Next Article in Journal
Decoupling the Economic Development from Resource Consumption: Implications and Challenges in Assessing the Evolution of Forest Area in Romania
Next Article in Special Issue
Riverine Plastic Pollution in Asia: Results from a Bibliometric Assessment
Previous Article in Journal
Erosion Map Reliability Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) and Erosion Potential Method (EPM): A Comparison of Mapping Methods, BELGRADE Peri-Urban Area, Serbia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hydrological Cycle Performance at a Permeable Pavement Site and a Raingarden Site in a Subtropical Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/land11071098
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation and Improvement Measures of the Runoff Coefficient of Urban Parks for Sustainable Water Balance

by
Jinkwan Son
1,* and
Taegeun Kwon
2
1
Energy and Environmental Engineering Division, National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration, Jeonju-si 54875, Korea
2
Sanglimwon, Co., Ltd., Seongnam 13590, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(7), 1098; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071098
Submission received: 22 June 2022 / Revised: 12 July 2022 / Accepted: 13 July 2022 / Published: 18 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hydrological Processes in Urban Environments)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As the impermeable sidewalk area increases in urban areas, diverse problems related to water occur. The purposes of this research were to increase the rainwater infiltration rate through water balance analysis and estimate the runoff coefficient according to land cover types in urban parks. The regression equations and runoff coefficients relative to the rainwater infiltration rate were estimated according to the land cover types and applied to eight urban parks. In the results of the experiment, the runoff coefficient was 0.245 for vegetation areas, 0.583 for permeable sidewalks, 0.963 for sidewalk blocks, and 1.000 for impervious sidewalks, which had 100% outflow. The results show that the vegetation area in urban parks is significantly related to rainfall–runoff, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. The average of eight urban parks was 126.52 mm, indicating that 11.80% of the rainfall was recharged into groundwater. Additionally, the average runoff rate was 498.56 mm, indicating that 46.52% was leaked externally. Therefore, it is suggested to decrease the impermeable sidewalk areas in urban parks. Additionally, extending the waterway, swamp, and gravel sidewalk areas is suggested. Urban parks should be developed in order to contribute to hydrological control through the water balance in urban land use.

1. Introduction

Korea’s urban development has been conducted to improve people’s lives [1], and the world’s promotion of urban development is expanding rapidly [2]. Modifications to plans in urban development are due to environmental and economic changes and overpopulation, and various problems arise regarding the natural environment and urban landscape [1,3,4]. Advancement and indiscreet exploitation due to urban development negatively influence environmental and ecological sectors [5,6,7,8] and fail to meet citizens’ needs for green space and natural environments [9,10,11].
The increase in the impermeable layer due to intensive land use is the most common cause of these urban issues [12], and it has distorted the hydrological cycle and caused waterlogging, the heat island phenomenon, and the ecosystem disturbance [13,14,15,16]. According to the Ministry of Environment, Seoul’s impermeable area as of 2013 was 54.37%, and the external precipitation leakage amounted to approximately 81% [17]. Rapid external water leakage during rainfall is a worldwide urban problem [18]. The increased impermeable ground surface caused by urbanization causes temporary rainfall leakage into rivers, triggering river water pollution [19], groundwater depletion due to the decreased runoff infiltration rate [18], stream drying [19], difficulties in securing water resources [20], urban heat islandization [20], and ecosystem disruption [19]. The problems from expanding the impermeable area go beyond cities and induce problems in rural and agricultural districts [20,21,22,23,24]. Groundwater recharge is a vital ecosystem service function [25,26], and agricultural regions have been found to have an excellent groundwater recharge function [27,28]. However, expanding the impermeable area makes it challenging to recharge groundwater [29,30,31,32]. The difficulty in cultivating groundwater depletes the groundwater [33,34,35,36,37], decreasing the amount of water humans can utilize [38,39,40,41,42]. Water shortage globally has been brought on by suppressing efficient water distribution and transport [43,44].
To solve water shortages and problems in the hydrological cycle, groundwater recharge in cities is being improved, and methods of using parking lots, urban parks, sports complexes, government offices, and other national and public facilities as primary spaces are being sought [45,46]. Basic urban ecosystem and environmental improvement goals include replenishing the natural soil [47,48], supplying minimum impact development facilities [49,50], and removing impermeable areas [51,52]. However, replenishing natural soil in an urban space carries the difficulty of restoring an already developed city [53,54]. Therefore, enhancing the function of an already created urban park is appealing.
Urban parks function as diverse environmental and ecological ecosystem services [55,56]. Previous studies have recognized the effects of groundwater recharge [57,58], heat island alleviation [59,60,61], contaminant reduction [51,58], air quality improvement [62,63,64,65,66], recreation [67,68], biodiversity [69,70], landscape improvement [71,72], education [73,74], and urban agriculture [75,76]. Among these, groundwater recharge is critical for enhancing the urban hydrological cycle [77,78], and the need to use urban parks for improving the urban hydrological cycle has been reported [79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86].
Furthermore, the rational formula evaluation model to interpret the urban hydrological cycle is examined by calculating precipitation as the sum of evapotranspiration, the infiltration rate, and the runoff rate [87,88,89], and evapotranspiration can be interpreted using a formula, albeit complex, using meteorological data, including temperature, humidity, and air pressure [90,91]. Therefore, it is structured to calculate the infiltration rate by accurately interpreting the runoff rate [90,91]. The runoff rate is calculated by multiplying the runoff coefficient, rainfall intensity, and area, but it has a drawback because the value varies depending on the value inserted for the runoff coefficient. Data divided as soil texture and land cover types are used for the runoff coefficient employed in hydrological water balance analysis [26,27]; however, it is challenging to apply the runoff coefficient to research because the coefficient range is broad and land use division is ambiguous [92,93]. Hence, setting the runoff coefficient is paramount in water balance analysis [94].
Thus, this study identified the precipitation runoff coefficient for water balance analysis according to sidewalk materials using the groundwater infiltration rate and evapotranspiration calculation results. The experimental outcomes were used to analyze the runoff coefficient, groundwater recharge, and rainfall runoff rate concerning the impermeable cover types of urban parks and interpret the water balance.
Consequently, this study determined the contribution value of eco-friendly sidewalk forms for cultivating water resources and sought ways to heighten the recharge of water resources in parks in cities. By applying the results, improving the impermeable area in urban parks was suggested to proactively resolve problems in the urban hydrological cycle.

2. Experimental Materials and Methods

This study proposes continual urban park expansion by evaluating urban parks’ water resource cultivation ability and urban hydrological cycle contribution. This study comprised the following stages: First, we examined the test for measuring the groundwater infiltration rate (Section 2.1). Second, we calculated the groundwater infiltration rate and runoff coefficient of the land use types using the groundwater infiltration measurement result and hydrological cycle evaluation (Section 2.2). Third, we interpreted the water balance in eight urban parks (Section 2.3) and evaluated the statistical relationships based on the assessed runoff rate, penetration data, and land use ratio of the study sites. The detailed materials and methods are discussed below.

2.1. Test for Measuring the Groundwater Infiltration Rate

This study used the following method to propose an improvement measure for cultivating groundwater in urban and rural regions. First, the typical impermeable areas that can be improved in urban and rural regions were designed using asphalt and concrete sidewalks (Is), and vegetation area (Va), permeable sidewalks (Ps), and some pervious sidewalks (SPs) were selected as the sidewalk forms for comparison (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The runoff coefficient and water balance analyses were performed on four sidewalk forms. For the composition of the test structure, the ground was dug as shown, and Gee 3 was constructed to classify the packaging materials, as shown in Figure 1.
The experimental sites’ precipitation was measured, and the relevant region’s evapotranspiration was assessed according to the model. Thereafter, the groundwater infiltration rate was surveyed to calculate the runoff coefficient, and the runoff coefficients evaluated per sidewalk form were applied to the water balance analysis.
The groundwater infiltration rate survey calculated the runoff coefficient for assessing the runoff rate and the penetration equation for assessing the infiltration rate, and it was evaluated through an on-site measurement of the groundwater infiltration rate per sidewalk material. First, precipitation was measured using Decagon Devices’ EM50 Digital Data Logger, and the same company’s Gee lysimeter (drain gage) was used for the groundwater infiltration rate (Figure 1).
As shown in Figure 2, Drain Gage G3 allows observing the infiltration rate for a specific period by filling the soil in a cylinder with a constant volume and measuring the water infiltrated from precipitation and irrigation water using a wick intercepting device [95]. The water collected through Drain Gage G3 is measured in real time by the unit of pressure and is saved in the data logger (EM50). Then, it is converted into volume and indicated by mm. In this study, 56.7 mL was calculated as 1 mm of precipitation infiltration height based on the measurement value in mm measured from the sensor and setting the water infiltrated from the groundwater as 506.7 cm2, the cylinder’s width.

2.2. Method for Calculating the Groundwater Infiltration Rate and Runoff Coefficient

The evaluation of the water balance interpretation of the urban parks was conducted using the rational formula method, most widely known in hydrological cycle evaluation [89]. As presented in Equation (1), the total annual precipitation in the relevant region was calculated on the assumption that it comprises the annual external runoff rate, soil infiltration rate, and evaporation.
P = Potential   evapotranspiration   P E T +   Runoff   rate   Q +   Underwater   infiltration   rate   I ,
where P is the annual precipitation (mm), PET is the annual potential evapotranspiration rate (mm), and I is the total annual infiltration rate (mm).
Water balance interpretation using the formula method indicates the total runoff of the relevant region and is calculated as Q = 0.2278 × C × I × A. Setting the runoff coefficient is crucial because the relevant region’s total runoff rate varies depending on the runoff coefficient inserted here [94]. However, most studies derive the evaluation outcomes by inserting a generalized value for the runoff coefficient, so this value is extremely subjective [96].
Therefore, this study used the rational formula by modifying Equation (2) to calculate the water balance per land use in the study region. For the water balance, hydrological variables that are challenging to quantify, such as the lateral runoff and regression quantity, were excluded, and the water balance was calculated using surface runoff, the infiltration rate, the evapotranspiration rate, and precipitation. The modified rational formula used in this study was calculated based on the rational formula and the runoff coefficient applied to the rational formula, and the concept proposed by Mulvaney [89,97], Donahue [97], and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) [98] was fully adopted for the runoff coefficient.
P − C × P − 1 − C × P E T − I = 0 ,
When no runoff (100% permeable land cover) occurs, only evapotranspiration and infiltration occur in the research area; the infiltration rate is calculated from the difference between the precipitation and evapotranspiration rates. However, when runoff occurs at the same rate as precipitation (100% impermeable land cover), no infiltration and evapotranspiration occur. The hydrological components can be calculated per land use in the research area using the modified rational formula, and the hydrological components in the entire research area can be calculated using the weighted method per land use area. The rainfall material (P) of the region targeted for evaluation must be secured to explain this process and to assess PET and diverse weather, including humidity, temperature, and air pressure, and data must be identified and evaluated by the sum throughout the research period [91].
As inferred from Equations (1)–(3), calculating the runoff coefficient is crucial for water balance analysis, and the groundwater infiltration rate (S) must be interpreted through precipitation investigation and evapotranspiration calculation.
λ E = Δ H n r − G + P a i r ⋅ C p · e z 0 + e z / r a Δ   + Γ α   + r c r a ,
where λE is the latent heat intensity (MJ/m2·d), E is the evaporation rate depth (mm/d), Δ is the temperature curve slope of the saturated water vapor pressure (de/dT, kPa/°C), Hnr is the net radiation (MJ/m2·d), G is the heat flux density to the ground (MJ/m2·d), Pair is the air density (kg/m3), Cp is the specific heat at a constant pressure (MJ/m2·d), e z 0 is the saturated water vapor pressure at height z (kPa), ez is the water vapor pressure at height z (kPa), γ is the psychrometric constant (kPa/°C), rc is the plant canopy resistance (s/m), and ra is the aerodynamic resistance (s/m).
Hence, the infiltration rate was measured per sidewalk material (Equation (4)) and inserted in the modified rational formula to find a suitable runoff coefficient (C) used for the hydrological cycle interpretation according to the sidewalk material.
I 1 = P − C × P + 1 − C × P E T ,
where P is the total annual precipitation (mm), C is the runoff coefficient (0 < C < 1), PET is the annual potential evapotranspiration rate (mm), and I is the total annual infiltration rate (mm).
Thus, this study’s runoff coefficient per sidewalk material can be applied to urban parks targeted for research to evaluate the runoff rate (Q1). Considering Equations (1)–(4), the infiltration and evapotranspiration rates can be assessed by calculating the runoff coefficient, but the evapotranspiration rate used in the equations is the total annual evaporation, inherently carrying uncertainty in the relationship with the actual infiltration rate. Therefore, this study derived the runoff coefficient’s calculation using Equation (4) by measuring the infiltration rate, and the actual infiltration rate was identified using Equation (5) from the statistical processing using the results summarized from the survey data.
Infiltration   rate   I 1 =   Proportional   constant   α ×   Precipitation   P +   General   constant   b
Therefore, Equation (6) shows the water balance analysis equation according to the land use forms in urban parks and rural areas used in this study. The water balance analysis compared to precipitation in the relevant area was assessed by deriving the runoff rate indicated as Q1 and the infiltration rate indicated as I1.
Precipitation   P − Runoff   rate   Q 1 − Infiltration   rate   I 1 − Evapotranspiration   Ε = 0

2.3. Interpretation of the Water Balance in Urban Parks

This study’s spatial scope selected eight urban parks in the Korean metropolitan area. The selection criteria for the sites followed Korea’s park installation regulations, and the following were selected: four neighborhood parks in a neighborhood unit (living zones 1–4) and four neighborhood parks in a walking sphere of 30,000 m2 or larger (Table 1).
Eight urban parks were selected as the study sites, and the land cover status was analyzed using aerial photography (DJI’s Phantom 4 drone) and design drawings (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
The study sites’ flight paths were set for aerial photography and reported to the administrative management officer. After obtaining approval, the photography was conducted using an autopilot device. The photographed video was uploaded as an image and underwent a matching process followed by a point cloud collection process of embodying the final photographed video. The photographed videos were distinguished as 2D orthophotos and 3D models and are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The green areas were divided based on the analyzed details, and the sidewalk materials were identified through the field survey. The sidewalk materials distinguished from the field survey were categorized into vegetation areas, some pervious sidewalks, permeable sidewalks, and impervious sidewalks, and the water balance was assessed.

3. Results

3.1. Analyzing the Groundwater Infiltration Rate per Sidewalk Material

The experimental area’s precipitation in 2018 was 1194.4 mm, which was analyzed to be similar to Korea’s annual average precipitation. The experimental sites experienced 122 rainy days, and the monthly accumulated precipitation was the highest in July (252.4 mm). Before measuring the groundwater penetration per typical sidewalk material of urban parks, the monthly data from the Jeonju meteorological station were collected for the relevant area’s daily evapotranspiration.
Table 2 shows the measurement results of groundwater penetration per typical sidewalk covering material at the experimental sites. The annual penetrated amount was 214.51 mm, with a penetration ratio of 17.96% compared to the total precipitation on grass (vegetation area, Va), and the largest amount of 44.69 mm occurred in July. July received the highest precipitation (approximately 50 mm) and penetration of 5.875 mm. In total, 118.45 mm penetrated annually into permeable blocks (permeable sidewalk, Ps), with a penetration ratio of 9.92% compared to the precipitation. The maximum penetration occurred in July (22.70 mm). Clay blocks (some pervious sidewalk, SPs) were penetrated by 10.43 mm annually, which can be assessed as 0.87% compared to the precipitation and was found to be less than 10% of the permeable sidewalk. Concrete (impervious sidewalk, Is) was found to have no penetration.
When inserting the relevant data into I1 = P − (C × P) − {(1 − C) × PET}, the modified rational formula proposed in the research method can be set as I1 = 1194.4 − (C × 1194.4) − {(1 − C) × 910.3}. In the rational formula evaluation used in the Korean sewerage facility criteria [99] and adopted by the ASCE [98], United States Geological Survey [100], and Solano County Water Agency [101], some cases have a runoff coefficient of up to 1.0 for wetlands. However, the relevant coefficient was calculated assuming there is an outlet in a saturated state. The regression equation was derived using the experimental area’s monthly precipitation for the groundwater infiltration rate per typical sidewalk material measured.
First, 12 monthly precipitation-to-penetration data of the vegetation area were graphed, and the first regression equation was derived. Consequently, the regression equation for vegetation area (Va) was calculated as y (penetration) = 0.1648 × (precipitation) + 1.3598, and the R2 value indicating statistical significance was remarkably high at 0.9547. Similarly, the regression equation for permeable sidewalk (Ps) was calculated as y (penetration) = 0.0862 × (precipitation) + 1.1899 (R2 = 0.9637), and that for clay blocks (some pervious sidewalk, SPs) was calculated as y (penetration) = 0.0111 × (precipitation) + 0.2157 (R2 = 0.9063) (Figure 5). These equations show that penetration is closely related to precipitation. The amount of penetration by land use tested can be interpreted as an analyzed equation.

3.2. Calculating the Runoff Coefficient According to the Land Cover Types

The groundwater penetration test results of Va, Ps, SPs, and Is measured at the experimental sites and the hydrological rational formula runoff rate evaluation results were analyzed to calculate the relevant sidewalk environment’s runoff coefficient. The calculated runoff coefficient was applied to urban and rural areas to calculate the runoff infiltration rate, and it can be evaluated using the modified rational formula (Equation (4)) proposed in previous research. Here, the measured values can be applied to the precipitation and penetration values; therefore, finding the annual evapotranspiration rate of the relevant area allows for calculating the runoff coefficient.
The total precipitation in Jeonju in 2018 was 1194.4 mm, and evapotranspiration was found to be 910.3 mm, assuming there was no runoff. Table 2 shows the monthly evapotranspiration rate.
When inserting the relevant data into I1 = P − (C × P) − {(1 − C) × PET}, the modified rational formula proposed in the research method (I1 = 1194.4 − (C × 1194.4) − {(1 − C) × 910.3}) can be set. Here, when inserting the penetration of grass and the permeable sidewalk into I1, the C value (runoff coefficient) can be calculated. C can be inserted into the infiltration rate (Q1) = C × P to interpret the runoff rate. Based on the evaluation data of I1 and Q1, evapotranspiration (E) = precipitation (P) − infiltration rate (I1) − runoff rate (Q1) can be interpreted to complete the water balance.
The underground penetration of concrete (Is) was measured as 0 mm, and the runoff coefficient was 1.000. When interpreting this as a rational formula, the evapotranspiration rate can be interpreted as 0 mm and the runoff rate as 1194.4 mm. The groundwater penetration of grass (vegetation area, Va) was measured as 214.5 mm; thus, the runoff coefficient was 0.245. When interpreting this with a modified rational formula, the evapotranspiration rate can be interpreted as 687.3 mm and the runoff rate as 292.6 mm. The groundwater infiltration rate of the permeable sidewalk (Ps) was measured as 118.45 mm, and the runoff coefficient was 0.583. When interpreting this with the rational formula, the evapotranspiration rate can be interpreted as 379.6 mm and the runoff rate as 696.3 mm. The groundwater infiltration rate of some pervious sidewalk (SPs) was measured as 10.43 mm, and the runoff coefficient was 0.963. When interpreting this with the rational formula, the evapotranspiration can be interpreted as 33.7 mm and the runoff rate as 1150.2 mm. The vegetation area’s (Va) runoff coefficient (0.245) had a maximum value of 0.05–0.250—the coefficient of a park with a lawn in the Korean sewerage facility criteria [99]. It was assessed as an extremely high runoff coefficient compared to the 0.05–0.10 of grass plains (sandy soil, 2% slope)—a coefficient used in the rational formula evaluation model proposed by Mulvaney in a study related to a typical runoff coefficient [96]. Moreover, although brick blocks had a coefficient of 0.70–0.85 in previous studies, this study proposes that the runoff coefficient must be continuously studied for comparison through additional experiments because brick blocks were found to have a coefficient of 0.963 in this study [102,103,104,105,106]. By using the following experimental method, the runoff coefficient’s calculation can generate data that complement the drawbacks of previous studies, where differences occur in calculating the runoff coefficient due to the user’s subjectivity [107]. The runoff coefficient and water balance equation per sidewalk material of the six evaluated types can be used for projects aimed at improving urban groundwater cultivation.

3.3. Analyzing the Land Cover Forms of Urban Parks

For the eight urban parks, the lowest green area ratio was 60.6%, and the highest was 79.4%, indicating an average of approximately 68.2% (Table 3).
The field investigation showed that the sidewalk forms were permeable, some pervious, and impervious. Permeable sidewalk (Ps) can be classified into permeable block sidewalk, color porous ascone, decomposed granite rod tamping, sand pulling, grass protection block, coir net, and pebble paving. Some pervious sidewalk (SPs) was divided into clay floor brick, artificial granite block, processed landscape stone, solidified soil (dried), braille blocks for guiding the disabled, cube stone, disparate-shaped flagstone, consonant blocks, reinforced granite, and granite grass sidewalks, and was limited to those that did not have cement finishing between blocks. Impervious sidewalk (Is) was classified into artificial grass, rubber (urethane) chip, rubber floor, urethane, solidified soil (impervious), color porous ascone, concrete, piece-fixing braille blocks, and granite slab sidewalks. Ancillary buildings were classified into “other” and were calculated as impervious sidewalks in the final water balance analysis.
Living zone 1 comprises 60.6% of green area and 39.4% of sidewalk and artificial structure areas. Herbal plant space, such as grass, accounts for ~35.0% of the entire area, occupying a moderately large area, and the impervious sidewalk area is largely distributed, including small fitness facilities. Living zone 2 comprises 63.5% of green area and 36.5% of sidewalk and artificial structure areas. Living zone 3 comprises 69.5% of green area and 30.5% of sidewalk and artificial structure areas and living zone 4 comprises 79.4% of green area and 20.6% of artificial structure areas. Walking sphere 1 comprises 63.4% of green area and 36.6% of sidewalk and artificial structure areas, and walking sphere 2 comprises 65.7% of green area and 34.3% of sidewalk and artificial structure areas. Walking sphere 3 comprises 71.2% of green area and 28.8% of sidewalk area, and walking sphere 4 comprises 75.2% of green area and 24.8% of sidewalk and artificial structural areas. This result is similar to the greening rate of [108], which surveyed urban parks located in the metropolitan area of Korea. The urban parks’ water balance analysis was conducted using the runoff coefficient according to the analyzed sidewalk forms.

3.4. Analyzing the Water Balance by Applying the Runoff Coefficient to Urban Park Land Cover Types

Before analyzing the water balance of the eight urban parks, their precipitation data were collected. The groundwater penetration regression equation and runoff coefficient calculated previously were applied to conduct the water balance analysis of the urban parks using the average value of three years in three places (Table A1).
Table 4 shows the precipitation data collected over three years at the Seoul, Paju, and Incheon meteorological stations. The meteorological data near the study region to be analyzed were used to average the precipitation patterns for the three years. Consequently, annual precipitation of 1071.82 mm was set, and the data were employed in the study sites to apply groundwater penetration, the runoff rate, etc.
The sidewalk form ratio for evaluating the water balance was proposed (Table 3) based on the status of the vegetation area, permeable sidewalk, and some pervious sidewalks investigated previously. The ratio of the impervious sidewalk area was proposed using the sum of sidewalk materials, such as concrete, asphalt, artificial grass, and other areas, such as ancillary buildings and fountains.
By using the average precipitation data of 1071.82 mm over three years in three places near the study sites, the runoff coefficient was applied according to land use, and the runoff rate was evaluated. Based on 1 ha, living zone 4 showed the lowest runoff with 425.18 mm, and living zone 1 had the largest with 560.91 mm. The average of the eight sites was 498.56 mm, indicating that 46.52% was leaked externally compared to the rainfall (Table 4).
The groundwater penetration was evaluated using the previously calculated regression equation for groundwater penetration per land use. By using the average rainfall data of 1071.82 mm over three years in three places near the study sites, the groundwater infiltration rate according to land use was evaluated. Based on 1 ha, living zone 4 had the highest recharge amount of 142.54 mm, and living zone 1 had a penetration of 112.75 mm, the smallest groundwater recharge. The average of the eight sites was 126.52 mm, indicating that 11.80% of the rainfall was recharged into groundwater (Table 5).
Based on the evaluated runoff and infiltration rates, the remaining precipitation can be calculated as evapotranspiration. The eight sites were found to have an average of 41.68% evaporation, from a range of 37.15–47.03% among the study sites (Table 6).
When calculating the amount by a unit of 1 ha based on the assessed runoff rate and penetration, 1 ha of urban park contributes an annual average of 1265.2 t to groundwater saving and 4467.4 t to atmospheric control. Therefore, 5732.6 t of water for rainfall of 1072.82 mm contributes to groundwater recharge and air control. When evaluating the penetration and evapotranspiration according to each study site area, walking sphere 2 (the biggest area) contributed 11,068.07 t to groundwater recharge and cultivated water resources that contributed to an atmospheric control of 38,997.86 t (Table 7).
Table 8 shows the evaluation of the statistical relationships based on the assessed runoff rate, penetration data, and land use ratio of the study sites. The green space areas of urban parks were closely related to the runoff rate, penetration, and evapotranspiration, while the sum of the entire sidewalk area, excluding the vegetation area, showed the same statistical value. In other words, the statistical significance was secured for these facts: the larger the vegetation area, the more effective it is for groundwater recharge and increased evapotranspiration for atmospheric control (infiltration rate:green area ratio, y = 0.6417x − 13.009, R2 = 0.9345); however, a smaller green area increases the runoff rate, whereas the penetration and evapotranspiration decrease (runoff rate:green area ratio, y = −0.1383x + 137.13, R2 = 0.9270; evapotranspiration:green area ratio, y = 0.1762x − 10.556, R2 = 0.9246). No statistical results were obtained for the permeable and impervious sidewalk areas in connection to the runoff, penetration, and evapotranspiration rates. Nevertheless, statistical significance confirmed that some pervious sidewalk increases the runoff rate and reduces the penetration and evapotranspiration rates when the area ratio is higher.
When calculating the amount of 1 ha based on the evaluated runoff rate and penetration, 1 ha of urban park contributes an annual average of 1265.2 t to saving groundwater and 4467.4 t to atmospheric control (Table 7). In total, 5732.6 t of water for precipitation of 1072.82 mm contributes to groundwater recharge and air control.
Factors influencing groundwater recharge are soil texture, slope [109,110,111], and rainfall intensity [112,113]. However, this study excluded the slope and rainfall intensity. Additional tests must be conducted using this method.
Impervious sidewalks suppress groundwater recharge [114,115,116] and increase the external water runoff [117,118]. Reducing impervious areas can improve the water balance of urban parks. There are cases of removing impervious surfaces in Athens, Greece [119], Jian, China [120], and Seoul, Korea [121], to improve the hydrological cycle.
Rainwater detention ponds [122,123], gravel trenches [124,125], and storage trenches [126,127] can reduce the runoff speed of rainfall, increasing groundwater recharge and evapotranspiration [128,129]. Reducing rainfall runoff is effective for efficient water use [130,131]. The groundwater recharge effect of forests is a typical ecosystem service function [132], and urban parks have the same effect of recharging groundwater as forests [133].

4. Conclusions and Discussion

This study proposed urban parks as vital spaces to resolve various environmental and ecological issues in cities and improve the urban hydrological cycle. This study contributes to the continual urban park expansion by evaluating urban parks’ water resource cultivation ability and urban hydrological cycle contribution by analyzing the water balance of parks in cities.
This study categorized the typical urban park land cover types into vegetation area, permeable sidewalk, some pervious sidewalk, and impervious sidewalk and measured the groundwater penetration of these land cover types. Vegetation area (Va) representing grass sidewalk had permeation of 214.51 mm compared to precipitation of 1194.4 mm; permeable block representing permeable sidewalk (Ps) had precipitation of 118.45 mm; clay blocks representing some pervious sidewalk (SPs) had precipitation of 10.43 mm; and no penetration was found in concrete representing impervious sidewalk (Is). The regression equations for the penetration of typical sidewalk materials of urban parks were calculated as follows: y = 0.1648x + 1.3598 for vegetation area (Va), y = 0.0862x + 1.1899 for permeable sidewalk (Ps), and y = 0.0111x + 0.2157 for some pervious sidewalk (SPs). The runoff coefficients were 0.245 for Va, 0.583 for Ps, 0.963 for SPs, and 1.000 for Is. The green area ratio of the eight urban parks was found to be approximately 68.2% on average. According to the soil environment analysis, sandy soil types with sand culture favorable to groundwater penetration and soil of a textural structure with a low rain–bed ratio were proposed for refinement.
For analyzing the study sites’ water balance, the precipitation data of three years collected from nearby meteorological stations were averaged, and annual precipitation of 1071.82 mm was set. The water balance evaluated using the regression equations and the runoff coefficient calculated previously indicated that an average of 498.56 mm (46.52%) was leaked externally, and an average groundwater penetration of 126.52 mm (11.80%) was cultivated.
When calculating the amount of 1 ha based on the runoff and infiltration rates per evaluated land cover type, 1 ha of urban park saves an average of 1265.2 t of groundwater and contributes 4467.4 t to air control. Therefore, urban parks are vital spaces for improving the urban environment, as 5732.6 t water is contributed to groundwater recharge and air control with precipitation of 1072.82 mm. The assessed runoff rate, penetration data, and study sites’ land use ratio statistical analysis showed that the green space area of urban parks is closely related to the runoff rate, infiltration rate, and evapotranspiration. Thus, reducing the sidewalk area is proposed. Waterways, wetlands, and gravel sidewalk materials are suggested to enhance urban parks’ current water resource recharge functions. Creating only 1% of wetland or gravel sidewalks reduces the annual runoff rate by 10.32 mm, which is effective for urban parks’ function of recharging water resources.
Therefore, urban parks can be evaluated as critical spaces for water resource recharge in cities. Hence, it is proposed that urban parks should be continuously expanded to cultivate groundwater and control the atmosphere in cities. Furthermore, it is proposed that more wetlands or gravel sidewalks should be created to direct green spaces within cities, significantly contributing to water resource recharge. Based on these outcomes, we look forward to expanding urban parks as a national level urban environment improvement project.
However, the experiment did not take into account the slope, rainfall intensity, soil texture, and season. Additionally, the experimental sites were only grass; therefore, the hydration from tree breathing was not considered. This is a limitation of this study. Thus, this study will have to be supplemented with further research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S. and T.K.; methodology, J.S.; software, J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S. and T.K.; writing—review and editing, J.S.; project administration, J.S.; funding acquisition, J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research and Development Project (PJ016761032022), National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the RDA Fellowship Program (in 2022) of the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Analysis of the data measuring the precipitation near the study sites.
Table A1. Analysis of the data measuring the precipitation near the study sites.
ItemSeoulPajuIncheonAverage
201620172018201620172018201620172018
January1.014.98.51.012.86.62.820.44.88.09
February47.611.129.665.921.452.143.124.746.337.98
March40.57.949.557.44.148.844.11.2094.638.68
April76.861.6130.389.365.7131.280.857.0101.588.24
May160.516.1222157.744.2162.9148.522.1134118.67
June54.266.6171.528.3112.1201.517.7164.7256.1119.19
July358.2621185.6378.2294.9123.1302.336336.7295.89
August49.8297202.624.231897.912.2249.9234.8165.16
September50.53568.534.123.978.948.826.893.951.16
October74.326.5120.5249.210.244.877.817.148.574.32
November16.240.779.115.61750.518.447.67940.46
December62.134.816.463.023.5067.834.24.234.00
Total991.701233.21284.11163.9947.8998.3864.301028.71134.41071.8

References

  1. Kim, K.S. Problems and policy direction in national land development. Archit. Res. 1993, 37, 18–22. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gholami, V.; Mohseni Saravi, M.; Ahmadi, H. Effects of impervious surfaces and urban development on runoff generation and flood hazard in the Hajighoshan watershed. Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lee, H.Y. The construction and application of planning support system for the sustainable urban development. J. Korean Geogr. Soc. 2007, 42, 133–155. [Google Scholar]
  4. Haase, D.; Nuissl, H. The urban-to-rural gradient of land use change and impervious cover: A long-term trajectory for the city of Leipzig. J. Land Use Sci. 2010, 5, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lee, H.J. Impact of Urbanization on Environment: Focusing on CO2 Emissions. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Urban Engineering University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea, 2013. Available online: http://dcollection.uos.ac.kr/public_resource/pdf/000000019475_20210628155833.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  6. Soon, H.J.; Kim, H.J. A research on the application of eco city model for sustainable city development—Focusing on the comparison analysis of cases between domestic and overseas eco cities. Korea Real Estate Acad. 2014, 59, 217–230. Available online: http://www.reacademy.org/rboard/data/krea2_new/59_17.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  7. Lee, J.M.; Lee, Y.S.; Choi, J.S. Analysis of water cycle effect according to application of lid techniques. J. Wetl. Res. 2014, 16, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kauffman, G.J.; Brant, T. The role of impervious cover as a watershed-based zoning tool to protect water quality in the Christina River Basin of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Anaheim, CA, USA, 14–18 October 2000; pp. 1656–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hedblom, M.; Knez, I.; Ode Sang, Å.; Gunnarsson, B. Evaluation of natural sounds in urban greenery: Potential impact for urban nature preservation. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017, 4, 170037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Kim, H.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, D.S.; Kim, J.Y. Evaluation of supply adequacy of park service in Suwon-si by urban park catchment area analysis. J. Korean Inst. Landsc. Archit. 2015, 43, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Kim, H.J.; Jang, C.H.; Noh, S.J. Development and application of the catchment hydrologic cycle assessment tool considering urbanization (i)—Model development. J. Korea Water Resour. Assoc. 2012, 45, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mantas, V.M.; Marques, J.C.; Pereira, A.J.S.C. A geospatial approach to monitoring impervious surfaces in watersheds using landsat data (the Mondego Basin, Portugal as a case study). Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 449–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, H.; Kang, E.J.; Cho, J.H. An evaluation on management types by characteristics of urban parks. J. Korean Inst. Landsc. Archit. 2010, 38, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kim, S.H. A Study on the Stormwater Green Infrastructure Strategy for the Sound Hydrological Cycle Management in Urban Areas. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2014. Available online: https://dcollection.snu.ac.kr/public_resource/pdf/000000018392_20210628161647.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  15. Schueler, T.R. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Prot. Tech. 1994, 1, 100–111. [Google Scholar]
  16. Weng, Q. Remote sensing of impervious surfaces in the urban areas: Requirements, methods, and trends. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 117, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Seoul Report: Environment of Seoul. Available online: http://news.seoul.go.kr/snap/doc.html?fn=5274b11d0b4b13.76553084.pdf&rs=/wp-content/blogs.dir/25/files/2013/11/ (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  18. Burns, M.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Walsh, C.J.; Ladson, A.R.; Hatt, B.E. Hydrologic shortcomings of conventional urban stormwater management and opportunities for reform. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ma, Q.; He, C.; Wu, J. Behind the rapid expansion of urban impervious surfaces in China: Major influencing factors revealed by a hierarchical multiscale analysis. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jeoung, J.H.; Park, S.K. Calculation of Pumping Rate Considering the Change of Groundwater Level. Korean Natl. Comm. Irrig. Drain. J. 2003, 10, 80–88. Available online: https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO200373606655493.view (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  21. Kim, J.S.; Park, S.Y. A prediction and analysis for functional change of ecosystem in South Korea. J. Korean Assoc. Geogr. Inf. Stud. 2013, 16, 114–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Palmer, M.; Bernhardt, E.; Chornesky, E.; Collins, S.; Dobson, A.; Duke, C.; Gold, B.; Jacobson, R.; Kingsland, S.; Kranz, R.; et al. Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 2004, 304, 1251–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Son, J.K.; Kong, M.J.; Kang, D.H.; Lee, S.Y. A study on the improvement of ecosystem service function for the protected horticulture complex in agricultural landscape. J. Korean Soc. Rural. Plan. 2015, 21, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Son, J.; Kong, M.; Kang, D.; Kang, B.; Yun, S.; Lee, S. The comparative studies on the terrestrial insect diversity in protected horticulture complex and paddy wetland. J. Wetl. Res. 2016, 18, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  26. Kim, E.; Kim, J.; Jung, H.J.; Song, W.K. Development and feasibility of indicators for ecosystem service evaluation of urban park. J. Environ. Impact Assess. 2017, 26, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Ramsar Convention Manual. 2014. Available online: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/manual6-2013-e.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  28. Kong, M.J.; Lee, B.M.; Kim, N.C.; Son, J.K. The analysis of function and factors for the value assessment of ecosystem service at rice paddy wetland. J. Wetl. Res. 2014, 16, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Son, J.; Choi, D.; Lee, S.; Kang, D.; Park, M.; Yun, S.; Kim, N.; Kong, M. Comparative analysis of groundwater-ecosystem service value of protected horticulture complex and paddy fields. J. Korean Soc. Rural. Plan. 2018, 24, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chang, S.W.; Chung, I.M. Analysis of groundwater variations using the relationship between groundwater use and daily minimum temperature in a water curtain cultivation site. J. Eng. Geol. 2014, 24, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Kim, N.W.; Lee, J.W.; Chung, I.M.; Kim, C.H. Change of groundwater-streamflow interaction according to groundwater abstraction in a greenhouse land. J. Korea Water Resour. Assoc. 2012, 45, 1051–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ko, J.Y.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, M.T.; Kim, C.S.; Kang, U.G.; Kang, H.W. Effects of farming practice and no3-n contents of groundwater with different locations under intensive greenhouse area. J. Environ. Agric. 