Content uploaded by Haifeng Jia
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Haifeng Jia on Mar 23, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW ARTICLE
China’s Sponge City construction: A discussion on technical
approaches
Haifeng Jia (✉)
1
, Zheng Wang
1
, Xiaoyue Zhen
2
, Mike Clar
3
, Shaw L. Yu
4
1 School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2 Beijing Orient Tetra Tech Ecological Technology Ltd., Beijing 100051, China
3 Tetra Tech, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
4 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
*
1 Introduction
Over the past decade China’s urban population has grown
to 52.4%in 2015 from 42.5%in 2005, and the build-up
areas have increased by 17,252 km
2
. This roughly equates
to an addition of 165 million people dwelling in urban
areas in a decade! This rapid urbanization process has led
to a worsening “city syndrome”situation such as urban
flooding, water pollution, heat-island effects and ecologic
deterioration, etc. [1].
To promote a sustainable urbanization strategy, the
Chinese government announced in late 2013 a “Sponge
✉Corresponding author
E-mail: jhf@tsinghua.edu.cn
*
Hot Column—Low Impact Development and Sponge City (Respon-
sible Editors: Haifeng Jia & Shaw L.Yu)
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11(4): 18
DOI 10.1007/s11783-017-0984-9
HIGHLIGHTS
•Barriers and challenges of Sponge City construc-
tion were presented.
•Several key technical points on Sponge City
implementation were discussed.
•Recommendations on Sponge City implementa-
tion strategy are proposed.
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 28 May 2017
Revised 29 June 2017
Accepted 9 July 2017
Available online 12 August 2017
Keywords:
Low impact development (LID)
Green infrastructure (GI)
Sponge City
Barriers
Construction strategies
GRAPHIC ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Since 2014, China has been implementing the Sponge City Construction initiative, which represents an
enormous and unprecedented effort by any government in the world for achieving urban sustainability.
According to preliminary estimates, the total investment on the Sponge City Planis roughly 100 to 150
million Yuan (RMB) ($15 to $22.5 million) average per square kilometer or 10 Trillion Yuan (RMB)
($1.5 Trillion) for the 657 cities nationwide. The Sponge City Plan (SCP) calls for the use of natural
processes such as soil and vegetation as part of the urban runoff control strategy, which is similar to
that of low impact development (LID) and green infrastructure (GI) practices being promoted in many
parts of the world. The SCP includes as its goals not only effective urban flood control, but also
rainwater harvest, water quality improvement and ecological restoration. So far, the SCP
implementation has encountered some barriers and challenges due to many factors. The present
paper presents a review of those barriers and challenges, offers discussions and recommendations on
several technical aspects such as control goals and objectives; planning/design and construction of
LID/GI practices; performance evaluation. Several key recommendations are proposed on Sponge City
implementation strategy, Site-specific regulatory framework and technical guidance, Product
innovation and certification, LID/GI Project financing, LID/GI professional training and certification,
public outreach and education. It is expected that the successful implementation of the SCP not only
will bring about a sustainable, eco-friendly urbanization process in China, but also contribute
enormously to the LID/GI research and development with the vast amount of relevant data and
experiences generated from the Sponge City construction projects.
© Higher Education Press and Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
City”initiative in building urban infrastructures. Deviating
from the traditional “rapid-draining”approach, the new
paradigm calls for the use of natural processes such as soil
and vegetation as part of the urban runoff control strategy.
The “six-word”principle, which includes infiltrate, detain,
store, cleanse, use and drain, forms the guidelines for urban
storm water management. These principles are similar to
those under the Low Impact Development (LID) paradigm
that has been promoted and implemented in many parts of
the world [2]. LID technology employs principles such as
preserving and recreating natural landscape features,
minimizing effective imperviousness to create functional
and appealing site drainage that treat storm water as a
resource rather than a waste product [3].
