Nature-based Solutions for Urban Stormwater Management

This paper explores Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for urban stormwater management, emphasizing their role in mitigating runoff, reducing flood risks, and improving water quality. Bioretention systems (BRS), green roofs, permeable pavements, and vegetated swales utilize natural processes such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, and filtration to manage stormwater while promoting urban resilience and supporting biodiversity effectively. The performance of these solutions depends on vegetation, soil, and climatic parameters, highlighting the need for context-specific design and implementation. While NbS present sustainable alternatives to conventional infrastructure, technical, economic, social, and institutional challenges require interdisciplinary collaboration and supportive policies to unlock their full potential.

Introduction

Managing stormwater effectively in densely developed urban areas is a critical challenge requiring sustainable, cost- effective, and efficient solutions (Table 1). Increased runoff can degrade terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, intensify flooding, and pose significant risks to human well-being. To address these issues, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have gained renewed attention as innovative environmental strategies to control flow velocity and manage urban stormwater.¹ NbS offer a holistic approach to mitigating the impacts of stormwater runoff by intercepting and storing rainfall in vegetation and allowing water to evaporate or infiltrate in porous soils.² Vegetated green spaces, such as bioretention systems (BRS; e.g., rain gardens and constructed wetlands), green roofs, permeable pavements, and vegetated swales, play pivotal roles in urban stormwater management. Such integration reduces the frequency and severity of urban flash floods, improves water quality, and enhances local environmental conditions. NbS not only reduce stormwater runoff but also provide broader ecosystem services, such as improving reduction of urban heat island effects, enhancement of biodiversity, and support of groundwater recharge, by enriching natural processes.³

NbS focus on protecting, sustainably managing, and restoring natural and modified ecosystems to effectively address societal challenges while enhancing biodiversity and human well-being. In stormwater management, NbS methods such as BRS, permeable pavements, and green roofs have proven to mitigate runoff, filter pollutants, and bolster urban resilience.⁴ Their performance depends on critical factors such as vegetation types, soil characteristics, and climatic conditions. Understanding and optimizing these variables is essential for maximizing the effectiveness of NbS in urban settings. The more urban systems commit to adopting NbS in planning and design, the more they help bridge the gap between environmental conservation and urban development. These solutions offer a pathway to more sustainable, adaptive, and livable urban spaces by combining ecological and engineering approaches.

Table 1. NbS challenges and benefits for urban stormwater management.

NbS in Stormwater Management

NbS in stormwater management encompass a wide array of techniques that integrate natural processes to manage runoff, enhance water quality, and promote ecosystem services. Given the breadth of NbS strategies, this section focuses on four widely adopted and well-documented practices—Bioretention Systems, Green Roofs, Permeable Pavements, and Vegetated Swales.

Bioretention Systems

BRS encompass a range of vegetated stormwater management practices designed to capture, infiltrate, and treat runoff near its source, including rain gardens, constructed wetlands, and bioswales. These systems typically integrate engineered soils, diverse vegetation, and drainage features tailored to site-specific conditions, enhancing their adaptability across urban settings. For example, rain gardens use shallow depressions with native plants to manage residential runoff, while constructed wetlands employ deeper water zones to treat larger stormwater volumes.⁵ In urban environments, extensive impervious surfaces intensify stormwater volumes and peak flows, leading to flashier runoff responses during storm runoff. BRS are an example of a NbS that can be embedded within low-impact development strategies—a planning approach that uses natural features to manage stormwater at its source—and substantially mitigates runoff near its source, achieving a 54–98% reduction in runoff volume. Their effectiveness depends on how the system is built, the type of soil and materials used, and its overall size.⁶ A typical BRS integrates a vegetated mulch surface, an underlying biofiltration zone (often engineered soil, sand, gravel, and organic matter), and a drainage layer (pipe or recharges the groundwater table), collectively enhancing infiltration, attenuating peak flows, and ultimately improving urban hydrological conditions (see Figure 1). The drainage system helps prevent water from accumulating within the layers, which could otherwise lead to soil saturation and reduced infiltration efficiency.

