The potential of green infrastructure in urban pluvial flood mitigation – a scenario-based modelling study in Berlin
Abstract. Urban surface sealing limits infiltration and thus increases the formation of runoff during heavy rain events. Green infrastructure (GI) measures can be used to reduce urban flood risk by promoting decentralized infiltration, water storage and evapotranspiration. With a scenario-based modelling study, we investigate the impact of green infrastructure on urban runoff formation, flood water depths and the resulting damage to buildings; comparing it with the impact of the conventional drainage system. The study area is located in the city of Berlin, in a heavily sealed 3.3 km² urban catchment. Design rain storms with a duration of one hour and totals between 15 and 100 mm are considered. The green infrastructure scenarios include different spatial extents and combinations of bioretention systems, green roofs and pervious pavement. The Storm Water Management Model is used for the urban runoff generation and the 2D-hydrodynamic module of TELEMAC for surface runoff concentration. Building damage is modelled with the Flood Damage Estimation Tool, a recursive partitioning tool developed with survey data representative of building damage caused by pluvial floods. Flood mitigation is investigated regarding absolute and relative reduction and also space efficiency of the GI types. Relative flood mitigation reduces at all modelling steps with increasing rain totals. In contrast, absolute runoff reduction increases with increasing rain totals while the area with maximum water level > 10 cm decreases the most at the 49 mm event and building damage reduces most at 25–30 mm. Bioretention systems achieve the highest spatial efficiency, however, green roofs and pervious pavements do not impede the former land use.
General comments:
The manuscript is very well-structured, clearly written, and addresses a highly relevant topic, namely the assessment of the effectiveness of different green infrastructure scenarios for reducing urban flooding during heavy rainfall events. Compared to other studies conducted in similar urban settings, the explicit estimation of flood damage across different scenarios is particularly interesting and valuable. The following aspects could be explained and/or discussed in more detail in order to improve overall clarity and to enable a better assessment of the plausibility of the results.
The manuscript uses a detailed, multi-layered, process-based representation of green infrastructure in the SWMM hydrological model, while surface runoff is introduced into the 2D hydrodynamic model via spatially aggregated inflow points rather than distributed precipitation and infiltration. The authors are invited to briefly discuss this trade-off between process complexity and spatial abstraction and to explain why the chosen level of detail of the green infrastructure is appropriate in general, but also in particular given the simplified representation of surface runoff in the 2D model.
Green infrastructure elements are modelled using, among other approaches, the Green–Ampt infiltration model, whereas infiltration from permeable surfaces is represented using the Curve Number method. The authors are encouraged to briefly explain the rationale for applying different levels of process representation within the same hydrological model and to comment on the implications of this choice.
Specific comments: