Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making Nivedita G. Gogate a, Pradip P. Kalbar b, *, Pratap M. Raval c a

Civil Engineering Department, Maharashtra Institute of Technology (MIT), Kothrud, Pune, India Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Produktionstorvet 424, Room 231, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark c Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Pune (COEP), Shivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411005, India b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 5 March 2016 Received in revised form 24 October 2016 Accepted 14 November 2016 Available online xxx

This paper addresses the problem of selecting the most sustainable stormwater management alternative in developing countries in a dense urban context. Firstly, suitable Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management measures for dense urban areas in developing countries were identified based on critical review of literature. Alternatives have been formulated as varying percentages (degree of adoption) of these suitable measures to manage the stormwater sustainably. Further, a novel decisionmaking framework is developed which generates the hierarchy for selection of the most sustainable stormwater management alternative. Four main criteria (technical, economic, environmental and social) comprising three quantitative and eight qualitative indicators have been used for evaluating seven alternatives. The regional and local societal priorities are captured through criteria-weightings and are translated into a decision-making methodology. Experts' opinions have been included using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). One of the most widely used Multiple Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) method, TOPSIS, is used to rank the alternatives and to identify the most sustainable alternatives. Various scenarios to represent different stakeholders' perspectives have been articulated. Alternative with medium level of cost implication and satisfactory level of performance is chosen by the decision making method in most of the scenarios. The proposed decision making approach can be used for selecting sustainable stormwater management options in densely populated areas of developing countries. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainable stormwater management Decision-making Multi-criteria evaluation TOPSIS Analytical hierarchy process Multiple Attribute Decision-Making

1. Introduction As a consequence of urbanization and climate change, urban water managers have to rethink the ways in which water is managed today, taking into account economic, environmental and social factors (Willuweit and O'Sullivan, 2013). The urban population is estimated to increase from 3.6 billion to 6.3 billion by 2050 (UN, 2012). Such a high population density will lead to unprecedented pressure on water resources. The changes in the land cover associated with high urbanization are responsible for the problems of water scarcity as well as increased flood risks faced by today's cities (Bradshaw et al., 2007; De Roo et al., 2003). Increase in

* Corresponding author. Present address: Centre for Urban Science and Engineering (CUSE), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (P.P. Kalbar).

impervious areas and decrease in vegetated surfaces causing characteristic changes in the surface runoff hydrology (increase in runoff volumes and peak flows) are the results of such urbanization (Barbosa et al., 2012; Goonetilleke et al., 2005). The massive urbanization in India has resulted in generation of huge quantities of stormwater which are unutilized and for which there do not exist any treatment strategies in the current urban water infrastructure. Although, stormwater drainage is being addressed in the development plan, it does not receive enough attention since India has a seasonal monsoon and stormwater becomes a prominent problem only after a significant failure has taken place (NIH, 2001). Current financial resources are not sufficient to address this huge challenge. The primary factor leading to mismanagement of stormwater in India is uncontrolled urban expansion resulting into inadequate infrastructure and other basic facilities. This gets further exacerbated by secondary factors including socio-political and institutional, inadequacy of available data and lack of a technological basis (Gogate and Rawal, 2015a;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079 0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

2

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

Nair, 2007; Silveira, 2002). 1.1. Need for change in the approach to manage stormwater The adverse impacts of the traditional practice of urban stormwater management have raised growing concerns about the natural environment. A number of investigators have also critiqued outdated urban stormwater management practices ignoring the importance of stormwater as an alternative source of water (Chong et al., 2013; Fielding et al., 2015; Goonrey et al., 2009; Leinster et al., 2010). The balancing of water shortages and flood risks is a challenging task for urban planners (Yang and Cui, 2012). Traditional stormwater management removes runoff from developed areas, as completely and as quickly as possible. To cater to the needs of the growing urban population, urban water managers typically provide additional centralized stormwater infrastructure. Sustainability aspects cannot be incorporated in the management of stormwater by following this practice (Brown et al., 2009). Traditional strategies of stormwater management do not focus on reducing the runoff at source or prevent or control stormwater pollution. Better water resources management of the urban water cycle is essential in order to address increasing water demands without further environmental deterioration (Hatt et al., 2006). The new alternative sustainable approach comprises basically a combination of the conventional approach (providing a drainage network and modifying existing water courses) complemented or substituted by different concepts including recycling and reuse of stormwater. Stormwater harvesting is an important strategy for improving management of urban water resources to tackle the increasing stresses on the water resources throughout the world (Yang and Cui, 2012). 1.2. Alter natives for sustainable stormwater management and suitability in Indian context Alternative sustainable urban stormwater drainage systems are recommended to mitigate the effects of landuse changes and restore water quality (Parker et al., 2009). These novel stormwater management approaches designed to control runoff at source and prevent pollution are known as Low Impact Development (LID) in USA and New Zealand; Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Australia (Roy et al., 2008) and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in the UK. The water managers should utilize a variety of LID/WSUD options to integrate the concept of sustainability in stormwater management (Brown et al., 2009). The current spectrum of such technologies include stormwater retention and detention ponds, pervious pavements, bio-retention, swales, green roofs, rain barrels, rain gardens, vegetated filter strips and some local erosion control measures. Many researchers have investigated different aspects such as design (Schwartz, 2010; She and Pang, 2009; Zheng et al., 2006) and effectiveness in reducing runoff and pollutants (Weiss et al., 2006). Stormwater systems have also been considered as valuable elements for landscaping apart from diverting undesired water from urban areas (Galuzzi and Pflaum, 1996; Lin et al., 2006). Stormwater harvesting has the potential to mitigate a number of detrimental impacts of urbanization like increased frequency of surface runoff, increased peak flows and an increase in total runoff (Fletcher et al., 2007). Bioretention is known for its efficiency in reducing runoff volume and in treating the first flush of stormwater (USEPA, 2000). Grass swales are also effective for both pollutant removal and runoff volume reduction. Permeable pavements and vegetated rooftops can be employed to reduce total impervious surface area. The USEPA (2000) report highlights the possibility of retrofitting these systems into older highly urbanized areas of the United

States. Though permeable pavements reduce impervious surfaces, their comparatively higher initial and operation & maintenance cost may inhibit their adoption particularly in developing countries. Many researchers worldwide are exploring the opportunities of applying Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) as a potential urban runoff management tool and as an alternative resource and are in the process of developing planned strategies and models for its implementation (Alam et al., 2012; Fletcher et al., 2007; Hamdan, 2009; Mahmoud et al., 2014; Mankad et al., 2015; Steffen et al., 2013; Ward et al., 2012). Different RWH configurations can be formulated depending on local guidelines, environment, stakeholders and expertise (Roy et al., 2008). Table 1 provides detailed information about available sustainable storm water management options. However, the effective implementation of the sustainable urban stormwater approach may be challenging particularly in developing countries (Silveira and Goldenfum, 2004; Silveira et al., 2001). Initiation and implementation of sustainable drainage schemes are inhibited by uncontrolled urban development, leaving very few open spaces to accommodate infiltration and detention devices. Highly contaminated nature of runoff further restricts the adoption of infiltration based stormwater management options. Thus, the factors hindering the adoption of centralized retention and detention approaches for stormwater management in developing countries may include maintenance tasks (McCuen and Moglen, 1988), space constraint (Burns et al., 2012; Clar, 2001) and non-point source pollution (USEPA, 1996). Providing detention reservoirs may be challenging in densely urbanized environments. Thus, detention or retention techniques have limited scope, particularly in highly urbanized cities. Decentralized stormwater management approaches can be advantageous in such conditions. Techniques which promote artificial recharge of groundwater may avoid such problems. Harvesting at the site scale may prove to be more beneficial as the collected rainwater can either be used for multiple purposes or infiltrated into ground. Retrofitting of site-scale watersheds with LID measures is one of the latest techniques for site scale harvesting. The benefits of implementing RWH as a stormwater control measure and as an alternative source of water for US cities and individual residents are evident from the results presented by Steffen et al. (2013). Thus micro scale, infiltration based LID techniques, applied in a decentralized way, promise significant benefits for cities in developing countries like India. Table 1 describes the advantages and disadvantages of alternative stormwater management options along with their suitability in Indian context. 1.3. Motivation and problem definition Decision making in urban environmental management is complex and there is a need for decision support to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and planning agencies. The selection of appropriate strategies for stormwater management often involves multiple criteria, such as costs, environmental performance, safety, ecological risks and community perception. However, the ongoing and planned stormwater projects in many cities in India at present tend to be based on conventional approaches, regardless of the fact that these may be inconsistent with improving the sustainability of urban environments. This stormwater which otherwise creates complex problems can be diverted and used for artificial recharge. Given climate change and other pressing environmental issues, it is essential to adopt solutions that have low impact on the environment and that are appropriate for local conditions. While this has been generally recognized, currently in India there is no appropriate decision support tool that