In October 2014 the China Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Construction (MHURC) issued a draft
technical manual on Sponge City construction. In October
2015 the State Council of China announced a major
expansion of the Sponge City Initiative, which is being
implemented nationwide. Recognizing the limitation of
Low Impact Development (LID) / Green Infrastructure
(GI) facilities in controlling large or less frequent storm
events, the government mandates the integration of green
and gray infrastructure. The expanded Sponge City Plan
(SCP) includes as its goals not only effective urban flood
control, but also rainwater harvest, water quality improve-
ment and ecological restoration. The use of LID/GI
practices will be required for all new development and
retrofit sites, science and commercial parks, green spaces,
non-mechanical vehicle roads, pedestrian walkways, etc.
During 2015 and 2016, the China Ministry of Finance
(MOF), with support from MHURC and the Ministry of
Water Resources (MWR), selected 30 cities (Fig. 1),
among more than five hundred applicants, as pilot sites
under the SCP. Each city is to receive 400 to 600 million
Yuan (RMB) (60 to 90 million US$) annually from the
central government for three years, with the total
investment estimated to be about 42.3 billion Yuan
(RMB) or 6.35 billion US$. Local matching is required
and public-private partnerships (PPP) are encouraged.
Cities will receive a 10%bonus from the central
government if the PPP contribution exceeds a certain
percentage of the overall budget. According to preliminary
estimates, the total investment on the SCP is roughly 100
to 150 million Yuan (RMB) ($15 to $22.5 million) average
per square kilometer or 10 trillion Yuan (RMB) ($1.5
Trillion) for the 657 cities nationwide [4–6].
China’s SCP represents an enormous and unprecedented
Fig. 1 Locations of pilot Sponge Cities
2 Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11(4): 18
undertaking by the government for achieving urban
sustainability. MHURC officials recognize that the success
of the Sponge City construction will require a combined
and coordinated effort by many government agencies in
areas such as landscape/architectural planning, construc-
tion, municipal, water, transportation, finance, environ-
mental protection and input from other stakeholders. In
addition, to finance all the Sponge City projects is a real
challenge. The government has listed some innovative
strategies for fund-raising, which includes, in addition to
government grants and subsidies, local matching and
public-private partnerships. The government is also
encouraging participation by financial institutions, and
will allow qualified entities to issue construction bonds to
finance the Sponge City projects.
2 Barriers and challenges for the Sponge
City construction
Since the initial implementation of LID practices in the
United States during the early 2000s, significant barriers
and challenges have existed and hindered its progress. The
China Sponge City projects are now encountering similar
situations. The following is a list that is compiled from
experiences in both countries [1,7]:
(1) Resistance to change. Inertia of traditional
approaches
It is human nature to resist change, especially regarding
something that is unproven for its suitability and cost-
effectiveness. LID technology is relatively new and has not
be widely understood, especially at the local level. Many
misconceptions still exist, e.g. LID can solve all urban
flooding problems. Gradually people begin to realize LID
targets only smaller storm events and must be integrated
with traditional gray infrastructure approach for managing
larger runoff events. In China, e.g., the age-old notion of
man can conquer nature, yet the basic concept of the
Sponge City approach is living with nature and making use
of nature’s abilities. Although the Central Government has
mandated the Sponge City construction and has issued
technical guidelines, some provincial and local govern-
ment officials are slow to act due to inertia of traditions.
(2) Limited technical guidance on planning, design and
assessment of LID facilities
Even though LID practices have been widely used
beginning in early 2000s, revised or new technical manuals
and guidance books still are been issued in the United
States. Urban runoff characteristics are very site-specific
[8] and local environmental and social-economic condi-
tions vary from location to location. Therefore, local, or at
least regional, guides would be most helpful. A case in
point is the need for a list of native plants suitable for use in
bioretention cells. Currently, localized technical guidance
is still not available for many designated sponge cities in
China.
