Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-017-0331-0
REPORT
Exploring green infrastructure benefits at house
and neighborhood scale: case study of Illinois, USA
Jinki Kim1
Received: 5 September 2016 / Revised: 27 June 2017 / Accepted: 29 June 2017 / Published online: 14 October 2017
 International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan KK 2017
Abstract Recently, the green infrastructure (GI) concept
has been adopted by many cities for stormwater manage-
ment even though doubt still remains as to whether it can
be fully embedded into planning and design. As many
researchers have stated, GI planning has been discussed as
offering a number of broad benefits in ecological, eco-
nomic, and social spheres. The aim of this study is to
examine the benefits of GI which can be used at various
ranges of scale to support the principles of low impact
development (LID). Case studies of two different scales,
site scale and neighborhood scale, have shown ecological,
social, and economic benefits of GI. The projects include
GI elements and LID strategies such as green roof, rain
barrels, porous pavement, rain garden, gravel grass, vege-
tated swales, and retention basins. The result indicates that
GI elements are effective in detaining stormwater and
reducing the amount of runoff. Native prairie grasses,
sedges, and plantings also improved habitat value and led
to a noticeable increase in birds, bees, and butterflies. The
GI project provided outdoor activities, promoted social
interaction, and showed a positive effect on economic
spheres as well. Quantification of these benefits is impor-
tant for landscape architects, planners, and policy makers
because it can provide better strategies for GI planning.
Keywords Green infrastructure
LID
Stormwater
management
GI benefits
& Jinki Kim
jkkim12@kongju.ac.kr
1
Kongju National University, Gongju, Republic of Korea
Introduction
Green infrastructure (GI) is an emerging planning and
design concept that is principally structured by a hybrid
hydrological/drainage network, complementing and linking
remnant green areas with built infrastructure that provides
ecological functions (Ahern 2007). Originally, GI was
identified with parkland, forests, wetland, greenbelts, or
floodways in and around cities that provided improved
quality of life or ecosystem services such as water filtration
and flood control. Though GI has been defined in several
ways, the basic concept of GI is a strategically planned and
managed network of wilderness, parks, greenways, con-
servation easements, and working lands with conservation
value that supports native species, maintains natural eco-
logical processes, sustains air and water resources, and
contributes to the health and quality of life for communities
and people (Benedict and McMahon 2006).
While the term was used in land conservation circles to
describe a planned and managed network of natural
resources in a community or watershed, more recently, the
term has been adopted by the water quality world to refer to
approaches that divert stormwater into natural areas, rather
than directly into storm sewers. The United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (US EPA) suggested 11 GI
elements that can be woven into a community, from small-
scale elements integrated into site to larger scale elements
spanning entire watersheds. The elements are downspout
disconnection, rainwater harvesting, rain gardens, planter
boxes, bioswales, permeable pavements, green streets and
alleys, green parking, green roofs, urban tree canopy, and
land conservation (US EPA 2016).
Now, GI is more often related to environmental or
sustainability goals that cities are trying to achieve through
a mix of natural approaches. Most GI projects provide a
123
166
Fig. 1 Front view of the house. Captured from Google Street View on 15 May 2016 (left) and springtime photo from Marcus de la fleur 2005
(right)
number of complimentary benefits for ecological, eco-
nomic, and social spheres and have been increasingly
viewed as a concept that both planners and practitioners
can draw on (Mell 2008). Environmental benefits include
stormwater runoff reduction (Xiao et al. 1998; Armson
et al. 2013; Mentens et al. 2006), reductions in urban heat
island effect (Gaffin et al. 2008; Onishi et al. 2010; Cao
et al. 2010), and air and water quality improvement
(Nowak et al. 2006; Davis et al. 2003). Economic benefits
include both increased property values near trees and
greenspaces and increased sales along greened commercial
corridors (Econsult Corporation 2009; Heckert and Mennis
2012). Social benefits include reduced mental and physical
stress (Parsons et al. 1998; McPherson et al. 2011; Hans-
mann et al. 2007), improved health for nearby neighbors
(Coutts et al. 2010; Branas et al. 2011), moderated mental
fatigue and aggression (Kuo and Sullivan 2001), promotion
of social interaction (Coley et al. 1997; Kuo et al. 1998),
and promoting environmental education (Fjørtoft and
Sageie 2000).
As such, the benefits of GI have been measured by many
researchers. The measurement, however, was conducted
respectively not holistically. There is a need to ensure a
balance among economic development, societal develop-
ment, and environmental protection since these are inter-
dependent and mutually reinforcing components of
sustainable development. Sustainable development is based
on economic development, environmental protection, and
social justice. The fundamental relationship among these
aspects is evident. Society and economy are limited by the
environment and growth of the economy and industry is
limited not only by the environment but also by the limits
of the society. Therefore, this study examines GI cases
embodying the integration and interlinkage of these three
aspects at two different scales, site and neighborhood
123
Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174
scales. The paper also discusses the benefits of GI which
can be used at various ranges of scale to support the
principles of low impact development (LID).
Materials
Site scale: North Elm Avenue house
This project is the first residential GI demonstration project
in the Chicago suburbs. The house sits in a flat area and
looks like an ordinary dwelling unit as shown in Fig. 1.
Designed by a landscape architect who lived on the
building’s first floor, the project was a partnership between
the designer, the property owner, and local nonprofit
organization. The site has been maintained by the dweller
regularly. For an annual spring burn, the dweller applied
for a natural area management permit from the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency and then this was
approved by the local fire department. A yard comprising a
turf lawn and concrete pavement pathways was replaced
with a range of rainwater and stormwater runoff manage-
ment features. The on-site rainwater and stormwater
management features include a 23 m2 green roof, six rain
barrels, an underground cistern, 108 m2 of porous pave-
ment, 24 m2 of gravel grass, 186 m2 of rain garden, and a
37 m2 bioswale (Fig. 2).
• Rain gardens collect and store runoff, while also
creating valuable habitat with native grasses and
sedges. In the front yard, the maximum rain garden
depth is 30 cm, while in the back yard the maximum
depth is 38 cm. The void ratio of rain gardens is around
40% for gravel base and 70% for soil/planting mix.
• A bioswale is situated on the north side of the property
and is designed to infiltrate overflow from the cistern.
Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174 167

Fig. 2 Plan view of sustainable features: 1 green roof, 2 rain barrels, 3 porous pavement, 4 rain garden, 5 gravel grass, 6 cistern, 7 bioswale

Fig. 3 Sustainable features:

rain barrels (a), concrete reuse
(b), bioswale (c), porous
pavement (d), and rain garden
(e). Photo d and e from Marcus
de la fleur (2005)

Because of its location in the shade, the bioswale is
planted with native woodland and savanna species.
• A 4.5 m3, underground cistern collects runoff from the
north roof and stores it for use in irrigating the
vegetable garden.
• The six rain barrels on the site were salvaged or reused.
Each has the capacity to hold 0.2 m3 of roof runoff,
which can be stored and used for irrigation. On the
south side of the property, three rain barrels are tied
together to store water from the roof.
• 15 m2 of permeable pavement replaced impervious
concrete pavement. This concrete pavement was
demolished and broken into 5–8 cm pieces, to create
a gravel base (Fig. 3).
• A conventional, compacted gravel parking stall in the
backyard was replaced with a 24 m2 patch of gravel grass.

123
168 Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174

• Nearly 30 species of native prairie grasses, sedges, and the roof include sedums, blue gamma grass, and
forbs are in the rain gardens, bioswale, and gravel grass. Mexican hat flowers (Table 1).
The green roof, which sits over the front porch,
comprises 7.5 cm of growing medium and 2.5 cm of
Neighborhood scale: Boneyard Creek restoration
drainage aggregate, or gravel. Green roof plantings on
The site is located in downtown of Champaign, Illinois
Table 1 Sustainable features and sizes of North Elm Avenue house USA with an area of 10 acres. This is situated in Boneyard
project
Creek watershed that is the sub-watershed of the larger Salt
Features Size Notes Fork watershed (Fig. 4). Boneyard Creek is a highly
Green roof 23 m2
channelized and engineered waterway that flows through
the city. The creek drains much of the city, including the
Rain barrel 0.2 m3 6ea
central business district and the University of Illinois
Cistern (underground) 4.5 m3 1ea
Campus town area. Poor water quality and flooding issues
Porous pavement 108 m2
prompted the city and university to develop a seven-phase
Gravel grass 24 m2
redevelopment master plan. Phase 2 of this plan, the Sec-
Rain garden 186 m2 Max. depth: front yard
(30 cm), back yard ond Street Detention Basin, restored the curvilinear align-
(38 cm) ment of the original waterway using natural stone terraces
Bioswale 37 m2 to control erosion. The design increased stormwater hold-
Native plants 30 species ing capacity and enhanced ecological function, while cre-
ating new spaces for recreation and enjoyment.
• The sustainable features include two retention basins
with a total storage capacity of 58,000 m3, 1011 m2
rain gardens, 1254 m of paved pathways, 152 m main
promenade, and amphitheater (Fig. 5).
• Two retention basins manage runoff from a 100-year
storm while providing over 20,200 m2 of open space
for recreational use during non-flood conditions
(Fig. 6).
• A 1011 m2 rain garden creates 526 m2 of wetland
habitat and manages stormwater runoff to the site from
University Avenue, a high-traffic arterial. In Scott Park,
a bioswale and rain garden work together to drain and
filter the first flush of water from the adjacent parking
Fig. 4 Boneyard Creek watershed and site location lot (Fig. 7).

Fig. 5 Plan view of Boneyard

Creek restoration: 1 retention
basins, 2 rain garden, 3
bioswale, 4 creek bank, 5
pathway, 6 amphitheater

123
Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174
Fig. 6 Panoramic view of
retention basins and paved
pathways
Fig. 7 Rain garden in the Northeast corner (left) and bioswale in Scott Park (right)
• Plantings include 250 medium-large shade trees, 100
deciduous and evergreen shrubs, and over 2000 indi-
vidual ornamental perennials.
Methods
Site scale: North Elm Avenue house
For the stormwater management benefit, TR-551 in DuPage
County, IL was employed. Based on rainfall return period
from 1 to 100 year, the 24-h rainfall amount in millimeters
was determined by WinTR-55 Small Watershed Hydrology
program2 (Fig. 8a). Rainfall distribution type is type II
which is typical of most of the USA including Illinois.
Cover type and hydrologic conditions are 1/4 acre of
1
Technical Release 55 (TR55) issued by the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) presents procedures to calculate storm runoff
volume, peak rate of discharge, hydrographs, and storage volumes
required for floodwater reservoirs. These procedures are applicable in
small watersheds, especially urbanizing watersheds, in the USA.
2
WinTR-55 Small Watershed Hydrology computer model is a
Windows-based program developed by Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service (NRCS) for analysis of the hydrology of the small
watershed system.
169
residential districts and B type of hydrologic soil type
respectively. Therefore, curve number (CN) 75 was
determined. The equivalent runoff volume in cubic meters
was calculated by multiplying the 24-h rainfall amount in
centimeters by the catchment area 697 m2. For example,
runoff volume of rainfall return period 1 year was calcu-
lated by multiplying the 24-h rainfall amount 6.38 cm by
the area 697 m2. As surface storage of runoff3 is 37.20 m3
and subsurface void volume4 is 89.28 m3, the storage
capacity of the rain garden is 126.48 m3. The ratio of
storage volume and runoff volume was estimated
(Table 2). Annual carbon sequestration was calculated
using National Highway System sequestration rates
(United States Department of Transportation 2010). The
total area of native prairie grasses and sedges in the rain
garden, bioswale, and roof garden is 0.093 acres and a
carbon sequestration rate of grasses of 0.70 metric tons per
year is applied to this area (Table 3). To save on
3
Surface storage of runoff = (surface area of soil/planting
mix) 9 (average depth) = 186 m2 9 0.2 m = 37.20 m3.
4
Subsurface void volume = (surface area of soil/planting mix) 9
(depth of soil/planting mix) 9 (void % of soil/planting mix) ? (sur-
face area of gravel base) 9 (depth of gravel base) 9 (void % of gravel
base) = (186 m2 9 0.6 m 9 0.7) ? (186 m 2 9 0.15 m 9 0.4) =
89.28 m3 .
123
170 Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174

