Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Climate
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim

Assessing the role of SuDS in resilience enhancement of urban

drainage system: A case study of Gurugram City, India
Guru Chythanya Guptha a, *, Sabyasachi Swain a, Nadhir Al-Ansari b,
Ajay Kumar Taloor c, Deen Dayal a
a
Department of Water Resources Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
b
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden
c
Department of Remote Sensing and GIS, University of Jammu, Jammu, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The increasing frequency of urban floods worldwide due to rapid urbanization, frequent climatic
UDS extremes, or poor drainage conditions necessitates evaluating the performance of the urban
Resilience drainage systems (UDS) and enhancing their resilience. In this study, a comprehensive assessment
SuDS
of the UDS of Gurugram City, India, through the concepts of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)
Infiltration trenches
Retention ponds
is presented. A stormwater management model (SWMM) was set up to model the existing UDS
Functional and structural failure response to a design storm of a 5-year return period. The increase in percentage imperviousness
SWMM (due to urbanization) and rainfall intensity (due to climate change) are considered the governing
factors for functional failures. The results revealed climate change to be a more severe threat to
UDS than urbanization, while their combinations can further worsen the repercussions. The
structural failure was modelled using the single link-failure scenarios, where 3 and 12 conduits
possessed low resilience and no resilience (severe), respectively. The role of SuDS in enhancing
the resilience of UDS was assessed by simulating all these functional and structural failure sce­
narios for three SuDS-implemented conditions, i.e., only infiltration trenches (SuDSIT), only
retention ponds (SuDSRP), and both of them together (SuDSIT+RP). The SuDS abated the flood
magnitudes, delayed the time to peak flow, and stored an additional volume of water within the

Abbreviations: UDS, Urban Drainage System; SWMM, StormWater Management Model; SuDS, Sustainable Drainage Systems; LID, Low-Impact
Development; WSUD, Water-Sensitive Urban Design; LIUDD, Low Impact Urban Design and Development; BMP, Best Management Practices; IT, Infil­
tration Trenches; RP, Retention Ponds; CPHEEO, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation; LU/LC, Land Use/Land Cover;
GMDA, Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority; IMERG, Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for Global precipitation measurement; DEM,
Digital Elevation Model; ALOS-PALSAR, Advanced Land Observing Satellite-1–Phrased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar; NBSSLUP,
National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning; IDF, Intensity-Duration-Frequency; SuDSIT, SuDS with only Infiltration Trenches; SuDSRP,
SuDS with only Retention Ponds; SuDSIT+RP, SuDS with both Infiltration Trenches and Retention Ponds; IMD, India Meteorological Department; tc,
Time of Concentration; A-D test, Anderson-Darling Ttest; GEV, Generalized Extreme Value; CN, Curve Number; N-Con, Manning’s roughness co­
efficient for conduits; N-Perv, Manning’s roughness coefficient for pervious area; N-Imperv, Manning’s roughness coefficient for impervious area;
Dstore-Perv, Depth of depression storage for pervious area; Dstore-Imperv, Depth of depression storage for impervious area; Zero-Imperv, Per­
centage of the impervious area with zero depression storage; Ks, Saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil; Tdry, Time required for the soil to become
dry after getting fully saturated; Pd, Design performance level; Pl, Lowest level of performance; t1, Total elapsed (simulation) time; tss, Flood start
time; tse, Flood end time; ts, Flooding duration; SevF, Volumetric severity for functional failure; VTF, Volume of total flood losses; VTI, Net inflow
volume into the system; tfn, Average nodal flooding duration; tmf, Maximum duration of flooding; ResF, Functional resilience; SevS, Volumetric
severity pertaining to structural failure; ResS, Structural resilience.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G.C. Guptha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101075
Received 27 August 2021; Received in revised form 17 December 2021; Accepted 22 December 2021
2212-0955/© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

catchment, thereby justifying their efficacy to mitigate the pluvial flood and enhance the resil­
ience of UDS. The findings of this study encourage implementing SuDS over the developing
countries to bring down the frequency of urban floods.

1. Introduction

The term “Urban Flooding” has become more prevalent in recent decades due to the combined effects of urbanization and climate
change along with poor drainage conditions (Bouhennache et al., 2019; Du et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2010; Quan et al., 2013). India
has witnessed several heavy flooding events in major cities like Hyderabad (2016, 2000), Chennai (2015), Srinagar (2014), and
Mumbai (2005, 2017) (Patel et al., 2020; Rafiq et al., 2016; Rangari et al., 2020; Zope et al., 2015, 2017). Urban floods are a nuisance
not only in India, rather it has become a critical issue in all the developing countries, thereby affecting the physical, mental and social
conditions of the populace (Caprario et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2020; Huong and Pathirana, 2013; Ohl and Tapsell, 2000; Quan et al.,
2022; Shrestha et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2017). The flooding events may take place due to any of the reasons like the inadequate or
outdated design of drainage system, extreme rainfall events, increase in surface runoff, or filling up of natural storage facilities like
depressions, reservoirs, etc. (Bai et al., 2019; Diaz-Granados et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2010; Rosa et al. 2020; Quan et al., 2012; Swain
et al., 2021). Therefore, it is of utmost concern to draw out a solution to minimize the impacts of urban flooding, especially in India and
other developing countries.
In recent years, studies on urban drainage systems (UDS) across different countries have focussed on enhancing its resilience
against urban floods. The resilience of UDS suffers from threats that can be broadly classified into functional and structural failures
(Butler et al., 2014; Casal-Campos et al., 2018; Mugume, 2015; Ten Veldhuis, 2010). The functional failures are the ones caused by
external factors, i.e., highly impervious surfaces or extreme rainfall events. On the other hand, structural failures are caused by internal
factors, i.e., failures of UDS’s components. It is imperative to carry out a detailed assessment of the UDS under different failures (both
functional and structural) to come up with optimal solutions, which can be accomplished using the state-of-art hydrological models.
The stormwater management model (SWMM) is the most widely used model for urban drainage simulations (Akhter and Hewa, 2016;
Bisht et al., 2016; Hoang and Fenner, 2016). The capability of SWMM to simulate the inflow and outflow of any type of catchment
enables its users to analyze the drainage systems thoroughly, thereby achieving the most economical design. The user can also perform
stormwater modelling considering all the factors affecting the runoff characteristics. Further, SWMM provides the flooding losses that
occur at different nodes of the drainage system, which may be very useful to study and improve the UDS. Typically, the UDS simu­
lations through SWMM need various types of data as pre-requisites. The limited data of UDS is a major constraint before the urban
water modellers in most of the developing countries (Sreeja and Gupta, 2007); however, these constraints can be circumvented by the
state-of-art high-resolution remotely sensed datasets (Guptha et al., 2021).
The UDS is an integral part of the urban infrastructures, which is being overly impacted due to the high-intensity storms (Fang et al.,
2020; He, 2019; Valipour et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019a). Conventional drainage systems are not able to cope up with the increase in
inflow caused due to the impacts of climate change (Valipour, 2015; Valipour et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019b) and hence, the resilience
of the system is being compromised. Further, the system’s failure (functionally and structurally) leads to a degradation of the system’s
resilience. The conventional way of improving the resilience by enlarging the size of conduits to capacitate more flow would not be a
financially viable solution. Therefore, a better option to enhance the resilience to tackle climate change and urbanization is using
nature-based solutions, i.e., sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), which are also synonymously regarded as low-impact development
(LID), water-sensitive urban design (WSUD), low impact urban design and development (LIUDD) or, best management practices (BMP)
in different studies (Akhter and Hewa, 2016; Golden and Hoghooghi, 2018; Jato-Espino et al., 2016;Lu 2019; Semadeni-Davies, 2012;
Spatari et al., 2011; Zhou, 2014). Implementing SuDS can be considered a counter move for the problems of urban flooding. It can
reduce the severity by capturing flood volume along with accomodating the extra runoff caused by urbanization within the catchment
so that the downstream catchments do not get affected by the post-development runoff. Further, the additional volume of water stored
can be sustainably utilized at critical (i.e., water deficit) times or, other beneficial purposes (Ashley et al., 2018; Vincent et al., 2017).
This system is designed to restore more natural hydrological regimes, preserve water quality and add more recreational values con­
tradicting the conventional drainage system, where the stormwater is treated as a nuisance in the landscape and just designed to
manage the water out of city-regions joining into the natural stream.
The SuDS is widely recommended and applied across the globe as it achieves the purpose of minimizing the urban flood severities
by temporarily storing the stormwater in open spaces or through designated integral components. These components assist the
drainage network to attenuate the peak flow volumes, filter the pollutants at source, and help in the infiltration of stormwater into the
ground (Hoang and Fenner, 2016). Few main components are retention ponds, infiltration trenches, rainwater harvesting systems,
green roofs, blue roofs, pervious pavements, infiltration basins, etc. (Campisano et al., 2021; Fletcher et al., 2015; Joshi et al., 2021;
Luo et al., 2020; Nascimento et al., 2019; Zhou, 2014). Each of the SuDS components in the field has its own benefits and demerits
compared to others. These components assist the drainage network in attenuating the peak flow volumes, filtering the pollutants at the
source, and enhancing the infiltration of stormwater into the ground (Hoang and Fenner, 2016). Overall, the provision of SuDS
components in a drainage system has been shown to effectively improve the resilience of the drainage system along with promoting
sustainability (He et al., 2019; Hoang and Fenner, 2016; Lamond et al., 2015; McClymont et al., 2020; Sharifi et al., 2021; Toran and
Jedrzejczyk, 2017; Voisin et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019a).
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is hardly any study over the Indian region that has comprehensively evaluated the