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

3

Table 1 Alternative stormwater management measures and their suitability in the Indian context (the three alternatives considered for the evaluation in the present study are shown with grey shade). Stormwater Management Alternative

Advantages

Bioretention (Rain gardens and bio 1. Reduction in runoff volumes and peak flows swales) (Davis, 2008; Hunt et al., 2008) 2. Generally requires less space and is more economical 3. Requires less maintenance 4. Removes pollutants (Carpenter and Hallam, 2010; Kim et al., 2012) 5. Has aesthetic value 6. Offers good retrofit opportunities for existing urban landscapes Grass swales 1. Reduces runoff volume, peak flow and pollutants (Parker et al., 2009) 2. Application is primarily along residential streets and highways 3. Adaptable to a variety of site conditions 4. Flexible in design and layout 5. Less costly than conventional storm drain pipe system Green roofs/Vegetated roof covers 1. Reduces percentage of impervious spaces in urban areas 2. Reduction in runoff volume (Fioretti et al., 2010; Simmons et al., 2008) 3. Reduce peak discharge rates (Alfredo et al., 2010; Fioretti et al., 2010; Getter et al., 2007; Stovin et al., 2012; Teemusk and Mander, 2007) 4. Provides aesthetic benefits (Banting et al., 2005) 5. Better thermal performance (Simmons et al., 2008) 6. Decrease in total energy consumption of buildings (Banting et al., 2005; Castleton et al., 2010) 7. Mitigates the urban heat island effect (Banting et al., 2005; Berardi et al., 2014) 8. Increases the longevity of roof membranes (Oberndorfer et al., 2007) Permeable/Porous Pavements 1. Effective in reducing imperviousness in a drainage basin 2. Recharges the groundwater 3. Improves the quality by arresting the pollutants (Collins et al., 2010)

Infiltration devices (Leaky wells, Retention trenches, Infiltration basins)

1. Reduces peak flow (Holman-dodds et al., 2003) 2. Recharges the groundwater (Moura et al., 2011) Improves the groundwater quality 3. Reduces runoff volume (Ahammed et al., 2012a)

Detention Basins (dry ponds, extended detention basins, detention ponds, extended detention ponds)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Retention Ponds (stormwater ponds, wet retention ponds, wet 2. 3. extended detention ponds) 4.

Attenuates peak flow Simple to design and construct Easy to maintain Can also function as a recreational facility Can be used with lining where groundwater is vulnerable

Reduces peak flow Provides good stormwater treatment Provides high amenity and aesthetic benefits Adds value to local properties

Disadvantages

Suitability in Indian conditions

1 High sediment may cause premature 1. May not be suitable as a centralized failure means for management of stormwater due to high sediment 2. Cannot be provided for large drainage load. areas 2. Can be utilized in a decentralized way for small drainage areas (Luell et al., 2011)

1. Open channels may be potential 1. May lead to favorable conditions for proliferation of vectors or nuisance problems carriers of tropical disease (Silveira, 2. Moderate or high maintenance cost 2002) 2. Maintenance issues may further complicate adoption of this measure 1. High initial cost 2. Moderate maintenance cost 3. Climatic condition

1. May not be suitable for old, small residential buildings due to structural considerations 2. May be adopted for large roofs in commercial zone where open space is limited

1. Costlier than conventional pavements (USEPA, 2000) 2. Suitable for low traffic areas such as parking lots and sidewalks (Fletcher et al., 2008; Scholz and Grabowiecki, 2007) 3. Clogging problems may arise due to high sediment load (Chopra et al., 2009; Fassman and Blackbourn, 2010) 4. Maintenance is costly (Ahmed et al., 2011) 1. Require pretreatment to remove sediment 2. Unsuitable for soils with very low hydraulic conductivity 3. Cannot be installed on steep slopes 4. Not suitable in areas with rising water table or where salinity of groundwater is increasing 1. Little reduction in runoff volume 2. Has large space requirement hence may not be suitable in ultra-urban areas 3. Provides moderate removal of pollutants (Yang and Cui, 2012) 4. May turn into mosquito breeding sites if improperly managed 5. Normally provided towards the end of sustainable urban drainage management train 1. Land requirement may limit use in dense urbanized landscapes 2. Pose health and safety risks (Goldenfum et al., 2007)

1. May not be suitable due to high sediment load in stormwater

1. Can be provided for small drainage areas in a decentralized manner (Ahammed et al., 2012a) 2. Can be connected to any conventional RWH system which has a filter to trap the debris

1. Unsuitable due to large space requirement and highly polluted nature of stormwater (Silveira, 2002) 2. Regular maintenance is required to prevent unhygienic condition

1. Not suitable due to scarcity of space and safety hazards. 2. May lead to favorable conditions for proliferation of vectors or carriers of tropical disease

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

4

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

could be used to develop stormwater management strategies holistically. This suggests value in developing a decision making framework that integrates different indicators representing all the three dimensions of sustainability. In order to address this gap, alternative stormwater management options (alternatives) are evaluated using technical, economic, environmental and social criteria in the present study. The overall feasibility of implementing these alternatives in the case study area (Kothrud, Pune City, India) is assessed with the help of a decision support framework. For this a four stage approach has been used. Firstly, scenarios were developed that were consistent with the field conditions of the selected area. Secondly, four main criteria with eleven indicators (three quantitative and eight qualitative) for comparison of the selected alternatives were chosen based on available literature and recommendations of the stakeholders. Next, the scores of three quantitative indicators, viz. system performance (grouped under Technical criterion), initial cost and O&M cost (grouped under Economic criterion), were estimated. Rainfall-runoff model coupled with the GIS technique was utilized to quantify the reduction in runoff (system performance) for various alternatives. The initial and O&M costs were determined using the literature and after consulting with practitioners. Experts' opinions were taken into account on qualitative indicators of different alternatives as well as for weight elicitation. AHP was used to translate experts' preferences on qualitative indicators and TOPSIS was used for evaluation by aggregating both, qualitative as well as quantitative indicators. Finally, a Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) framework integrating AHP and TOPSIS was developed and applied to evaluate the alternatives based on selected indicators. 2. Methodology Present work is based on a case study of Pune City and assesses feasibility of different storm water management options. Multiple scenarios have been articulated and feasibility of these scenarios has been assessed by applying various tools and techniques. Overall methodology followed in this work is presented in Fig. 1. Following sub-sections explain in detail the case study, scenario formulation procedure and different tools and techniques used. 2.1. Description of case study Pune is the second largest city in the State of Maharashtra and the seventh largest city in India (refer Fig. 2 for location). The current population of the city is more than 3 million and is projected to be 8.59 million in year 2041 (CDP Pune, 2012). The growth of the city has been phenomenal in the last few decades. This has considerably increased the impervious surfaces leaving very little room for green spaces or stormwater management facilities. There are about 362 km of natural drains in the city that discharge the stormwater in the river. These drains are now incapable of accommodating the increased runoff due to substantial increase in impervious area (two fold increase in built up area in less than a decade). Localized flooding, water stagnation during monsoon and deterioration of the quality of receiving waterways are the consequences of this tremendous growth. Moreover, the city is facing the problem of potholes and deterioration of roads in monsoon season for the last few years and much money is being expended on repair and maintenance works. The main cause behind these problems is improper stormwater management. Appreciating the need for proper stormwater management, Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) has drafted a master drainage plan which is based on the traditional metric of stormwater

