Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Connectivity in urbanscapes can cause unintended flood impacts from stormwater systems

Nature Cities volume 1, pages 654–664 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Urban flooding is intensifying worldwide, presenting growing challenges to urban communities. We posit that most of the flood management solutions currently employed are local in nature and fail to account for ways in which the space–time connectivity of floods is exacerbated by built infrastructure. We examine the 2014 flood in Southeast Michigan to identify key factors contributing to urban flooding and explore the implications of design choices on inundation. Findings reveal that stormwater infrastructure that neglects flood spatial connectivity can be ineffective in mitigating floods, leading to inundation even in the absence of local rainfall. Different configurations of network connections—including interfaces with natural channels—can significantly impact upstream surcharge, overflowing manholes and inundation conditions. These results emphasize the need to consider interconnectedness of flood processes in urban watershed systems to mitigate limitations inherent in the design of flood control and warning systems, to enhance urban flood resilience.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Illustration of key urban flooding concepts.
Fig. 2: Flood maps of Warren, Michigan for the STORM2014 (11 August 2014) event.
Fig. 3: Simulated water levels and flow rates at the outfalls and surcharged manholes for STORM2014.
Fig. 4: Relationship between flood inundation and flooded area.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The land use cover was obtained from the National Land Cover Database 2019 (https://www.mrlc.gov). High-resolution elevation data were provided by the USGS (https://apps.nationalmap.gov/downloader/). The building footprint data were obtained from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (https://maps.semcog.org/BuildingFootprints). Data on the stormwater system, including manholes, outfalls and pipes, were collected and compiled in collaboration with Macomb and Oakland Counties. The rainfall data were from the Automated Surface Observing Systems network (https://www.weather.gov/asos/). The simulation dataset (~600 gigabytes) archived on the Globus Cloud is available upon written request to the authors. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Data processing and analysis were performed using MATLAB 2022b (standard version). The source code is publicly accessible via GitHub at https://github.com/vinhngoctran/RedRun_processing.

References

  1. Donat, M. G., Lowry, A. L., Alexander, L. V., O’Gorman, P. A. & Maher, N. More extreme precipitation in the world’s dry and wet regions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 508–513 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Prein, A. F. et al. The future intensification of hourly precipitation extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 48–52 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Scott, D. T., Gomez-Velez, J. D., Jones, C. N. & Harvey, J. W. Floodplain inundation spectrum across the United States. Nat. Commun. 10, 5194 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Paprotny, D., Sebastian, A., Morales-Napoles, O. & Jonkman, S. N. Trends in flood losses in Europe over the past 150 years. Nat. Commun. 9, 1985 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. UNDRR Annual Report 2021 (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2021).

  6. NWS Preliminary US Flood Fatality Statistics (National Weather Service, 2023).

  7. Storm Events Database (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023).

  8. US Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023); https://doi.org/10.25921/stkw-7w73

  9. Hirabayashi, Y. et al. Global flood risk under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 816–821 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rentschler, J. et al. Global evidence of rapid urban growth in flood zones since 1985. Nature 622, 87–92 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Revi, A. et al. Urban areas. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Ch. 8, 535–612 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  12. Nowak, D. J. & Walton, J. T. Projected urban growth (2000–2050) and its estimated impact on the U.S. forest resource. J. Forestry 103, 383–389 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Andreadis, K. M. et al. Urbanizing the floodplain: global changes of imperviousness in flood-prone areas. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 104024 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Golden, H. & Hoghooghi, N. Green infrastructure and its catchment-scale effects: an emerging science. WIREs Water 1, e1254 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Radhakrishnan, M., Pathirana, A., Ashley, R. M., Gersonius, B. & Zevenbergen, C. Flexible adaptation planning for water sensitive cities. Cities 78, 87–95 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong, T. H. & Brown, R. R. The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water Sci. Technol. 60, 673–682 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. From Gray to Green—Helping Communities Adopt Green Infrastructure (EPA, 2023).