(3) Lack of close coordination among agencies at the
local level
For example, design of the LID practice, bioretention
cell, needs input from both storm water and landscape
architect professionals. Such a coordinated effort has not
been the norm because storm water management and road
side vegetation management are responsibilities belonging
to different agencies. Currently, there is close coordination
among the key agencies responsible for implementing the
Sponge City Plan at the ministry level, i.e., MHURC, MOF
and MWR. However, at the local, or Sponge City level,
often many agencies are involved, such as the urban
planning, construction, water conservancy, and environ-
ment protection bureaus, etc. A smooth and efficient
Sponge City implementation requires a great effort and
time for inter-agency coordination. To facilitate such
efforts, some Sponge City pilot cities have created the
“Sponge City Offices,”which include representation from
all bureaus related to urban water.
(4) Quantification of LID cost effectiveness
Currently, performance of an LID practice is usually
measured as “percentage of runoff volume”or “fraction of
pollutant load”removed by the practice. However, how
this “percentage of fraction”is calculated is still been
discussed. Should this be based on a subjectively selected
“design storm”? Or it should be calculated on a continuous
basis for all storms occurred during a specific period of
time, say, a year? The other important factor is how the
success (or failure) of the LID/GI implementation be
incorporated into the performance evaluation of local
officials. If the promotional evaluation process could be
modified to include results of Sponge City implementation,
local officials would be much more committed to its
success.
(5) Finance Sponge City project
Sponge City construction is a public endeavor and
would require public financing. A number of financing
schemes have been used in the US, e.g., storm water
utilities, federal government grants, state government cost-
sharing, etc. However, if the use of LID is a mandated
activity, a strong financing plan should be provided to local
governments.
Public-private partnerships (PPP) are encouraged in
financing Sponge City project. However, there are several
factors which influence the invest interest of social capital,
such as the perceived high costs of design, construction
and maintenance; inadequate investment and return
estimates; no clear economic incentive for using LID.
(6) Education and training do not provide skills to design
and implement LID
To implement successfully an LID/GI practice construc-
tion project, knowledge from many disciplines is required.
Subjects of expertise needed are many. For example,
planning/design of LID facilities would need skills in
storm water management, urban hydrology and hydraulics
(scales from site to region to watershed), water quality
Haifeng Jia et al. China’s Sponge City construction: A discussion on technical approaches 3
modeling, optimization techniques, etc. However, the
specific system education and training programs are still
lack in University and College.
The present paper is aimed at providing a discussion of
and recommendations for addressing a number of
challenges listed above, with emphasis on the technical
aspects of implementing LID/GI practices.
3 Discussions on some technical
approaches for Sponge City Plan
implementation
3.1 Set clear management goals and objectives
(1) LID/GI practices are designed for controlling smaller
storm events.
LID practices are “on-site”and “distributed”facilities
and therefore are basically used to control smaller runoff
events. Also, a major consideration for targeting smaller,
more frequent runoff events is the “first-flash”phenom-
enon observed in many urban areas [8]. For example, by
controlling the first 0.5 inches (13 mm) of runoff, a
significant amount (~80%) of pollutants carried by the
runoff can be removed. The first LID design manual [9]
clearly identified the control target of LID facilities, as
shown in Fig. 2.
In Fig. 2, the amount of rainfall volumes (vertical axis)
are roughly divided into four control categories using
rainfall data for Prince George’s County, Maryland, USA.
At high frequencies, e.g. less than one year, the rainfall
volumes are small and control goal is to enhance
infiltration for groundwater recharge and to remove
pollutants in the first-flush of runoff for water quality
protection. For storms with 2-year frequency or less, the
goal is to control channel erosion and also water quality. A
10-year frequency is commonly used for peak flow
reduction for erosion and flood control. The regulations
usually require the use of a 100-year frequency for
detention facility emergency spillway design.
A more recent version of the control target illustration is
given in Fig. 3 [10]. It illustrates the overall strategy for
urban storm water runoff control. In the figure, Curve
①represents the flows across all frequencies expected
after development (increase in imperviousness). The
ultimate goal of runoff control is to restore the site
hydrology (runoff peak and volume, time of concentration,
etc.) to the original regime or pre-development conditions
exited at the site, as depicted by Curve Ⓖ. The traditional
storm water management approach relies mainly on
detention processes (design frequency 10-100 years) that
moves Curve ①to Curve ②. With some modifications (e.
g. extended detention) Curve ③could be achieved for
additional water quality benefits. The current LID/GI
strategy is to optimize the control of smaller storms
(frequency 2 years or less) so that Curve ④can be reached
and water quality protection is further enhanced.