Figure 1. A cross-sectional schematic of a BRS, showcasing its layered structure of mulch, engineered soil, sand, gravel, and drainage.

In addition to their hydraulic benefits, BRS are also recognized for their water quality improvement capabilities and ecological contributions.⁴ The filtration media, including engineered soils and root zones can remove various contaminants such as suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons before reaching subsurface waters.⁵ BRS can serve as sustainable landscape features that enhance urban resiliency, adapt to climate variability, and improve overall environmental health over time if designed and maintained appropriately.

DeBusk et al. (2011) demonstrated that a retrofit bioretention cell can substantially mitigate runoff quantity and pollutant loads with reductions in total runoff volumes, peak flow rates, and sediment and nutrient masses all exceeding 97%.⁷ They also showed that deeper bioretention designs may be particularly beneficial in karst landscapes, where infiltration potential and topographic variations significantly influence performance. Davis et al. (2012) demonstrated that BRS in multiple locations effectively reduced runoff volumes by fully capturing smaller storms and attenuating larger events.⁸ They proposed the Bioretention Abstraction Volume (BAV) as a key design parameter, emphasizing that greater media and surface storage can significantly enhance hydrologic performance.

Green Roofs

Green roofs play a vital role in stormwater management by mitigating the impacts of urban runoff. A green roof is a building system partially or completely covered with vegetation and a growing medium, layered over a waterproof membrane.⁹ There are two primary types of green roofs. Extensive green roofs feature a shallow substrate layer (less than 150 mm) and are primarily planted with grasses and herbs, particularly species from the Sedum genus (Figure 2a). In contrast, intensive Green Roofs feature thicker substrate layers (greater than 150 mm) that support a wider range of vegetation, including shrubs, trees, and perennials, offering greater flexibility in plant selection (Figure 2b).^10,11

The capacity of green roofs to manage stormwater primarily depends on the thickness and composition of the substrate layer, the roof slope, and the type of vegetation used. Weather conditions, such as seasonal and climatic variations, the characteristics of rainfall events, and the duration of preceding dry periods, also play a crucial role in determining water retention efficiency.¹² Notably, water retention can range from 11% to as high as 90% of the total rainfall, largely determined by factors such as regional climate, substrate properties, and the degree of roof saturation.¹³ Green roof performance in stormwater management is influenced by two key factors: (a) the amount of rainfall, which is partially absorbed by the substrate and utilized by plants, then returned to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration, and (b) the runoff volume, which is affected by the intensity of rainfall and the degree of roof saturation with peak flow reduced over time.¹⁴

Permeable Pavements

Figure 2. (a) Schematic cross-section of a typical green roof system showing key components; (b) A green roof system for stormwater management and insulation.Permeable Pavements

Permeable pavements are engineered surfaces designed to allow water to infiltrate through or between paving materials, rather than running off immediately into storm drains (Figure 3). They typically consist of multiple layers, including a wear layer, bedding layer, base, and sub-base which collectively facilitate water retention, storage, and infiltration.¹⁵ The choice of materials and layer thickness is closely tied to the expected desired drainage capacity. Common surface materials for permeable pavements include permeable interlocking concrete pavers, pervious concrete, porous asphalt, and grass grid systems; while not all these surfaces incorporate vegetation, they function as NbS by promoting infiltration and reducing runoff at the source. A key benefit of permeable pavements is their demonstrated effectiveness in reducing surface runoff, delaying peak flow rates, and extending time to peak discharge.¹⁶ This hydraulic efficiency is linked to processes such as evaporation, drainage through void spaces, and retention in the pavement layers. Studies have shown that particle size distribution within the bedding layer and the water-holding capacity of the surface layer significantly influence the pavement’s capacity to store water and reduce flooding potential.¹⁷

Permeable pavements can be installed in a variety of settings from parking lots and lightly trafficked streets to pedestrian walkways and private driveways. They are not suitable for areas at high risk of clogging by silt or organic debris from overhanging vegetation (e.g., oak trees), or in areas with excessively heavy vehicular use. In this system, water infiltrates into the underlying soils or is directed to drainage systems with a delay effectively reducing both runoff volume and flow rates.¹⁸ In this method, the amount of water retention varies between 11- 24%. As a result, permeable pavements are increasingly recognized as a key NbS for sustainable stormwater management in urban and suburban environments.

