Research Article

The Control Index for the Construction of Sponge City in the Residential Area: A Case Study of Nanjing Jiangbei New District

Table 9

Comparison of low-impact development facilities.

Single facilityFunctionsControl objectivesSolving methodEconomyEconomyPollutant removal rate (calculated by SS,%)Landscape effect
Collecting and storing rainwaterSupplementing groundwaterReducing peak flowPurifying rainwaterTransmissionTotal runoffPeak runoffRunoff pollutionDispersionRelatively concentratedConstruction costsMaintenance costs

Permeable brick paving-LowLow80-90-
Permeable cement concrete-HighMedium80-90-
Permeable asphalt concrete-HighMedium80-90-
Green roof-HighMedium70-80Good
Sunken green space-LowLow-Fair
Simple biological retention facility-LowLow-Good
Complex biological retention facility-MediumLow70-95Good
Permeation pond-MediumMedium70-80Fair
Seepage wellLowLow--
Wet pond-HighMedium50-80Good
Rain wetlandHighMedium50-80Good
Reservoir-HighMedium80-90-
Rainwater tank-LowLow80-90-
Regulating pond-HighMedium-Fair
Regulation pool-HighMedium--
Transmission type grassed swales-LowLow35-90Fair
Dry grassed swales-LowLow35-90Good
Wet grassed swales-MediumLow-Good
Seepage pipe/drain-MediumMedium35-70-
Vegetation buffer zone--LowLow50-75Fair
Initial rainwater discarding facility--LowMedium40-60-
Artificial soil infiltration--HighMedium75-95Good

Note. ●-Strong ◎-Relatively strong ○-Weak or very small; The 2SS removal rate data come from the research data of the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) of the United States.