The final selection of control targets should be made
considering local environmental, social and economic
situations. Of special interest, however, it should be noted
that if the control target is a frequency (e.g., 95%), it will
mean different design volumes for different locations. On
the other hand, if the target is a volume for control (e.g., 13
mm runoff), then it means different frequencies for
different locations, as shown in Fig. 4 for several typical
cities in United State [11].
An example of control targets and goals set by a locality
is given below [12]. In Town of Chapel Hill in North
Fig. 2 Storm water management basic control targets
4 Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11(4): 18
Carolina, USA, the control target of TSS is 85%removal
for first 1 inch of precipitation; Volume leaving site post-
development shall not exceed volume pre-development for
the 2 year 24 h storm event (3.60 inches); Rate leaving site
post-development shall not exceed rate pre-development
for the 1, 2, 25 and 50 year storm are set as 3.00, 3.60, 6.41
and 7.21 inches respectively.
In China, the Guiding Opinions on Advancing the
Construction of Sponge Cities issued by the China State
Council sets a control goal of 70%annual runoff volume
for 20%of the built-up areas by 2020. To achieve such
goals, cities in different climate regions will need different
design criteria for their control practices, as in United State
illustrated in Fig. 4.
(2) Hydrograph generation and temporal distribution of
rainfall
Hydrograph generation is needed for facility design and
detailed analysis of performance. The within storm rainfall
distribution, or temporal distribution of rainfall, enables the
determination of a hyetograph, which is needed for
hydrograph generation [13].
The most commonly used method in US for determining
the temporal distribution of a design storm is the SCS
rainfall distribution curves as shown in Figs. 5 [14].
Using rainfall charts shown in Figs. 5, one can generate
the appropriate design rainfall hyetograph and then the
design runoff hydrograph. An example of hydrograph
generation application is shown in Fig. 6 below [9].
In Fig. 6, Q is discharge flow; T is Time. Curve ①
represents the existing hydrograph at the site from a design
storm. Curve ②is the hydrograph from the same storm
under post-development conditions. Curve ③shows the
Fig. 3 Urban runoff control strategies
Fig. 4 Percentage runoff capture rate vs. Storage volume required
Haifeng Jia et al. China’s Sponge City construction: A discussion on technical approaches 5
effect of LID plus additional detention facilities. The post-
development peak discharge is reduced to the pre-
development level and also significantly, the flows during
the early time steps are removed or lowered, which helps
the removal of pollutants during the first-flash time period.
3.2 Planning and design of LID/GI practices
The planning and design of LID/GI practices normally
include the following steps [15,16]:
(1) Site data, information collection and analysis;
(2) Low Impact Development Best Management
Practice (LID-BMPs) screening and selection; and
(3) LID-BMPs design and optimization
Local site (could be from block size to region and
watershed scale) data are important because runoff
characteristics are very site-specific. In the US, storm
water management guidelines and manuals have been
issued at the national [3], state (e.g. Maryland [17]) and
local (e.g. Chapel Hill, North Carolina [12]) levels. Some
of the local manuals provide very detailed information
such as a list of local plants suitable for use in green roofs,
bioretention cells, etc. In China, some LID-BMPs screen-
ing and optimization methodologies have been proposed
(e.g. [18,19].).
The design of a LID-BMP facility involvers many
Fig. 5 SCS Temporal Rainfall Charts
(a) Different type of SCS temporal rainfall; (b) Spatial distribution of different type of rainfall distribution
6 Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11(4): 18
factors such as the control area, design storm, pollutant
characteristics, the regulatory performance requirement,
etc. The design of a bioretention cell is used as an example
here. Features to be considered for best performance by a
bioretention are listed below [12]:
Siting/Location
Sizing
Shape
Ponding time and Depth
Velocity
Planting Soil and In situ Soil
Underdrain System
Mulch Layer
Plant Material
Edge Protection
For certain purpose, the specific design and innovation is
required. For example, Fig. 7 illustrates a cross-section of a
bioretention cell, with its features derived from research
results. Earlier versions of bioretention cell design guides
mostly call for a gravel layer at the bottom with perforated
pipes for drainage. Recent research by Brown and Hunt
[12] suggested that by using a siphon pipe that creates a
water storage layer and thus enhances nitrogen removal.
The finding has been incorporated into recent bioretention
design guides. Further research is continuing and will lead
to better designs and even product innovations.
LID-BMPs optimization is aimed at finding the most
cost-effective selection and placement of various LID-
BMPs facilities for a specific site. Such an analysis should
be carried out before a final decision is made on facility
selection, design and placement [20,21]. Many optimiza-
tion tools are available. Figure 8 shows an example of
optimization of the LID-BMPs design scenarios in China
using the model SUSTAIN [19]. In the figure, the X axis
represents the cost of LID-BMPs implementation, the unit
is million YuanYuan (RMB). The Y axis represents the
total runoff volume reduction rate of LID-BMPs schemes.
We can find the best solution of LID-BMPs design which is
the “knee-of-curve”point in the figure.
3.3 Evaluating LID/GI practice performances
Monitoring and assessment of LID/GI practices after their
implementation are required, not only for performance
evaluation but also for providing quantified proofs of the
benefits of using such practices. The USEPA has issued
detailed guidelines for monitoring of LID-BMPs and
evaluating their performance [22]. The following methods
were recommended for assessing LID-BMPs performance:
Efficiency ratio
Summation of loads
Regression of loads
Mean concentration
Efficiency of individual storm loads
Inflow vs outflow probability curves
The most commonly used indicator of storm water
runoff pollution is the event mean concentration (EMC).
The term event mean concentration (EMC) is a statistical
parameter used to represent the flow-proportional average
concentration of a given parameter during a storm event. It
is defined as the total constituent mass divided by the total
runoff volume [22].
Many discussions are still being made regarding the
accuracy, reliability and preference of the various methods.
Fig. 6 Hydrograph generation: effect of LID on site hydrology
Fig. 7 Bioretention design features example
Haifeng Jia et al. China’s Sponge City construction: A discussion on technical approaches 7
Theoretically, the summation of loads method, which is
based on a mass balance computation of pollutant loads
going into and out from the facility, is the most reliable if
the samples are taken over a wide range of flow conditions
[22]. Significant advances have been made in the past
decades with respect to traditional BMP and LID-BMP
monitoring and evaluation [23–25]. However, data are still
relatively scarce, especially in China [7]. It is expected that
the Sponge City projects will generate a vast amount of
data that would be very valuable to researchers and
practitioners in the field.
Currently, most LID-BMP pollutant removal require-
ments are based on the “performance based”approach,
which sets subjectively the percentage of pollutant
removed, e.g., 40%removal of total phosphorus. However,
it might be more cost-effective to consider a “water quality
based”approach, which determines the percentage pollu-
tant removal needed for maintaining a specified water
quality for a water body [26–28].
In addition, many methods and tools are used to evaluate
the environmental and economic performance of LID-
BMPs, such as life cycle assessment [29] and modeling
[30].
4 Looking ahead —Recommendations for
Sponge City construction strategies
4.1 The Sponge City implementation strategy
The current Sponge City Plan scope has been expanded to
include not only dealing with the urban water runoff
problem, but also with the broader management of urban
water. For example, the integration of green and gray
infrastructures is required for flood control, water quality
improvement and ecological protection and restoration.
Local governments will need to adjust their land use
planning and storm water infrastructure construction
strategies to satisfy Sponge City requirements [31,32].
To effectively improve water quality, the government
could consider establishing regulations similar to the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
programs used successfully in the United States [33–35].
Also, to provide a strong incentive for local government
officials, the success of Sponge City implementations
could be used as a performance evaluation factor for
promotion consideration for local officials.