2
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

resilience of UDS under structural and functional failure conditions, especially before and after implementing SuDS. The SuDS
components viz., infiltration trenches (IT), and retention ponds (RP) are selected in this study to read their effects on the existing UDS.
IT is widely used in UDS due to its better hydraulic performance over other infiltration-based components (Bockhorn et al., 2017;
Chahar et al., 2012; Freni et al., 2009). Similarly, RP is among the most efficient SuDS components that can delay the runoff, attenuate
peak flows and simultaneously store a substantial amount of water for future use (Chalid and Prasetya, 2020; Hvitved-Jacobsen and
Yousef, 1988; Ramos et al., 2013). The main objective of the paper is the comparative analysis of functional and structural resilience of
UDS over Gurugram City, India, under four different conditions: (1) original drainage system with no SuDS; 2) after implementing only
IT; 3) after implementing only RP; and 4) after implementing both IT and RP. This analysis would enable recognizing the UDS response
to the causal factors of functional failures and identifying the vulnerable components. In India, the design, planning, and management
of UDS should be according to the guidelines of the Manual on Storm Water Drainage Systems issued by the Central Public Health and

Fig. 1. Location of the study area and its constituent sectors/village.

3
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO, 2019), Government of India. It is to mention that this study adheres to the
guidelines of CPHEEO (2019).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

This study considers a part (sectors 81 to 98) of Gurugram City, Haryana, India, for UDS modelling. Gurugram is a satellite city
situated 30 km away from New Delhi and is a constituent of the National Capital Region (NCR), India (Guptha et al., 2021; Kumar et al.,
2019). It is to mention that the drainage data was not available for the entire city limits of Gurugram, and therefore, only sectors 81 to
98 were chosen for study. The selected portion is among the developing clusters of Gurugram City, which has witnessed rapid ur­
banization in the last few years. The geographical location of the study area extends from 76◦ 52′ to 77◦ 59′ E longitudes and 28◦ 22′ to
28◦ 25′ N latitudes, covering an area of about 41 km2. The location of the study area, along with the base map, is shown in Fig. 1. The
terrain of the study area is mostly flat. Built-up land is the dominant land use/land cover over the region. The soil type is mostly fine
loamy, which is very deep and moderately well-drained. The region receives a mean annual rainfall of 714 mm, which is mostly limited
to the southwest monsoon season (June–September). The main drain of the city is connected by many sewer lines, and it is rarely
desilted, which leads to more sludge deposition resulting in reduced drainage capacity. Gurugram City has witnessed frequent urban
floods in recent years with serious repercussions, viz., submergence of roadways (including the National Highway), blockage of traffic,
waterlogging persisting for days, thereby hampering the day-to-day public life (Kansal et al., 2019; Guptha et al., 2021). Even in
normal rainfall conditions, the city gets flooded, making the city gridlocked and waterlogged, as reported in several recent studies
(Guptha et al., 2021; Kansal et al., 2019; Rawat et al., 2021; Yasmoon and Saud, 2017).

2.2. Data used

The drainage-related data is the primary requirement for any UDS modelling study. In addition, pluviometric and physiographic
data are also essential as inputs to the SWMM model. Given the fact that UDS modelling is mostly carried out for extreme events,
rainfall data at finer temporal resolution is a requisite. Nevertheless, the availability of ground-based rain gauge observations at
desirable spatiotemporal resolution is a major constraint in general, and over developing countries like India in particular. Similarly,
LULC, soil type, elevation, and slope at desirable resolutions are the necessary physiographic/geospatial inputs. With the advance­
ments in technology, several high-resolution remotely-sensed products are available in the public domain that can circumvent the data
constraints. The different types of data used in this study along with their details and sources, are provided in Table 1.

2.3. Methodology

The overall framework of the study is presented in Fig. 2. The study utilized drainage, pluviometric and geospatial data as inputs to
the SWMM model. The validation of remotely-sensed rainfall product, estimation of time of concentration and storm duration, fitting
suitable distribution to rainfall time series, plotting intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves are the pre-requisites to estimate the
design storm. Further, the SWMM model setup requires the provision of parameter values pertinent to the hydrologic and hydraulic
conditions. The model was simulated for the existing conditions as well as for functional and structural failure scenarios, aiming for a
comprehensive analysis of UDS’s resilience. The UDS response under functional failures is assessed to understand the negative impacts
of climate change and urbanization, whereas the structural failures are modelled by single-link failures conditions enabling the
identification of vulnerable links in the UDS. The role of SuDS in enhancing the resilience of UDS was assessed by simulating all these
failure scenarios for three SuDS-implemented conditions, i.e., only infiltration trenches (SuDSIT), only retention ponds (SuDSRP), and
both of them together (SuDSIT+RP). A detailed methodology is presented in the following sub-sections.