Figure 3. Examples of a permeable pavement system with vegetation for enhancing infiltration and reducing runoff.

Vegetated Swales

Vegetated swales are linear, shallow channels or depressions designed to convey and treat stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roads and parking lots. Typically, they feature a broad base of around 0.5 m in width and a 40–60 cm depth (Figure 4a), lined with vegetation (grasses or other native species).¹⁹ Their gently sloping longitudinal gradient, ideally less than 2%, encourages runoff to slow and infiltrate the ground rather than discharge directly into conventional drainage systems.¹⁹ Where steeper slopes are unavoidable, additional measures such as check dams, berms, or stepwise terracing can be incorporated to maintain flow control and prevent erosion. A key feature of vegetated swales is their natural filtration and sedimentation processes. Stormwater enters the swale where vegetation and substrate help trap sediments and particulate-bound contaminants such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Over time, biological activity in the root zone along with infiltration through permeable soils can degrade certain organic pollutants and reduce overall pollutant loads, improving water quality before the runoff reaches downstream waterbodies or recharges groundwater (Figure 4b).²⁰

The performance of a swale largely depends on its vegetation type and rooting depth, as well as the soil’s permeability and particle size distribution. Previous research showed that grasses often have denser root systems near the surface, facilitating infiltration but sometimes mobilizing fine soil particles, carrying attached contaminants deeper into the system.²¹ On the other hand, macrophytes (e.g., plants with deeper and more robust root networks) can better stabilize soils and reduce pollutant transport, enhancing the swale’s buffering capacity and helping maintain more consistent effluent quality.

In addition, the velocity of flow within the swale significantly influences pollutant removal efficiency; slower flow rates allow more time for sedimentation, infiltration, and biological uptake of contaminants, thereby improving overall treatment performance. Vegetated swales offer additional benefits, including peak flow attenuation and volume reduction. They help manage stormwater risks and reduce the burden on downstream stormwater infrastructure by promoting natural infiltration and temporary water storage. These systems are particularly effective in managing stormwater in moderate-traffic areas. Vegetated swales can sustain their efficiency and functionality over the long term with proper maintenance, including periodic mowing, removal of accumulated sediments, and upkeep of healthy vegetation through watering, trimming, and replanting as needed.²²

Figure 4. (a) Surface view of a vegetated swale; (b) Cross-sectional diagram of the vegetated swale system showing its key structural components.

Impact of Parameters on Stormwater Management

The effectiveness of NbS in managing stormwater is influenced by a range of biophysical and climatic factors. This section provides a broader overview of key parameters—namely vegetation characteristics, soil conditions, and climatic variables—that shape the hydrological performance of various NbS practices.

Vegetation Factor

Previous studies emphasized that plant species possessing high leaf area indices (LAI), large canopy volumes, and thick, rough bark can significantly reduce runoff and enhance stormwater retention and pollutant sorption.²³ LAI, which represents the ratio of leaf area to ground surface area, is a critical parameter in assessing the vegetation’s capacity to intercept rainfall. A higher LAI indicates a denser canopy, providing more surface area for water interception and evaporation, thus reducing the amount of direct runoff reaching the ground. Tree species selection emerged as the most investigated vegetation-related variable influencing interception, infiltration, and evapotranspiration in urban forests and parks²⁴. For instance, planting tree species with elevated LAI was shown to reduce local runoff by up to 24.5% for low-intensity rainfall events while national- scale analyses documented interception of up to 97.6 million m³ of stormwater annually in 728 US cities.²⁴ Although larger and denser canopies enhance interception and evapotranspiration, designers must weigh trade-offs related to maintenance, potential nutrient loading from leaf litter, and reduced evapotranspiration in closed canopies due to limited light penetration.²⁵

