The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Performance Assessment of Rain Gardens1
Abstract
Abstract: The most widely used approach for evaluating the performance of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) such as rain gardens is monitoring, but this approach can involve a long time period to observe a sufficient number and variety of storm events, a high level of effort, and unavoidable uncertainty. In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of three approaches for performance assessment of rain gardens: visual inspection, infiltration rate testing, and synthetic drawdown testing. Twelve rain gardens in Minnesota underwent visual inspection, with four determined to be nonfunctional based on one or more of the following criteria: (1) presence of ponded water, (2) presence of hydric soils, (3) presence of emergent (wetland) vegetation, and (4) failing vegetation. It is believed that these rain gardens failed due to a lack of maintenance. For the remaining eight rain gardens, an infiltrometer was used to determine the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the soil surface at several locations throughout each basin in what is termed infiltration rate testing. The median Ksat values for the rain gardens ranged from 3 to 72 cm/h. Synthetic drawdown testing was performed on three rain gardens by filling the basins with water to capacity where possible and recording water level over time. The observed drain times for two of those rain gardens were in good agreement with predictions based on the median of the infiltrometer measurements. The observed drain time for the third rain garden was much greater than predicted due to the presence of a restrictive soil layer beneath the topsoil. The assessment approaches developed in this research should prove useful for determining whether the construction of the rain garden was performed properly, a rain garden is functioning properly, and for developing maintenance tasks and schedules.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater
Liu, J., Sample, D., Bell, C., & Guan, Y. (2014) · Water · doi:10.3390/w6041069 · Cited by 269
Winston, R. J., Dorsey, J. D., & Hunt, W. F. (2016) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.081 · Cited by 229
Vineyard, D., Ingwersen, W. W., Hawkins, T. R., Xue, X., Demeke, B., & Shuster, W. (2015) · JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · doi:10.1111/1752-1688.12320 · Cited by 112
Temporal and spatial variation of infiltration in urban green infrastructure
Ebrahimian, A., Sample‐Lord, K., Wadzuk, B., & Traver, R. (2020) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.13641 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Asleson, B. C., Nestingen, R. S., Gulliver, J. S., Hozalski, R. M., & Nieber, J. L.
- Venue
- JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-07-29
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1019-1031
- ISSN
- 1093-474X (ISSN-L)
- 1752-1688
- OpenAlex
- W1987576207
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance Assessment of Rain Gardens1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00344.x
- The paper
- Asleson, B. C., Nestingen, R. S., Gulliver, J. S., Hozalski, R. M., & Nieber, J. L. (2009). Performance Assessment of Rain Gardens1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00344.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.