2.3.1. Estimation of design storm hyetograph

The half-hourly rainfall data used in the study was extracted from IMERG, and it was validated with respect to observed daily

Table 1
Details of the data used in this study.
Data type Details Source

Drainage Data Conduits’ shape, size and invert levels; sub- Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA)
catchments’ boundary and area
Rainfall Spatial Resolution: 0.1◦ x 0.1◦ ; Temporal Resolution: Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for Global precipitation measurement
Half-hourly; Duration: 2000–2019 (IMERG)-Final Run
Digital Elevation Resolution: 12.5 m × 12.5 m Advanced Land Observing Satellite-1–Phrased Array type L-band Synthetic
Model (DEM) Aperture Radar (ALOS-PALSAR), Alaska Satellite Facility
Land Use/ Land Resolution: 10 m × 10 m Sentinel 2
Cover (LULC) (Satellite imagery of 4th April 2020)
Soil Scale: 1:50000 National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSSLUP), Nagpur,
India

4
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Fig. 2. The overall framework of the study.

rainfall from India Meteorological Department (IMD). The duration of the rain event considered for simulation was taken according to
the time of concentration (tc), which was calculated using the watershed lag method (Mockus, 1957). The design storm of T-hour
duration should be equal to tc. Detailed information regarding this can be found in Supplementary Information. As the Goodness of Fit
test indicates the best suitable probability distribution function to be used (Maity, 2018), Anderson-Darling (A-D) test was used to
identify the best of six candidate distributions viz., Normal, Log-Pearson-Type-3, Lognormal-3P, Gamma-3P, Gumbel, and Generalized
Extreme Value (GEV) distributions. Using the best-fit distribution, rainfall IDF curves at half-hourly intervals were plotted for the
return periods of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years. The alternating block method is used to deduce the T-hour design storm hyetograph of the
5-year return period from these IDF curves, as per the recommendations of CPHEEO (2019). The details of each step can be referred to
from Supplementary Information.

2.3.2. Setup of SWMM

This SWMM enables understanding the performance of UDS under different conditions. Apart from the storm data, it requires
drainage data such as sub-catchment details, conduit properties, and invert level of nodes, as input to the system. The study area was
discretized to 21 sub-catchments, whose details are provided in Table 2. The slope of a sub-catchment represents the mean slope of that
particular sub-catchment computed from the DEM. Percent imperviousness indicates the percentage of built-up area per sub-

Table 2
Different details of sub-catchments modelled in SWMM.
Name Area (ha) %Slope %Imperviousness CN

Sector - 96 180 1.754 14.590 70.40

Sector - 97 144.7 1.915 15.928 72.41
Village Sihi 238.8 1.98 51.382 73.14
Sector - 98 174 1.64 27.172 71.39
Sector - 95 192 1.85 47.293 72.61
Sector - 92 275.51 1.75 50.828 72.75
Sector - 94 59 1.768 59.659 72.55
Sector - 93 147.3 1.52 52.171 73.44
Sector - 89 237.2 1.74 42.066 72.31
Sector - 88 182 2.05 34.367 70.88
Sector - 91 182.5 1.59 39.231 72.28
Sector - 90 135.57 1.59 40.961 72.68
Sector - 87 231.5 1.64 49.262 73.17
Sector - 86 229 1.65 69.676 73.69
Sector - 85 145 1.77 73.367 74.03
Sector - 84 180.4 1.745 71.001 73.10
Sector - 81A 335 1.97 62.751 73.32
Sector - 81 183.85 1.7 49.183 72.83
Sector - 82 124.2 1.616 94.046 74.96
Sector - 83 234.85 1.78 87.231 73.75
Sector - 82A 110 1.913 51.411 73.82

5
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

catchment, which was determined from the LULC map. Based on soil and LULC information, the curve number (CN) values were
referred from Rossman and Huber (2016), and its weighted average over a sub-catchment is regarded as the CN value of that particular
sub-catchment. The width of the sub-catchment was calculated by dividing the area of the sub-catchment by the longest overland flow
length (distance from the point of departure to the outlet) (Guptha et al., 2021). Other major details of the model inputs can be referred
to from Supplementary Information.
The SWMM model also requires information on hydrologic and hydraulic parameters pertinent to the UDS of the study area. The
most important parameters, their assumed values in this study, and the relevant references referred are provided in Table 3. The
detailed information on the SWMM model setup can be referred to from Supplementary Information.

2.3.3. Resilience assessment of normal and failure scenarios

A performance curve illustrated in Fig. 3 is followed to model the failure of UDS. It indicates that the design performance level (Pd)
is the desirable level of performance for a UDS, which signifies no flooding condition, whereas it reaches peak severity at the lowest
level of performance (Pl). It is to be noted that t0 represents the start time of the simulation, whereas t1 is the total elapsed (simulation)
time; tss and tse indicate the start and the end of the flood, respectively, and therefore, the time duration from tss and tse is taken as the
flooding duration (ts) (Mugume, 2015; Mugume et al., 2015).
In this study, the resilience of the UDS was computed using an approach developed by Mugume (2015). The magnitude of the loss of
functionality (also called volumetric severity) represents the extent of UDS failure, leading to urban floods. The resilience index has the
maximum (or ideal) value of one, which indicates no flooding condition. It is computed by subtracting the loss of functionality (or
volumetric severity) from the ideal condition. The climate change-induced functional failure scenarios were simulated by increasing
the rainfall intensity by 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%. Similarly, the %imperviousness was increased by 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% to
consider the effect of growth in urbanization. Considering both climate (Ci) and urbanization (Ui), a total of 25 functional failure
combinations (CiUi) were obtained. Among these, C0U0 is the baseline scenario with the actual/existing conditions of rainfall intensity
and impervious area, whereas C20U20 is the worst failure scenario with a 20% increase in both conditions.
The volumetric severity for functional failure (SevF) is given by (Mugume and Butler, 2017):
VTF tfn
SevF = × (2)
VTI tmf

where, VTF is the volume of total flood losses, VTI is the net inflow into the system, tfn is the average nodal flooding duration and, tmf is
the maximum duration of flooding among all the nodes. For the sake of uniformity, the sum of nodal flooding durations for each
functional failure scenario was divided by the number of flooded nodes in C20U20 while computing tfn. The functional resilience (ResF)
is obtained as (Mugume and Butler, 2017):
VTF tfn
ResF = 1 − SevF = 1 − × (3)
VTI tmf

The structural failure can be simulated by the component failures. In the present study, the structural failure scenarios are
simulated by failing a single link at a time. The failure is executed by increasing the Manning’s coefficient of conduit (N-Con) to 100,
which is extremely high comparing the initial/ actual value (0.013). As it is evident from previous studies that N-Con is the most
sensitive parameter for urban flood simulations, its exorbitant value would lead to the complete failure of the link. Overall, for the
existing UDS, there are 26 structural failure scenarios in total consisting of one no-failure condition and single-link failure conditions
for 25 links. The non-resilient links can be identified and their vulnerability can be assessed through these failure scenarios.
The volumetric severity pertaining to structural failure (SevS) is obtained as:
VTF tfn
SevS = × (4)
VTI tl

where, tl is the total simulation time, which is kept constant for all the structural failure scenarios for uniformity. To assess the system
performance at steady-state conditions, tl should be much greater than tc (Mugume, 2015). Structural resilience (ResS) can be computed
as one minus SevS. However, it is observed that the parameters VTI and tl will be constant for all the link failure scenarios and tfn will
undergo very minor changes in different scenarios. Hence, VTF is the governing parameter for changes in SevS or ResS, and has befitted

Table 3
The model parameters and their values used in the UDS simulation.
Model parameter (Symbol) Values used Reference

Manning’s roughness coefficient for conduits (N-Con) 0.013 s/m1/3 Pan et al. (2012)
Manning’s roughness coefficient for pervious area (N-Perv) 0.13 s/m1/3 Pappalardo et al. (2017)
Manning’s roughness coefficient for impervious area (N-Imperv) 0.013 s/m1/3 Bisht et al. (2016)
Depth of depression storage for pervious area (Dstore-Perv) 6 mm Rossman and Huber (2016)
Depth of depression storage for impervious area (Dstore-Imperv) 2 mm Rossman and Huber (2016)
Percentage of the impervious area with zero depression storage (Zero-Imperv) 25% Rossman and Huber (2016)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil (Ks) 11 mm/h (Loamy soil) Rossman and Huber (2016)
Time required for the soil to become dry after getting fully saturated (Tdry) 5 days Rossman and Huber (2016)

6
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Fig. 3. The theoretical UDS performance curve.

as the only parameter to assess the UDS performance under structural failure scenarios. In this study, ResS is classified into six classes
based on alterations with respect to VTF of baseline (no failure) condition. These are exceptional resilience, very high resilience, high
resilience, normal resilience, low resilience and no resilience (severe) corresponding to a total flood volume of < − 20%, − 10 to − 20%, 0%
to − 10%, 0% to 10%, 10 to 20% and > 20% change VTF of baseline condition.