Considerations for undergrowth management are equally critical in urban parks and forests. Complex understory vegetation composed of shrubs, small trees, herbs, and leaf litter can significantly improve infiltration and reduce stormwater runoff, sometimes achieving interception levels comparable to tree canopies. However, maintenance regimes that involve frequent clearing to enhance aesthetics and recreation tend to reduce stormwater interception and infiltration capacity by affecting soil structure and reducing vegetation cover.²⁶ These management decisions must balance stormwater control objectives with broader concerns such as nutrient loading, habitat provision, and aesthetic preferences.

Lastly, the spatial arrangement of vegetation within urban parks, integrating open lawns, single trees, tree groups, and other vegetation patches, plays a pivotal role in designing NbS for stormwater management. While existing guidelines often focus on increasing canopy coverage, studies suggest that strategic layouts of tree stands can improve runoff mitigation without necessarily providing additional nitrogen retention benefits.²⁷ Consequently, future stormwater design guidelines should incorporate specific criteria related to canopy structure, understored vegetation, and spatial arrangement to maximize both the hydrological and broader ecological benefits of urban green spaces.

Soil Factor

Design considerations for soil-related variables are critical in enhancing stormwater management across community gardens, urban forests, and street trees. Organic matter content is pivotal in improving soil structure, porosity, and infiltration rates. Practices such as organic amendments and composting in community gardens, urban forests, and street trees help increase organic content, thereby promoting stormwater retention and infiltration. In community gardens, raised beds can enhance substrate depth and stormwater storage capacity. Such practices are especially beneficial in these settings, while other soil-enhancing approaches are applied to street trees and urban forests to address nonpoint-source pollutant filtration and uptake in urban tree pits.²⁸

Technological advancements in soil composition, such as the use of technosols, and engineered soils created by mixing organic and mineral waste, have shown promising results for urban forests and street trees by enhancing nutrient uptake and nitrification.²⁹ Technosols are human-made soils, classified under the World Reference Base for Soil Resources, formed by mixing organic materials, mineral waste, and other anthropogenic components to create a substrate that supports plant growth and improves soil functionality.These soil innovations align with global sustainability goals, such as the European Green Deal, offering solutions for urban green infrastructure.³⁰ Structural soils combined with underground drainage systems provide a robust alternative to prevent waterlogging in tree pits while supporting rapid tree growth. These approaches also foster faster tree growth and increased stormwater interception capacities, contributing to sustainable urban development. The integration of these soil-related strategies into urban green infrastructure supports not only effective stormwater management but also broader ecological and environmental benefits.

Climate Factor

Variations in climate play a crucial role in the effectiveness and resilience of NbS. Precipitation patterns, including intensity, frequency, and duration of rainfall events, directly influence runoff volumes and the capacity of systems like bioretention areas, green roofs, and permeable pavements to manage stormwater effectively. Increasingly erratic and extreme precipitation events, driven by climate change, necessitate the design of adaptive stormwater management systems that can accommodate a wider range of hydrological conditions. For instance, Weathers et al. (2023) evaluated future climate projections across 17 locations in the contiguous United States using an ensemble of 10 regional climate models.³¹ Their results indicate a median increase in annual rainfall by 9.9% (71 mm) across all locations, accompanied by a significant rise in the intensity of extreme precipitation events (≥ 90th percentile). Specifically, the depths of rainfall events at the 90th percentile increased in 12 out of the 17 locations, while those at the 99th percentile increased in all 17 locations.