4.2 Site-specific regulatory framework and technical
guidance
The China Sponge City implementation experience so far
has suggested that because the core principles of the
expanded version of the initiative are aimed at the
integrated management of urban storm water quantity
and quality, the legal status for Sponge City construction
should be enhanced. In essence, the construction of LID/GI
facilities should be planned as part of the urban overall
master planning at the beginning. Moreover, since the level
and scope of controlling storm water runoff depends
largely on local climate, rainfall, ecology and importantly
social and economic factors, it is suggested that localized
regulations should be considered under the state’s
Fig. 8 Optimization of LID-BMPs Design using SUSTAIN
8 Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11(4): 18
regulatory framework. An example of such an approach is
the federal government, state and local stormwater
regulations in the United States [27].
The first technical guidance issued by MHURC in 2014
[6] has laid the foundation for the initial phase of Sponge
City construction nationwide in China. As the Sponge City
projects get underway, it has been recognized that detailed
technical guidance, including information such as local
climate, hydrologic, soil and even plants should all be
included in the guidance documents. Also, an operational
and maintenance instruction is needed, plus detailed
requirements for monitoring and analysis in order to
provide quantitative information on facility performance
and cost-effectiveness.
4.3 Product innovation and certification
Some of the control practices, such as an underground
storm water treatment system, are manufactured by private
companies. An evaluation and certification process would
be highly desirable before such products are used for
public projects. A sustainable development of Sponge City
requires a robust industrial base. The central government
should consider assisting related industries and establish-
ing a viable Sponge City industry chain. Under the current
economic climate of “over-capacity reduction,”the
Sponge City projects can offer good business opportunities
for manufacturers producing pervious concrete, permeable
bricks, infiltration pipes, etc. A stable supply system will
help ensure the successes of the Sponge City projects. The
certification process in Unite States can be referenced for
us [36].
4.4 LID/GI project financing
The Sponge City construction represents an urbanization
process of an enormous scale that requires a major
financial commitment from the government. Innovative
financial options, such as appropriate PPP project
portfolio, credit support, loan guarantees, special construc-
tion funds and bond issuing should be considered and
promoted. The government should also simplify the
administrative approval process for reducing the upfront
costs of PPP projects. Decentralization of administrative
authority properly to local governments can help them
build a tailored and flexible policy approach appropriate
for local social, environmental, economic and cultural
situations.
In the era of budgetary constraints and competing needs,
how to finance all the Sponge City projects is a real
challenge. The government has listed some innovative
strategies for fund-raising, which includes, in addition to
government grants and subsidies, local matching and
public-private partnerships. A major current issue is how to
develop a reliable, and tangible, estimate of returns on
investments in the Sponge City projects. For example, how
to quantify and appraise the benefit of Sponge City
implementation is still an important question. Also, after
the completion of a Sponge City project, maintenance of
the LID/GI facilities will become a crucial factor affecting
project sustainability. The lack of information on main-
tenance requirements and costs would contribute to
uncertainties in Sponge City budget estimates.
In the US, with limited budgets, innovative approaches
are needed for financing the green infrastructure projects.
One of the approaches is the Public-Private-Partnerships,
PPP or 3P. The following is an example from the Prince
George’s County, Maryland [37]:
The Private Partner is the general contractor and
program manager in partnership with the County through a
limited liability company (LLC) framework.
Program transparency is maintained through joint
program administration and decision making expressed in
the LLC operations.
The Private Partner will provide all or part of the initial
capital costs.
The County will pay back the Private Partner a
monthly fee that would include the debt service and cost
for operation and maintenance.
The Private Partner’s revenue is based on a negotiated
performance based fee.
The Private Partner doesn’t get paid unless they meet
the performance goals.
This performance fee based approach ensures the Private
Partner’sfirst priority is to meet the County’s program /
performance goals; not the optimization of its profits.
Figure 9 illustrates the inter-relationships among various
partners in the PG County’s PPP Program [37]. The
County collects water quality (WQ) fees, which provide
the basic funding for the LID/GI projects. The County and
the selected private partner (LLC) form jointly the LLC
Company and implement the projects. Input and collabora-
tions are also solicited from relevant community associa-
tions, environmental groups, faith-based non-profit
organizations (NPOs), and industrial, commercial entities
during planning and design stages. The Private Partner will
be responsible for BMP maintenance and will be paid back
in accordance with a negotiated scheme as mentioned
above.
4.5 LID/GI professional education/training and public
outreach
The design, construction and maintenance of LID/GI
systems require professionals with appropriate background
and training. Therefore, a consorted effort and time is
needed for research and development (R/D) in LID/GI
technology in order to achieve successes for the Sponge
City projects.
In the era of public awareness of the importance of
environmental protection, out task is to link the Sponge
City initiative to a sustainable urban development strategy
Haifeng Jia et al. China’s Sponge City construction: A discussion on technical approaches 9
in a way that the public would clearly understand and fully
support. The use of the media, public hearing sessions,
comment periods for mandates, training sessions for
practitioners, etc. are all viable means of letting people
know and gaining their support and even participation.
Education at all levels, from kindergarten to college and to
adult education, is very important. For example, in the US,
some local community colleges offer course to adults on
plant selection for bioretention cells or rain gardens.
Working with environmental groups (such as the Sierra
Club in the US) and relevant non-government organiza-
tions (NGOs) would also be an effective way to raise
awareness and support.
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the
Beijing Natural Science Foundation Project (No. 8161003), Natural Science
Foundation Project (No. 51278267), and the National Water Pollution
Control Special Project (No. 2011ZX07301-003). Several points and the
contents in the manuscript are discussed with many experts during 2016
International Low Impact Conference in Beijing.
References
1. Jia H, Wang Z, Yu S L. Opportunity and Challenge:China’s Sponge
City Plan. Hydrolink, 2016, 4: 100–102
2. Yu S L, Jia H. China’s ambitious Sponge City initiative: A
monumental effort for green/gray infrastructure integration. ASCE
EWRI Currents, 2016, 17(4): 8–9
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Green Infra-
structure, 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastruc-
ture
4. The CPC Central Committee, The State Council. The National New
Urbanization Plan (2014–2020), 2014
5. The General Office of the State Council. Guiding Opinions on
Advancing the Construction of Sponge Cities, 2015
6. China Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Construction
(MHURC). Technical guidelines on Sponge City construc-
tion—Low impact development stormwater management system,
2014
7. Jia H, Yao H, Yu S L. Advances in LID BMPs research and practices
for urban runoff control in China. Frontiers of Environmental
Science & Engineering, 2013, 7(5): 709–720
8. Torno H C. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. In: Proceedings
of Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Urban
Storm Drainage. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers tekn. hogsk. 1984.
9. Department of Environmental Resources of Prince George’s
County. Low Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated
Design Approach. Largo, MD: Department of Environmental
Resources of Prince George’s County, USA, 1999
10. Guo C Y. Green concept in stormwater management. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Systems Engineering, 2013, 2(3): 2168–
9768
11. Roesner L. Hydrology of urban Runoff Quality Management. In:
Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Water Resources,
Planning and Management/Symposium on Urban Water Resources,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 1991
12. Brown R A, Hunt W F. Underdrain configuration to enhance
bioretention exfiltration to reduce pollutant loads. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 2011, 137(11): 1082–1091
13. Yu S L, Hamilton P A, Kent C E. Temporal Distribution of Rainfall
in Virginia, Final Technical Report to Federal Highway Adminis-
tration, Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council,
Charlottesville, VA, 1985
14. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). National Engineering Handbook.
Section 4, Hydrology (NEH-4). US Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC., 1985
15. Jia H F, Lu Y W, Yu S L, Chen Y R. Planning of LID-BMPs for
urban runoff control: The case of Beijing Olympic Village.
