Pervious Paving Systems (PPS) are part of a sustainable approach to drainage in which excess surface water is encouraged to infiltrate through their structure, during which potentially toxic elements, such as metals and hydrocarbons are treated by biodegradation and physical entrapment and storage. However, it is not known where in the PPS structure these contaminants accumulate, which has implications for environmental health, particularly during maintenance, as well as consequences for the recycling of material from the PPS at the end-of-life. A 1 m³ porous asphalt (PA) PPS test rig was monitored for 38 months after monthly additions of road sediment (RS) (367.5 g in total) and unused oil (430 mL in total), characteristic of urban loadings, were applied. Using a rainfall simulator, a typical UK rainfall rate of 15 mm/h was used to investigate its efficiency in dealing with contamination. Water quality of the effluent discharged from the rig was found to be suitable for discharge to most environments. On completion of the monitoring, a core was taken down through its surface, and samples of sediment and aggregate were taken. Analysis showed that most of the sediment remained in the surface course, with metal levels lower than the original RS, but higher than clean, unused aggregate or PA. However, even extrapolating these concentrations to 20 years' worth of in-service use (the projected life of PPS) did not suggest their accumulation would present an environmental pollution risk when carrying out maintenance of the pavement and also indicates that the material could be recycled at end-of-life.
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USAFor details of our global editorial offi ces, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwellThe right of the author to be identifi ed as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Climate change has seen increased pressures put on the existing ageing flood mitigation infrastructure. As a result, over recent decades there has been a shift from traditional hard-engineered approaches to flooding to more sustainable methods that utilise nature-based processes in order to slow flow, store water and increase infiltration. Doing so has resulted in a range of different nomenclature for such techniques, particularly in the rural environment. This paper takes a critical review of such terms to draw parallels in the different approaches, with the aim of developing a more unified, consistent approach to flood management. Furthermore, links have been drawn with the urban environment, where Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are used as a sustainable approach to urban flooding. The findings from this review have identified a series of issues that result from the current UK approach of differentiating between urban and rural flood risk, with funding often given for Natural Flood Management (NFM) projects separately to SuDS, with little integrated thinking from source to sea. Hence, the review suggests (1) a greater consideration of scale, focusing on the catchment as a whole, is required to ensure a more holistic approach to flood management, under the phrase “sustainable catchment-wide flood management”, to ensure that the focus shifts from NFM (rural) and SuDS (urban), to a more integrated catchment-wide approach; (2) the development of robust policy and regulatory framework, to ensure that such an approach is more widely adopted; (3) a greater consideration of the long-term costs is also required, with future research needed on the long-term maintenance costs of different methods; (4) the development of modelling approaches that can simulate flow at a range of spatial and temporal scales, to support stakeholders, such as local authorities, flood risk engineers and government agencies when considering flow not only in rural areas, but also to understand the impact beyond the immediate area around the scheme.