2.3.4. Implementation of SuDS and assessing its impacts on the resilience of UDS
The SuDS components are mainly used to control the runoff by maintaining the natural hydrological conditions over urban areas.
This study assessed the use of SuDS components viz., infiltration trenches (IT) and retention ponds (RP). These components are used
mainly to control the flooding and to reduce and delay the runoff significantly. A typical view of the infiltration trenches and retention
ponds is illustrated in Fig. 4.
The infiltration trenches were applied along the width of all the sub-catchments such that the runoff from the sub-catchments has to
necessarily pass through the trench before entering the drainage network through the nodes. (Gironás et al., 2010; Rossman, 2010).
The characteristics of the infiltration trenches applied in SWMM are displayed in Table 4.

Fig. 4. A typical view of (a) Infiltration trench, (b) Retention Pond (Source: www.sudswales.com).

7
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Trapezoidal retention ponds were applied to the drainage system through the storage units feature in SWMM, having a slope of 3H:1
V as a precautionary against any slope failure. The number of retention ponds was decided based on the volume of stormwater flooded
in the different nodes. Here, the nodes flooding above 40 million litres in the baseline scenario were cushioned with a retention pond at
their downstream. The assumed values of initial deficit (porosity minus initial moisture content), saturated hydraulic conductivity, and
suction head were 0.33, 1.1 cm/h and 11 cm, respectively. These values were taken from the SWMM Manual (Rossman and Huber,
2016). Eight ponds were added to the UDS and their details are mentioned in Table 5.
The UDS layout after implementing SuDS has been shown in Fig. 5, where it illustrates the proper placement of infiltration trenches
and retention ponds in different sub-catchments. Three SuDS implementation conditions were prepared, i.e., (a) with only infiltration
trenches (SuDSIT), (b)with only retention ponds (SuDSRP), and (c) combined implementation of infiltration trenches and retention
ponds (SuDSIT+RP). To assess the role of SuDS in enhancing the resilience of the UDS, all the failure (25 functional and 26 structural)
scenarios mentioned in section 2.3.3 were also simulated for SuDS implemented conditions and were compared with the corresponding
‘No SuDS’ condition.

3. Results

3.1. Design storm

The IMERG data was validated with IMD rainfall data, and they showed a good agreement. The performance metrics viz., index of
agreement (d), percent bias (PBIAS), Spearman’s correlation (ρ), and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) are determined to be 0.77,
8%, 0.63, and 0.664, respectively. The time of concentration for the catchment was computed to be 3.9 h. To tabulate IDF curves, GEV
distribution was preferred as the A-D test proved it to be the best fitting distribution among the others (as mentioned in Section 2.3.1)
for this particular data. Further, the design storm hyetograph of 5-year return period resulted in a depth of 66.3 mm in a duration of 4
h. All the analyses related to it are given in the Supplementary Information.

3.2. Assessment of drainage system

The design rainfall was considered for a 4-h duration (as tc = 3.9 h) with 5-year return period. Simulating the baseline scenario
(C0U0), it was noticed that the UDS received a net inflow (VTI) of 1395.26 megalitres (ML) or 1395.26 × 103 m3. The surface runoff,
infiltration loss and total flooding losses (VTF) were determined to be 35.572 mm, 29.302 mm, and 509.80 ML, respectively. The peak
outflow occurred at 190 min from the start of the simulation with a magnitude of 68.72 CMS (Fig. 6). Besides this, the flooding had
occurred at 14 out of 25 junctions in the UDS with an average and maximum flooding duration of 2.68 h and 4.14 h, respectively.
Moreover, 104.37 ML and 14.43 CMS were respectively the maximum volume and rate of flooding at any node in the system.

3.3. UDS under functional failure conditions

The SevF of each scenario (CiUi) was computed and compared with the baseline scenario (C0U0). Fig. 7a represents the functional
resilience (ResF) of the UDS for all the functional failure scenarios. It is clearly visible that the ResF corresponding to the baseline (C0U0)
scenario is 0.793, which declines with the increase in urbanization or climatic factors. A decrease of 11.35% in ResF is observed while
comparing the worst scenario i.e., C20U20 (0.703), with the baseline scenario. It is also noticeable that the increase in rainfall intensity
(signifying climate change) has a higher impact on UDS’s resilience than the increase in imperviousness (due to urbanization), which
can also be observed from Fig. 7b representing the percentage increase in SevF of CiUi with respect to C0U0. It is evident that SevF
increased by 18.8%, 26.2% and 43.7% corresponding to C0U20, C20U0, and C20U20, respectively. Hence, rainfall intensification due to
climate change can be inferred to be a more severe threat than increased imperviousness due to urbanization. This finding is consistent
with a study over Kunming City, China, by Dong et al. (2017). The loss of functionality of Gurugram’s UDS leading to a deteriorated
resilience is explicable in terms of average flooding duration and flood volume in various scenarios. An increase of 83% (37 min), 48%
(27 min), and 29% (14 min) corresponding to C20U20, C20U0, and C0U20, respectively, was observed for total flood volume (average
flooding duration).

Table 4
The characteristics of the infiltration trenches used in this
study.
Characteristics Value used

Percent imperviousness 0
Curve Number (CN) 39
Dstore-Perv 300 mm
N-Perv 0.24 s/m1/3
Percentage Slope 0.001
Width 3m

8
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Table 5
Details of retention ponds.
Retention Ponds Area on ground (m2) Depth (m) Total Volume (m3)

RP1, RP3 1500 3 2826

RP2 1200 3 2196
RP4, RP5, RP6, RP8 2500 3 5286
RP7 4000 3 8976

Fig. 5. The layout of SWMM showing the placement of infiltration trenches and retention ponds.