removal through conveyance (PMC, 2015). Its goals include provision of road side drains, lining and widening of existing drains and provision of cross drainage works (Gogate and Rawal, 2015a). Although a master drainage plan does exist, it is not being implemented to full scale due to shortage of funds. There is excessive groundwater abstraction for meeting increasing needs of growing population and very low recharge because of high percentage of impervious areas. The present study focuses on an area which is mainly residential (more than 50%) and thus availability of rainwater from the rooftop is very high (Duraiswami et al., 2009). This rainwater can be managed at source by using LID techniques that promote groundwater recharge. To assess the feasibility of adoption of such techniques promoting recharge, a potential stormwater recharge zone map was developed (Gogate and Rawal, 2015b). Sub-catchment (Basin B), known as Kothrud basin, shown in Fig. 2, was found to be having good potential for stormwater recharge, and has been selected for further evaluation in the present study to assess feasibility of different LID alternatives. 2.2. Formation of alternate stormwater management strategies A literature review on suitability of alternative stormwater management options shows that bio-retention areas, green roofs and infiltration devices are best suited for Indian conditions (refer Table 1). The field reality of case study area indicates that it is not possible to apply these stormwater management options for the entire sub catchment as a whole (in a centralized manner) due to various challenges mentioned above. Hence, a combination of the suitable options applied in a de-centralized manner has been adopted to address the problem of storm water management in the present case study area. Due to the high availability of rooftop rainwater, rooftop RWH technique implemented in a decentralized manner may be an appropriate solution for this catchment. The techniques may include ‘leaky wells’ and ‘rain garden’ which basically aim at groundwater recharge and can be provided in a de-centralized manner in residential sector. Leaky wells require a lesser area compared with a rain garden, though rain gardens provide aesthetic benefits. Thus an appropriate choice can be made based on site conditions if these are adopted in different combinations. The selected catchment also comprises commercial areas (about 10%) where availability of open space may be a constraint in adopting these techniques. Green roofs have a potential for providing an attractive green space in downtown areas where the green space on the ground is limited or simply non-existing. In many countries interest in green roofs is increasing (Berndtsson, 2010). Turning the roofs green through covering them with soil and vegetation is widely believed to contribute to achieving numerous benefits. Flat concrete roofs have a good potential for retrofitting a green roof (Stovin, 2010). The selected sub catchment being dominated by flat concrete roofs thus provides a suitable and feasible environment for green roof retrofits. Current high growth rates in the city will subsequently translate into substantially larger commercial sector in coming years which, in turn, will increase imperviousness. Green roofs help in reducing this imperviousness and thus can be considered appropriate for such areas. To formulate different alternatives, the identified suitable measures (as per Table 1) have been combined in varying degrees (percentages) of their adoption at the sub catchment scale. The following alternatives are formulated for further evaluation with respect to various criteria and sub criteria to select the most suitable alternative (refer Table 2 for summary of alternatives). Alternative 1: Base/status quo

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

Fig. 1. Methodology adopted to assess the feasibility of storm water management options.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

5

6

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

Fig. 2. Location of Pune city and Kothrud (B) area (area marked with pattern in the diagram).

Alternative 2: Leaky well (LW) provided for 10% roofs in the sub catchment þ Rain garden (RG) provided for 10% roofs Alternative 3: LW provided for 10% roofs in the sub catchment þ RG provided for 20% roofs Alternative 4: LW provided for 20% roofs in the sub catchment þ RG provided for 10% roofs Alternative 5: LW provided for 20% roofs in the sub catchment þ RG provided for 20% roofs Alternative 6: LW provided for 30% roofs in the sub catchment þ RG provided for 30% roofs þ Green Roof (GR) provided for 10% roofs Alternative 7: LW provided for 30% roofs in the sub catchment þ RG provided for 30% roofs þ GR provided for 20% roofs

in some cases where there are large uncertainties in the methods to obtain the quantitative scores, qualitative indicators may be preferred. Also, care needs to be taken to ensure that the selected criteria or indicators characterize all of the aspects of the alternatives to be evaluated (Kalbar et al., 2012). In this study, four main criteria have been chosen to rank sustainable stormwater management options. The criteria include a combination of three quantitative and eight qualitative indicators (Fig. 3). The criteria and indicators were chosen in the light of data availability, ease to quantification of indicator scores and available information about the stormwater management options. The selected criteria and indicators have been widely used for similar assessment problems (Balkema et al., 2002; Chowdhury and Zaman, 2009; Ellis et al., 2004; Kalbar et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2007).

2.3. Criteria for comparison

2.4. Estimation of quantitative indicators

A plethora of indicators have been developed and applied in the past to evaluate the sustainability of water and wastewater management systems (Balkema et al., 2002; Chowdhury and Zaman, 2009; Ellis et al., 2006, 2004; Foxon et al., 1999; Kalbar et al., 2013, 2012; Martin et al., 2007; Moura et al., 2011, 2007). Incorporation of sustainability concerns in environmental decision making is a challenging task and there are many methodological issues associated with quantifying and operationalizing sustainability in decision making (Kalbar et al., 2012). While selecting the criteria, their appropriateness to the studied problem needs to be verified. As emphasized by investigators such as Moura et al. (2007), ease of criteria quantification using subcriteria (i.e. indicators) must also be taken into account. However,

The scores of three quantitative indicators, viz. system performance (grouped under the Technical criterion) and initial and O&M costs (grouped under Economic criterion) are needed to be estimated in the present work. To estimate the system performance, reduction in runoff volume has been used as the parameter to measure the performance of the proposed interventions through the different alternatives. Many methods and approaches are in practice to model rainfall runoff relationships (Beven, 2011). Some of the widely used methods are water balance approach, Thiessen polygon (Kim et al., 2003); (Jasrotia et al., 2009); agricultural nonepoint source (Mohammed et al., 2004) and Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method, [now called Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number method (NRCS-CN)]

Table 2 Alternatives for comparison. Alternative I

Alternative II

Alternative III

Alternative IV

Alternative V

Alternative VI

Alternative VII

Base/Status Quo

10% LWa þ 10% RGb

10% LW þ 20% RG

20% LW þ 10% RG

20% LW þ 20% RG

30% LW þ 30% RG þ 10% GRc

30% LW þ 30% RG þ 20% GR

a b c

LW e Leaky Well (10%, 20% or 30% LW indicates percentage of runoff from the roofs in the sub catchment connected to the leaky well.). RG e Rain Garden (10%, 20% & 30% RG indicates percentage of runoff from the roofs in the sub catchment connected to the rain garden). GR e Green Roof (10%, 20% GR indicates percentage of roofs in the sub catchment converted into green roof).