Temperature and evapotranspiration rates are other critical climate factors influencing the performance of NbS. Higher temperatures can increase evapotranspiration, reducing runoff volume but potentially leading to higher soil moisture deficits, which can affect plant health and system performance. Conversely, colder climates may experience frozen ground conditions that limit infiltration and increase surface runoff during thawing periods. The selection of plant species in bioretention systems and green roofs must account for local temperature regimes to ensure vegetation resilience and sustained evapotranspiration rates.³²

Challenges

Challenges in Implementing Nature-based Solutions

While NbS offer promising approaches to urban stormwater management, their effective implementation is fraught with challenges related to technical, economic, social, and institutional factors. A primary technical challenge lies in the variability of site-specific conditions such as soil composition, topography, and hydrological characteristics, which influence the design and performance of NbS. In some urban areas, space constraints and the presence of highly compacted or contaminated soils may hinder the installation of bioretention systems, green roofs, or permeable pavements. Although green roofs are constructed above ground and are not limited by on-site soil conditions, they present other technical challenges such as structural loading limits, waterproofing requirements, and installation feasibility on existing buildings.

Economic constraints also pose a significant barrier to the widespread adoption of NbS. Although these solutions are often more cost- effective than conventional gray infrastructure in the long term, their upfront and ongoing maintenance costs—including design, installation, and long-term upkeep—can be prohibitively high for many municipalities. Additionally, the lack of standardized evaluation frameworks to quantify the co-benefits of NbS limits their appeal to stakeholders focused solely on cost-benefit analyses tied to flood mitigation. Social and institutional challenges further complicate the implementation of NbS. Public perception and acceptance of green infrastructure projects may vary, particularly in communities unfamiliar with their benefits or concerned about maintenance responsibilities.³² Furthermore, insufficient regulatory incentives and a lack of technical expertise among decision-makers and practitioners can impede the adoption and scaling of NbS in urban areas.

Addressing these challenges requires fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, engaging local communities in planning and implementation, and adopting policy measures that incentivize NbS integration into urban infrastructure projects. By aligning technical innovations with social and institutional frameworks, cities can overcome these barriers and harness the full potential of NbS to build sustainable, resilient urban environmental systems.

Conclusion

NbS provide a successful approach to managing stormwater in urban environments, offering sustainable, cost-effective, and multifaceted benefits. NbS methods, including bioretention systems, green roofs, permeable pavements, and vegetated swales, employ natural processes such as infiltration, evapotranspiration, and filtration. These solutions manage stormwater by reducing runoff, mitigating flood risks, and improving water quality. However, realizing the full potential of NbS requires addressing significant challenges, including technical, economic, social, and institutional barriers. Overcoming these obstacles necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration, innovative design, stakeholder engagement, and supportive policy frameworks.

One critical factor in NbS design is adapting solutions to the unique conditions of each site, taking into account local hydrology, soil composition, climatic patterns, and the social context. For instance, selecting appropriate vegetation for green roofs or bioretention areas can significantly enhance water-retention capacity while supporting local biodiversity. Meanwhile, permeable pavements must be carefully designed with sub-base materials that allow for efficient infiltration yet remain structurally sound under vehicular loads.

Equally important is the perception of decision-makers about the value and feasibility of NbS approaches. Traditional “gray” infrastructure solutions may still be favored due to entrenched practices, predictable performance metrics, and perceived lower risk. However, growing evidence of the cost-effectiveness and co-benefits of NbS has started to shift attitudes. When decision-makers recognize the multiple ecosystem services provided by green infrastructure—such as improved air quality, enhanced urban aesthetics, and increased recreational spaces—they may become more inclined to support and invest in NbS projects.

As cities face increasing pressures from urbanization and climate change, the adoption of NbS offers a promising pathway to sustainable urban living. Cities can create adaptive, resilient, and livable environments that benefit both people and ecosystems by integrating green infrastructure into urban planning. The successful implementation of NbS not only addresses immediate stormwater management challenges but also contributes to broader goals of climate adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and improved quality of life in urban areas.