3.4. Role of SuDS in enhancing functional resilience

The resilience indices of the UDS consisting of infiltration trenches for the functional failure scenarios are presented in Fig. 8a. The
resilience of the system ranging from 0.932 to 0.997 for the worst (C20U20) and best (C0U0) cases, respectively, were estimated.
Overall, a significant improvement in the resilience was observed when the infiltration trench (i.e., CiUi + SuDSIT) is included in the
simulation as compared to CiUi (Fig. 8b). In specific, the baseline scenario alone showed an improvement of 25.7% increase in
resilience. Further, the effect of climate change and/or urbanization did not reduce much (only a reduction of 6.5% was found in the
worst-case scenario C20U20 + SuDSIT as compared to C0U0 + SuDSIT). It may be noted that the resilience of the system that does not
consider including the infiltration trench, showed a reduction of 11.35% in the worst case scenario C20U20 as compared to C0U0
(Fig. 7a).
The resilience indices of the UDS consisting of retention ponds at eight sub-catchments for the functional failure scenarios are
presented in Fig. 9a. The resilience of the system ranging from 0.807 to 0.913 for the worst (C20U20 + SuDSRP) and best (C0U0 +
SuDSRP) cases, respectively, was estimated. The percentage increase in resilience for functional failure scenarios was estimated by
comparing the scenario CiUi + SuDSRP with reference to the corresponding CiUi scenarios (i.e., without SuDS) and are presented in
Fig. 9b. Overall, the resilience was enhanced by 14.83% to 15.52% under different functional failure scenarios (Fig. 9b). However,
unlike CiUi + SuDSIT, the gradual increase in the resilience were not found in CiUi + SuDSRP with respect to the corresponding ‘no
SuDS’ scenarios (Fig. 7a).
The resilience indices of the UDS that includes both infiltration trenches and retention ponds for the functional failure scenarios are
presented in Fig. 10a. Except for two scenarios (U15C20 + SuDSIT+RP and U20C20 + SuDSIT+RP), the value of ResF was found to be one in
all the remaining scenarios. This was mainly because of no flooding condition due to the incorporation of both infiltration trenches and
retention ponds. The percentage increase estimated from functional failure scenarios (CiUi + SuDSIT+RP) with reference to the cor­
responding CiUi scenarios (i.e., without SuDS) is presented in Fig. 10b. While the resilience of the baseline scenario increased by
26.1%, worst case scenario C20U20 showed an enhancement of 41.86%. A gradual increase in resilience enhancement was observed

9
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Fig. 6. UDS response to the design storm under existing conditions.

Fig. 7. (a) ResF of UDS in various functional failure (CiUi) scenarios (b) Percentage increase in SevF for each scenario (CiUi) compared to the baseline
scenario (C0U0).

from C0U0 to C20U20, compared to corresponding ‘no SuDS’ scenarios (Fig. 10b). From Figs. 8b, 9b, and 10b, it can be concluded that
the individual effects of infiltration trenches were more pronounced than retention ponds in enhancing the resilience of the drainage
system of the study area, whereas their combination led to maximum possible resilience (i.e., unity) for most of the failure scenarios
considered.
Overall, it was observed that the SuDS (i.e., infiltration trenches and retention ponds) are effective in enhancing the resilience of the
urban drainage system of the study area. Even the resilience of the worst functional scenario (C20U20) that includes the SuDS was
higher than that of the baseline scenario (C0U0) of ‘no SuDS’ conditions. This substantiates the effectiveness of the SuDS components in
enhancing the resilience of the UDS and thus having the potential of reducing the impacts of urban flooding due to urbanization and
climate change.

3.5. UDS under structural failure conditions

To ensure that the UDS is being assessed in steady-state condition, the t1 is considered 16 h, which is significantly higher than time

10
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Fig. 8. (a) ResF of UDS with infiltration trenches in various functional failure (CiUi + SuDSIT) scenarios, (b) Percentage increase in ResF of UDS in
CiUi + SuDSIT with reference to the corresponding CiUi scenarios.

Fig. 9. (a) ResF of UDS with retention ponds in various functional failure (CiUi + SuDSRP) scenarios, (b) Percentage increase in ResF of UDS in CiUi +
SuDSRP with reference to the corresponding CiUi scenarios.

of concentration (3.9 h). However, as mentioned in Section 2.3.3, only VTF is taken into account for assessing the UDS as it is the
governing factor in computing SevS and ResS. The classification of the conduits based on the change in VTF upon their failure, was
performed as discussed in Section 2.3.3. The VTF magnitudes for all the single-link failure scenarios are provided in Table 6 under ‘No
SuDS’ condition. As the VTF of the baseline scenario is 509.8 ML, VTF for link-failure conditions should be below the threshold of 407.8,
458.8, 509.8, 560.8, and 611.8 ML for being regarded as exceptional, very high, high, normal, and low resilience, respectively. The
magnitude of VTF exceeding 611.8 ML represents no resilience (severe) class. A schematic representation of the conduit classification
based on their resilience to structural failures is shown in Fig. 11a. It is noticeable from Fig. 11a and Table 6 that 10, 3, and 12 conduits
showed normal, low, and no resilience, respectively. The VTF is maximum upon failure of C25 and C12 with magnitudes of 1395.2 and
1046.5 ML, respectively. As C25 is the interceptor drain (drain connecting the outlet), it can be well assumed that the whole inflow into
the system (VTI = 1395.26 ML) is converted to flood volume when it is failed. Similarly, C12 covers a large part of the catchment
(sectors 81 to 87) and receives passes on flows from C1 to C11, and therefore, its failure becomes the second most severe scenario. It is
to mention that the conduits having a VTF of less than 560.8 ML upon failure can be considered a safe-fail condition and hence, may be
called normally resilient. The links can achieve high to exceptional resilience if the flooding condition is ameliorated with respect to
the baseline or ‘No failure’ condition.

11
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Fig. 10. (a) ResF of UDS with both infiltration trenches and retention ponds in various functional failure (CiUi + SuDSIT+RP) scenarios, (b) Per­
centage increase in ResF of UDS in CiUi + SuDSIT+RP with reference to the corresponding CiUi scenarios.

Table 6
Total flood volume for structural failure scenarios without and with SuDS.
Failed conduit Total flood volume (ML)

No SuDS SuDSIT SuDSRP SuDSIT+RP

No Failure 509.8 14.0 311.3 0

C1 528.5 115.7 387.7 104.8
C2 553.4 173.6 447.4 123.6
C3 611.3 232.7 503.4 176.1
C4 553.2 54.5 354.6 39.5
C5 655.4 272.8 544.0 177.8
C6 752.1 364.1 640.5 268.2
C7 648.3 364.1 640.5 268.2
C8 527.0 86.9 370.1 67.0
C9 577.1 176.8 464.3 155.5
C10 642.2 237.8 525.8 197.1
C11 716.8 308.8 595.9 220.4
C12 1046.5 736.6 1012.5 561.6
C13 518.8 45.5 319.7 30.9
C14 534.3 87.6 329.1 71.4
C15 559.4 126.4 340.2 107.9
C16 617.6 181.5 358.6 158.5
C17 638.8 201.1 363.1 143.5
C18 520.7 62.8 322.0 46.2
C19 543.3 103.9 331.7 85.6
C20 549.1 161.5 341.8 94.9
C21 591.2 250.9 384.1 195.3
C22 741.0 512.4 547.7 338.8
C23 819.2 512.0 627.2 410.7
C24 862.0 549.4 670.2 446.3
C25 1395.2 1271.7 1371.7 1006.9

3.6. Role of SuDS in mitigating structural failures

The effects of implementing SuDS in reducing VTF for structural failure scenarios are also assessed, and the results are presented in
Table 6, while the representative schematic diagrams of the conduit classification for each SuDS condition is shown in Fig. 11. It was
observed that VTF for SuDSIT varies between 45.5 and 1271.7 ML under the structural failure scenarios. Only five conduit failures in
SuDSIT conditions showed a higher VTF with respect to the baseline condition without SuDS (i.e., 3 normal and 2 no resilience con­
ditions), of which, 1271.7 ML and 736.6 ML occurred in C25 and C12, respectively (Fig. 11b). The SuDSIT has shown a significant
improvement in respect to the ‘No SuDS’ condition as it had 20 exceptional resilience scenarios. Similarly, VTF for SuDSRP varied
between 319.7 and 1371.7 ML under single link-failure scenarios. With reference to the baseline condition without SuDS, VTF was
higher for 10 out of 25 conduit failures in SuDSRP conditions. Among these, 3, 1, and 6 conduits respectively showed normal, low, and

12
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Fig. 11. Schematic diagram representing the conduit classification based on their resilience under structural failure in (a) No SuDS, (b) SuDSIT, (c)
SuDSRP, and (d) SuDSIT+RP scenarios.

no resilience conditions. On the other hand, exceptional, very high, and high resilience is exhibited by 12, 1, and 2 conduits upon
failure in SuDSRP scenarios (Fig. 11c).
For the combination of infiltration trenches and retention ponds, i.e., SuDSIT+RP conditions, the magnitude of VTF was less than 500
ML for all the structural failure scenarios except two conduits. From Fig. 11d and Table 6, it can be easily deduced that only C25
showed no resilience (1006.9 ML), and only C12 showed low resilience (561.6 ML). It may be interesting to note that VTF was zero for
no failure scenario under SuDSIT+RP conditions. Overall, the effect of infiltration trenches seems to be higher than the retention ponds
in reducing the flood volume. However, it should be noted that the infiltration trenches were applied in all sub-catchments in SuDSIT
conditions, whereas the retention ponds were applied at only eight sub-catchments in SuDSRP conditions. The combined imple­
mentation of both infiltration trenches and retention ponds proved to be highly effective in mitigating the repercussions of pluvial
flooding over the study area, even for conduit failure scenarios.

4. Discussions and implications

The use of SuDS in a conventional drainage system to improve the overall resilience of UDS was showcased in this study. The results
showed that the SuDS are highly effective in reducing the impacts of flooding in an urban area. Considering the functional failure
scenarios, it was noted that the SuDS are almost equally efficient in reducing the pernicious impacts of both climate change and ur­
banization, which is evident by comparing the simulation results of C0U20 and C20U0 scenarios in all the three SuDS conditions. Be­
sides, it is also perceived that the combination of IT and RP is maximizing the resilience to unity in almost all the simulated scenarios.
This proves that the combination of IT and RP will completely mitigate the urban flooding engendered due to urbanization and climate
change, at least theoretically. Similarly, in the view of the structural resilience analysis, the same combination proved to be the most
effective, reducing up to 94% of the flooding volume at single-link failure scenarios. The maximum reduction was 94% when the C13

13
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

conduit was failed, and the minimum reduction was 28% when the C25 conduit was failed. Correspondingly, the condition with IT only
also showed a significant reduction in the flooding volume with a maximum of 91% when the same C13 conduit was failed.
These results prove that the SuDS can be implemented to improve the resilience of a UDS significantly. This study can be a pilot
model to emphasize the importance of SuDS in a developing country to bring down the frequency of urban flooding. This study also
substantiates the use of SuDS in moving a step ahead towards achieving the targets of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) e.g., SDG
11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable and SDG 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
The SuDS not only enhances the resilience of the system but also provides more sustainable benefits like storage of stormwater for
future use, restoration of groundwater table, etc. In this study, comparing the scenarios of C0U0 + SuDSIT+RP with respect to C0U0, the
catchment stored around 13 ha-m (or 130 ML) more volume of stormwater within the catchment while delaying the time to peak runoff
by more than 3 h. This provided more time for stormwater to infiltrate into the ground to recharge groundwater.
This study can be further improved by implementing more combinations of SuDS and comprehensively analyzing it for spatial and
financial feasibility. Along with this, the ground reality for its implementation should be examined thoroughly. Further, this study can
be more practical by calibrating and validating the drainage model with the help of timely surveys or data collected by hydraulic
engineers on the field, which will certainly be a future scope of this work.

5. Conclusions

This study assessed the resilience of the UDS of Gurugram City (India) and its alterations under functional and structural failures.
Individually, intensification of rainfall extremes is more dangerous to UDS than urbanization, while their combinations can further
worsen the repercussions. The increase in SevF for C20U0, C0U20 and C20U20 were respectively 26.2%, 18.8% and 43.7% in comparison
to the baseline (C0U0) conditions. The UDS modelling under structural (single-link) failures revealed 12 and 3 conduits possessing no
resilience and low resilience, respectively, whereas the remaining 10 conduits exhibited normal resilience upon failure. The imple­
mentation of SuDS components, such as infiltration trenches and retention ponds, was modelled individually as well as combined for
all the failure scenarios. The percentage increase in ResF of UDS for the baseline (worst) scenario in SuDSIT, SuDSRP, and SuDSIT+RP
were found to be 25.7 (32.7), 15.13 (14.83), and 26.1 (41.86), respectively, compared to the existing or ‘No SuDS’ condition. SuD­
SIT+RP has brought ResF to maximum (unity) in almost all scenarios. In structural failure scenarios, 20, 12, and 22 conduits showed
exception resilience upon failure in SuDSIT, SuDSRP, and SuDSIT+RP conditions, respectively. Overall, the significant improvement in
the resilience of the UDS proved the efficiency of SuDS in mitigating the pluvial floods. The results reported in this study encourage the
implementation of SuDS over the urbanizing regions in developing countries, which will certainly be a step forward towards fulfilling
the targets of SDGs.

Credit author statement

Guru Chythanya Guptha and Sabyasachi Swain: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Figures, Writing (Original draft);
Nadhir Al-Ansari and Ajay Kumar Taloor: Supervision, Writing (Review and editing); Deen Dayal: Data curation, Figures.
All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Ashish Pandey, IIT Roorkee, for his support and motivation. The authors extend the
acknowledgment to the other faculties of the Department of Water Resource Development and Management, IIT Roorkee. The sug­
gestions of the anonymous reviewers were genuinely helpful in improving the manuscript and their efforts are wholeheartedly
acknowledged.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

References

Akhter, M.S., Hewa, G.A., 2016. The use of PCSWMM for assessing the impacts of land use changes on hydrological responses and performance of WSUD in managing
the impacts at Myponga catchment, South Australia. Water 8, 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110511.
Ashley, R.M., Gersonius, B., Digman, C., Horton, B., Bacchin, T., Smith, B., Shaffer, P., Baylis, A., 2018. Demonstrating and monetizing the multiple benefits from
using SuDS. J. Sustain. Water in the Built Environ. 4, 05017008. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000848.
Bai, Y., Zhao, N., Zhang, R., Zeng, X., 2019. Storm water Management of low Impact Development in urban areas based on SWMM. Water 11, 33. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w11010033.