Fig. 8 Storm data of DuPage County (a) and Champaign County (b) from WinTR-55

Table 2 Ratio of storage volume and runoff volume was used for calculating water elevation of each phase in
Rainfall 24-h rainfall Runoff 3
Storage (m ) Storage/
both its existing and future conditions. Habitat value,
return period amount (cm) volume runoff physical characteristics of the site, and water quality
(year) (m3) volume parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
turbidity were collected following the USEPA Rapid
1 6.38 44.42 126.48 2.85
Bioassessment Protocols.
2 7.72 53.80 126.48 2.35
5 9.65 67.25 126.48 1.88
10 11.35 79.11 126.48 1.60
Results
25 14.00 97.52 126.48 1.30
50 16.41 114.33 126.48 1.11
Site scale: North Elm Avenue house
100 19.25 134.15 126.48 0.94

Ecological benefits

The project infiltrated or reused rainwater falling on the

Table 3 Estimated annual carbon uptake on the NHS (National site, preventing up to an estimated 94% of the 100-year
Highway System) storm from entering the local municipal stormwater sys-
Plants Carbon sequestration tem. The DuPage County operates 17 flood control facili-
rates (metric tons ties and the facilities have a floodwater storage capacity of
C/ac/year) nearly 15 million tons in total (The County of DuPage
Stormwater Management Operations & Maintenance,
Deciduous 2.16
accessed 5 December 2016). Even if the amount of rain-
Coniferous 2.26
water of the site is very small compared to that of the
Mixed 2.21
municipality, it eliminated the need for potable water for
Grasses 0.70
irrigation. The native prairie grasses and sedges in the
Shrub 0.70
garden sequester 65 kg of carbon5 annually. Nearly 30
species of native prairie grasses, sedges, and forbs are in
the rain gardens, bioswale, and gravel grass. Species
construction costs, reused found materials and salvaged
planted include asters, bottlebrush grass, coneflowers,
materials were estimated.
foxglove, switch grass, wild quinine, etc.; the addition of
these plants led to a noticeable increase in insects, butter-
Neighborhood scale: Boneyard Creek restoration
flies, and birds on the site (see ‘‘Appendix’’ for a list of
plants and insects).
TR-55 in Champaign County, IL was employed for the
stromwater management benefits. The 100-year, 24-h
rainfall amount in millimeters was determined by WinTR-
55 Small Watershed Hydrology program (Fig. 8b).
SWMM, the US EPA’s Stormwater Management Model 5
0.093 ac 9 0.7 C/ac/year = 0.0651 metric tons.

123
Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174
Social benefits
More than 1300 through private and public site tours vis-
ited the site and have been educated. These include 900
visitors during the 2005 Elmhurst Garden Walk, and reg-
ular private tours that draw 15–25 people. Neighbors to the
site took a ‘‘wait and see’’ approach regarding the instal-
lation of the green features like the green roof and bios-
wale. After witnessing the success of these features, local
residents became more interested in adopting similar fea-
tures on their own properties.
Economic benefits
Using salvaged materials and reusing found materials on-
site saved approximately 5400 USD. These savings inclu-
ded $997 from reusing old concrete path materials as
subbase, $1167 from reusing soil from the property for the
rain gardens and bioswales, $640 from turning salvaged
soap barrels into rain barrels, $699 from reusing the
existing cistern after repair, and $1896 from using salvaged
stone pavers to create permeable pavement. This also
prevented 6.7 m3 of materials from entering a landfill. The
site’s stormwater management system eliminates the need
for potable water for irrigation. By eliminating the need for
potable water for irrigation, approximately 50 USD per
year is saved (Chicago Metro District Water Schedule of
Rates, accessed 5 December 2016). Even though there is no
construction cost of the underground cistern and rain bar-
rels owing to reusing salvaged materials, the cost of those
features in this region is $2100 ($360 for rain barrels and
$1740 for cistern) from the calculation of Green Values
National Stormwater Management Calculator (CNT,
accessed 30 April 2017). Therefore, the construction cost
per capacity of rainwater retention is $368 per cubic
meter.6 American Forests used a value of $107 per cubic
meter of storage, obtained from national estimates of
stormwater construction costs (ECONorthwest 2007) and
values were adjusted with an annual inflation rate of 3%.
GI features cost more to build than conventional controls;
however, from an investment perspective, it may control
more stormwater and better improve water quality.
Neighborhood scale: Boneyard Creek restoration
Ecological benefits
The City of Champaign’s Boneyard Creek watershed has
273,833 m3 of constructed detention storage for the
100-year flood. This includes the 57,973 m3 of storage
6 7
Construction cost/capacity of rainwater retention = $2100/
5.7 m3 = $368/m3.
171
provided for the Boneyard Creek Second Street Detention
Basins. The SWMM model showed the storage capacity of
the Second Street Basins as 20,352 m3 in North Basin and
37,621 m3 in South Basin respectively. Since the runoff
volume for a 100-year storm event was 56,735ton7 with a
catchment area 337,912 m2, two detention basins are suf-
ficient for containing stormwater of a 100-year storm event.
SWMM models determined that the site could withstand
both the 50-year, 2-h storm and the 100-year, 2-h storm,
with maximum water surface elevations remaining below
street level at all reaches in the City of Champaign. With
the planned improvements, the model showed that maxi-
mum water surface elevations should stay under street
levels at all reaches in the City of Champaign. The pro-
posed improvements would also provide a 25-year level of
protection to the viaducts at Logan Street, Springfield
Avenue and University Avenue as shown in Table 4.
The project improved habitat value of the site from
‘‘poor/marginal’’ to ‘‘suboptimal’’. US EPA Rapid
Bioassessment habitat scores for the Detention Basin and
Scott Park Stream rose from 58 and 69 (May 2008) to 133
and 135 (August 2012). Ducks, Canada geese, turtles, and
green heron have been observed on the site. Individual
habitat assessment scores fell in the ‘‘poor’’ to ‘‘marginal’’
range, with Section 1 and 3 scoring 69 and Section 2
scoring 58 (CDM 2008; Barbour et al. 2008). Habitat was
evaluated in the North Branch reach and Scott Park reaches
in 2012. Habitat scores indicate that both the North Branch
and Scott Park stream reaches are ‘‘Suboptimal’’, which
meets the target goal and fulfills the success criteria (Cel-
lini 2013). The project improved physical characteristics
and water quality in the creek. According to monitoring
data, water pH dropped from 7.93 to 6.96 in Scott Park and
7.54 to 6.89 in the North Basin. Total number of taxa
increased from 3 to 7 in Scott Park and from 5 to 8 in the
North Basin (Table 5).
Social benefit
The project provides educational and volunteer opportu-
nities for the community. The annual Boneyard Creek
Community Day attracts some 300 volunteers to remove
litter and invasive plants. Since 2010, over 150 planners,
landscape architects, engineers, college students, and
senior citizens have taken educational tours of the site. It
also provides the complete bike path connection between
the University of Illinois campus and downtown Cham-
paign. As of the university’s last mobility survey conducted
2007, 42% of students use bikes at least once a week, and
4% of employees use bikes as their primary mode of
Runoff volume = catchment area 9 24-h rainfall amount for
100-year return period = 337,912 m2 9 0.1679 m = 56,735 m3.
123
172 Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174

Table 4 Viaduct analysis results: future condition neighborhood scale, GI incorporates planning and design
Viaduct Street elev. (ft) 25-year max. water elev. (ft)
approaches such as mixed-use development, urban forestry,
and open space that reduces impervious surfaces and cre-
Logan Street 722.1 721.4 ates walkable, attractive communities. At the site scale, GI
Springfield Avenue 724.1 723.4 mimics natural systems by absorbing stormwater back into
University Avenue 727.7 725.3 the ground, using trees and other natural vegetation to
convert it to water vapor, and using rain barrels or cisterns
to capture and reuse stormwater (US EPA 2016). The site
Table 5 Water quality measurements and habitat assessment scale GI is also referred to as low impact development
Scott Park North Basin (LID), the practices of which are employed in this study.
Gravel grass, rain garden, bioswale, and porous pavement
2008 2012 2008 2012
infiltrate stormwater back into the ground, rain barrel and
pH 7.93 6.96 7.54 6.89 underground cistern harvest and reuse stormwater for irri-
Number taxa 3 7 5 8 gation, and the green roof and native plants hold water and
Habitat score 69 134 58 133 evapotranspirate. These on-site treatment and infiltration of
stormwater management techniques hold up to 94% of the
100-year storm in site scale.
transportation. In 2011, the survey found that 6% of staff, More recently, many cities have recognized that sewer
18% of faculty, and 12% of students use a bicycle as their overflows can be reduced effectively by diverting
primary form of transportation (Wise 2014). stormwater from the sewer system and directing it to areas
where it can be infiltrated or reused. Case studies of two
Economic benefit different scales have shown ecological, social, and eco-
nomic benefits of GI. The projects include GI elements and
On the basis of the interview with restaurant owners around LID strategies such as green roof, rain barrels, porous
the site, visitors to restaurants increased. Even if the eco- pavement, rain garden, gravel grass, vegetated swales, and
nomic benefit cannot be calculated because of the short retention basins.
time period after completion, previous research indicates Existing stormwater modeling such as the rational
that the project allows the possibility for increase in house method and NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
prices, uplift in land values, and increase in economic vice) TR-55 method was found to be excessively conser-
activity. As for the unit construction cost, the storage vative in estimating runoff at residential site scale. It causes
capacity of the Second Street Detention Basins is overengineering of the GI elements. Two rain gardens,
57,973 m3 (20,352 m3 in North Basin and 37,621 m3 in however, covered runoff volume fully during a rain event
South Basin) and the budget is $10.7 million, therefore the 50-year storm and filled to 94% of its capacity during
construction cost per capacity of rainwater retention is 100-year flood. At the neighborhood scale, Boneyard Creek
$185/cubic meter.8 restoration project provided flood protection by containing
The city of Champaign’s Boneyard Creek watershed has stormwater in the detention basin and other GI elements.
273,833 m3 of constructed detention storage for the The project provides 100-year flood protection by con-
100-year flood and the budget of municipal flood-water taining the 57,973 ton of stormwater generated during a
management system is $51 million (Jolley 2015). The 100-year storm event. SWMM model determined that
construction cost per capacity of rainwater retention in this holding stormwater runoff with GI elements ensures that
watershed is $186/cubic meter.9 the maximum water surface elevations stay under street
levels. Native prairie grasses, sedges, and plantings also
improved habitat value and led to a noticeable increase in
Discussion and conclusion birds, bees, and butterflies. These improved physical and
chemical water quality as well.
Green infrastructure is a network of decentralized Both projects provided outdoor education. In particular,
stormwater management practices, such as green roofs, Boneyard Creek restoration project provided outdoor
trees, rain gardens, and permeable pavement, that can activities and improved physical health. Full pedestrian and
capture and infiltrate rain where it falls (CNT 2010). At the bike access is supported by a comprehensive system of
8 pathways that connect the site to the surrounding neigh-
Construction cost/capacity of rainwater retention = $10,700,000/
57,973 m3 = $185/m3. borhood. As a result of this connection, social interaction is
9
Construction cost/capacity of rainwater retention = $51,000,000/ expected.
273,833 m3 = $186/m3.

123
Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174 173

Reusing salvaged materials and harvested stormwater Scientific name Common name
saved money directly. As for the neighborhood scale pro-
ject, visitors to restaurants near the project site increased Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders
(interview with restaurant owners). On the basis of previ- Carex bicknellii Copper-Shouldered Oval sedge
ous research, many economic benefits are expected to Carex radiata Straight-Styled Wood Sedge
result from increase in house prices, uplift in land values, Hystrix patula Bottlebrush Grass
and increase in economic activity. Panicum virgatum Switchgrass
The results of the construction cost analysis indicated Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem Grass
that the GI option cost more to build at site scale. Even Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass
though the GI option provides increased open space, Uniola latifolia Spike Grass
improved downstream water quality, and educational Bouteloua curtipendula Side-Oats Grama
opportunity for the community, initial construction costs of
GI may limit ecological and social benefits. Jurisdictions
may promote GI adoption on site scale by offering an
incentive plan or waivering stormwater utility fees. Insects/bird
This study investigated the benefits of GI in site and Scientific name Common name
neighborhood scales. Sustainable landscape design pro-
Papilio glaucus Tiger Swallowtail Caterpillar
vides not only stormwater management but also wildlife
Manduca sexta Tobacco Caterpillar
habitat enhancement, and social values. Quantification of
Mantis religiosa Praying Mantis
these benefits is important for landscape architects, plan-
Enallagma cyathigerum Damselfly
ners, and policy makers because it can provide better
strategies for GI planning. Vanessa atalanta Red Admiral Butterfly
Papilio polyxenes Black Swallowtail Butterfly
Danaus plexippus Monarch Butterfly
Appendix Apis mellifera Honey Bee
Zale lunata Lunate Zale Moth
Orchelimum nigripes Black-legged Meadow Katydid
Melanoplus differentialis Differential Grasshopper
Tibicen canicularis Dog-day Cicada
Plants Spinus tristis Goldfinch
Scientific name Common name

Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster

Symphyotrichum oolentangiense
Symphyotrichum novae-angliae
Coreopsis lanceolata
Coreopsis tripteris
Echinacea pallida
Echinacea purpurea
Geranium maculatum
Lespedeza capitata
Liatris aspera
Liatris pycnostachya
Monarda Fistulosa
Parthenium integrifolium
Penstemon digitalis
Petalostemum purpureum
Physostegia virginiana
Ratibida pinnata
Rudbeckia hirta
Silphium laciniatum
Solidago speciosa
Sky Blue Aster
New England Aster
Sand Coreopsis
Tall Coreopsis
Pale Purple Coneflower
Purple Coneflower
Wild Geranium
Round-Headed Bush Clover
Rough Blazing Star
Prairie Blazing Star
Wild Bergamot
Wild Quinine
Foxglove Beard Tongue
Purple Prairie Clover
Obedient Plant
Gray-Headed Coneflower
Black-Eyed Susan
Compass Plant
Showy Goldenrod
References
Ahern J (2007) Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension.
IWA, London
Armson D, Stringer P, Ennos AR (2013) The effect of street trees and
amenity grass on urban surface water runoff in Manchester.
Urban For Urban Green 12(3):282–286
Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (2008) Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers:
periphyton, bethic macroinvertebrates, and fish, second edition.
EPA 841-B-99-002. US Environmental Protection Agency;
Office of Water, Washington, D.C
Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2006) Green infrastructure: linking
landscapes and communities. Island, Washington, D.C.
Branas CC, Cheney RA, MacDonald JM, Tam VW, Jackson TD, Ten
Havey TR (2011) A difference-in-differences analysis of health,
safety, and greening vacant urban space. Am J Epidemiol
174(11):1296–1306
CDM (2008) Rapid bioassessment of Boneyard Creek for phase 2.
Boneyard Creek Improvements, City of Champaign
Cao X, Onishi A, Chen J, Imura H (2010) Quantifying the cool island
intensity of urban parks using ASTER and IKONOS data.
Landsc Urban Plan 96(4):224–231

