↓ Skip to main content

Retrofitting LID Practices into Existing Neighborhoods: Is It Worth It?

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Retrofitting LID Practices into Existing Neighborhoods: Is It Worth It?
Published in
Environmental Management, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00267-015-0651-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy J. Wright, Yaoze Liu, Natalie J. Carroll, Laurent M. Ahiablame, Bernard A. Engel

Abstract

Low-impact development (LID) practices are gaining popularity as an approach to manage stormwater close to the source. LID practices reduce infrastructure requirements and help maintain hydrologic processes similar to predevelopment conditions. Studies have shown LID practices to be effective in reducing runoff and improving water quality. However, little has been done to aid decision makers in selecting the most effective practices for their needs and budgets. The long-term hydrologic impact assessment LID model was applied to four neighborhoods in Lafayette, Indiana using readily available data sources to compare LID practices by analyzing runoff volumes, implementation cost, and the approximate period needed to achieve payback on the investment. Depending on the LID practice and adoption level, 10-70 % reductions in runoff volumes could be achieved. The cost per cubic meter of runoff reduction was highly variable depending on the LID practice and the land use to which it was applied, ranging from around $3 to almost $600. In some cases the savings from reduced runoff volumes paid back the LID practice cost with interest in less than 3 years, while in other cases it was not possible to generate a payback. Decision makers need this information to establish realistic goals and make informed decisions regarding LID practices before moving into detailed designs, thereby saving time and resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Uganda 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 21%
Student > Master 16 17%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 28 30%
Environmental Science 23 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Design 3 3%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 27 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2017.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,476
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,836
of 398,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.