14
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Bisht, D.S., Chatterjee, C., Kalakoti, S., Upadhyay, P., Sahoo, M., Panda, A., 2016. Modeling URBAN floods and drainage using SWMM and MIKE URBAN: a case study.
Nat. Hazards 84, 749–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2455-1.
Bockhorn, B., Klint, K.E.S., Locatelli, L., Park, Y.-J., Binning, P.J., Sudicky, E., Bergen Jensen, M., 2017. Factors affecting the hydraulic performance of infiltration
based SUDS in clay. Urban Water J. 14, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1076860.
Bouhennache, R., Bouden, T., Taleb-Ahmed, A., Cheddad, A., 2019. A new spectral index for the extraction of built-up land features from Landsat 8 satellite imagery.
Geocarto International 34, 1531–1551. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2018.1497094.
Butler, D., Farmani, R., Fu, G., Ward, S., Diao, K., Astaraie-Imani, M., 2014. A new approach to urban water management: safe and sure. Procedia Engineering, 16th
Water Distribution System Analysis Conference WDSA2014 89, 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.198.
Campisano, A., Modica, C., Gullotta, A., 2021. Long-term experiments for the evaluation of the potential for storm water control of modular blue roofs in
Mediterranean climate. Urban Water J. 18, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2020.1850807.
Caprario, J., Rech, A.S., Tasca, F.A., Finotti, A.R., 2019. Influence of drainage network and compensatory techniques on urban flooding susceptibility. Water Sci.
Technol. 79, 1152–1163. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2019.113.
Casal-Campos, A., Sadr, S.M.K., Fu, G., Butler, D., 2018. Reliable, resilient and sustainable urban drainage systems: an analysis of robustness under deep uncertainty.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 9008–9021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01193.
Chahar, B.R., Graillot, D., Gaur, S., 2012. Storm-water management through infiltration trenches. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 138, 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
IR.1943-4774.0000408.
Chalid, A., Prasetya, B., 2020. Utilization of a pond in East Jakarta for a sustainable urban drainage system model. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 437, 012018
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/437/1/012018.
Chen, G., Li, X., Liu, X., Chen, Y., Liang, X., Leng, J., Xu, X., Liao, W., Wu, Q., Huang, K., 2020. Global projections of future urban land expansion under shared
socioeconomic pathways. Nat. Commun. 11, 537. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14386-x.
Diaz-Granados, M., Rodríguez, J.P., Rodríguez, M.S., Penagos, J.C., Camacho, L.A., Achleitner, S., Maksimovic, C., McIntyre, N., 2009. Towards a paradigm shift in
urban drainage management and modelling in developing countries. Revista de Ingeniería 133–150.
Dong, X., Guo, H., Zeng, S., 2017. Enhancing future resilience in urban drainage system: green versus grey infrastructure. Water Res. 124, 280–289. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.038.
Du, J., Qian, L., Rui, H., Zuo, T., Zheng, D., Xu, Y., Xu, C.-Y., 2012. Assessing the effects of urbanization on annual runoff and flood events using an integrated
hydrological modeling system for Qinhuai River basin, China. J. Hydrol. 464–465, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.057.
Fang, B., Lei, H., Zhang, Y., Quan, Q., Yang, D., 2020. Spatio-temporal patterns of evapotranspiration based on upscaling eddy covariance measurements in the
dryland of the North China plain. Agric. For. Meteorol. 281, 107844 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107844.
Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Trowsdale, S., Barraud, S., Semadeni-Davies, A., Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L., Mikkelsen, P.S.,
Rivard, G., Uhl, M., Dagenais, D., Viklander, M., 2015. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban
drainage. Urban Water J. 12, 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314.
Freni, G., Mannina, G., Viviani, G., 2009. Stormwater infiltration trenches: a conceptual modelling approach. Water Sci. Technol. 60, 185–199. https://doi.org/
10.2166/wst.2009.324.
Gironás, J., Roesner, L.A., Rossman, L.A., Davis, J., 2010. A new applications manual for the storm water management model (SWMM). Environ. Model. Softw. 25,
813–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.11.009.
Golden, H.E., Hoghooghi, N., 2018. Green infrastructure and its catchment-scale effects: an emerging science. WIREs Water 5, e1254. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wat2.1254.
Guptha, G.C., Swain, S., Al-Ansari, N., Taloor, A.K., Dayal, D., 2021. Evaluation of an urban drainage system and its resilience using remote sensing and GIS. Remote
Sens. Appl.: Soc. and Environ. 23, 100601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100601.
He, B.-J., 2019. Towards the next generation of green building for urban heat island mitigation: zero UHI impact building. Sustain. Cities Soc. 50, 101647 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101647.
He, B.-J., Zhu, J., Zhao, D.-X., Gou, Z.-H., Qi, J.-D., Wang, J., 2019. Co-benefits approach: opportunities for implementing sponge city and urban heat island
mitigation. Land Use Policy 86, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.003.
Hoang, L., Fenner, R.A., 2016. System interactions of stormwater management using sustainable urban drainage systems and green infrastructure. Urban Water J. 13,
739–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1036083.
CPHEEO, 2019. Manual on Storm Water Drainage Systems. Volume 1, Part A: Engineering Design. Central Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organization,
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. Available online. http://cpheeo.gov.in/cms/manual-on-storm-water-drainage-systems—2019.php
(Accessed 05 January 2020).
Huang, S.-L., Yeh, C.-T., Chang, L.-F., 2010. The transition to an urbanizing world and the demand for natural resources. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 136–143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.06.004.
Huong, H.T.L., Pathirana, A., 2013. Urbanization and climate change impacts on future urban flooding in Can Tho city. Vietnam. Hydrol. and Earth System Sci. 17,
379–394. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-379-2013.
Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Yousef, Y.A., 1988. Analysis of rainfall series in the design of urban drainage control systems. Water Res. 22, 491–496. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0043-1354(88)90045-0.
Jato-Espino, D., Charlesworth, S.M., Bayon, J.R., Warwick, F., 2016. Rainfall–runoff simulations to assess the potential of SuDS for mitigating flooding in highly
urbanized catchments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13, 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010149.
Joshi, P., Leitão, J.P., Maurer, M., Bach, P.M., 2021. Not all SuDS are created equal: impact of different approaches on combined sewer overflows. Water Res. 191,
116780 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116780.
Kansal, M.L., Osheen, N., Tyagi, A., 2019. Hotspot Identification for Urban Flooding in a Satellite Town of National Capital Region of India 12–24. https://doi.org/
10.1061/9780784482322.002.
Kumar, M., Sharif, M., Ahmed, S., 2019. Flood risk management strategies for national capital territory of Delhi, India. ISH J. Hydraulic Eng. 25, 248–259. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09715010.2017.1408434.
Lamond, J.E., Rose, C.B., Booth, C.A., 2015. Evidence for improved urban flood resilience by sustainable drainage retrofit. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers - Urban Design and Planning 168, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.13.00022.
Luo, H., Guan, L., Jing, Z., He, B., Cao, X., Zhang, Z., Tao, M., 2020. Performance evaluation of enhanced bioretention Systems in Removing Dissolved Nutrients in
Stormwater runoff. Appl. Sci. 10, 3148. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10093148.
Maity, R., 2018. Statistical Methods in Hydrology and Hydroclimatology. Springer.
McClymont, K., Fernandes Cunha, D.G., Maidment, C., Ashagre, B., Vasconcelos, A.F., Batalini de Macedo, M., Nóbrega dos Santos, M.F., Gomes Júnior, M.N.,
Mendiondo, E.M., Barbassa, A.P., Rajendran, L., Imani, M., 2020. Towards urban resilience through sustainable drainage systems: a multi-objective optimisation
problem. J. Environ. Manag. 275, 111173 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111173.
Mockus, V., 1957. Use of Storm and Watershed Characteristics in Synthetic Hydrograph Analysis and Application. US Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation
Service, USA.
Mugume, S.N., 2015. Modelling and Resilience-Based Evaluation of Urban Drainage and Flood Management Systems for Future Cities [Dissertation]. University of
Exeter.
Mugume, S.N., Butler, D., 2017. Evaluation of functional resilience in urban drainage and flood management systems using a global analysis approach. Urban Water J.
14, 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2016.1253754.
Mugume, S.N., Gomez, D.E., Fu, G., Farmani, R., Butler, D., 2015. A global analysis approach for investigating structural resilience in urban drainage systems. Water
Res. 81, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.05.030.