  18. Alves, A., Vojinovic, Z., Kapelan, Z., Sanchez, A. & Gersonius, B. Exploring trade-offs among the multiple benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for urban flood mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 134980 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilbanks, T. et al. Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities. Technical Report for the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate Assessment (Springer, 2013).

  20. Collentine, D. & Futter, M. N. Realising the potential of natural water retention measures in catchment flood management: trade-offs and matching interests. J. Flood Risk Manag. 11, 76–84 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. EFAB Report: Evaluating Stormwater Infrastructure Funding and Financing (EPA, 2023).

  22. Qiao, X.-J., Kristoffersson, A. & Randrup, T. B. Challenges to implementing urban sustainable stormwater management from a governance perspective: a literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 943–952 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosenzweig, B. R. et al. Pluvial flood risk and opportunities for resilience. WIREs Water 5, e1302 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. ten Veldhuis, J. A. E. How the choice of flood damage metrics influences urban flood risk assessment. J. Flood Risk Manag. 4, 281–287 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Backhaus, A., Dam, T. & Jensen, M. B. Stormwater management challenges as revealed through a design experiment with professional landscape architects. Urban Water J. 9, 29–43 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wright, D. B., Bosma, C. D. & Lopez-Cantu, T. U.S. hydrologic design standards insufficient due to large increases in frequency of rainfall extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 8144–8153 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mays, L. W. Stormwater Collection Systems Design Handbook (McGraw-Hill, 2001).

  28. Standard Guidelines for the Design of Urban Stormwater Systems (ASCE, 2006).

  29. Arcement, G. J. & Schneider, V. R. Guide for Selecting Manning’s Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains (US GPO, 1989).

  30. Woods-Ballard, B. et al. The SuDS Manual (CIRIA, 2007).

  31. Drainage Services Department. Stormwater Drainage Manual: Planning, Design and Management (Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2018).

  32. Allen, M. D. et al. Water Sensitive Urban Design: Basic Procedures for ‘Source Control’ of Stormwater. A Handbook for Australian Practice (ed. Argue, J.) (Univ. South Australia, 2004).

  33. Bradford, A. & Gharabaghi, B. Evolution of Ontario’s stormwater management planning and design guidance. Water Quality Res. J. 39, 343–355 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wing, O. E. J. et al. Inequitable patterns of US flood risk in the Anthropocene. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 156–162 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Framing the Challenge of Urban Flooding in the United States (National Academies Press, 2019).

  36. Rosenzweig, B. R. et al. The value of urban flood modeling. Earth’s Future 9 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ef001739

  37. Guo, K., Guan, M. & Yu, D. Urban surface water flood modelling—a comprehensive review of current models and future challenges. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 2843–2860 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Forero-Ortiz, E., Martínez-Gomariz, E. & Cañas Porcuna, M. A review of flood impact assessment approaches for underground infrastructures in urban areas: a focus on transport systems. Hydrol. Sci. J. 65, 1943–1955 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Carmichael, C., Danks, C. & Vatovec, C. Assigning blame: how local narratives shape community responses to extreme flooding events in Detroit, Michigan and Waterbury, Vermont. Environ. Commun. 14, 300–315 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shepardson, D. White House Approves Michigan Disaster Declaration (Detroit News Washington Bureau, 2014).

  41. National Flood Hazard Layer (FEMA, 2023).

  42. Yazdanfar, Z. & Sharma, A. Urban drainage system planning and design—challenges with climate change and urbanization: a review. Water Sci. Technol. 72, 165–179 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen, S. S. et al. Designing sustainable drainage systems in subtropical cities: challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 124418 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schmitt, T. G. & Scheid, C. Evaluation and communication of pluvial flood risks in urban areas. WIREs Water 7, e1401 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Prosdocimi, I., Kjeldsen, T. R. & Miller, J. D. Detection and attribution of urbanization effect on flood extremes using nonstationary flood-frequency models. Water Resour. Res. 51, 4244–4262 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Storm Water Management Plan (City of Warren, 2012); https://www.cityofwarren.org/departments/engineering-division/

  47. Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood Map Accuracy (National Academies Press, 2009).