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

(Beven, 2011; Gajbhiye and Mishra, 2012; Mishra and Singh, 1999; Ramakrishnan et al., 2009). The present study uses the NRCS-CN method to estimate the hydraulic performance of proposed alternatives. This method is one of the most commonly used procedures to compute the surface runoff for a given rainfall event particularly from agricultural, forest and urban watersheds. Some other factors contributing to the popularity of this method include its computational efficiency, availability of required data, flexibility and simplicity, ease of application, stability and its suitability for ungauged watersheds (Chaudhary et al., 2013; Gajbhiye and Mishra, 2012; Kadam et al., 2012; Mishra et al., 2013). Many researchers have adopted the Geographic Information System (GIS) technique to estimate runoff curve number value (Bhaskar and Suribabu, 2014; Gajbhiye and Mishra, 2012; Kadam et al., 2012; Ramakrishnan et al., 2009). In this study, the NRCS CN method coupled with the GIS technique is utilized to quantify the reduction in runoff for various alternatives. The main inputs required to estimate annual runoff are rainfall, soil, geology, slope, land use/land cover and drainage map which were obtained from respective local and national organizations such as Pune Municipal Corporation, Indian Meteorological Department and other relevant sources. The soil, land-use/land cover, drainage and topographic maps were digitized and geo-referenced. Thematic maps were generated by clipping the digitized and geo referenced maps with the drainage basin map. A soil land-use intersect layer was then generated by integrating all these thematic maps on a GIS platform. Using CN index table, appropriate CN values were assigned to different classes of soil and land-use in the soil land-use intersect layer and runoff map for the base alternative was generated. To develop a runoff map for other selected alternatives, a modified CN value for the leaky well and rain garden was computed using the reference curves for computing composite CN (USDA, 1986). Considering current development control rules in the selected catchment, percent of impervious area which is directly connected to drains and percent of pervious area were obtained. Using the soil map of the selected catchment and type of area, appropriate CN values were assigned. For the green roofs, a CN value of 84 was adopted (Getter et al., 2007). This data was then

7

integrated on GIS platform for various alternatives and runoff maps were derived for each of the alternatives. Comparing the runoff of each alternative with the first alternative (base scenario), a figure for ‘percent runoff reduction’ was obtained. The economic criterion has two sub-criteria, namely, initial cost and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. The initial cost consists of the cost incurred for civil works including material and labor. The costs were determined using the literature and after consulting with practitioners. The following data and assumptions were used to estimate the capital and O&M costs of the different interventions used in the analysis: i. For a 100 m2 roof area, area of leaky well required is 4 m2 and that of RG is 10 m2 ii. Capital cost of RWH for 100 m2 roof area is Indian Rupees (INR) 4000 iii. Capital cost of 10 m2 RG is INR 11,000 and annual O&M cost is INR 6000 iv. Capital cost of 4 m2 LW is INR 6500 and annual O&M cost is 2% of initial cost v. For GR, Capital Cost is INR 2000 per m2 roof area and annual O&M Cost is INR 100 per m2 roof area Using these unit costs and the calculated total roof area in the sub catchment, the total cost for each alternative was then determined based on percentage of roof area connected to either LW or RG and percentage of roof area converted to green roof. Finally, estimates of capital and O&M costs for each alternative were derived, based on the combinations of measures adopted.

2.5. Multiple Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) Decision-making is mainly classified into two main branches, Multiple Criteria Decision making (MCDM) dealing with continuous problems of decision making and MADM dealing with discrete problems of decision making (Figueira et al., 2005; Zhou et al., 2006). The present study deals with selecting the most feasible stormwater management alternative from the finite

Fig. 3. Criteria and sub-criteria (indicators) used in the selection of stormwater management alternatives.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

8

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

number of formulated alternatives; hence MADM methods are suited to this analysis. A wide range of MADM methods are available for generating hierarchy of options in management decisions. They can be classified based on the mathematical principles used for processing the data such as complete order or partial order methods, compensatory and non-compensatory methods, etc. (Figueira et al., 2005; Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Yoon and Hwang, 1995). The MADM methods have been applied extensively for environmental decision-making. Some of the applications include diversion of water in a watershed (Alipour et al., 2010), chemical selection in
s-Beltra
n et al., 2009), treatment of textile wastewater (Aragone urban water supply (Abrishamchi, 2005), selection of landfill sites (Melo et al., 2006), eco-environmental vulnerability assessment (Huang et al., 2010), selection of appropriate wastewater treatment technology (Kalbar et al., 2012), design of sustainable environmental management systems for cleaner production (Khalili and Duecker, 2013), and selection of efficient solid waste management options (Vucijak et al., 2015). There is a significant growth over the last decade in MADM applications in environmental decision making (Huang et al., 2011). Similarly, researchers and urban planners seeking efficient, reliable and consistent solutions to complex decision problems in stormwater management have chosen MADM methods extensively owing to the multifaceted nature of the problem. The importance and need of multi-criteria policies for stormwater management was first recognized by (McCuen and Moglen, 1988). Following this, many researchers have developed decision making tools based on MADM procedure for stormwater management (Baptista et al., 2007; Chung et al., 2011; Ellis et al., 2006, 2004; Lee et al., 2012; Moura et al., 2011, 2007; Sugumaran et al., 2004). As shown in Fig. 1, two MADM methods were applied in the present work. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was used for quantifying experts' opinions on alternative preference with regard to various qualitative indicators and for indicator weight elicitation. The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was employed for ranking of alternatives based on the different indicator scores and weights. The following sub-sections further describe these methods. 2.5.1. Quantification of qualitative indicators using experts' opinion based on AHP Multiple qualitative indicators were used to evaluate technical and sustainability aspects of stormwater management alternatives. In all, eight qualitative indicators were used in this work, viz. system adaptability & flexibility, system complexity (grouped under Technical criterion), effect on groundwater recharge, area requirement, effect on water quality (grouped under Environmental criterion), aesthetics, acceptability and willingness to pay (grouped under Social criterion). Use of experts' opinions is one of the most commonly adopted approaches for quantifying qualitative indicators (Chowdhury and Zaman, 2009; Huang et al., 2010; Kalbar et al., 2013). AHP is one of the most commonly used methods for group decision-making (Ahammed et al., 2012b; Chung et al., 2011; Jha et al., 2014; Kalbar et al., 2013). Review papers on multi-criteria decisionmaking by Soltani et al. (2015) for solid waste management and by Govindan et al. (2015) for green supplier evaluation confirm the popularity of the AHP method. It is based on the principle of pairwise comparisons - while making evaluations using a 1e9 scale, only two alternatives are considered at a time in relation to each indicator (Basak and Saaty, 1993; Ramanujam and Saaty, 1981; Saaty, 1990). In this study, expert opinions are taken into consideration to quantify qualitative indicators. A team of twelve experts from the academic, research and industrial fields were consulted in

order to translate the qualitative criteria into ratings. A questionnaire similar to the one reported in Kalbar et al. (2013) was designed to simplify the pairwise comparison process for experts. Each of the experts was asked to fill out the questionnaire. The following steps were conducted for aggregating the inputs of different experts. e. Make pairwise comparisons for alternatives f. Check the consistency of Pairwise Comparison Matrices (PCMs) proposed by the experts g. Obtain the local priorities for each alternatives with respect to each indicator h. Aggregate group decisions Experts were also asked to provide their opinions on criteria weights. All the twelve experts have provided their preference on criteria weights using AHP. The above mentioned four steps were used to formulate the aggregated weight matrix, which is further used in the ranking of the alternatives. 2.5.2. Ranking of alternatives using TOPSIS TOPSIS is a compensatory approach-based MADM method widely applied for variety of decision making problems and proved to be the best available method among the group of compensatory methods (Athawale and Chakraborty, 2010; Behzadian et al., 2012; Kalbar et al., 2015, 2012; Opricovic and Tzeng, 2004; Rousta and Araghinejad, 2015; Shih et al., 2007). TOPSIS is based on distance based approach to quantify and compare the preferences of the alternatives over the set of attributes and considers the positive and negative ideal solutions simultaneously (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Yoon and Hwang, 1995). This special property of TOPSIS makes it the most preferred method for environmental decision making problems, where decision making is based on conflicting criteria representing costs and benefit types (Kalbar et al., 2016, 2015, 2012). As shown in Fig. 1, TOPSIS is used to rank the stormwater management alternatives based on the quantitative and qualitative (quantified using AHP) indicators. The detailed step by step procedure of the TOPSIS methodology is presented in Kalbar et al. (2012). A combined indicator score matrix (also called a ‘decision matrix’) was formulated for three quantitative and eight qualitative indicators. The decision matrix was further normalized using vector normalization (Milani et al., 2005). The weighted normalized decision matrix was obtained by multiplying the normalized decision matrix with the weight matrix. Subsequently, positive and negative ideals were formulated from this matrix and relative separation measures for each of the alternatives were obtained. 3. Results and discussion The results of the quantified indicators are shown in Table 3. First alternative is the base/status quo case where no interventions are proposed and hence the results for the quantitative indicators have zero values. As can be seen from this table, the system performance (i.e. percentage reduction in the runoff compared to base case) varies between 7% for the second alternative to about 24% for the seventh alternative where maximum level of interventions are proposed. This clearly indicates that adoption of de-centralized measures can also prove to be an effective way to mitigate the challenging stormwater issue faced by today's developing regions. This data needs to be strengthened through further detailed hydraulic analysis. Implementation of such de-centralized stormwater management measures may partially reduce the problem of flooding arising due to the inadequate carrying capacity of existing natural drains and tremendous increase in impervious areas. Also,

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

these measures would complement the proposed conventional drainage system and may substantially improve the situation. The cost details of the proposed alternatives (refer Table 3) suggest that both initial cost and O&M cost implications are marginal up to alternative 5. Drastic change in cost is observed for alternative 6 and 7 due to introduction of GRs in the proposed alternatives. The scores based on aggregation of the experts' ratings suggest that the preference levels vary with respect to the indicators. For example, alternative 7 has maximum score for the indicator ‘effect on groundwater recharge and aesthetics’, whereas for the same alternative, the scores for the indicators, viz., ‘system complexity and acceptability’ lie somewhere in between the highest and lowest value. This implies that none of the alternatives score highest for all the indicators and the scores are a function of both the alternative and the indicator. Hence this poses the challenging problem of decision making where it is essential to apply MADM methods for evaluating the alternatives. To be able to apply MADM methods it is also essential to have weights associated with all the indicators. The team of experts used to quantify the qualitative indicators was asked to elicit the weights for all the indicators using AHP. All the Pairwise Comparison Matrices (PCMs) were checked for consistency and the experts were asked to revise the PCMs if the Consistency Index (CI) values were found to be higher than 0.1. Weights of all the twelve experts were aggregated to formulate the weight matrix which is shown in Table 4. This data set was augmented by formulating four additional sets of weights to check the sensitivity of the results of the rankings. These sets were derived by assigning higher weightage to technical, economy, environment and social criteria respectively generating 4 more scenarios and used for the alternative evaluations (see Table 4). In addition, equal weight scenario was utilized for evaluation. The alternatives were ranked using TOPSIS methodology for these six sets of weights. The results of ranking are shown in Table 5. The equal weight scenario results show that alternative 5 (with a score of 0.639) followed by alternative 4 (with a score of 0.609) are most preferred alternatives. This is also evident from Fig. 4 where the normalized score ratings for all the alternatives are presented in radar graph. The ideal alternative should cover the maximum area of PIS (shown in grey color) and minimum area of NIS (shown in yellow). In reality the ideal solution does not exist hence a compromised solution shall be adopted (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Zelany, 1974). Hence, the objective of efficient MADM method

9

shall be to identify alternative which covers maximum area of PIS and minimum area of NIS. In Fig. 4, alternative 5 covers maximum area of PIS and at the same time minimum area of NIS and TOPSIS has identified alternative 5 as the best alternative. This justifies the appropriateness of usage of the TOPSIS method for such kind of decision making problem, consistent with the conclusions reached by previous researchers (Kalbar et al., 2015; Kim et al., 1997; Shih et al., 2007). The rankings obtained with higher weighting assigned to technical criterion show that the most preferred alternative is alternative 6 (with a score of 0.671) followed by alternative 5 (with a score of 0.626). All the selected measures chosen in the present study have been successfully implemented in developed countries and the relevant technical details are easily available. Hence the expert ratings for technical criterion were favoring alternatives involving maximum retrofitting of roofs in the catchment. This is reflected in this case where alternative 6 (30% LW þ 30% RG þ 10% GR) is the most preferred option and alternative 5 being the second (which was the most preferred option in the rankings generated by expert aggregated weights). Alternative 4 (with a score of 0.814) is the most preferred alternative when maximum weighting assigned to the economic criterion. This can be easily deduced from the fact that green roofs are the most expensive and rain gardens cost more when compared to LWs. As a result, alternative 7 (with a score of 0.219) is found to be the least preferred option followed by alternative 6 (including conversion of 20 and 10% roofs respectively with green roofs). The alternative 5 (with a score of 0.631) was again found to be the highest scoring option for the case when higher weightage was given to the Environment criterion since alternative 5 has a better performance on environmental indicators as well as other indicators (refer Table 3). The alternative 7 (with a score of 0.627) followed by alternative 6 (with a score of 0.624) are selected as the better options when social criterion is assigned the maximum weightage. Pune city, where this study was located, is known to be a technological and cultural hub of India. The awareness amongst the citizens regarding environment is growing and they are increasingly opting for environment friendly alternatives. The experts drawn from industry and academia confirmed this fact and have given higher preference to sustainable alternatives under social criterion. Some of the experts reported that the customers are now demanding environment friendly solutions and stressed in the need to reform

Table 3 Quantitative and qualitative indicator scores for different alternatives.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

10

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

Table 4 Weights of indicators.

Table 5 Results of ranking after applying AHP-TOPSIS method. Darker the shade, hugher is the score and hence higher preference of that alternative for the given scenario.

development regulations. Some suggested that the reforms could be incentive-based which would encourage property developers to provide sustainable solutions. Finally, the results for the set of experts' aggregated weights show that alternative 5 (with a score of 0.650) followed by alternative 4 (with a score of 0.617) are the preferred alternatives. Alternative 5 performs well across many indicators especially for the indicators for which experts have given higher weightage. For the given set of criteria and the associated weights, the obtained solution is quite close to an ideal solution. Alternative 5 also ranks first for three scenarios (equal weights, experts' opinion and higher weightage to environment criterion) out of the six scenarios generated in this study. This alternative performs satisfactorily for the system performance indicator (14.24% reduction in the runoff compared to base case) and has reasonable cost implications (0.971 million INR initial cost and 0.340 million INR O&M cost). This clearly reflects the appropriateness of the decision making methodology in selecting a suitable solution for Pune city. The present study is based on empirical field-data collected as

well as secondary data sources. The methodological choices and data related uncertainties are important and hence are to be considered when applying the results of the present study. The results and findings of the present study shall be interpreted in the light of following major assumptions, methodological choices and data uncertainties. i. NRCS-CN method has been used for estimating the runoff which is appropriate for small watersheds such as the case study area we have used. However, there are some other limitations to this method. For example, there is high sensitivity to the choice of curve number; it does not account for the temporal variation in rainfall and runoff; and it is less accurate when dealing with low rainfall and small runoff events (Grove et al., 1998; Moglen, 2000; Ponce and Hawkins, 1996; Suphunvorranop, 1985). ii. The green roof detention characteristics vary with different climatic inputs (Stovin et al., 2015), hence the assumption of a particular CN value for green roof will bring uncertainties in runoff estimation.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

11

Fig. 4. Normalized values of indicator scores in comparison with Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and Negative Ideal Solution (NIS) for equal weight scenario.

iii. Secondary data from field practitioners and designers has been used for estimating costs of the proposed interventions of stormwater management. Hence there is uncertainty associated with the cost details. However, it is difficult to quantify these uncertainties. iv. A team comprising twelve experts has been used in the present work, however the results may vary if more experts are involved. v. A limited number of criteria and indicators have been selected due to unavailability of detailed data on the proposed interventions as these interventions are not implemented at present in India. Addition of more indicators may change the results. vi. The sensitivity of the results of ranking obtained by TOPSIS has been presented with equal weight and four extreme weight scenarios reflecting different value choices of various stakeholders involved in decision-making. This showed that the results are sensitive to different weight matrices and hence it is one of the uncertainties that need to be taken into consideration while interpreting the results. vii. The MADM method selection also affects the results and represents one of the uncertainties associated with methodological choice. However, the most commonly used and tested method, adopted in similar contexts, has been used in this study (Kalbar et al., 2015, 2012).

