Evaluation of the Hydrological Response of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in Socio-Economically Vulnerable Tropical Urban Settlements: A Case Study in La Guapil, Costa Rica, Under Climate Change Scenarios

Abstract

Urbanization increases the number of impervious surfaces in watersheds, reducing infiltration and evapotranspiration, which increases runoff volumes and the risks of flooding and the pollution of water resources. Nature-based solutions (NBS) mitigate these effects by managing water volume and quality, restoring the hydrological cycle, and creating sustainable livelihoods that can promote socioeconomic equity by providing green space. In light of the aforementioned information, this study analyzes the hydrological response of NBS in La Guapil, a densely populated and socioeconomically vulnerable area of Costa Rica with approximately 80% impervious surfaces, focusing on their effectiveness in stormwater management and improving hydrological conditions. Field data from the study area’s storm drainage system, as well as hydrological analyses, were collected and processed to evaluate RCP8.5 climate change scenarios using the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relationship. Three scenarios were proposed: (1) the “status quo”, reflecting current conditions, (2) green roofs and green improvements, and (3) detention ponds and green improvements, evaluated using the SWMM, with the latter scenario also using the Iber model. Simulations showed that Scenario 2 achieved the greatest reduction in peak flow (53.74%) and runoff volume (57.60%) compared to Scenario 3 (peak: 28.37%; volume: 56.42%). Both scenarios demonstrate resilience to climate change projections. The results of this study provide a foundation for further research into NBS in Costa Rica and other comparable regions.

1. Introduction

The hydrological behavior of a watershed is defined by its distinctive geomorphological and climatic characteristics [1]. The process of urbanization has a profound impact on the natural landscape of a region, replacing vegetation-covered areas with impervious surfaces [2] and modifying the hydrological cycle [3].

Impervious surfaces prevent water from infiltrating into the ground, resulting in increased surface runoff [4]. Runoff can saturate drainage systems [5], contributing to urban flooding during heavy rainfall [6,7], erosion [8], and the transport of pollutants to water bodies [9,10]. The projected alterations to precipitation patterns due to climate change will likely result in an increase in the frequency and intensity of precipitation events [11,12,13].

In the context of urban areas, nature-based solutions (NBS) serve as a unifying framework encompassing a diverse array of innovative solutions designed to enhance the sustainability of cities and address water and environmental challenges—i.e., umbrella concept [14,15].

NBS encompass a broad array of ecosystem-based strategies designed to address societal challenges while enhancing human well-being and biodiversity. These solutions are grouped according to their approach into the following categories: ecosystem restoration such as ecological engineering and forest landscape restoration; issue-specific solutions, for example, ecosystem-based adaptation and disaster risk reduction; infrastructure like green and natural infrastructure; ecosystem-based management applied to integrated water resource and coastal zone management; and protection strategies including area-based conservation and protected area management [15,16].

The following terms are associated with the NBS concept: low-impact developments (LIDs) in the United States and New Zealand [17], water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) in Australia [18], sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) in the United Kingdom [19], best management practices (BMPs) in the United States and Canada [20], green infrastructure (GI) in the United States and the United Kingdom [21], blue–green infrastructure (BGI) in the United Kingdom [22], ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) in Canada and Europe [23], ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (EcoDRR) in the United States and Europe [24], natural water retention measures (NWRM) in Europe [25], and sponge city in China [26].

NBS emerged in 2008 [27], making it a relatively recent concept in the scientific community [28]. Within this paradigm, various definitions have been employed interchangeably in the literature [14]. The most prevalent definitions are those proposed by the European Commission (EC) which defines NBS as solutions that “aim to help societies address a variety of environmental, social, and economic challenges in sustainable ways. They are actions inspired by, supported by, or copied from nature. Some involve using and enhancing existing natural solutions to challenges, while others are exploring more novel solutions” [29]. In contrast, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) describes NBS as “actions to protect, sustainably use, manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, which address societal challenges, effectively and adaptively, providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” [15]. In a review of 20 definitions of NBS, Sowińska-Świerkosz, and García (2022) identified four core principles: (1) NBS are inspired and driven by nature; (2) they address societal challenges or solve problems; (3) they provide multiple services or benefits, including biodiversity enhancement; and (4) they are highly effective and economically efficient [30].

From a hydrological standpoint, NBS have been demonstrated to be an effective means of managing stormwater, demonstrating significant peak flow reductions [31], improving infiltration, runoff, and storage [32,33], and mitigating flood risks [34,35], while accounting for climate change scenarios [36,37,38,39].

In the mid-latitude regions, NBS have been the subject of greater study and development, particularly in Europe, where the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (H2020), addressed key environmental and social challenges like climate change adaptation and enhancing sustainable urbanization [40,41]. Projects were targeted primarily at the temperate continental, oceanic, northern temperate, and Mediterranean climate zones, mainly in Italy, Spain, Germany, and France [41]. The review conducted by Bona et al. [42] revealed that the most prevalent NBS in Europe in urban environments are urban parks and forests, green infrastructure (e.g., green roofs, green corridors, etc.), and green areas for water management. Countries like Germany [43], Italy [44], and the Netherlands [45] emphasize these types of solutions. Similarly, the United States [46], the United Kingdom [47], and New Zealand [48,49] have demonstrated progress in adopting NBS, with a positive impact on communities.

On the other hand, in subtropical and tropical regions—which are characterized by elevated temperatures, high humidity, and substantial annual precipitation, including intense rainfall events—[50], like some countries in Asia, Singapore has implemented 60 NBS projects under its Active, Beautiful, Clean (ABC) Waters program since 2008 [51]. Thailand has developed research on flood and thermal stress management [52,53] as well as on rainwater quantity and quality [54], while Malaysia [55] and Vietnam [56] have also conducted research in these fields.

Latin America has demonstrated growing acknowledgment of NBS’ potential. Through initiatives such as the CONEXUS Project, supported by Horizon 2020, urban living labs have been established in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia [57], facilitating knowledge for the implementation of NBS within communities. These last two countries have advanced the understanding of the potential of NBS in tropical regions of Latin America, highlighting the possible impacts of NBS in the context of climate change [58] and the pursuit of more sustainable and greener urban areas [59,60]. Nevertheless, a discernible gap persists in the literature regarding the evaluation and analysis of NBS in tropical regions of Latin America, particularly in comparison with regions in the Global North.

In Central America, Costa Rica has summarized some experience with the NBS concept [61,62]; some studies have investigated their use to reduce surface runoff [63] and flooding at the watershed scale [64,65,66], while others have analyzed how to implement these solutions in the country [67,68].

Beyond the hydrological–plus ecological–benefits, NBS can build resilience, create sustainable livelihoods, and provide access to green spaces to address the region’s socioeconomic inequalities [69]. This is particularly crucial for Costa Rica, a country noted for its environmental sustainability and ecological initiatives. Nonetheless, Costa Rican urban settlements encounter the challenge of managing population growth in the metropolitan area, which suffers from a shortage of public green spaces [70], which could lead to environmental degradation. Moreover, a study conducted in Costa Rica identified a correlation between the prevalence of informal settlements–characterized by high population density–and their heightened vulnerability to hydrometeorological events [71].

This study aims to analyze the hydrological impact of implementing NBS in densely populated urban settlements within a socio-economically vulnerable region of the country [72], using one-dimensional (SWMM) and two-dimensional (Iber) simulation models; the research also incorporates RCP8.5 climate change scenarios to assess the solution’s resilience. The findings are intended to serve as a foundation for subsequent evaluations of other potential NBS alternatives and the construction of prototypes for testing. Additionally, they seek to contribute to the body of literature focused on studies conducted in areas with comparable characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characterization of the Study Area

The study site was situated within the La Guapil settlement, situated in La Aurora de Alajuelita, San José (−84.115881° W, 9.921588° N), within the Tiribí river basin. This region experiences an average annual precipitation of 1800 mm and a temperature of 20.9 °C. This locale, exemplified by Costa Rica, undergoes a prolonged rainy period spanning seven months from May through November annually.

The settlement encompasses an estimated 504 residential units, of which 162 are located within the area that contributes to the stormwater drainage system (delimited in red in Figure 1), thereby constituting the focal point of this investigation.

The study area covers 31,268 m² and has an average occupancy of 3.67 individuals per residence. This results in a population density of 19,489 individuals/km², which is considered high [73]–in fact, the area is in the fifth most densely populated canton in Costa Rica, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses of Costa Rica (INEC, for its acronym in Spanish) [74]–and is a significant spatial indicator of socio-economic vulnerability to environmental hazards [75].

The terrain predominantly consists of impervious surfaces, such as corrugated zinc sheets-roofed structures, paved areas, and walkways, which account for 79.96% of the total land cover, while the remaining 20.04% comprises parks and green spaces designated as permeable zones.

In addition to the presence of rainwater runoff that flows down the hillside into the Tiribí River, this system also incorporates a contribution of domestic water that discharges directly into the sanitary sewage system.

To facilitate the study and calculation of parameters, the study area was subdivided into eight urban sub-basins.

2.1.1. Topographic and Sewerage Network Survey

A comprehensive topographic survey was conducted utilizing a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Matrice 300 RTK, equipped with an L1 sensor, both from DJI (Shenzhen, China). This sensor integrates a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) frame with three returns, a high-precision Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), and a Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) RGB camera.

The flight yielded a substantial point cloud comprising 95 million data points. Subsequently, a classified point cloud was generated, along with the digital terrain elevation (DTM) and digital surface elevation models (DSM).

The initial processing phase involved the utilization of the DJI Terra (V 4.3.0; DJI Enterprise [76]) for 3D model reconstruction, which was facilitated by LiDAR point cloud processing. TerraScan for Spatix software (V 023.002; Terrasolid [77]) was employed to perform point cloud classification and to generate both digital surface and terrain models.

The identification of the stormwater drainage system influence zone was executed by leveraging the terrain elevation model in conjunction with a comprehensive survey encompassing manholes and storm sewers. During the rainwater network survey, sodium fluorescein was utilized as a tracer substance. This approach enabled the differentiation between components of the wastewater and rainwater systems, ensuring precise identification and characterization of the network’s flow dynamics.

2.1.2. Hydrological Analysis

The time of concentration of the system was calculated in two distinct phases. The first phase of the study corresponded to the surface runoff generated by the roofs of the houses, streets, green spaces, sidewalks, and other contributing surfaces within the study area, and its subsequent delivery to the street inlet unit.

To achieve this, the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) methodology was employed in the study area, as proposed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) [78], considering current land use and soil type (based on texture, soil profile depth, and infiltration capacity, as obtained from soil sampling).

The second phase of the time of concentration encompassed the duration of runoff within the main pipe to the outfall, as quantified by the ratio of the pipe’s length to the velocity at which the runoff flows within the pipe (Equation (1)). This was obtained using Manning’s equation (Equation (2)) to determine the flow velocity. This estimation was based on a flow rate equivalent to 85% of the inside diameter of the culvert.

(1)$V={\displaystyle \frac{R^{2/3}{S}^{1/2}}{n}},$

where $V$ is the mean velocity; $R$ is the hydraulic radius; $S$ is the channel slope, obtained from the survey; and $n$ corresponds to the roughness coefficient of the sewer material, which is concrete ($n=$ 0.018).

Rainfall intensity was calculated for return periods of 25 years, using the intensity–duration–frequency equations of meteorological stations 84–139 (CIGEFI) and 84–195 (Pavas Airport) [79].

2.2. Climate Change Scenarios (CCS)

The impact of climate change on rainfall intensity was evaluated using the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relationship (Equation (2)), which enables the adjustment of rainfall intensity based on temperature increase projections [80].

(2)$I_{fut}=I_{ref}\times {\left[{\displaystyle \frac{100+R_{sc}}{100}}\right]}^{∆T},$

The variables $I_{ref}$ and $I_{fut}$ represent the reference and future rainfall intensities, respectively. The rainfall scaling factor ($R_{sc}$) is expressed as a percentage based on the CC ratio. Finally, the variable $∆T$ represents the projected change in local temperature. The Australian Rainfall–Runoff Guidelines (ARR) [81] recommend a 5% increase per degree Celsius of warming, while the Canadian Standard Association (CSA) [82] recommends a value of approximately 7% per degree Celsius. The CSA notes that shorter-duration events might follow a super CC relationship, potentially requiring higher rates than ~7%/°C, depending on the area.

The variable $R_{sc}$ is defined as a rainfall scaling factor (%), which is related to the rates of change in temperature of the saturated water vapor pressure. This is described by the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) relationship. The approximate value of the change is 7/°C. On the local or regional scale, the CC ratio determines the rate of change in the intensity of extreme precipitation events in the absence of other factors, such as changes in circulation patterns and moisture content [83].

To ascertain the change in temperature (∆T), climate change projections generated by the National Meteorological Institute (IMN) [84] were used, based on RCP8.5 emissions scenarios for the periods 2010 to 2039, 2040 to 2069, and 2070 to 2099 (Table 1). Although RCP8.5 represents a less probable high-emission scenario, its utility lies in facilitating comprehensive assessments of the maximum potential climate change impacts and evaluating the resilience of proposed scenarios.

Hyetograms were formulated by employing the alternating block methodology [85] to delineate precipitation intensity under present conditions and those adjusted according to climate change projections, specifically for a return period of 25 years.

2.3. Runoff Modeling

The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is a simulation tool developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (V 5.2.4; US EPA [86]) for analyzing stormwater runoff in urban areas [87]. This simulation model was used to derive surface runoff flow rate hydrograms at the terminal manhole of the stormwater drainage system, prior to the outfall. The initial scenario represented the “status quo” and reflected the prevailing conditions within the study area.

The second scenario considered an increase in green areas, as a strategy employed to enhance the infiltration of the area, adjusting the SCS-CN, and the inclusion of green roofs on all residential structures. A green roof consists of three layers: surface, soil, and drainage, each of which has a specific function in water management. The surface layer protects the soil from runoff erosion, while the soil and drainage layers work together to reduce peak rainfall by retaining and gradually infiltrating water [88].

To simulate the behavior of green roofs, the Green Roofs option within the LID controls function of the SWMM was used. This option comprises three distinct data tabs–surface, soil, and drainage blanket–requesting certain parameters utilized by the SWMM to compute surface runoff, infiltration, retention, and drainage, under the assumption that the layer below the drainage layer is impermeable [89]. Table 2 delineates the data obtained from field measurements and those sourced from the SWMM User’s Manual.

A third scenario was formulated, which mirrors the inclusion of green spaces, as observed in the second scenario, yet incorporates the addition of a detention pond as an adaptive solution within the realm of land use and water management practices [90] in La Guapil.

Due to the significant slope of 23% between the terminal manhole (84.115° N, 9.922° W) and the discharge point, the proposed design incorporates a specialized drainage system. This system includes a culvert that connects the terminal manhole to a stepped spillway with a permeable energy dissipator downstream. The spillway leads to a detention pond equipped with a thin weir to manage extreme flow volumes and a discharge weir hole that directs water to the final outfall.

The sizing of the stepped spillway and detention pond was determined based on the peak flow of the hydrograph in the first scenario, following the guidelines of Villon [91] and Chow et al. [92]. The spillway was covered with concrete ($n=$ 0.018) to accommodate the steep slope, while the bottom was designed to be permeable ($n=$ 0.033) to facilitate infiltration.

The analysis of particle movement due to water action was conducted using Shields’ formulas [93] to determine the critical rock diameter for the permeable zones.

The detention pond effect on water discharge was evaluated through hydraulic modeling using the Iber model (V 3.3.0; Team Iber [94]); this is a two-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation tool used for analyzing free surface flow and it can simulate the behavior of hydraulic structures by representing their geometry, boundary conditions, and operational parameters, allowing for detailed assessment of their performance [95,96].

It should be added that the calibration and validation of the stormwater drainage system model was not possible in this study due to the lack of field data and the impracticality of collecting such data within the time frame of the study. The lack of field data is a well-known challenge in efforts to calibrate and validate models of this type [32,97,98].

Figure 2 illustrates the workflow executed throughout the course of this study.

3. Results

3.1. Status Quo and Proposed Solutions

The community of La Guapil is located at an elevation of 1103 m above sea level. The gradient of the roads varies between 0.1% and 5.0%, with an increase up to an average of 35.0% of the areas near the riverbed. The stormwater drainage system comprises 461.24 m of culverts and nine manholes, this system conducts the rainwater towards an inland channel with a 23.0% slope, ultimately discharging into the Tiribí River as illustrated in Figure 3. This figure also depicts the sub-basins into which the study area has been divided, along with the corresponding drainage network for simulation in the SWMM.

The existing land use (status quo) is illustrated in Figure 4, accompanied by the two proposals that incorporate NBS. In Scenario 2, 76.03% of the land is designated as green and pervious, while 23.97% is designated as impervious. In Scenario 3, 79.06% of the land area is classified as impervious, while 20.94% is designated as green and pervious.

It should be noted that the study area belongs to the hydrological soil group (HSG) D (soil texture: clay loam, and low water permeability: 0.45 in/h [78]). The most significant change in the curve number (SCS-CN) occurred in sub-basin 8, where the weighted CN value decreased from 91.7 in the current scenario to 86.2 in scenarios 2 and 3. This reduction was achieved solely through improvements to the community park’s green areas.

3.2. Rain Events Based on Climate Change Scenarios

The time of concentration was calculated to be 12 min, with 8 min attributable to surface runoff and the remaining 4 min to the flow movement through sewer pipes to the discharge point. Using the inverse distance method to determine the weights of the meteorological stations, it was found that stations 84–139 have a weight of 0.38, while stations 84–195 have a weight of 0.62.

Consequently, for a return period of 25 years, the average reference intensity is 118.92 mm/h. Under the RCP8.5 scenario, the projected rainfall intensities are 131.62 mm/h for the period 2010–2039, 142.75 mm/h for 2040–2069, and 161.24 mm/h for 2070–2099. These projections represent increases in rainfall intensity of 10.7%, 20.0%, and 35.6% with respect to the reference value, respectively (Figure 5).

3.3. Runoff Modeling Results

Figure 6 illustrates the flow behavior results obtained from the simulation models used in this study. In general terms, it can be observed that the flow rate within the stormwater drainage system escalates with heightened precipitation in both the current and projected climate change scenarios. Scenario 2 consistently showed the lowest hydrograph values across all four precipitation scenarios; in this scenario, the peak flow was reduced by 0.54 m³/s (53.74%) compared to the status quo for the reference event, which is slightly less than half. Conversely, when comparing Scenario 3 with Scenario 1 for the reference event, the peak flow reduction was only 0.28 m³/s, corresponding to a decrease of 28.37%.

Regarding CCS, Scenario 2 reduces peak flow across the three periods, averaging a 52.58% (0.62 m₃/s) decrease relative to the status quo. Meanwhile, as the climate change scenarios intensify, the effectiveness of Scenario 3 diminishes compared to Scenario 1 for each period, with a reduction of 24.96% under RCP8.5 for the period 2010–2039, decreasing further to 12.11% for the period 2070–2099. In contrast with Scenario 2, Scenario 3 results in a delay in the time at which the peak flow occurs at the outfall of the system. This can be attributed to the combined effect of the pooled stepped spillway infrastructure and the detention pond, which serve to delay the flow.

Regardless of the precipitation scenario, the detention pond reduces the arrival of the peak flow to a similar time frame in the four rain scenarios. After 100 min, the water within the pond is below the pipe, and the remaining water is infiltrated through the permeable base.

In terms of the runoff volume in the system under the reference precipitation (Table 3), Scenario 2 results in a 57.60% reduction compared to the status quo, which translates to 253.97 m³; being retained by green roofs and infiltrated into the green areas of sub-basin 8. In comparison, Scenario 3 achieves an 18.84% reduction.

Scenario 2 remains consistent in the CCS, reducing the runoff volume in 56.42% compared to Scenario 1. Similarly, Scenario 3 demonstrates a decrease in peak flow performance as time passes within the CC period. This results in a runoff volume decrease of 15.57% from 2010–2039, 14.59% from 2040–2069, and 13.60% from 2070–2099, compared to Scenario 1, respectively.

4. Discussion

4.1. Impact of the Green Roofs

Conventional roofs retain minimal rainwater through interception, resulting in high runoff [99]. To address this, Scenario 2 proposed implementing green roofs throughout the study area and enhancing the green areas of the community park in sub-basin 8. The substantial reduction obtained is primarily attributed to the green roofs, which cover all the roofs of the total study area.

Green roofs modeling, using the SWMM, for single-event simulations in cities–like in this study–obtained reductions of 31% in peak runoff and 14% in runoff volume for a 10-year return period in a scenario with 36% impervious surface–comprising green roofs and permeable pavement–in Genoa, Italy [100]. Likewise, in Shahrekord, China, green roofs resulted in a peak reduction of 46% for return periods of 2, 5, and 10 years [101], similarly, in India, a peak reduction of 61.5% was reported for events with the same return periods [102].

The capacity of green roofs to retain rainfall is highly dependent on the magnitude of precipitation, particularly during high-intensity, short-duration rainfall events [103]. Furthermore, the preceding dry weather period also plays a significant role in determining the effectiveness of green roofs in mitigating stormwater [104]. Because of this, green roofs are unable to effectively mitigate stormwater in tropical regions in the same way that they do in temperate regions [103,105]. Nevertheless, hydrological simulations performed at a watershed level in tropical regions showed significant attenuation of peak runoff. As evidenced by the studies conducted by Trinh and Chui [104], a 30% to 50% reduction in peak flow rate was observed. Similarly, Rosa et al. [106] in Brazil demonstrated a notable decline in both peak flows and runoff volumes, particularly for smaller magnitude events.

In Costa Rica, research has demonstrated the efficacy of green roofs in reducing runoff at a watershed scale. For instance, the Torres River watershed study employed i-Tree Hydro Plus to assess the impact of various green infrastructure options, revealing that green roofs reduced runoff by 4% compared to the baseline scenario [63]. In a separate study conducted in the Quebrada Seca-Burío River watershed, PCSWMM software was utilized, demonstrating that green roofs resulted in a maximum reduction of approximately 40% in flood volume during a 10-year event [66].

It should be noted that the successful implementation of this kind of NBS requires a design that is meticulously tailored to the intended purpose, as their performance is heavily influenced by specific meteorological conditions [107,108], and building structure, with newer buildings and flat roofs being more appropriate for installation due to their structural capacity [109], as well as considering cost-effective solutions, like extensive green roof systems, alongside the careful selection of plants that can endure both drought and constant humidity and lightweight substrate options to minimize additional weight [109,110]. Therefore, the installation of green roofs in the study area or Costa Rica’s houses requires an evaluation of their performance under the country’s specific climatic and socio-economic context. This could be attained through the introduction of incentive policies such as tax reductions and compensatory measures [111] and by improving stakeholder perception and engagement by using institutional buildings or public spaces as pilot projects to create visible examples [64,66,68]. Furthermore, a comprehensive regulatory framework, including laws, regulations, and municipal ordinances supports and facilitates the implementation of green roofs or other green infrastructure [67].

4.2. Impact of the Detention Pond

Detention ponds are highly effective stormwater management practices [112], specifically designed to treat [113] and control urban stormwater, such as flood mitigation and regulation of peak flows [114,115]. The detention pond successfully stored stormwater runoff generated by the study area, which included conventional roofs (corrugated zinc sheet-roofed) and an enhanced green space. Following a high-intensity storm event, the detention pond temporarily reduced peak flows (28.37%) by storing the runoff (18.84% reduction) and then releasing it to the river at a controlled rate (about 0.2 L/s).

It is crucial to emphasize that the capacity to manage stormwater and mitigate the peak flow and runoff volume through detention ponding is largely contingent upon the dimensions of the hydraulic structure and therefore of the area available for construction in the study area. As evidenced by the study conducted by Goncalves et al. [116], the detention ponds analyzed exhibited the capacity to reduce the flood volume by 3% to 20% for a 10-year return period event–a similar outcome was observed in the present study. However, during the extreme event, the ponds demonstrated the occurrence of overflows, resulting in peak flows that surpassed the baseline scenario.

On the other hand, these types of NBS have relatively low cost and simple construction [115] and can be in any publicly accessible area as adopted by government policies [117]. In addition, maintenance primarily involves periodic removal and disposal of accumulated materials [118]. These aspects of the detention ponds support their implementation in the study area, and similar regions, as a viable solution. Notably, detention ponds offer the capability to treat sediments and pollutants before they reach water sources [118]. This feature could mitigate to some extent the problem of stormwater pollution from domestic graywater in the La Guapil system.

5. Conclusions

Through modeling using the SWMM and Iber, the hydrological impact of implementing two scenarios involving Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in La Guapil, a densely populated urban settlement, was evaluated. The peak flow and runoff volume generated by the proposed scenarios were compared to the current conditions, the “Status quo”. Given that peak flow is a widely used measure of stormwater impact on drainage systems [119], Scenario 2 demonstrated the greatest reduction in this variable and consequently runoff volume. However, the primary NBS used in Scenario 2 are green roofs, which are complex and costly to implement in residential areas and require significant social engagement for effective implementation. Therefore, Scenario 3 could be a more viable option for urban settlements with the socioeconomic conditions of La Guapil. It not only manages stormwater effectively but also improves water sanitation and enhances recreational green areas. Furthermore, both scenarios proved resilience under climate change projections for RCP8.5 emissions–which predict increased precipitation. The simulation results highlight the effectiveness of these scenarios in managing runoff from the stormwater drainage system, albeit with somewhat reduced efficiency compared to the reference scenario. This slight decrease in performance was anticipated given the more challenging climate conditions modeled.

The significance of this study lies in its contribution to the understanding of NBS applications in tropical urban areas, particularly in socio-economically vulnerable settings. The results provide a foundation for further research into the most efficient NBS for the meteorological conditions of Costa Rica and the feasibility of their implementation in public or private areas. Future research, including laboratory tests and model simulations with field data, will be essential to calibrate and further validate these findings and explore the broader applicability of such solutions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.W.-H. and K.V.-M.; methodology, V.S.-N., F.W.-H. and K.V.-M.; software, V.S.-N. and F.W.-H.; formal analysis, V.S.-N. and F.W.-H.; investigation, V.S.-N.; resources, F.W.-H. and K.V.-M.; data curation, V.S.-N., F.W.-H. and K.V.-M.; writing—original draft preparation, V.S.-N.; writing—review and editing, V.S.-N., F.W.-H. and K.V.-M.; visualization, V.S.-N.; supervision, F.W.-H. and K.V.-M.; project administration, K.V.-M.; funding acquisition, N.G.-A. and M.M.-Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data set is available from the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

Alajuelita Municipality and the research assistants Brayan Alberto Corrales-Navarro and Sergio Fabian Arrieta-Juárez.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Study area location of La Guapil settlement in Alajuelita, Costa Rica.

Figure 2. A flowchart of research procedures. The study includes the collection and processing of the stormwater change scenarios (RCP 8.5) and the quantification of runoff using simulation models for three scenarios.

Figure 3. Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the study area.

Figure 4. Land use of the scenarios analyzed in the study.

Figure 5. Reference intensity ranges and climate change scenarios. This graph shows the increase in intensity relative to the reference intensity, rather than a cumulative increase.

Figure 6. Hydrological response of the study area under different precipitation and land use scenarios—the modeling time was reduced to two hours for the purposes of visualization and analysis. The peak flow represents the maximum amount of water expected to pass through the system, while the volume that flows through the system corresponds to the area under the curve.

Table 1

Temperature increase projections based on climate change scenario RCP8.5 for three periods for the Central Valley, Costa Rica.

Period	Increase in Temperature (°C)
	RCP8.5
2010–2039	1.50
2040–2069	2.70
2070–2099	4.50

Note: The above projections were obtained from [84].

Table 2

SWMM modeling parameters for green roof control.

	Parameter	Value	Unit	Means of Acquisition
Surface	Berm height	200.00	mm	Field measurements
	Vegetation volume	0.00	m3/m3	Field measurements
	Surface roughness(Manning’s n)	0.07	-	Field measurements
	Surface slope	4.50	%	Field measurements
Soil	Thickness	50.00	mm	Theoretical Data
	Porosity	0.585	m3/m3	Field measurements
	Field capacity	0.232	m3/m3	Theoretical Data
	Wilting point	0.116	m3/m3	Theoretical Data
	Conductivity	3.302	mm/h	Theoretical Data
	Conductivity slope	35.00	-	Theoretical Data
	Suction head	88.90	mm	Theoretical Data
Drainage	Thickness	45.0	mm	Field measurements
	Void fraction	0.20	m3/m3	Theoretical Data
	Roughness(Manning’s n)	0.10	-	Field measurements

Note: SWMM User’s Manual [84,87].

Table 3

Volume of water reaching the outfall at two hours.

Scenario	Reference	RCP8.5
		2010–2039	2040–2069	2070–2099
1	599.04	669.61	729.93	841.19
2	253.97	292.46	317.75	366.07
3	486.17	565.33	623.46	726.82

References

1. Rezaei, A.R.; Ismail, Z.B.; Niksokhan, M.H.; Ramli, A.H.; Sidek, L.M.; Dayarian, M.A. Investigating the Effective Factors Influencing Surface Runoff Generation in Urban Catchments—A Review. Desalination Water Treat.; 2019; 164, pp. 276-292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2019.24359]

2. Hu, S.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, T. Assessing the Effect of Land Use Change on Surface Runoff in a Rapidly Urbanized City: A Case Study of the Central Area of Beijing. Land; 2020; 9, 17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land9010017]

3. Zang, W.; Liu, S.; Huang, S.; Li, J.; Fu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Zheng, J. Impact of Urbanization on Hydrological Processes under Different Precipitation Scenarios. Nat. Hazards; 2019; 99, pp. 1233-1257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3534-2]

4. Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Liang, C.; Xu, J.; Pan, G. Impacts and Sensitivity Analysis of Imperviousness Area and Connectivity on Surface Runoff under a Plot-scale Rainfall Simulation Experiment. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.; 2022; 58, pp. 1279-1292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.13066]

5. Vorobevskii, I.; Al Janabi, F.; Schneebeck, F.; Bellera, J.; Krebs, P. Urban Floods: Linking the Overloading of a Storm Water Sewer System to Precipitation Parameters. Hydrology; 2020; 7, 35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/hydrology7020035]

6. Bian, G.; Du, J.; Song, M.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Li, R.; Wu, S.; Duan, Z.; Xu, C.-Y. Detection and Attribution of Flood Responses to Precipitation Change and Urbanization: A Case Study in Qinhuai River Basin, Southeast China. Hydrol. Res.; 2020; 51, pp. 351-365. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/nh.2020.063]

7. Li, P.; Zuo, D.; Xu, Z.; Gao, X.; Peng, D.; Kan, G.; Sun, W.; Pang, B.; Yang, H. Impact of Urbanization on Variability of Annual and Flood Season Precipitation in a Typical City of North China. Hydrol. Res.; 2020; 51, pp. 1150-1169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/nh.2020.176]

8. Ampomah, R.; Hosseiny, H.; Zhang, L.; Smith, V.; Sample-Lord, K. A Regression-Based Prediction Model of Suspended Sediment Yield in the Cuyahoga River in Ohio Using Historical Satellite Images and Precipitation Data. Water; 2020; 12, 881. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12030881]

9. Popp, A.L.; Weatherl, R.; Moeck, C.; Hollender, J.; Schirmer, M. Assessing Hydrology, Biogeochemistry, and Organic Micropollutants in an Urban Stream-Aquifer System: An Interdisciplinary Data Set. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci.; 2024; 129, e2023JG007827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2023JG007827]

10. Göbel, P.; Dierkes, C.; Coldewey, W.G. Storm Water Runoff Concentration Matrix for Urban Areas. J. Contam. Hydrol.; 2007; 91, pp. 26-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2006.08.008]

11. Silva, D.F.; Goldenfum, J.A.; Simonovic, S.P.; Dornelles, F. Impacts of Climate Change on the Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves of Two Urbanized Areas in Brazil Using the High-Resolution Eta Atmospheric Model. Urban. Water J.; 2023; 20, pp. 123-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2022.2155848]

12. Bai, H.; Dong, X.; Zeng, S.; Chen, J. Assessing the Potential Impact of Future Precipitation Trends on Urban Drainage Systems under Multiple Climate Change Scenarios. Int. J. Glob. Warm.; 2016; 10, 437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2016.079776]

13. Zhang, H.; Yang, Z.; Cai, Y.; Qiu, J.; Huang, B. Impacts of Climate Change on Urban Drainage Systems by Future Short-Duration Design Rainstorms. Water; 2021; 13, 2718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w13192718]

14. Ruangpan, L.; Vojinovic, Z.; Di Sabatino, S.; Leo, L.S.; Capobianco, V.; Oen, A.M.P.; McClain, M.E.; Lopez-Gunn, E. Nature-Based Solutions for Hydro-Meteorological Risk Reduction: A State-of-the-Art Review of the Research Area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.; 2020; 20, pp. 243-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-243-2020]

15. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Walters, G.; Janzen, C.; Maginnis, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges; IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en]

16. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Andrade, A.; Dalton, J.; Dudley, N.; Jones, M.; Kumar, C.; Maginnis, S.; Maynard, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Renaud, F.G. et al. Core Principles for Successfully Implementing and Upscaling Nature-Based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2019; 98, pp. 20-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014]

17. Liu, T.; Lawluvy, Y.; Shi, Y.; Yap, P.-S. Low Impact Development (LID) Practices: A Review on Recent Developments, Challenges and Prospects. Water Air Soil Pollut.; 2021; 232, 344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05262-5]

18. Barton, A.B.; Argue, J.R. A Review of the Application of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) to Residential Development in Australia. Australas. J. Water Resour.; 2007; 11, pp. 31-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2007.11465309]

19. Andoh, R.Y.G.; Iwugo, K.O. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: A UK Perspective. Global Solutions for Urban Drainage; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2002; pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40644(2002)19]

20. Liu, Y.; Engel, B.A.; Flanagan, D.C.; Gitau, M.W.; McMillan, S.K.; Chaubey, I. A Review on Effectiveness of Best Management Practices in Improving Hydrology and Water Quality: Needs and Opportunities. Sci. Total Environ.; 2017; 601–602, pp. 580-593. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.212]

21. Wang, J.; Banzhaf, E. Towards a Better Understanding of Green Infrastructure: A Critical Review. Ecol. Indic.; 2018; 85, pp. 758-772. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.018]

22. Liao, K.-H.; Deng, S.; Tan, P.Y. Blue-Green Infrastructure: New Frontier for Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 203-226. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4113-6_10]

23. Nalau, J.; Becken, S.; Mackey, B. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Review of the Constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2018; 89, pp. 357-364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.014]

24. Wickramasinghe, D. Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.360]

25. Magnier, J.; Fribourg-Blanc, B.; Lemann, T.; Witing, F.; Critchley, W.; Volk, M. Natural/Small Water Retention Measures: Their Contribution to Ecosystem-Based Concepts. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 1308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16031308]

26. Qi, Y.; Chan, F.K.S.; Thorne, C.; O’Donnell, E.; Quagliolo, C.; Comino, E.; Pezzoli, A.; Li, L.; Griffiths, J.; Sang, Y. et al. Addressing Challenges of Urban Water Management in Chinese Sponge Cities via Nature-Based Solutions. Water; 2020; 12, 2788. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12102788]

27. MacKinnon, K.; Sobrevila, C.; Valerie, H. Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Adaptation: Nature-Based Solutions from the World Bank Portfolio; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.

28. Eggermont, H.; Balian, E.; Azevedo, J.M.N.; Beumer, V.; Brodin, T.; Claudet, J.; Fady, B.; Grube, M.; Keune, H.; Lamarque, P. et al. Nature-Based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe. GAIA—Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc.; 2015; 24, pp. 243-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.9]

29. European Commission. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities: Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on “Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities”; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, UK, 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2777/765301]

30. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; García, J. What Are Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)? Setting Core Ideas for Concept Clarification. Nat.-Based Solut.; 2022; 2, 100009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009]

31. Da Silva, F. Assessment of Nature-Based Solutions Optimizer (NBS-OPT) for Urban Stormwater Management. Master’s Thesis; Aalto University: Espoo, Finland, 2021; Available online: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/items/88b6f811-d61d-4cc6-acc5-4a913f389e8a (accessed on 2 April 2024).

32. Rosenberger, L.; Leandro, J.; Pauleit, S.; Erlwein, S. Sustainable Stormwater Management under the Impact of Climate Change and Urban Densification. J. Hydrol.; 2021; 596, 126137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126137]

33. Zölch, T.; Henze, L.; Keilholz, P.; Pauleit, S. Regulating Urban Surface Runoff through Nature-Based Solutions—An Assessment at the Micro-Scale. Environ. Res.; 2017; 157, pp. 135-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.023]

34. Huang, Y.; Tian, Z.; Ke, Q.; Liu, J.; Irannezhad, M.; Fan, D.; Hou, M.; Sun, L. Nature-based Solutions for Urban Pluvial Flood Risk Management. WIREs Water; 2020; 7, e1421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1421]

35. Ferreira, C.S.; Mourato, S.; Kasanin-Grubin, M.; Ferreira, A.J.; Destouni, G.; Kalantari, Z. Effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions in Mitigating Flood Hazard in a Mediterranean Peri-Urban Catchment. Water; 2020; 12, 2893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12102893]

36. Di Natale, C.M. Climate Change Adaptation Using Low Impact Development Solutions in an Urban Catchment, Politecnico di Torino. 2022; Available online: https://webthesis.biblio.polito.it/24177/ (accessed on 2 April 2024).

37. Zamani, M.G.; Saniei, K.; Nematollahi, B.; Zahmatkesh, Z.; Moghadari Poor, M.; Nikoo, M.R. Developing Sustainable Strategies by LID Optimization in Response to Annual Climate Change Impacts. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 416, 137931. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137931]

38. Bibi, T.S. Modeling Urban Stormwater Management in the Town of Dodola Based on Landuse and Climate Change Using SWMM 5.1. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud.; 2022; 44, 101267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101267]

39. Ghodsi, S.H.; Zahmatkesh, Z.; Goharian, E.; Kerachian, R.; Zhu, Z. Optimal Design of Low Impact Development Practices in Response to Climate Change. J. Hydrol.; 2020; 580, 124266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124266]

40. Davies, C.; Chen, W.Y.; Sanesi, G.; Lafortezza, R. The European Union Roadmap for Implementing Nature-Based Solutions: A Review. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2021; 121, pp. 49-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.018]

41. Al Sayah, M.J.; Versini, P.-A.; Schertzer, D. H2020 Projects and EU Research Needs for Nature-Based Adaptation Solutions. Urban. Clim.; 2022; 44, 101229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101229]

42. Bona, S.; Silva-Afonso, A.; Gomes, R.; Matos, R.; Rodrigues, F. Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas: A European Analysis. Appl. Sci.; 2022; 13, 168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app13010168]

43. Scharf, B.; Kogler, M.; Kraus, F.; Garcia Perez, I.; Gutierrez Garcia, L. NBS Impact Evaluation with GREENPASS Methodology Shown by the Case Study ‘Fischbeker Höfe’ in Hamburg/Germany. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 9167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13169167]

44. Salata, S.; Ronchi, S.; Giaimo, C.; Arcidiacono, A.; Pantaloni, G.G. Performance-Based Planning to Reduce Flooding Vulnerability Insights from the Case of Turin (North-West Italy). Sustainability; 2021; 13, 5697. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13105697]

45. Van Cauwenbergh, N.; Dourojeanni, P.A.; van der Zaag, P.; Brugnach, M.; Dartee, K.; Giordano, R.; Lopez-Gunn, E. Beyond TRL—Understanding Institutional Readiness for Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2022; 127, pp. 293-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.09.021]

46. Saha, D.; Paterson, R.G. Local Government Efforts to Promote the “Three Es” of Sustainable Development. J. Plan. Educ. Res.; 2008; 28, pp. 21-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08321803]

47. O’Donnell, E.C.; Woodhouse, R.; Thorne, C.R. Evaluating the Multiple Benefits of a Sustainable Drainage Scheme in Newcastle, UK. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Manag.; 2018; 171, pp. 191-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jwama.16.00103]

48. van Roon, M. Low Impact Urban Design and Development: Catchment-Based Structure Planning to Optimise Ecological Outcomes. Urban. Water J.; 2011; 8, pp. 293-308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2011.598172]

49. Shaver, E.; Puddephatt, J. A Multi-Faceted Approach to Implementation of Low Impact Design in Auckland, New Zealand. Low Impact Development; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2008; pp. 25-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41007(331)3]

50. Beck, H.E.; Zimmermann, N.E.; McVicar, T.R.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Wood, E.F. Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-Km Resolution. Sci. Data; 2018; 5, 180214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30375988]

51. Lim, H.S.; Lu, X.X. Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management in the Tropics: An Evaluation of Singapore’s ABC Waters Program. J. Hydrol.; 2016; 538, pp. 842-862. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.063]

52. Majidi, A.N.; Vojinovic, Z.; Alves, A.; Weesakul, S.; Sanchez, A.; Boogaard, F.; Kluck, J. Planning Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Flood Reduction and Thermal Comfort Enhancement. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 6361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11226361]

53. Irvine, K.N.; Suwanarit, A.; Likitswat, F.; Srilertchaipanij, H.; Sahavacharin, A.; Wongwatcharapaiboon, J.; Boonkam, P.; Ingegno, M.; Janpathompong, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Enhance Urban Flood Resiliency: Case Study of a Thailand Smart District. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag.; 2023; 9, 43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40899-023-00821-6]

54. Chaosakul, T.; Koottatep, T.; Irvine, K. Low Impact Development Modeling to Assess Localized Flood Reduction in Thailand. J. Water Manag. Model.; 2013; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.R246-18]

55. Rezaei, A.R.; Ismail, Z.; Niksokhan, M.H.; Dayarian, M.A.; Ramli, A.H.; Shirazi, S.M. A Quantity–Quality Model to Assess the Effects of Source Control Stormwater Management on Hydrology and Water Quality at the Catchment Scale. Water; 2019; 11, 1415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w11071415]

56. Loc, H.; Babel, M.; Weesakul, S.; Irvine, K.; Duyen, P. Exploratory Assessment of SUDS Feasibility in Nhieu Loc-Thi Nghe Basin, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Br. J. Environ. Clim. Change; 2015; 5, pp. 91-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9734/BJECC/2015/11534]

57. Mercado, G.; Wild, T.; Hernandez-Garcia, J.; Baptista, M.D.; van Lierop, M.; Bina, O.; Inch, A.; Ode Sang, Å.; Buijs, A.; Dobbs, C. et al. Supporting Nature-Based Solutions via Nature-Based Thinking across European and Latin American Cities. Ambio; 2024; 53, pp. 79-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01920-6]

58. Marino, R.; Kuller, M.; Zurita, B.; Carrasco, L.; Gosciniak, P.; Kustosik, K.; Riveros, A. Assessment of Public Space Potential for Climate Change Adaptation in Three Colombian Cities: Nature-Based Solutions and Urban Design Guidelines. Water Pract. Technol.; 2024; 19, pp. 1696-1709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2024.089]

59. Marques, A.L.; Alvim, A.B.; Pereira, I.A.; Leite, C. Nature-Based Solutions in Peri-Urban Areas of Latin American Cities: Lessons from São Paulo, Brazil; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 535-547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36320-7_34]

60. Torres, P.H.C.; de Souza, D.T.P.; Momm, S.; Travassos, L.; Picarelli, S.B.N.; Jacobi, P.R.; da Silva Moreno, R. Just Cities and Nature-Based Solutions in the Global South: A Diagnostic Approach to Move beyond Panaceas in Brazil. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2023; 143, pp. 24-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.017]

61. Hack, J.; Schröter, B. Nature-Based Solutions for River Restoration in Metropolitan Areas: The Example of Costa Rica. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures; Brears, R. Springer Nature: New York, NY, USA, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51812-7_166-1]

62. Neumann, V.A.; Hack, J. Revealing and Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions within a Real-World Laboratory in Costa Rica. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.; 2022; 93, 106737. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106737]

63. Espinal-Giron, A.; Benegas Negri, L.; Brenes, C.; Birkel, C.; Prins, C. Assessing Potential Effects of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) on Water Ecosystem Service in the Interurban Micro-Watershed Río Torres, Costa Rica. Forests; 2023; 14, 937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f14050937]

64. Lopes Monteiro, C.; Bonilla Brenes, J.R.; Serrano-Pacheco, A.; Hack, J. Multi-Criteria Site Selection and Hydraulic Modeling of Green Flood Retention Measures in a Highly Urbanized Basin in Costa Rica. Urban. For. Urban. Green.; 2023; 85, 127957. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127957]

65. Singh, A.; Sarma, A.K.; Hack, J. Cost-Effective Optimization of Nature-Based Solutions for Reducing Urban Floods Considering Limited Space Availability. Environ. Process.; 2020; 7, pp. 297-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40710-019-00420-8]

66. Chen, V.; Bonilla Brenes, J.R.; Chapa, F.; Hack, J. Development and Modelling of Realistic Retrofitted Nature-Based Solution Scenarios to Reduce Flood Occurrence at the Catchment Scale. Ambio; 2021; 50, pp. 1462-1476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01493-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33496943]

67. Neumann, V.A.; Hack, J. A Methodology of Policy Assessment at the Municipal Level: Costa Rica’s Readiness for the Implementation of Nature-Based-Solutions for Urban Stormwater Management. Sustainability; 2019; 12, 230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12010230]

68. Pérez Rubi, M.; Hack, J. Co-Design of Experimental Nature-Based Solutions for Decentralized Dry-Weather Runoff Treatment Retrofitted in a Densely Urbanized Area in Central America. Ambio; 2021; 50, pp. 1498-1513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01457-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33550572]

69. Seddon, N.; Chausson, A.; Berry, P.; Girardin, C.A.J.; Smith, A.; Turner, B. Understanding the Value and Limits of Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change and Other Global Challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.; 2020; 375, 20190120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120]

70. Ávila Calzada, C.; García García, M. Formas Urbanas, Paisaje, Ecourbanismo. Ciudad y Formas Urbanas. Perspectivas Transversales, Actas del II Congreso Internacional ISUF-H; Monclús Fraga, F.J.; Díez Medina, C. Institución Fernando el Católico; Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza: Zaragoza, Spain, 2018; Volume 7, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26754/uz.9788417358860]

71. Quesada-Román, A. Disaster Risk Assessment of Informal Settlements in the Global South. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 10261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141610261]

72. Municipalidad de Alajuelita. Proyecto PLANES DE DESARROLLO HUMANO LOCAL (PCDHL) Y PLANES ESTRATÉGICOS MUNICIPALES (PEM): Herramientas Para Hacer Frente a Las Asimetrías Del Desarrollo En Costa Rica; Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica (MIDEPLAN), Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD): Alajuelita, Costa Rica, 2012; Available online: https://www.munialajuelita.go.cr/images/Planes_2021/PDHL_final_Alajuelita.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2024).

73. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). World Cities Report 2022; United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat): Nairobi, Kenya, 2022; Available online: https://onu-habitat.org/WCR/ (accessed on 2 April 2024).

74. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC). Estimación de Población y Vivienda 2022: Resultados Generales; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC): San José, Costa Rica, 2023; Available online: https://admin.inec.cr/sites/default/files/2023-07/rePoblacResultadosGenerales_Estimacion_poblacion_vivienda_2022.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).

75. Contreras, D.; Chamorro, A.; Wilkinson, S. Review Article: The Spatial Dimension in the Assessment of Urban Socio-Economic Vulnerability Related to Geohazards. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.; 2020; 20, pp. 1663-1687. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1663-2020]

76. DJI Enterprise. DJI Terra. Shenzhen 2024. Available online: https://enterprise.dji.com/dji-terra/downloads (accessed on 26 April 2023).

77. Terrasolid. Terrasolid. Helsinki 2024. Terrasolid. Available online: https://terrasolid.com/ (accessed on 26 April 2023).

78. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (TR-55); 2nd ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation, Service Conservation Engineering Division: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.

79. Rojas-Morales, N. Curvas de Intensidad, Duración, Frecuencia de Algunas Estaciones Meteorológicas Automáticas; Instituto Meteorológico Nacional: San José, Costa Rica, 2011; Available online: http://cglobal.imn.ac.cr/documentos/publicaciones/CuInDuFreAlEsAutomaticas/offline/download.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2023).

80. Martel, J.-L.; Brissette, F.P.; Lucas-Picher, P.; Troin, M.; Arsenault, R. Climate Change and Rainfall Intensity–Duration–Frequency Curves: Overview of Science and Guidelines for Adaptation. J. Hydrol. Eng.; 2021; 26, 03121001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0002122]

81. Ball, J.; Babister, M.; Nathan, R.; Weeks, W.; Weinmann, E.; Retallick, M.; Testoni, I. Australian Rainfall and Runoff: A Guide to Flood Estimation; Commonwealth of Australia: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.

82. Canadian Standards Association. Technical Guide-Infrastructure in Permafrost: A Guideline for Climate Change Adaptation. 2019; Available online: https://climatechange.toolkitnwtac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2019/08/Technical-Guide-Infrastructure-CSA.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2023).

83. Martinkova, M.; Kysely, J. Overview of Observed Clausius-Clapeyron Scaling of Extreme Precipitation in Midlatitudes. Atmosphere; 2020; 11, 786. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080786]

84. Alvarado Gamboa, L.F. Proyecciones de Cambio Climático Regionalizadas Para Costa Rica (Escenarios RCP-2.6 y RCP-8.5); IMN-PNUD: San José, Costa Rica, 2021; Available online: http://cglobal.imn.ac.cr/index.php/publications/proyecciones-de-cambio-climatico-regionalizadas-para-costa-rica-escenarios-rcp-2-6-y-rcp-8-5/ (accessed on 26 April 2023).

85. Chow, V.T.; Maidment, D.R.; Mays, L.W. Applied Hydrology; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1988.

86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Storm Water Management Model (SWMM); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Durham, NC, USA, 2024; Available online: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/storm-water-management-model-swmm (accessed on 18 June 2024).