123
174
Cellini J (2013) Annual monitoring report for the Boneyard Creek
project site in Champaign, Illinois (AES Project #12-0248).
Applied Ecological Services, Inc., West Dundee, IL
Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) (2010) The value of
green infrastructure—a guide to recognizing its economic,
environmental and social benefits. Center for Neighborhood
Technology, Chicago, IL
Coley RL, Sullivan WC, Kuo FE (1997) Where does community
grow?: the social context created by nature in urban public
housing. Environ Behav 29(4):468–494
Coutts C, Horner M, Chapin T (2010) Using geographical information
system to model the effects of green space accessibility on
mortality in Florida. Geocarto Int 25(6):471–484
Davis AP, Shokouhian M, Sharma H, Minami C, Winogradoff D
(2003) Water quality improvement through bioretention: lead,
copper, and zinc removal. Water Environ Res 75(1):73–82
Econsult Corporation (2009) Commercial corridors: a strategic
investment framework for Philadelphia. Econsult Corporation,
Philadelphia, PA
ECONorthwest (2007) The economics of low-impact development: a
literature review. ECONorthwest, Eugene, OR
Fjørtoft I, Sageie J (2000) The natural environment as a playground
for children. Landscape description and analyses of a natural
playscape. Landsc Urban Plan 48:83–97
Gaffin SR, Rosenzweig C, Khanbilvardi R, Parshall L, Mahani S,
Glickman H et al (2008) Variations in New York City’s urban
heat island strength over time and space. Theor Appl Climatol
94:1–11
Hansmann R, Hug S-M, Seeland K (2007) Restoration and stress
relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban For
Urban Green 6(4):213–225
Heckert M, Mennis J (2012) The economic impact of greening urban
vacant land: a spatial difference-in-differences analysis. Environ
Plan A 44(12):3010–3027
Kuo FE, Sullivan WC (2001) Environment and crime in the inner
city: does vegetation reduce crime? Environ Behav
33(3):343–367
Kuo FE, Sullivan WC, Coley RL, Brunson L (1998) Fertile ground
for community: inner-city neighborhood common spaces. Am J
Commun Psychol 26(6):823–851
McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Xiao Q, Wu C (2011) Million trees Los
Angeles canopy cover and benefit assessment. Landsc Urban
Plan 99(1):40–50
Mell IC (2008) Green Infrastructure: concepts and planning. Forum
ejournal 8:69–80
123
Landscape Ecol Eng (2018) 14:165–174
Mentens J, Raes D, Hermy M (2006) Green roofs as a tool for solving
the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century?
Landsc Urban Plan 77(3):217–226
Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by
urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban
Green 4:115–123
Onishi A, Cao X, Ito T, Shi F, Imura H (2010) Evaluating the
potential for urban heat-island mitigation by greening parking
lots. Urban For Urban Green 9:323–332
Parsons R, Tassinary LG, Ulrich RS, Hebl MR, Grossman-Alexander
M (1998) The view from the road: implication for the stress
recovery and immunization. J Environ Psychol 18(2):113–139
Wise P (2014) 2014 campus bicycle plan. University of Illinois
Facilities & Services, Illinois
Xiao Q, McPherson EG, Simpson JR, Ustin SL (1998) Rainfall
interception by Sacramento’s urban forest. J Arboric
24(4):235–244
Website
Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT). Green Values National
Stormwater Management Calculator. http://ec2.greenvalues.cnt.
org/national/calculator.php?s=59&print=1. Accessed 30 Apr
2017
Chicago Metro District Water Schedule of Rates. http://www.awroftx.
com/files/IL-pdf-Chicago%20Metro%20Water%202014%20
April%201.pdf Accessed 5 Dec 2016
Jolley T (2015) Flooding complaints on the rise in Champaign. http://
cu-citizenaccess.org/2015/02/25/flooding-complaints-on-the-rise-
in-champaign/. Accessed 30 Apr 2017
Marcus de la fleur (2005) One drop at a time—new resourceful
paradigms at 168 Elm Ave. Elmhurst, Illinois. http://www.
delafleur.com/168_Elm/. Accessed 6 Mar 2017
The County of DuPage Stormwater Management Operations &
Maintenance. http://www.dupageco.org/EDP/Stormwater_Man
agement/30194/ Accessed 5 Dec 2016
United States Department of Transportation (2010) Carbon seques-
tration pilot program: estimated land available for carbon
sequestration in the national highway system. https://www.
fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/publications/car
bon_sequestration/index.cfm. Accessed 15 May 2016
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2016)
What is green infrastructure? https://www.epa.gov/green-infra
structure/what-green-infrastructure. Accessed 15 May 2016