The alternatives were formulated as a combination of varying percentage adoptions of different suitable stormwater management measures identified after literature review. The results showed that the alterative 5 (adoption of 20% LW þ 20% RG) is the preferred option based on expert's judgement, equal weight scenario and when higher weightage is given to environment criterion. It also ranks second when technical criterion weighs highest. This is the only alternative which is identified as the most preferred in three scenarios out of the six generated in this study. Overall, alternative 5 performs well across many indicators especially for the indicators for which experts have given higher weightage. Similarly, it achieves a fairly satisfactory performance level in improving the system performance of the system at a reasonable cost implication. This selection clearly indicates the applicability of the decision making methodology to select the most feasible option for the selected case study area. Furthermore, this is in line with the stakeholders' preference of a solution which does not include interventions with advanced technology. The decision making method proposed in this study provides quantified scores for various scenarios which will help the ULBs to choose the alternatives as per their priorities. It is hoped that the proposed decision making method can be used to choose stormwater management options in dense urban areas in developing countries. Acknowledgements

4. Conclusions The selection of most sustainable alternative for managing the stormwater is a challenging task especially in developing countries. The present study has addressed this issue. This work evaluated different stormwater management alternatives (formulated as scenarios) based on the various quantitative and qualitative criteria. The evaluation procedure involved estimation of quantitative scores followed by the use of experts' opinions to quantify qualitative criteria. Weightings were determined by experts' opinions. Pune City in India was used to demonstrate selection of stormwater management options to manage the stormwater sustainably.

The second author acknowledges Postdoctoral fellowship received from Technical University of Denmark (DTU) under the HC Ørsted Postdoc Programme co-funded by Marie Curie Actions (Grant agreement No. 609405). The authors thank Yamini Jedhe for her GIS related assistance in evaluating system performance and the team of twelve experts drawn from industry and academia for their help in quantifying qualitative indicators. References Abrishamchi, A.E., 2005. Case Study: Application of Multicriteria Decision Making to Urban Water Supply, pp. 326e335. Ahammed, F., Hewa, G.A., Argue, J.R., 2012a. Introducing leaky-well concept for stormwater quantity control in Dhaka. Bangladesh. Appl. Water Sci. 115e123.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

12

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13201-012-0065-y. Ahammed, F., Hewa, G.A., Argue, J.R., 2012b. Applying multi-criteria decision analysis to select WSUD and LID technologies. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 12, 844. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ws.2012.060. Ahmed, Z., Rao, D., Reddy, K., 2011. Sustainable storm water management-An evaluation of depression storage effect on peak flow. In: Green Technology and Environmental Conservation (GTEC 2011), 2011 International Conference on, pp. 336e340. Alam, R., Munna, G., Chowdhury, M.A.I., Sarkar, M.S.K.A., Ahmed, M., Rahman, M.T., Jesmin, F., Toimoor, M.A., 2012. Feasibility study of rainwater harvesting system in Sylhet City. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184, 573e580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10661-011-1989-7. Alfredo, K., Montalto, F., Goldstein, A., 2010. Observed and modeled performances of prototype green roof test plots subjected to simulated low- and high-intensity precipitations in a laboratory experiment. J. Hydrol. Eng 15, 444e457. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000135. Alipour, M.H., Shamsai, A., Ahmady, N., 2010. A new fuzzy multicriteria decision making method and its application in diversion of water. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 8809e8813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.023.
s-Beltra
n, P., Mendoza-Roca, J.A., Bes-Pi

n, M., ParraAragone a, A., García-Melo Ruiz, E., 2009. Application of multicriteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals selection in the physical-chemical treatment of textile wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater 164, 288e295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jhazmat.2008.08.046. Athawale, V.M., Chakraborty, S., 2010. In: A TOPSIS Method-based Approach to Machine Tool Selection. Proc. 2010 Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 9 e 10. Balkema, A.J., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F.J., 2002. Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4, 153e161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(02)00014-6. Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., Au, A., Currie, B.A., Verrati, M., 2005. Report on the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto. Ryerson Univ., Department of Architectural Science. Baptista, M., Nascimento, N., Castro, L.M.A., Fernandes, W., 2007. Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban Storm Drainage. First Switch Sci. Meet. Barbosa, A.E., Fernandes, J.N., David, L.M., 2012. Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management. Water Res. 46, 6787e6798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2012.05.029. Basak, I., Saaty, T., 1993. Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Math. Comput. Model 17, 101e109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/08957177(93)90179-3. Behzadian, M., Khanmohammadi Otaghsara, S., Yazdani, M., Ignatius, J., 2012. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 13051e13069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056. Berardi, U., GhaffarianHoseini, A., GhaffarianHoseini, A., 2014. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 115, 411e428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.047. Berndtsson, J.C., 2010. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: a review. Ecol. Eng. 36, 351e360. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.12.014. Beven, K.J., 2011. Rainfall-runoff Modelling: the Primer. John Wiley & Sons. Bhaskar, J., Suribabu, C.R., 2014. Estimation of surface run-off for urban area using integrated remote sensing and GIS approach. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 8, 70e80. Bradshaw, C.J.A., Sodhi, N.S., Peh, k.S.-H., Brook, B.W., 2007. Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Glob. Chang. Biol. 13, 2379e2395. Brown, R.R., Keath, N., Wong, T.H.F., 2009. Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future regimes. Water Sci. Technol. 59, 847. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.029. Burns, M.J., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., Ladson, A.R., Hatt, B.E., 2012. Hydrologic shortcomings of conventional urban stormwater management and opportunities for reform. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 230e240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2011.12.012. Carpenter, D.D., Hallam, L., 2010. Influence of planting soil mix characteristics on bioretention cell design and performance. J. Hydrol. Eng 15, 404e416. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000131. Castleton, H.F., Stovin, V., Beck, S.B.M., Davison, J.B., 2010. Green roofs; Building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build. 42, 1582e1591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.004. Chaudhary, A., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., 2013. Experimental verification of the effect of slope on runoff and curve numbers. J. Indian Water Resour. Soc. 33, 40e46. Chong, M.N., Sidhu, J., Aryal, R., Tang, J., Gernjak, W., Escher, B., Toze, S., 2013. Urban stormwater harvesting and reuse: a probe into the chemical, toxicology and microbiological contaminants in water quality. Environ. Monit. Assess. 185, 6645e6652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-3053-7. Chopra, M., Kakuturu, S., Ballock, C., Spence, J., Wanielista, M., 2009. Effect of rejuvenation methods on the infiltration rates of pervious concrete pavements. J. Hydrol. Eng 15, 426e433. Chowdhury, R.K., Zaman, A.U., 2009. Selection of the optimal alternative: rehabilitation of a regional drainage channel in Bangladesh. Urban Water J. 6, 395e405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15730620902970011. Chung, E.S., Hong, W.P., Lee, K.S., Burian, S.J., 2011. Integrated use of a continuous simulation model and multi-attribute decision-making for ranking urban watershed management alternatives. Water Resour. Manag. 25, 641e659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9718-5.