  48. Kousky, C. Financing flood losses: a discussion of the national flood insurance program. Risk Manag. Insurance Rev. 21, 11–32 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Pralle, S. Drawing lines: FEMA and the politics of mapping flood zones. Clim. Change 152, 227–237 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ivanov, V. Y., Vivoni, E. R., Bras, R. L. & Entekhabi, D. Catchment hydrologic response with a fully distributed triangulated irregular network model. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004wr003218 (2004).

  51. Ivanov, V. Y., Vivoni, E. R., Bras, R. L. & Entekhabi, D. Preserving high-resolution surface and rainfall data in operational-scale basin hydrology: a fully-distributed physically-based approach. J. Hydrol. 298, 80–111 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim, J., Warnock, A., Ivanov, V. Y. & Katopodes, N. D. Coupled modeling of hydrologic and hydrodynamic processes including overland and channel flow. Adv. Water Res. 37, 104–126 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rossman, L. A. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual, Version 5.0 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010).

  54. Ivanov, V. Y. et al. Breaking down the computational barriers to real‐time urban flood forecasting. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL093585 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ozdemir, H., Sampson, C. C., de Almeida, G. A. M. & Bates, P. D. Evaluating scale and roughness effects in urban flood modelling using terrestrial LIDAR data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 4015–4030 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Chow, V. Open Channel Hydraulics (McGraw Hill Education, 1959).

  57. Kim, J., Ivanov, V. Y. & Katopodes, N. D. Hydraulic resistance to overland flow on surfaces with partially submerged vegetation. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012wr012047 (2012).

  58. Néelz, S. & Pender, G. Benchmarking the Latest Generation of 2D Hydraulic Modelling Packages (UK Environment Agency, 2013).

  59. Songchon, C., Wright, G. & Beevers, L. The use of crowdsourced social media data to improve flood forecasting. J. Hydrol. 622, 129703 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

V.N.T. and V.Y.I. acknowledge the support of the US National Science Foundation CMMI program award no. 2053429 and the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, the Office of Naval Research award no. N00014-23-1-2735, Environmental Protection Agency grant #2020‐2509. J. Kim was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT)(NRF-2022R1A2C2008584. D.B. Wright and G.A. Alexander acknowledge the support of the U.S. National Science Foundation CMMI program award #2053358. We acknowledge informative discussions with P. Seelbach, B. Kerkez, J. Bednar, G. O’Neil, C. Brown, C. Purdy, A. Asher, M. Thomas and S. Bergt that assisted this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Vinh Ngoc Tran, Valeriy Y. Ivanov, Weichen Huang, Kevin Murphy & Fariborz Daneshvar

  2. Macomb County Public Works Commissioner Candice S. Miller, Clinton Township, MI, USA

    Jeff H. Bednar

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    G. Aaron Alexander & Daniel B. Wright

  4. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Ulsan, Ulsan, South Korea

    Jongho Kim

Authors
  1. Vinh Ngoc Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valeriy Y. Ivanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Weichen Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fariborz Daneshvar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jeff H. Bednar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Aaron Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jongho Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daniel B. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

V.N.T. and V.Y.I. designed the study. V.N.T., W.H., K.M. and F.D. collected the data. V.N.T. conducted the experiments. V.N.T. and V.Y.I. analyzed the data and wrote and revised the paper with inputs from all co-authors. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results, writing and revision of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valeriy Y. Ivanov.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Cities thanks Matt Bartos and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Inundation depth and the locations of surcharged manholes.

Source Data Fig. 3

Simulated water levels and flow rates at the outfalls and surcharged manholes for STORM2014.

Source Data Fig. 4

A relationship between flood inundation and flooded area.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tran, V.N., Ivanov, V.Y., Huang, W. et al. Connectivity in urbanscapes can cause unintended flood impacts from stormwater systems. Nat Cities 1, 654–664 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00116-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00116-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing