Search

Summary: This paper presents new rainfall and runoff data from a UK green roof test bed which has been collected almost-continuously over a 29-month period from 01/01/2007 to 31/05/2009. Overall, the monitoring period was fairly typical of the location’s long-term climatic averages, although the data set includes some extreme events in June 2007, which were associated with serious flooding locally. To focus on the system’s performance under rainfall events likely to be of interest from an urban drainage/stormwater management perspective, return period analysis has been applied to identify those storm events with a rainfall depth in excess of 5mm and a return period greater than one year. According to these criteria, 22 significant events have been identified, of which 21 have reliable runoff records. Overall the roof provided 50.2% cumulative annual rainfall retention, with a total volumetric retention equivalent to 30% during the significant events. The annual performance figures are towards the lower end of a range of international data, probably reflecting the fact that rainfall depths may be higher and evapotranspiration rates lower than in some more continental climatic settings. The roof’s finite retention depth means that the maximum possible retention percentage declines as storm depth increases, and retention varied from between 0 and 20mm, or 0% to 100%. Although some attenuation and delay of peak runoff is generally observed (mean peak flow reduction of 60% for the 21 significant events), the irregularity of natural rainfall patterns, combined with the variable influence of detention storage in specific events, makes the identification of peak-to-peak lag times difficult and arguably meaningless. Regression analyses have been undertaken to explore the potential to predict the roof’s hydrological performance as a function of storm characteristics. However, these are shown to have poor predictive capability, even for the system from which they were derived. Through a detailed examination of data from three contrasting events, it is argued that the inter-event processes are too complex to be captured by this type of modelling approach. Instead, an understanding of the hydrological processes affecting the flux of moisture into and out of the substrate is required to explain the observed runoff response. Locally-derived evapotranspiration rates and the roof’s observed maximum retention capacity are utilised to provide pragmatic guidance on the retention performance to be expected in response to selected design events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This paper presents a novel framework for undertaking climate change impact studies, which can be used for testing the robustness of precautionary climate change allowances used in engineering design. It is illustrated with respect to fluvial flood risk in the UK. The methodology departs from conventional scenario-led impact studies because it is based on sensitivity analyses of catchment responses to a plausible range of climate changes (rather than the time-varying outcome of individual scenarios), making it scenario-neutral. The method involves separating the climate change projections (the hazard) from the catchment responsiveness (the vulnerability) expressed as changes in peak flows. By combining current understanding of likelihood of the climate change hazard with knowledge of the sensitivity of a given catchment, it is possible to evaluate the fraction of climate model projections that would not be accommodated by specified safety margins. This enables rapid appraisal of existing or new precautionary allowances for a set of climate change projections, but also for any new set of climate change projections for example arising from a new generation of climate models as soon as they are available, or when focusing on a different planning time horizon, without the need for undertaking a new climate change impact analysis with the new scenarios. The approach is demonstrated via an assessment of the UK Government’s 20% allowance for climate change applied in two contrasting catchments. In these exemplars, the allowance defends against the majority of sampled climate projections for the 2080s from the IPCC-AR4 GCM and UKCP09 RCM runs but it is still possible to identify a sub-set of regional scenarios that would exceed the 20% threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]