Clar, M., 2001. Low impact development (LID) technology for ultra urban areas. Proc. Watershed Manag. 163e174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40706(266)15. Collins, K.A., Hunt, W.F., Hathaway, J.M., 2010. Side by Side comparision of Nutrient and TSS removal for four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern North Carolina. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng 15, 512e521. Davis, A.P., 2008. Field performance of bioretention: hydrology impacts. J. Hydrol. Eng 13, 90e95. De Roo, A., Schmuck, G., Perdigao, V., Thielen, J., 2003. The influence of historic land use changes and future planned land use scenarios on floods in the oder catchment. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 28, 1291e1300. Duraiswami, R.A., Dumale, V., Shetty, U., 2009. Geospatial mapping of potential recharge zones in parts of Pune city. J. Geol. Soc. India 73, 621e638. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12594-009-0048-2. Ellis, J.B., Deutsch, J.-C., Mouchel, J.-M., Scholes, L., Revitt, M.D., 2004. Multicriteria decision approaches to support sustainable drainage options for the treatment of highway and urban runoff. Sci. Total Environ. 334e335, 251e260. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.04.066. Ellis, J.B., Deutsch, J.-C., Legret, M., Martin, C., Revitt, D.M., Scholes, L.N.L., Seiker, H., Zimmerman, U., 2006. The DayWater Decision Support Approach to the Selection of Sustainable Drainage Systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ WPT.2006002. Fassman, E.A., Blackbourn, S., 2010. Urban runoff mitigation by a permeable pavement system over impermeable soils. J. Hydrol. Eng 15, 475e485. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000238. Fielding, K.S., Gardner, J., Leviston, Z., Price, J., 2015. Comparing public perceptions of alternative water sources for potable use: the case of rainwater, stormwater, desalinated water, and recycled water. Water Resour. Manag. 29, 4501e4518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1072-1. Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., 2005. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer Science & Business Media. Fioretti, R., Palla, A., Lanza, L.G., Principi, P., 2010. Green roof energy and water related performance in the Mediterranean climate. Build. Environ. 45, 1890e1904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.03.001.
ven, A., 2007. Is stormwater Fletcher, T.D., Mitchell, V.G., Deletic, A., Ladson, T.R., Se harvesting beneficial to urban waterway environmental flows? Water Sci. Technol. 55, 265e272. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.117. Fletcher, T.D., Deletic, A., Mitchell, V.G., Hatt, B.E., 2008. Reuse of urban runoff in Australia: a review of recent advances and remaining challenges. J. Environ. Qual. 37 http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0411. Se116. Foxon, T.J., Leach, M., Butler, D., Dawes, J., Hutchinson, D., Pearson, P.J.G., Rose, D., 1999. Useful Indicators of Urban Sustainability: Some Methodological Issues. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725589. Gajbhiye, S., Mishra, S.K., 2012. Application of NRSC-SCS curve number model in runoff estimation using RS & GIS. IEEE-International Conf. Adv. Eng. Sci. Manag. 346e352. Galuzzi, M.R., Pflaum, J.M., 1996. Integrating drainage, water quality, wetlands, and habitat in a planned community development. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 122, 101e108. Getter, K.L., Rowe, D.B., Andresen, J.A., 2007. Quantifying the effect of slope on extensive green roof stormwater retention. Ecol. Eng 31, 225e231. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2007.06.004. Gogate, N.G., Rawal, P.M., 2015a. Identifying objectives for sustainable stormwater management in urban Indian perspective: a case study. Int. J. Environ. Eng 7, 143e162. Gogate, N.G., Rawal, P.M., 2015b. Identification of potential stormwater recharge zones in dense urban context: a case study from Pune city. Int. J. Environ. Res. 9, 1259e1268. Goldenfum, J.A., Tassi, R., Meller, A., Allasia, D.G., Da Silveira, A.L., 2007. Challenges for the sustainable urban stormwater management in developing countries: from basic education to technical and institutional issues. In: Proceeding in 6th International Conference on Sustainable Techniques and Strategies for Urban Water Management Novatech, pp. 25e28. Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Ginn, S., Gilbert, D., 2005. Understanding the role of land use in urban stormwater quality management. J. Environ. Manag. 74(1) (74), 31e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.08.006. Goonrey, C.M., Perera, B.J.C., Lechte, P., Maheepala, S., Mitchell, V.G., 2009. A technical decision-making framework: stormwater as an alternative supply source. Urban Water J. 6, 417e429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15730620903089787. Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., Murugesan, P., 2015. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 66e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2013.06.046. Grove, M., Harbor, J., Engel, B., 1998. Composite vs. distributed curve numbers: effects on estimates of storm runoff depths1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34, 1015e1023. Hamdan, S.M., 2009. A literature based study of stormwater harvesting as a new water resource. Water Sci. Technol. 60, 1327e1339. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ wst.2009.396. Hatt, B.E., Deletic, A., Fletcher, T.D., 2006. Integrated treatment and recycling of stormwater: a review of Australian practice. J. Environ. Manage 79, 102e113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.003. Holman-dodds, J.K., Bradley, A.A., Potter, K.W., 2003. Evaluation of hydrologic benefits of infiltration based urban storm water managment. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 53706, 205e215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17521688.2003.tb01572.x.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14 Huang, P.H., Tsai, J.S., Lin, W.T., 2010. Using multiple-criteria decision-making techniques for eco-environmental vulnerability assessment: a case study on the Chi-Jia-Wan Stream watershed, Taiwan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 168, 141e158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-1098-z. Huang, I.B., Keisler, J., Linkov, I., 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3578e3594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022. Hunt, W.F., Smith, J.T., Jadlocki, S.J., Hathaway, J.M., Eubanks, P.R., 2008. Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a bioretention cell in urban Charlotte. NC. J. Environ. Eng 134 (5), 403e408. Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K.P., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Jasrotia, A.S., Majhi, A., Singh, S., 2009. Water balance approach for rainwater harvesting using remote sensing and GIS techniques, Jammu Himalaya, India. Water Resour. Manag. 23, 3035e3055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-0099422-5. Jha, M.K., Chowdary, V.M., Kulkarni, Y., Mal, B.C., 2014. Rainwater harvesting planning using geospatial techniques and multicriteria decision analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl 83, 96e111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.003. Kadam, A.K., Kale, S.S., Pande, N.N., Pawar, N.J., Sankhua, R.N., 2012. Identifying potential rainwater harvesting sites of a semi-arid, Basaltic region of western India, using SCS-CN method. Water Resour. Manag 26, 2537e2554. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0031-3. Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2012. Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: a scenario-based multiple-attribute decisionmaking approach. J. Environ. Manage 113, 158e169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2012.08.025. Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2013. The influence of expert opinions on the selection of wastewater treatment alternatives: a group decision-making approach. J. Environ. Manage 128, 844e851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2013.06.034. Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2015. Selection of wastewater treatment alternative: significance of choosing MADM. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 14, 1011e1120. Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2016. Life cycle-based decision support tool for selection of wastewater treatment alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 1e9. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.036. Khalili, N.R., Duecker, S., 2013. Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in design of sustainable environmental management system framework. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 188e198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.044. Kim, G., Park, C.S., Yoon, K.P., 1997. Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 50, 23e33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09255273(97)00014-5. Kim, S.-J., Kwon, H.-J., Jung, I.-K., Park, G.-A., 2003. A comparative study on gridbased storm runoff prediction using Thiessen and spatially distributed rainfall. Paddy Water Environ. 1, 149e155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10333-0030023-2. Kim, M.H., Sung, C.Y., Li, M.-H., Chu, K.-H., 2012. Bioretention for stormwater quality improvement in Texas: removal effectiveness of Escherichia coli. Sep. Purif. Technol. 84, 120e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2011.04.025. Lee, J.G., Selvakumar, A., Alvi, K., Riverson, J., Zhen, J.X., Shoemaker, L., Lai, F., 2012. A watershed-scale design optimization model for stormwater best management practices. Environ. Model. Softw. 37, 6e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsoft.2012.04.011. Leinster, S., Tanner, C., Hamlyn-Harris, D., Others, 2010. Stormwater harvesting as a water source for south-east Queensland. Water 37, 67e74. Lin, W., Weida, W., Zhaoguo, G., 2006. Integrity of local ecosystems and stormwater management in residential areas. J. Ocean. Univ. China 5, 363e367. Luell, S.K., Hunt, W.F., Winston, R.J., 2011. Evaluation of undersized bioretention stormwater control measures for treatment of highway bridge deck runoff. Water Sci. Technol. 64, 974e979. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.736. Mahmoud, W.H., Elagib, N.A., Gaese, H., Heinrich, J., 2014. Rainfall conditions and rainwater harvesting potential in the urban area of Khartoum. Resour. Conserv. Recycl 91, 89e99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.014. Mankad, A., Walton, A., Alexander, K., 2015. Key dimensions of public acceptance for managed aquifer recharge of urban stormwater. J. Clean. Prod. 89, 214e223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.028. Martin, C., Ruperd, Y., Legret, M., 2007. Urban stormwater drainage management: the development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181, 338e349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ejor.2006.06.019. McCuen, R.H., Moglen, G.E., 1988. Multicriterion stormwater management methods. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 114, 414e431. Melo, A.L.O., Calijuri, M.L., Duarte, I.C.D., Azevedo, R.F., Lorentz, J.F., 2006. Strategic decision analysis for selection of landfill sites. J. Surv. Eng. 83e92. Mishra, S.K., Singh, V.P., 1999. Another look at SCS-CN method. J. Hydrol. Eng 4, 257e264. Mishra, S.K., Gajbhiye, S., Pandey, A., 2013. Estimation of design runoff curve numbers for Narmada watersheds (India). J. Appl. Water Eng. Res. 1, 69e79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2013.831583. Moglen, G.E., 2000. Effect of orientation of spatially distributed curve numbers in runoff calculations1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 36. Mohammed, H., Yohannes, F., Zeleke, G., 2004. Validation of agricultural non-point source (AGNPS) pollution model in Kori watershed, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Int. J.

