve.
curve.

3.3.Flow
3.3. FlowDuration
DurationCurve
Curve
Frequency and duration are crucial components in hydrology, and flow duration
curvesFrequency and duration
could successfully depictare crucialand
duration components
magnitudein[35].
hydrology, and flow
Figure 9 shows the duration
impacts
curves could successfully depict duration and magnitude [35]. Figure 9 shows
of the BRC control practices on the full spectrum of flow, demonstrated by flow theduration
impacts
of the BRC control practices on the full spectrum of flow, demonstrated by flow duration
curves. It can be seen that when BRCs controlled the runoff generation under urban con-
curves. It can be seen that when BRCs controlled the runoff generation under urban
ditions, small discharges (those that occur more than 90% of the time) in magnitude and
conditions, small discharges (those that occur more than 90% of the time) in magnitude
duration closely matched those of pre-developed conditions across a full spectrum. The
and duration closely matched those of pre-developed conditions across a full spectrum.
change in large flows was explained because the BRCs cells can only control the small
The change in large flows was explained because the BRCs cells can only control the small
storms, which is discussed later in the study.
storms, which is discussed later in the study.

4.5
4.0
3.5
Discharge(m /s)

3.0
3

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Percent of Time Flow is Equalled or Exceeded
Undeveloped Developed Developed with BRCs

Figure
Figure9.9.Flow
Flowduration
durationcurve
curvefor
forthe
thethree
threescenarios.
scenarios.

3.4.TT0.50.5
3.4.
TheSWMM
The SWMMmodelmodelresults
resultsfor
for the
the three
three scenarios
scenarios werewere used
used to estimate
to estimate T0.5 T
the the at0.5
theat
the study area’s outlet to study the impacts of BRC cells on in-stream biology. Since
study area’s outlet to study the impacts of BRC cells on in-stream biology. Since there was there
a positive linear relationship between T0.5 and biological diversity, it was assumed that if
the T0.5 increased, then the biological diversity would increase. Calculations of T0.5 under
different thresholds are listed in Table 5. Table 5 shows that when the threshold was 0.11
m3/s, for the pre-developed scenario, T0.5 was 0.838. For the developed condition, T0.5 was
0.045, indicating the degradation of biological diversity. For the condition of land devel-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 11 of 14

was a positive linear relationship between T0.5 and biological diversity, it was assumed
that if the T0.5 increased, then the biological diversity would increase. Calculations of T0.5
under different thresholds are listed in Table 5. Table 5 shows that when the threshold was
0.11 m3 /s, for the pre-developed scenario, T0.5 was 0.838. For the developed condition,
T0.5 was 0.045, indicating the degradation of biological diversity. For the condition of
land developed with BRCs, T0.5 was 0.226, which showed a significant increase, indicating
improvement in in-stream ecology. The resemblance of T0.5 of BRCs to pre-developed
conditions might suggest that even small BRCs (the surface area of BRCs was 5% of its
impervious catchment area) can be efficient in improving stream ecology.

Table 5. T0.5 under different scenarios.

Threshold (m3 /s) Pre-Developed Developed Developed with BRCs

0.11 0.838 0.045 0.226
0.17 1.00 0.069 0.328
0.23 1.00 0.101 0.432

4. Discussion
Evaluation of the performances of 19 BRCs on the runoff volume control, peak flow ex-
ceedance curve, flow duration curve, and T0.5 allowed the investigation into the evaluation
standards of BRC performances and current sizing design methods.

4.1. Runoff Volume Control Performances

The runoff volume control performances of BRCs were significant in controlling the
total inflow, 53.3% of which infiltrated into the groundwater or left BRCs via transpiration
or evaporation. Similar runoff volume control performances were found in the studies
by Davis [22] and Li et al. [39] based on the field monitoring data. In Davis’ analysis,
the mean values of Routflow for the two BRCs under 24 h monitoring were 35% and 48%,
respectively. These numbers were smaller than the value in this study; the reason for this
might be that the BRCs area was about 45% of the whole drainage area (and also 45% of
the impervious area). In comparison, the BRC area was only 5.0% impervious in this study.
The runoff volume control performance and infiltration performances were very significant.
However, supposing we used runoff coefficients as an indicator to examine the runoff
volume control performances of BRCs. In that case, the results would not be satisfactory,
especially for areas with high imperviousness. These findings indicate that if we wanted
the runoff coefficients to be reduced to their pre-developed value, we need to increase the
surface area of the BRCs or increase the media and native soil infiltration rates. According
to Davis’ research, the BRC area was almost 45% of the total drainage area, and the runoff
coefficient was approximately 0.24, which was much higher than the runoff coefficients
under pre-developed conditions (less than 0.07 based on the result in this study). It was
noted that the 45% BRC area was 45% of the whole drainage area, a very high ratio, and
may not always be available for a catchment. In addition, the infiltration of the native soil
was limited by the local soil and could not be enhanced manually. Based on these findings,
we assumed that the runoff coefficients were not an efficient goal of LID practices.

