Evaluating the Efficacy of Low Impact Development Strategies: A Hydrologic-Economic Model to Mitigate Urban Flood Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the rapid expansion of urban areas has led to changes in land use, a reduction in pervious surfaces, and a disturbance in the balance between surface waters and groundwater. These urban changes, combined with inadequate drainage systems and misdirection of runoff, have resulted in severe urban floods, causing numerous fatalities and damage to urban areas. As a result, investigating the effects of flood occurrences and determining proper mitigation measures to reduce flood damage is essential. This paper aims to establish a novel economic-hydrologic model to evaluate the efficacy of Low-impact Development (LID) measures in urban Bronx River catchment, NYC. The model examines reduced peak discharge of flood and imposed damage. Initially, the EPA’s SWMM is used to simulate urban flooding based on recent extreme events. LID scenarios are then implemented, including individual and combined scenarios, to mitigate the adverse impacts of flood occurrences of high to low frequency. By means of the HEC-GeoRAS tool, highly detailed flood inundation maps are generated and seamlessly incorporated into the flood damage estimation model, namely HAZUS, to obtain estimates of the potential damage caused by floods. Using the reduced monetary damages and the implementation cost of LID measures, the benefit-to-cost (BC) ratio is then calculated. Findings indicated that the combined LID scenario is the most effective approach in peak flow reduction. Moreover, Permeable pavement outperforms infiltration trench, bio retention cell, and rain barrel in terms of benefit-to-cost ratio, with rain barrel showing the lowest ratio. The proposed evaluation system for LID measures, with a focus on flood damage reduction as a key benefit, provides valuable insights for identifying optimal scenarios and facilitating informed decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".