References Cited

1. Cai, Y.-B., Wu, Z.-J., Chen, Y.-H., Wu, L., & Pan, W.-B. (2022). Investigate the difference of cooling effect between water bodies and green spaces: The Study of Fuzhou, China. Water, 14(9), 1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091471

2. Chausson, A., Turner, B., Seddon, D., Chabaneix, N., Girardin, C. A., Kapos, V., Key, I., Roe, D., Smith, A., Woroniecki, S., & Seddon, N. (2020). Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation. Global Change Biology, 26(11), 6134–6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310

3. Almenar, J. B., Elliot, T., Rugani, B., Philippe, B., Gutierrez, T. N., Sonnemann, G., & Geneletti, D. (2021). Nexus between nature-based solutions, Ecosystem Services and urban challenges. Land Use Policy, 100, 104898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104898

4. Frantzeskaki, N. (2019). Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033

5. Shrestha, P., Hurley, S. E., & Wemple, B. C. (2018). Effects of different soil media, vegetation, and hydrologic treatments on nutrient and sediment removal in roadside bioretention systems. Ecological Engineering, 112, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.12.004

6. Vijayaraghavan, K., Biswal, B. K., Adam, M. G., Soh, S. H., Tsen-Tieng, D. L., Davis, A. P., Chew, S. H., Tan, P. Y., Babovic, V., & Balasubramanian, R. (2021). Bioretention systems for stormwater management: Recent Advances and Future Prospects. Journal of Environmental Management, 292, 112766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112766

7. DeBusk, K. M., & Wynn, T. M. (2011). Storm-water bioretention for runoff quality and quantity mitigation. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 137(9), 800–808. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000388

8. Davis, A. P., Traver, R. G., Hunt, W. F., Lee, R., Brown, R. A., & Olszewski, J. M. (2012). Hydrologic performance of Bioretention Storm-water control measures. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(5), 604–614. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000467

9. Liu, W., Feng, Q., Chen, W., Wei, W., & Deo, R. C. (2019). The influence of structural factors on stormwater runoff retention of extensive green roofs: New evidence from scale-based models and real experiments. Journal of Hydrology, 569, 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.066

10. Franzaring, J., Steffan, L., Ansel, W., Walker, R., & Fangmeier, A. (2016). Water retention, wash-out, substrate and surface temperatures of extensive green roof mesocosms—results from a two year study in SW-germany. Ecological Engineering, 94, 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.06.021

11. Soulis, K. X., Ntoulas, N., Nektarios, P. A., & Kargas, G. (2017). Runoff reduction from extensive green roofs having different substrate depth and plant cover. Ecological Engineering, 102, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.01.031

12. Akther, M., He, J., Chu, A., Huang, J., & Van Duin, B. (2018). A review of green roof applications for managing urban stormwater in different climatic zones. Sustainability, 10(8), 2864. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082864

13. Kõiv-Vainik, M., Kill, K., Espenberg, M., Uuemaa, E., Teemusk, A., Maddison, M., Palta, M. M., Török, L., Mander, Ü., Scholz, M., & Kasak, K. (2022). Urban stormwater retention capacity of nature-based solutions at different climatic conditions. Nature-Based Solutions, 2, 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100038

14. Volder, A., & Dvorak, B. (2014). Event size, substrate water content and vegetation affect storm water retention efficiency of an un-irrigated extensive green roof system in Central Texas. Sustainable Cities and Society, 10, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2013.05.005

15. Palermo, S. A., Turco, M., Pirouz, B., Presta, L., Falco, S., De Stefano, A., Frega, F., & Piro, P. (2023). Nature-based solutions for urban stormwater management: an overview. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1196).