4.2. Peak Discharge Reduction, Flow Duration Curve and T0.5

The peak discharge reduction for single events was not analyzed in this study. Instead,
the peak discharge curves were plotted. The peak discharge curve of the BRC treatment
condition matched the predeveloped state very well when the precipitation was smaller
than a 0.1-year (return period) storm. The peak discharge reduction for the 0.5-year to
2-year storm was around 40% to 50%. When the storm was smaller than the 1-year
storm, the peak reduction decreased significantly. Previous studies supported these results
that BRCs cells can reduce hydrologic impacts for small events but were predicted to be
ineffective in large storm events [40–42]. The peak discharge curve was a very efficient
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 12 of 14

way to evaluate the performance of BRC cells if the objective of BRCs cells was for peak
discharge, but it was noted that peak reduction was the only goal. Detention can be more
efficient by controlling the precipitation depth up to a 100-year storm.
The flow duration curve expressed the long-term hydrologic spectrum of the study
area. It could provide direct knowledge of the flow’s quantity, duration, and frequency.
Palhegyi [38] tested the flow duration curves by comparing pre- and post-runoff time series
and found that the flow duration curves closely reproduced the pre-developed hydrologic
time series. He recommended that the flow duration curves be the basis for designing
stormwater controls that mimic pre-developed hydrology. Palhegyi’s research was based on
the flow duration curve of single events, and the results could not reflect the pre-developed
hydrology. Still, this method was different from the current sizing methods. To conclude,
the flow duration curves were a good way for BRC sizing because they could achieve the
design objectives of recharging groundwater or base flow, reducing peak discharge, and
controlling the flow duration, magnitude, and frequency simultaneously.
The results for T0.5 indicated that BRCs are an efficient way to improve water stream
ecology. However, this study did not test other hydrologic indicators that were assumed to
be related to stream ecology.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, we developed a series of hydrological indicators to examine the BRCs
performances and used them in a moderate urban area. Implementing BRCs could sig-
nificantly reduce the urban surface flow while improving the water quantity. Runoff
coefficients were closer to those under pre-developed conditions. The analysis results of the
peak discharge frequency curve show that the BRCs plays a significant role in regulating
the peak discharge of rainfall events with a high frequency. When the frequency of precipi-
tation events decreases, its regulatory role on the peak discharge is gradually weakened.
The flow duration curve confirmed that BRCs can effectively simulate the regional natural
runoff morphology for small rainfall events and can be an effective metric to evaluate the
performances of BRCs. However, it was challenging to minimize the runoff coefficients as
the values under pre-developed conditions might not be an effective evaluation indicator.
To meet the LID design goals, a higher BRC surface area will be needed. From a hydrologic
perspective, if T0.5 was used, the stream ecology was significantly improved under BRC
treatment conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.S. and C.X.; methodology, Y.S. and F.Y.; software, Q.L.;
validation, M.M. and Y.S.; formal analysis, Y.S. and M.M.; investigation, Y.S.; resources, Y.S.; data
curation, Q.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.L.; essay—review and editing, Y.S. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Basic Public Welfare Research Program of Zhejiang Province,
grant number LZJWD22E090001; Major Science and Technology Program of Zhejiang Province, grant
number 2021C03019; Central Plains Science and Technology Innovation Leading Talent Support
Program, grant number 204200510048; and The Key Scientific Research Project Plan of Colleges and
Universities in Henan Province, grant number 21A170014.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the complexity of models.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 13 of 14