Fig. 9 Partner relationships –Prince George’s County PPP program
10 Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11(4): 18
Separation and Purification Technology, 2012, 84: 112–119
16. Zhen X Y, Yu S L, Lin J Y. Optimal location and sizing of
stormwater basins at watershed scale. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 2004, 130(4): 339–347
17. Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). Stormwater Man-
agement Manual, Maryland DOE, USA, 2009. Available at: http://
www.mde.state.md.us
18. Jia H, Yao H, Tang Y, Yu S L, Zhen J X, Lu Y. Development of a
multi-criteria index ranking system for urban runoff best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) selection. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 2013, 185(9): 7915–7933
19. Jia H, Yao H, Tang Y, Yu S L, Field R, Tafuri A N. LID-BMPs
planning for urban runoff control and the case study in China.
Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 149(1): 65–76
20. Cheng M S, Zhen J X, Shoemaker L. BMP decision support system
for evaluating stormwater management alternatives. Frontiers of
Environmental Science & Engineering, 2009, 3(4): 453–463
21. Xu T, Jia H F, Wang Z, Mao X H, Xu C Q. SWMM-based
methodology for block-scale LID-BMPs planning based on site-
scale multi-objective optimization: A case study in Tianjin. Frontiers
of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2017, 11: 1
22. USEPA. Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring: A
Guidance Manual for Meeting the National Stormwater BMP
Database Requirements. 2002, EPA-821-B-02–001.
23. Zhang R, Zhou W, Field R, Tafuri A, Yu S L, Jin K. Field test of best
management practice pollutant removal efficiencies in Shenzhen,
China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2009, 3
(3): 354–363
24. Jia H, Wang X, Ti C, Zhai Y, Field R, Tafuri A N, Cai H, Yu S L.
Field monitoring of a LID-BMP treatment train system in China.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2015, 187(6): 373
25. Qin H P, Li Z X, Fu G. The effects of low impact development on
urban flooding under different rainfall characteristics. Journal of
Environmental Management, 2013, 129: 577–585
26. Wu J, Yu S L, Zou R. Water quality-based BMP implementation
approach for efficient nonpoint source pollution control. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association, JAWRA., 2006, 42(5):
1193–1204
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Laws & Regula-
tions, 2017. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/
regulations
28. Jia H F, Ma H T, Sun Z X, Yu S L, Ding Y W, Liang Y. A closed
urban scenic river system using stormwater treated with LID-BMP
technology in a revitalized historical district in China. Ecological
Engineering, 2014, 71: 448–457
29. Xu C Q, Hong J L, Jia H F, Liang S D, Xu T. Life cycle
environmental and economic assessment of a LID-BMP treatment
train system: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production,
2017, 149: 227–237
30. Mao X H, Jia H F, Yu S L. Assessing the ecological benefits of
aggregate LID-BMPs through modelling. Ecological Modelling,
2017, 353: 139–149
31. Han Y, Jia H F. Simulating the spatial dynamics of urban growth
with an integrated modeling approach: A case study of Foshan,
China. Ecological Modelling, 2017, 353: 107–116
32. Jia H F, Wang S, Wei M J, Zhang Y. Scenario analysis of water
pollution control in the typical peri-urban river using a coupled
hydrodynamic-water quality model. Frontiers of Environmental
Science & Engineering in China, 2011, 5(2): 255–265
33. Boyd J, New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the
EPA's New TMDL Rules. 11 Duke Environmental Law & Policy
Forum, 2000, 39–87
34. Liang S, Jia H, Yang C, Melching C, Yuan Y. A pollutant load
hierarchical allocation method integrated in an environmental
capacity management system for Zhushan Bay, Taihu Lake. Journal:
Science of the Total Environment, 2015, 533: 223–237
35. Guo Y, Jia H F. An approach to calculating allowable watershed
pollutant loads. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering,
2012, 6(5): 658–671
36. USEPA. Getting Certified by EPA, 2017. Available at: https://www.
epa.gov/home/getting-certified-epa
37. Prince George’s County. Maryland, USA. The Prince George’s
County 3P Green Infrastructure Implementation Program, 2017.
Available at: https://thecleanwaterpartnership.com
Haifeng Jia et al. China’s Sponge City construction: A discussion on technical approaches 11