15
G.C. Guptha et al. Urban Climate 41 (2022) 101075

Nascimento, N., Eleutério, J., Costa, H., Vinçon-Leite, B., Mourão, A., Faria, D., Monte-Mor, R., 2019. Sustainable urban development through a blue and green
network approach focusing the protection of water resources: the case of the Belo Horizonte metropolitan region, in Brazil. Int. J. Water 13, 311–332. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJW.2019.106045.
Ohl, C.A., Tapsell, S., 2000. Flooding and human health: the dangers posed are not always obvious. BMJ 321, 1167–1168. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.321.7270.1167.
Pan, A., Hou, A., Tian, F., Ni, G., Hu, H., 2012. Hydrologically enhanced distributed urban drainage model and its application in Beijing City. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17,
667–678. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000491.
Pappalardo, V., La Rosa, D., Campisano, A., La Greca, P., 2017. The potential of green infrastructure application in urban runoff control for land use planning: a
preliminary evaluation from a southern Italy case study. Ecosystem Services, Putting ES into practice 26, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2017.04.015.
Patel, P., Karmakar, S., Ghosh, S., Niyogi, D., 2020. Improved simulation of very heavy rainfall events by incorporating WUDAPT urban land use/land cover in WRF.
Urban Clim. 32, 100616 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100616.
Quan, Q., Luo, W., Shen, B., Zhang, G.F., Dong, L.Y., 2012. Predicting urban runoff under different surface conditions in Xi’an, China with DRAINMOD. Adv. Mater.
Res. 588–589, 2083–2087. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.588-589.2083.
Quan, Q., Zhang, X., Shen, B., Mo, S., 2013. Impact of Urbanization on Rainfall-Runoff Process in a City: the Flood from 8 to 9 August 2007 in Xi’an, China.
Quan, Q., Liang, W., Yan, D., Lei, J., 2022. Influences of joint action of natural and social factors on atmospheric process of hydrological cycle in Inner Mongolia.
China. Urban Climate 41, 101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101043.
Rafiq, F., Ahmed, S., Ahmad, S., Khan, A.A., 2016. Urban floods in India. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 7 (1), 721–734.
Ramos, H.M., Teyssier, C., López-Jiménez, P.A., 2013. Optimization of retention ponds to improve the drainage system elasticity for water-energy Nexus. Water
Resour. Manag. 27, 2889–2901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0322-3.
Rangari, V.A., Gopi, K.V., Nanduri, U.V., Bodile, R., 2020. ANN based scaling of rainfall data for urban flood simulations. In: 2020 IEEE Bangalore Humanitarian
Technology Conference (B-HTC). Presented at the 2020 IEEE Bangalore Humanitarian Technology Conference (B-HTC), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/B-
HTC50970.2020.9297866.
Rawat, A., Govind, M.P., Vasudev, J.M., Karmakar, P., 2021. Developing strategies for mitigating pluvial flooding in Gurugram. In: Pandey, A., Mishra, S.K.,
Kansal, M.L., Singh, R.D., Singh, V.P. (Eds.), Hydrological Extremes: River Hydraulics and Irrigation Water Management, Water Science and Technology Library.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59148-9_2.
Rossman, 2010. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-05/ 040, Version 5.0. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?-
Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=114231.
Rossman, L.A., Huber, W.C., 2016. Storm Water Management Model Reference Manual Volume I – Hydrology (Revised). US EPA Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC (EPA/600/R-15/162A).
Semadeni-Davies, A., 2012. Implications of climate and urban development on the design of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). J. Water and Climate Change
3, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2012.043.
Sharifi, A., Pathak, M., Joshi, C., He, B.J., 2021. A systematic review of the health co-benefits of urban climate change adaptation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 74, 103190
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103190.
Shrestha, A., Babel, M.S., Weesakul, S., Vojinovic, Z., 2017. Developing intensity–duration–frequency (IDF) curves under climate change uncertainty: the case of
Bangkok, Thailand. Water 9, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020145.
Spatari, S., Yu, Z., Montalto, F.A., 2011. Life cycle implications of urban green infrastructure. Environmental pollution, selected papers from the conference urban
Environmental pollution: overcoming obstacles to sustainability and quality of life (UEP2010), 20-23 June 2010. Boston, USA 159, 2174–2179. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.015.
Sreeja, P., Gupta, K., 2007. An alternate approach for transient flow modeling in urban drainage systems. Water Resour. Manage. 21, 1225–1244. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11269-006-9078-3.
Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., Dayal, D., 2021. Spatiotemporal assessment of precipitation variability, seasonality, and extreme characteristics over a Himalayan
catchment. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 1-17 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-021-03861-0.
Ten Veldhuis, J.A.E., 2010. Quantitative Risk Analysis of Urban Flooding in Lowland Areas [Dissertation]. Delft University of Technology.
Toran, L., Jedrzejczyk, C., 2017. Water level monitoring to assess the effectiveness of Stormwater infiltration trenches. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 23, 113–124. https://doi.
org/10.2113/gseegeosci.23.2.113.
Valipour, M., 2015. Long-term runoff study using SARIMA and ARIMA models in the United States. Meteorol. Appl. 22, 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1491.
Valipour, M., Gholami Sefidkouhi, M.A., Raeini Sarjaz, M., 2017. Selecting the best model to estimate potential evapotranspiration with respect to climate change and
magnitudes of extreme events. Agric. Water Manag. 180, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.025.
Valipour, M., Bateni, S.M., Gholami Sefidkouhi, M.A., Raeini-Sarjaz, M., Singh, V.P., 2020. Complexity of forces driving trend of reference evapotranspiration and
signals of climate change. Atmosphere 11, 1081. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11101081.
Vincent, S.U., Radhakrishnan, M., Hayde, L., Pathirana, A., 2017. Enhancing the economic value of large Investments in Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) through
inclusion of ecosystems services benefits. Water 9, 841. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9110841.
Voisin, J., Cournoyer, B., Vienney, A., Mermillod-Blondin, F., 2018. Aquifer recharge with stormwater runoff in urban areas: influence of vadose zone thickness on
nutrient and bacterial transfers from the surface of infiltration basins to groundwater. Sci. Total Environ. 637–638, 1496–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.05.094.
Wang, J., Meng, Q., Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., He, B.-J., Zheng, S., Santamouris, M., 2019a. Impacts of the water absorption capability on the evaporative cooling effect of
pervious paving materials. Build. Environ. 151, 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.033.
Wang, Y., Quan, Q., Shen, B., 2019b. Spatio-temporal variability of drought and effect of large scale climate in the source region of Yellow River. Geomatics, Natural
Hazards and Risk 10, 678–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1541827.
Yasmoon, Z., Saud, A., 2017. Urban flood disasters and mitigation practices – cases of Srinagar. Gurugram and Chennai 12.
Zhou, Q., 2014. A review of sustainable urban drainage systems considering the climate change and urbanization impacts. Water 6, 976–992. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w6040976.
Zhou, X., Bai, Z., Yang, Y., 2017. Linking trends in urban extreme rainfall to urban flooding in China. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4586–4593. https://doi.org/10.1002/
joc.5107.
Zope, P.E., Eldho, T.I., Jothiprakash, V., 2015. Impacts of urbanization on flooding of a coastal urban catchment: a case study of Mumbai City, India. Nat. Hazards 75,
887–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1356-4.
Zope, P.E., Eldho, T.I., Jothiprakash, V., 2017. Hydrological impacts of land use–land cover change and detention basins on urban flood hazard: a case study of Poisar
River basin, Mumbai, India. Nat. Hazards 87, 1267–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2816-4.

16