References
1. Barco, J.; Hogue, T.S.; Curto, V.; Rademacher, L. Linking hydrology and stream geochemistry in urban fringe watersheds. J.
Hydrol. 2008, 360, 31–47. [CrossRef]
2. Chen, W.J.; Huang, G.R.; Zhang, H. Urban stormwater inundation simulation based on SWMM and diffusive overland-flow
model. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 3392–3403. [CrossRef]
3. Fletcher, T.D.; Andrieu, H.; Hamel, P. Understanding, management and modelling of urban hydrology and its consequences for
receiving waters: A state of the art. Adv. Water Resour. 2013, 51, 261–279. [CrossRef]
4. Poff, N.L.; Allan, J.D.; Bain, M.B.; Karr, J.R.; Prestegaard, K.L.; Richter, B.D.; Sparks, R.E.; Stromberg, J.C. The natural flow regime:
A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 1997, 47, 769–784. [CrossRef]
5. Walsh, C.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Ladson, A.R. Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: Looking
to the catchment to save the stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24, 690–705. [CrossRef]
6. Poff, N.L.; Zimmerman, J.K.H. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: A literature review to inform the science and
management of environmental flows. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 194–205. [CrossRef]
7. Hamel, P.; Daly, E.; Fletcher, T.D. Source-control stormwater management for mitigating the impacts of urbanisation on baseflow:
A review. J. Hydrol. 2013, 485, 201–211. [CrossRef]
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Low Impact Development: A Literature Review; Office of Water: Washington, DC,
USA, 2000; EPA-841-B-00-005.
9. Zhu, Z.; Chen, Z.; Chen, X.; Yu, G. An Assessment of the Hydrologic Effectiveness of Low Impact Development (LID) Practices
for Managing Runoff with Different Objectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 504–514. [CrossRef]
10. Hsieh, C.H.; Davis, A.P. Multiple-event study of bioretention for treatment of urban storm water runoff. Water Sci. Technol. 2005,
51, 177–181. [CrossRef]
11. Aiyelokun, O.; Pham, Q.B.; Aiyelokun, O.; Malik, A.; Adarsh, S.; Mohammadi, B.; Linh, N.T.T.; Zakwan, M. Credibility of Design
Rainfall Estimates for Drainage Infrastructures: Extent of Disregard in Nigeria and Proposed Framework for Practice. Nat.
Hazards 2021, 109, 1557–1588. [CrossRef]
12. Abduljaleel, Y.; Demissie, Y. Identifying Cost-Effective Low-Impact Development (LID) under Climate Change: A Multi-Objective
Optimization Approach. Water 2022, 14, 3017. [CrossRef]
13. Davis, A.P.; Hunt, W.F.; Traver, R.G.; Clar, M. Bioretention technology: Overview of current practice and future needs. J. Environ.
Eng. 2009, 135, 109–117. [CrossRef]
14. Jaber, F.H.; Guzik, E.R. Improving water quality and reducing the volume of urban stormwater runoff with a bioretention area. In
Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting, ASABE, Reno, NV,
USA, 21 June 2009.
15. Brown, R.J.; Hunt, W.F. Impacts of maintenance and (1m) properly sizing bioretention on hydrologic and water quality perfor-
mance. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Recources Congress, Providence, RI, USA, 16–20 May 2010.
16. Dietz, M.E.; Clausen, J.C. A field evaluation of rain garden flow and pollutant treatment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2005, 167, 123–138.
[CrossRef]
17. Davis, A.P. Field performance of bioretention: Water quality. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2007, 24, 1048–1064. [CrossRef]
18. Lisenbee, W.A.; Hathaway, J.M.; Winston, R.J. Modeling Bioretention Hydrology: Quantifying the Performance of DRAINMOD-
Urban and the SWMM LID Module. J. Hydrol. 2022, 612, 128179. [CrossRef]
19. Passeport, E.; Hunt, W.F.; Line, D.E.; Smith, R.A.; Brown, R.A. Field study of the ability of two grassed bioretention cells to reduce
stormwater runoff pollution. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2009, 135, 505–510. [CrossRef]
20. Chapman, C.; Horner, R.R. Performance assessment of a street-drainage BRCs system. Water Environ. Res. 2010, 82, 109–119.
[CrossRef]
21. Chen, X.L.; Peltier, E.; Sturm, B.S.M.; Young, C.B. Nitrogen removal and nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria quantification in a
water BRCs system. Water Res. 2013, 47, 1691–1700. [CrossRef]
22. Davis, A.P. Field performance of bioretention: Hydrology impacts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2008, 13, 90–95. [CrossRef]
23. DeBusk, K.M.; Wynn, T.M. Strom-water Bioretention for runoff quality and quantity mitigation. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 137,
800–808. [CrossRef]
24. Jia, H.F.; Wang, X.W.; Ti, C.P.; Zhai, Y.Y.; Field, R.; Tafuri, A.N.; Cai, H.H.; Yu, S.L. Field monitoring of a LID-BMP treatment train
system in China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 187, 373–390. [CrossRef]
25. Jones, P.S.; Davis, A.P. Spatial accumulation and strength of affiliation of heavy metals in BRCs media. J. Environ. Eng. 2013, 139,
479–487. [CrossRef]
26. Hunt, W.F.; Davis, A.P.; Traver, R. Meeting hydrologic and water quality goals through targeted BRCs design. J. Environ. Eng.
2012, 138, 698–707. [CrossRef]
27. Li, J.K.; Davis, A.P. A unified look at phosphorus treatment using bioretention. Water Res. 2016, 90, 141–155. [CrossRef]
28. Lucas, B. Design of integrated bioinfiltration-detention urban retrofits with continuous simulation methods. In Proceedings of the
World Environment & Water Resources Congress, ASCE, Kansas City, MO, USA, 17–21 May 2009.
29. Morris, Z.B.; Malone, S.M.; Cohen, A.R.; Weissburg, M.J.; Bras, B. Impact of Low-Impact Development Technologies from an
Ecological Perspective in Different Residential Zones of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. Engineering 2018, 4, 194–199. [CrossRef]
30. Gregory, M. Flow duration hydrograph analyses for assessing LID performance. J. Water Manag. Model. 2015, 23, 1–6. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4204 14 of 14