13

Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf 6, 97e109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2004.08.002. Moura, P., Barraud, S., Baptista, M., 2007. Multicriteria procedure for the design and the management of infiltration systems. Water Sci. Technol. 55, 145e153. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.104. Moura, P., Barraud, S., Baptista, M.B., Malard, F., 2011. Multicriteria decision-aid method to evaluate the performance of stormwater infiltration systems over the time. Water Sci. Technol. 64, 1993e2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/ wst.2011.154. Nair, K.S., 2007. Socio-economic and environmental issues associated with urban water management in India. In: International Symposium on New Directions in Urban Water Management, -14 September. NIH, 2001. Urban Hydrology: a State of the Art Report. National Institute of Hydrology. Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coffman, R.R., Doshi, H., Dunnett, N., €hler, M., Liu, K.K.Y., Rowe, B., 2007. Green roofs as urban ecosysGaffin, S., Ko tems: ecological structures, functions, and services. Bioscience 57, 823. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1641/B571005. Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156, 445e455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1. Parker, N., Gardner, T., Goonetilleke, A., Egodawatta, P., Parker, N., Gardner, T., Goonetilleke, A., Egodawatta, P., 2009. Effectiveness of WSUD in the “ Real World.” Proc. 6th Int. Water Sensitive Urban Des. Conf. Hydropolis#3, Perth, Aust. 1e16. Ponce, V.M., Hawkins, R.H., 1996. Runoff curve number: has it reached maturity? J. Hydrol. Eng 1, 11e19. Ramakrishnan, D., Bandyopadhyay, A., Kusuma, K.N., 2009. SCS-CN and GIS-based approach for identifying potential water harvesting sites in the Kali Watershed, Mahi River Basin, India. J. earth Syst. Sci. 118, 355e368. Ramanujam, V., Saaty, T.L., 1981. Technological choice in the less developed countries: an analytic hierarchy approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 19, 81e98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(81)90050-0. Rousta, B.A., Araghinejad, S., 2015. Development of a multi criteria decision making tool for a water resources decision support system. Water Resour. Manag. 5713e5727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1142-4. Roy, A.H., Wenger, S.J., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., Ladson, A.R., Shuster, W.D., Thurston, H.W., Brown, R.R., 2008. Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States. Environ. Manage. 42, 344e359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-008-9119-1. Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48, 9e26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I. Scholz, M., Grabowiecki, P., 2007. Review of permeable pavement systems. Build. Environ. 42, 3830e3836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.016. Schwartz, S.S., 2010. Effective curve number and hydrologic design of pervious concrete storm-water systems. J. Hydrol. Eng 15, 465e474. Milani, A.S., Shanian, A., Madoliat, R., Nemes, J.A., 2005. The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 29, 312e318. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00158-004-0473-1. PMC, 2015. Storm Water Drainage Project for Pune City. Retrieved from. http:// www.punecorporation.org/stormwatdrain.aspx (accessed June 2016). She, N., Pang, J., 2009. Physically based green roof model. J. Hydrol. Eng 15, 458e464. Shih, H.S., Shyur, H.J., Lee, E.S., 2007. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math. Comput. Model 45, 801e813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.mcm.2006.03.023. Silveira, A.L.L., 2002. Problems of modern urban drainage in developing countries. Water Sci. Technol. 45, 31e40. Silveira, A.L.L., Goldenfum, J.A., 2004. In: Sustainable Approach Applied for the Development of Urban Drainage Manuals in Brazil. Novatech 2004, LyonFrance. Silveira, A.L.L., Goldenfum, J.A., Fendrich, R., 2001. Urban Drainage Control Measures, Urban Drainage in Humid Tropics. UNESCO, Paris. Simmons, M.T., Gardiner, B., Windhager, S., Tinsley, J., 2008. Green roofs are not created equal: the hydrologic and thermal performance of six different extensive green roofs and reflective and non-reflective roofs in a sub-tropical climate. Urban Ecosyst. 11, 339e348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0069-4. Soltani, A., Hewage, K., Reza, B., Sadiq, R., 2015. Multiple stakeholders in multicriteria decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste management: a review. Waste Manag. 35, 318e328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.wasman.2014.09.010. Steffen, J., Jensen, M., Pomeroy, C.A., Burian, S.J., 2013. Water supply and stormwater management benefits of residential rainwater harvesting in U.S. cities. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 810e824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12038. Stovin, V., 2010. The potential of green roofs to manage urban stormwater. Water Environ. J. 24, 192e199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2009.00174.x. Stovin, V., Vesuviano, G., Kasmin, H., 2012. The hydrological performance of a green roof test bed under UK climatic conditions. J. Hydrol. 414e415, 148e161. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.022. Stovin, V., Vesuviano, G., De-Ville, S., 2015. Defining green roof detention performance. Urban Water J. 9006, 1e15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1573062X.2015.1049279. Sugumaran, R., Meyer, J.C., Davis, J., 2004. A Web-based environmental decision support system (WEDSS) for environmental planning and watershed

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079

14

N.G. Gogate et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e14

management. J. Geogr. Syst. 6, 307e322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10109-0040137-0. Suphunvorranop, T., 1985. A Guide to SCS Runoff Procedures. Department of Water Resources, St. Johns River Water Management District. Teemusk, A., Mander, L.O., 2007. Rainwater runoff quantity and quality performance from a greenroof: the effects of short-term events. Ecol. Eng. 30, 271e277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2007.01.009. UN, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision: United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. USDA, 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Tech. Release 55, Washington DC. USEPA, 2000. Low Impact Development (LID), a Literature Review. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-841-B-00-005. USEPA, 1996. Managing Urban Runoff. EPA-841/F-96-004G, Washington, D.C. Vu cijak, B., Kurtagi
c, S.M., Silajd zi
c, I., 2015. Multicriteria decision making in selecting best solid waste management scenario: a municipal case study from Bosnia and Herzegovina. J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2015.11.030. Ward, S., Barr, S., Butler, D., Memon, F.A., 2012. Rainwater harvesting in the UK: socio-technical theory and practice. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79, 1354e1361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.001.

Weiss, J.D., Hondzo, M., Semmens, M., 2006. Storm water detention ponds: modeling Heavy metal removal by plant species and sediments. J. Environ. Eng. 132, 1034e1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132: 9(1034). Willuweit, L., O'Sullivan, J.J., 2013. A decision support tool for sustainable planning of urban water systems: presenting the dynamic urban water simulation model. Water Res. 47, 7206e7220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.09.060. Yang, R., Cui, B., 2012. Framework of integrated stormwater management of Jinan City, China. Procedia Environ. Sci. 13, 2346e2352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.proenv.2012.01.223. Yoon, K.P., Hwang, C.-L., 1995. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: an Introduction. Sage publications. Zelany, M., 1974. A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Comput. Oper. Res. 1, 479e496. Zheng, J., Nanbakhsh, H., Scholz, M., 2006. Case study: design and operation of sustainable urban infiltration ponds treating storm runoff. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 132, 36e41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:1(36). Zhou, P., Ang, B., Poh, K., 2006. Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: an update. Energy 31, 2604e2622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.energy.2005.10.023.

Please cite this article in press as: Gogate, N.G., et al., Assessment of stormwater management options in urban contexts using Multiple Attribute Decision-Making, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.079