87. Rossman, L.A. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual Version 5.1; National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2015.

88. Cascone, S. Green Roof Design: State of the Art on Technology and Materials. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 3020. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11113020]

89. Jeffers, S.; Garner, B.; Hidalgo, D.; Daoularis, D.; Warmerdam, O. Insights into Green Roof Modeling Using SWMM LID Controls for Detention-Based Designs. J. Water Manag. Model.; 2022; 30, C484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.C484]

90. Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission). EU Policy Document on Natural Water Retention Measures: By the Drafting Team of the WFD CIS Working Group Programme of Measures (WG PoM); Luxembourg, UK, 2014; Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/396202 (accessed on 18 June 2024).

91. Villón Béjar, M. Diseño de Estructuras Hidráulicas; Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica: Cartago, Costa Rica, 2022.

92. Te Chow, V. Open-Channel Hydraulics; Blackburn Press: Caldwell, NJ, USA, 2009.

93. Shields, A. Application of Similarity Principles and Turbulence Research to Bed-Load Movement; Soil Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1936.

94. Team Iber. Iber. Coruña 2024. Available online: https://iberaula.es/21 (accessed on 18 June 2024).

95. Hafnaoui, M.A.; Debabeche, M. Numerical Modeling of the Hydraulic Jump Location Using 2D Iber Software. Model. Earth Syst. Environ.; 2021; 7, pp. 1939-1946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00942-3]

96. Bladé, E.; Cea, L.; Corestein, G.; Escolano, E.; Puertas, J.; Vázquez-Cendón, E.; Dolz, J.; Coll, A. Iber: Herramienta de Simulación Numérica Del Flujo En Ríos. Rev. Int. De Métodos Numéricos Para Cálculo Y Diseño En Ing.; 2014; 30, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rimni.2012.07.004]

97. Leandro, J.; Djordjević, S.; Chen, A.S.; Savić, D.A.; Stanić, M. Calibration of a 1D/1D Urban Flood Model Using 1D/2D Model Results in the Absence of Field Data. Water Sci. Technol.; 2011; 64, pp. 1016-1024. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.467]

98. Sañudo, E.; Cea, L.; Puertas, J. Modelling Pluvial Flooding in Urban Areas Coupling the Models Iber and SWMM. Water; 2020; 12, 2647. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12092647]

99. Czemiel Berndtsson, J. Green Roof Performance towards Management of Runoff Water Quantity and Quality: A Review. Ecol. Eng.; 2010; 36, pp. 351-360. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.12.014]

100. Palla, A.; Gnecco, I. Hydrologic Modeling of Low Impact Development Systems at the Urban Catchment Scale. J. Hydrol.; 2015; 528, pp. 361-368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.050]

101. Arjenaki, M.O.; Sanayei, H.R.Z.; Heidarzadeh, H.; Mahabadi, N.A. Modeling and Investigating the Effect of the LID Methods on Collection Network of Urban Runoff Using the SWMM Model (Case Study: Shahrekord City). Model. Earth Syst. Environ.; 2021; 7, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00870-2]

102. Paithankar, D.N.; Taji, S.G. Investigating the Hydrological Performance of Green Roofs Using Storm Water Management Model. Mater. Today Proc.; 2020; 32, pp. 943-950. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.085]

103. Chen, C.-F. Performance Evaluation and Development Strategies for Green Roofs in Taiwan: A Review. Ecol. Eng.; 2013; 52, pp. 51-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.083]

104. Trinh, D.H.; Chui, T.F.M. Assessing the Hydrologic Restoration of an Urbanized Area via an Integrated Distributed Hydrological Model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.; 2013; 17, pp. 4789-4801. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4789-2013]

105. Manso, M.; Teotónio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Green Roof and Green Wall Benefits and Costs: A Review of the Quantitative Evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2021; 135, 110111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110111]

106. Rosa, D.W.B.; Nascimento, N.O.; Moura, P.M.; Macedo, G.D. Assessment of the Hydrological Response of an Urban Watershed to Rainfall-Runoff Events in Different Land Use Scenarios—Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. Water Sci. Technol.; 2020; 81, pp. 679-693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.148]

107. Simmons, M.T.; Gardiner, B.; Windhager, S.; Tinsley, J. Green Roofs Are Not Created Equal: The Hydrologic and Thermal Performance of Six Different Extensive Green Roofs and Reflective and Non-Reflective Roofs in a Sub-Tropical Climate. Urban. Ecosyst.; 2008; 11, pp. 339-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-0069-4]

108. Akther, M.; He, J.; Chu, A.; Huang, J.; Van Duin, B. A Review of Green Roof Applications for Managing Urban Stormwater in Different Climatic Zones. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 2864. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10082864]

109. Teotónio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Eco-Solutions for Urban Environments Regeneration: The Economic Value of Green Roofs. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 199, pp. 121-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.084]

110. Tan Yok, P.; Sia, A. A Pilot Green Roof Research Project in Singapore. Third Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference; Citeseer: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.

111. Liberalesso, T.; Oliveira Cruz, C.; Matos Silva, C.; Manso, M. Green Infrastructure and Public Policies: An International Review of Green Roofs and Green Walls Incentives. Land. Use Policy; 2020; 96, 104693. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104693]

112. Shamsudin, S.; Dan’azumi, S.; Aris, A.; Yusop, Z. Optimum Combination of Pond Volume and Outlet Capacity of a Stormwater Detention Pond Using Particle Swarm Optimization. Urban. Water J.; 2014; 11, pp. 127-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2013.768680]

113. Moazzem, S.; Bhuiyan, M.; Muthukumaran, S.; Fagan, J.; Jegatheesan, V. A Critical Review of Nature-Based Systems (NbS) to Treat Stormwater in Response to Climate Change and Urbanization. Curr. Pollut. Rep.; 2024; 10, pp. 286-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40726-024-00297-8]

114. Sahoo, S.N.; Pekkat, S. Detention Ponds for Managing Flood Risk Due to Increased Imperviousness: Case Study in an Urbanizing Catchment of India. Nat. Hazards Rev.; 2018; 19, 05017008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000271]

115. Sang, G.Q.; Cao, S.L.; Wei, Z.B.; Zheng, C.Q. Research on Urban Storm Flood Processes under Two Measures: Detention Pond and Retention Pond. Appl. Mech. Mater.; 2012; 166–169, pp. 2643-2648. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.166-169.2643]

116. Goncalves, M.; Zischg, J.; Rau, S.; Sitzmann, M.; Rauch, W.; Kleidorfer, M. Modeling the Effects of Introducing Low Impact Development in a Tropical City: A Case Study from Joinville, Brazil. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 728. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10030728]

117. Pereira Souza, F.; Leite Costa, M.E.; Koide, S. Hydrological Modelling and Evaluation of Detention Ponds to Improve Urban Drainage System and Water Quality. Water; 2019; 11, 1547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w11081547]

118. Gavrić, S.; Flanagan, K.; Österlund, H.; Blecken, G.-T.; Viklander, M. Facilitating Maintenance of Stormwater Ponds: Comparison of Analytical Methods for Determination of Metal Pollution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 74877-74893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20694-0]

119. Li, Y.; Babcock, R.W. Green Roof Hydrologic Performance and Modeling: A Review. Water Sci. Technol.; 2014; 69, pp. 727-738. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.770]