16. Alam, T., Mahmoud, A., Jones, K. D., Bezares-Cruz, J. C., & Guerrero, J. (2019). A comparison of three types of permeable pavements for urban runoff mitigation in the semi-arid south Texas, U.S.A. Water, 11(10), 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11101992

17. Braswell, A. S., Winston, R. J., & Hunt, W. F. (2018). Hydrologic and water quality performance of permeable pavement with internal water storage over a clay soil in Durham, North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Management, 224, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.040

18. Barrett, M., Lantin, A., & Austrheim-Smith, S. (2004). Storm water pollutant removal in roadside vegetated buffer strips. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1890(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.3141/1890-16

19. Leroy, M., Portet-Koltalo, F., Legras, M., Lederf, F., Moncond’huy, V., Polaert, I., & Marcotte, S. (2016). Performance of vegetated swales for improving road runoff quality in a moderate traffic urban area. Science of The Total Environment, 566–567, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.027

20. Chang, N.-B., Wen, D., Colona, W., & Wanielista, M. P. (2019). Comparison of biological nutrient removal via two biosorption-activated media between laboratory-scale and field-scale linear ditch for stormwater and groundwater co-treatment. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 230(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-019-4193-y

21. Shetty, N. H., Hu, R., Mailloux, B. J., Hsueh, D. Y., McGillis, W. R., Wang, M., Chandran, K., & Culligan, P. J. (2019). Studying the effect of bioswales on nutrient pollution in urban combined sewer systems. Science of The Total Environment, 665, 944–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.121

22. Bäckström, M. (2002). Sediment transport in grassed swales during simulated runoff events. Water Science and Technology, 45(7), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2002.0115

23. Zafarmomen, N., Alizadeh, H., Bayat, M., Ehtiat, M., & Moradkhani, H. (2024). Assimilation of sentinel‐based Leaf Area index for modeling surface‐ground water interactions in irrigation districts. Water Resources Research, 60(10). https://doi.org/10.1029/2023wr036080

24. Heris, M., Bagstad, K. J., Rhodes, C., Troy, A., Middel, A., Hopkins, K. G., & Matuszak, J. (2021). Piloting Urban Ecosystem Accounting for the United States. Ecosystem Services, 48, 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101226

25. Janke, B. D., Finlay, J. C., & Hobbie, S. E. (2017). Trees and streets as drivers of urban stormwater nutrient pollution. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(17), 9569–9579. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02225

26. Gordon, D. A., Coenders-Gerrits, M., Sellers, B. A., Sadeghi, S. M., & Van Stan II, J. T. (2020). Rainfall Interception and redistribution by a common North American understory and pasture forb, Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam. dogfennel). Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 24(9), 4587–4599. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4587-2020

27. Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Príncipe, A., Anjos, A., Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Santos-Reis, M., Correia, O., Branquinho, C., & Pinho, P. (2018). Ecosystem Services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental Research, 160, 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023

28. Seguin, R., Kargar, M., Prasher, S. O., Grant Clark, O., & Jutras, P. (2018). Remediating Montreal’s tree pit soil applying an ash tree-derived biochar. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 229(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-018-3725-1

29. Joyner, J. L., Kerwin, J., Deeb, M., Lozefski, G., Prithiviraj, B., Paltseva, A., McLaughlin, J., Groffman, P., Cheng, Z., & Muth, T. R. (2019). Green infrastructure design influences communities of urban soil bacteria. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00982

30. Deeb, M., Groffman, P. M., Blouin, M., Egendorf, S. P., Vergnes, A., Vasenev, V., Cao, D. L., Walsh, D., Morin, T., & Séré, G. (2019). Constructed  technosols  are  key  to  the  sustainable  development  of Urban Green Infrastructure. SOIL Discussions, 13, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2019-85

31. Weathers, M., Hathaway, J. M., Tirpak, R. A., & Khojandi, A. (2023). Evaluating the impact of climate change on future bioretention performance across the contiguous United States. Journal of Hydrology, 616, 128771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128771

32. Roseen, R. M., Ballestero, T. P., Houle, J. J., Avellaneda, P., Briggs, J., Fowler, G., & Wildey, R. (2009). Seasonal performance variations for storm-water management systems in cold climate conditions. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 135(3), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2009)135:3(128)