2,681
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + − Misunderstandings about how operation and maintenance costs for LID practices compare to those of conventional stormwater facilities like detention ponds, oil and grit separators and swales has been one of the significant barriers to their acceptance in the United States and arguably worldwide. In comparison to conventional stormwater facilities, LID practices have lower life cycle costs, perform better and provide additional benefits, such as improved aesthetics, urban heat island mitigation, and air quality improvement (US EPA, 2013).<ref> United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2013a. Maintenance of Low Impact Development: Communities are Easily Managing LID Practices. LID Barrier Busters Fact Sheet Series. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/bbfs6maintenance.pdf</ref> For example, in a controlled field study at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (Houle et al., 2013), maintenance demands and costs were compared over the first 4 years of operation for seven different types of stormwater control measures (SCM), including conventional practices (vegetated swale, wet and dry ponds) and LID/GSI practices (gravel wetland, bioretention, porous asphalt, sand filter). Through estimates of annualized maintenance costs per unit drainage area treated and per unit mass of pollutant removal, they found that LID systems have lower marginal maintenance burdens and higher water quality treatment capabilities than conventional practices like detention ponds and swales. Activities associated with maintaining LID practices were found to be less expensive and more predictable than those for conventional systems.<ref>Houle, J.J., Roseen, R.M., Ballestero, T.P., Puls, T.A., Sherrard, J. 2013. Comparison of Maintenance Cost, Labor Demands and System Performance for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 139(7):932-938. https://scholars.unh.edu/stormwater/3/</ref> + − For a recent review of international research on life cycle analyses of LID stormwater practices see Xu et al. (2019) <ref> Xu, C., Jia, M, Xu, M., Long, Y., Jia, H. 2019. Progress on environmental and economic evaluation of low impact development type of best management practices through a life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production. 213. pp. 1103-1114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618340010?via%3Dihub </ref> − − The following collection of tools includes our own and external resources. − + + + Line 68:
Line 68: + +
→STEP LID Life Cycle Costing Tool (Ontario)
__NOTOC__
__NOTOC__
Misunderstandings about how operation and maintenance costs for LID practices compare to those of conventional stormwater facilities like detention ponds, oil and grit separators and swales has been one of the significant barriers to their acceptance in the United States and arguably worldwide. In comparison to conventional stormwater facilities, LID practices have lower life cycle costs, perform better and provide additional benefits, such as improved aesthetics, urban heat island mitigation, and air quality improvement (US EPA, 2013).<ref> United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2013a. Maintenance of Low Impact Development: Communities are Easily Managing LID Practices. LID Barrier Busters Fact Sheet Series. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/bbfs6maintenance.pdf</ref> For example, in a controlled field study at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (Houle et al., 2013), maintenance demands and costs were compared over the first 4 years of operation for seven different types of stormwater control measures (SCM), including conventional practices (vegetated swale, wet and dry ponds) and LID practices (gravel wetland, bioretention, porous asphalt, sand filter). Through estimates of annualized maintenance costs per unit drainage area treated and per unit mass of pollutant removed, they found that LID systems have lower marginal maintenance burdens and higher water quality treatment capabilities than conventional practices like detention ponds and swales. Activities associated with maintaining LID practices were found to be less expensive and more predictable than those for conventional systems.<ref>Houle, J.J., Roseen, R.M., Ballestero, T.P., Puls, T.A., Sherrard, J. 2013. Comparison of Maintenance Cost, Labor Demands and System Performance for LID and Conventional Stormwater Management. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 139(7):932-938. https://scholars.unh.edu/stormwater/3/</ref> For a recent review of international research on life cycle cost and benefit analyses of LID stormwater practices see Xu et al. (2019) <ref> Xu, C., Jia, M, Xu, M., Long, Y., Jia, H. 2019. Progress on environmental and economic evaluation of low impact development type of best management practices through a life cycle perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production. 213. pp. 1103-1114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618340010?via%3Dihub </ref>
The following collection of tools includes our own and external resources.
==STEP LID Life Cycle Costing Tool (Ontario)==
==STEP LID Life Cycle Costing Tool (Ontario)==
[[File:LCCT Dec.2021.PNG|thumb|500px|STEP LID Life Cycle Costing Tool includes [[Bioretention]], [[Enhanced grass swales]], [[Green roofs]], [[Infiltration chambers]], [[Infiltration trenches]], [[Permeable pavements]], and [[Rainwater harvesting]]|link=http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/wp/home/urban-runoff-green-infrastructure/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-life-cycle-costs/]]
[[File:LCCT Dec.2021.PNG|thumb|500px|STEP LID Life Cycle Costing Tool includes [[Bioretention]], [[Enhanced grass swales]], [[Green roofs]], [[Infiltration chambers]], [[Infiltration trenches]], [[Permeable pavements]], and [[Rainwater harvesting| Rainwater harvesting cisterns]]|link=http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/wp/home/urban-runoff-green-infrastructure/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-life-cycle-costs/]]
The Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program has produced a life cycle costing tool specific to Ontario. STEP built the tool after evaluating LID practices and design scenarios for input costs, maintenance requirements, rehabilitation costs and practice designs relevant to Canadian climates.
The Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program has produced a life cycle costing tool specific to Ontario. STEP built the tool after evaluating LID practices and design scenarios for input costs, maintenance requirements, rehabilitation costs and practice designs relevant to Canadian climates.
The tool is in a simple to use Excel format and is free to download.
The tool is in a simple to use Excel format and is free to download.
{{Clickable button|[http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/wp/home/urban-runoff-green-infrastructure/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-life-cycle-costs/ STEP LID Life Cycle Costing Tool]}}
{{Clickable button|[http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/wp/home/urban-runoff-green-infrastructure/low-impact-development/low-impact-development-life-cycle-costs/ STEP LID Life Cycle Costing Tool]}}
See the [[Low Impact Development Life Cycle Costing Tool|LID Life Cycle Costing Tool]] page for more about the tool along with cost estimates for common design scenarios, and cost comparisons by LID practice type and design configuration.
==Green Infrastructure Optimization Tool (Great Lakes)==
==Green Infrastructure Optimization Tool (Great Lakes)==
*[[Funding]]
*[[Funding]]
*[[Managing Costs and Containing Risks using the One Water Approach]]
*[[Managing Costs and Containing Risks using the One Water Approach]]
==References==