31. Asleson, B.C.; Nestingen, R.S.; Gulliver, J.S.; Hozalski, R.M.; Nieber, J.L. Performance assessment of rain gardens. JAWRA J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc. 2009, 45, 1019–1031. [CrossRef]
32. Heasom, W.; Traver, R.G.; Welker, A. Hydrologic modeling of a bioinfiltration best management practice. JAWRA J. Am. Water
Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 1329–1347. [CrossRef]
33. Bosley, E.K.; Kem, E. Hydrologic Evaluation of Low Impact Development Using a Continuous, Spatially-Distributed Model.
Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2008.
34. Platz, M.; Simon, M.; Tryby, M. Testing of the Storm Water Management Model Low Impact Development Modules. JAWRA J.
Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2020, 56, 283–296. [CrossRef]
35. Sun, Y.; Pomeroy, C.; Li, Q.; Xu, C. Impacts of Rainfall and Catchment Characteristics on Bioretention Cell Performance. Water Sci.
Eng. 2019, 12, 98–107. [CrossRef]
36. Pomeroy, C.A. Evaluating the Impacts of Urbanization and Stormwater Management Practices on Stream Response. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2007.
37. Sun, Y.-W.; Wei, X.-M.; Pomeroy, C.A. Global Analysis of Sensitivity of Bioretention Cell Design Elements to Hydrologic
Performance. Water Sci. Eng. 2011, 4, 246–257. [CrossRef]
38. Palhegyi, G.E. Modeling and sizing bioretention using flow duration control. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2010, 15, 417–425. [CrossRef]
39. Li, H.; Sharkey, L.J.; Hunt, W.F.; Davis, A.P. Mitigation of impervious surface hydrology using bioretention in North Carolina and
Maryland. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2009, 14, 407–415. [CrossRef]
40. Brander, K.E.; Owen, K.E.; Potter, K.W. Modeled impacts of development type on runoff volume and infiltration performance.
JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2004, 40, 961–969. [CrossRef]
41. Williams, E.S.; Wise, W.R. Economic impacts of alternative approaches to storm water management and land development. J.
Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2009, 135, 537–546. [CrossRef]
42. Muthanna, T.M.; Viklander, M.; Thorolfsson, S.T. An evaluation of applying existing BRCs sizing methods to cold climates with
snow storage conditions. Water Sci. Technol. 2007, 56, 73–81. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.