2005, 24, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Lerner, D.N.; Barrett, M.H. Urban groundwater issues in the UK. Hydrogeol. J. 1996, 4, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Foster, S.S.D.; Lawrence, A.R.; Morris, B.M. Groundwater in Urban Development: Assessing Management Needs & Formulating Policy Strategies; World Bank Technical: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoque, M.A.; Hoque, M.M.; Ahmed, K.M. Declining groundwater level and aquifer dewatering in Dhaka metropolitan area, Bangladesh: Causes and quantification. Hydrogeol. J. 2007, 15, 1523–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mpamba, N.H.; Hussen, A.; Kangomba, S.; Nkhuwa, D.C.W.; Nyambe, I.A.; Mdala, C.; Wohnlich, S.; Shibasaki, N. Evidence and implications of groundwater mining in the Lusaka urban aquifers. Phys. Chem. Earth 2008, 33, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Naik, P.K.; Tambe, J.A.; Dehury, B.N.; Tiwari, A.N. Impact of urbanization on the groundwater regime in a fast-growing city in central India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 146, 339–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stiefel, J.M.; Melesse, A.M.; McClain, M.E.; Price, R.M.; Anderson, E.P.; Chauhan, N.K. Effects of rainwater-harvesting-induced artificial recharge on the groundwater of wells in Rajasthan, India. Hydrogeol. J. 2009, 17, 2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Singh, A.; Panda, S.N.; Kumar, K.S.; Sharma, C.S. Artificial groundwater recharge zones mapping using remote sensing and gis: A case study in Indian Punjab. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Terêncio, D.P.S.; Sanches Fernandes, L.F.; Cortes, R.M.V.; Pacheco, F.A.L. Improved framework model to allocate optimal rainwater harvesting sites in small watersheds for agro-forestry uses. J. Hydrol. 2017, 550, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Terêncio, D.P.S.; Sanches Fernandes, L.F.; Cortes, R.M.V.; Moura, J.P.; Pacheco, F.A.L. Rainwater harvesting in catchments for agro-forestry uses: A study focused on the balance between sustainability values and storage capacity. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613–614, 1079–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Batchelor, C.H.; Rama Mohan Rao, M.S.; Manohar Rao, S. Watershed development: A solution to water shortages in semi-arid India or part of the problem? Land Use Water Resour. Res. 2003, 3, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Di Baldassarre, G.; Wanders, N.; AghaKouchak, A.; Kuil, L.; Rangecroft, S.; Veldkamp, T.I.E.; Garcia, M.; van Oel, P.R.; Breinl, K.; Van Loon, A.F. Water shortages worsened by reservoir effects. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jeon, J.M.; Jang, J.B.; Kim, T.D.; Choi, D. Long-term estimation and mitigation of urban development impact on watershed hydrology. J. Korean Soc. Urban Environ. 2018, 18, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tubau, I.; Vázquez-Suñé, E.; Carrera, J.; Valhondo, C.; Criollo, R. Quantification of groundwater recharge in urban environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 592, 391–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, Y.; Choi, H.; Park, J. Proposed methodological framework of assessing LID (Low Impact Development) impact on soil-groundwater environmental quality. J. Korean Geoenviron. Soc. 2014, 15, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Bouwer, H. Artificial recharge of groundwater: Hydrogeology and engineering. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 121–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Seo, M.; Jaber, F.; Srinivasan, R.; Jeong, J. Evaluating the impact of low impact development (LID) practices on water quantity and quality under different development designs using SWAT. Water 2017, 9, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Department of Environmental Resources; Programs and Planning Division. Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach; Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and Planning Division: Prince George’s County, MD, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kang, J.; Hyun, K.H.; Park, J.B. Assessment of low impact development (LID) integrated in local comprehensive plans for improving urban water cycle. J. Korean Soc. Civ. Eng. 2014, 34, 1625–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, Y.; Ahiablame, L.M.; Bralts, V.F.; Engel, B.A. Enhancing a rainfall-runoff model to assess the impacts of BMPs and LID practices on storm runoff. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 147, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, S. The sustainable hydrologic cycle system of large urban park-focused on the international competition for master plan of yongsan park. Diss. Korean Inst. Spat. Des. 2016, 11, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hartig, T.; Evans, G.W.; Jamner, L.D.; Davis, D.S.; Gärling, T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kim, S.H.; Kong, H.Y.; Kim, T.K. Development and application of the assessment method of no net loss of greenness for urban ecosystem health improvement. Ecol. Resil. Infrastruct. 2015, 2, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  56. Haase, D. Holocene floodplains and their distribution in urban areas—Functionality indicators for their retention potentials. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2003, 66, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Adams, D.K.; Minjarez, C.; Serra, Y.; Quintanar, A.; Alatorre, L.; Granados, A.; Vázquez, E.; Braun, J. Mexican GPS tracks convection from north american monsoon. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 2014, 95, 61–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yu, C.; Hien, W.N. Thermal benefits of city parks. Energy Build. 2006, 38, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gill, S.E.; Handley, J.F.; Ennos, A.R.; Pauleit, S. Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ. 2007, 33, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. McDonald, R.I. Ecosystem service demand and supply along the urban-to-rural gradient. J. Conserv. Plan. 2009, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  62. Uni, D.; Katra, I. Airborne dust absorption by semi-arid forests reduces PM pollution in nearby urban environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 598, 984–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Scott, A.A.; Viippola, V.; Setälä, H. Trees in urban parks and forests reduce O3, but not NO2 concentrations in Baltimore, MD, USA. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 167, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Setälä, H.; Viippola, V. Urban forests near roads do not reduce gaseous air pollutant concentrations but have an impact on particles levels. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. King, K.L.; Johnson, S.; Kheirbek, I.; Lu, J.W.T.; Matte, T. Differences in magnitude and spatial distribution of urban forest pollution deposition rates, air pollution emissions, and ambient neighborhood air quality in New York City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 128, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bullock, C.H. Valuing urban green space: Hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2008, 51, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Latinopoulos, D.; Mallios, Z.; Latinopoulos, P. Valuing the benefits of an urban park project: A contingent valuation study in Thessaloniki, Greece. Land Use Policy 2016, 55, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Canzonieri, C.; Benedict, M.E.; McMahon, E.T. Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 797–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Foster, J.; Lowe, A.; Winkelman, S. The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation. Cent. Clean Air Policy 2011, 750, 1–52. [Google Scholar]
  70. Van Berkel, D.B.; Verburg, P.H. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Scholte, S.S.K.; Van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Molla, M.B. The value of urban green infrastructure and its environmental response in urban ecosystem: A literature review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 4, 89–101. [Google Scholar]
  73. Brears, R.C. (Ed.) Blue-green infrastructure in managing urban water resources. In Blue and Green Cities: The Role of Blue-Green Infrastructure in Managing Urban Water Resources; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018; pp. 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Firehock, K.; Andrew Walker, R. Strategic Green Infrastructure Planning: A Multi-Scale Approach; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  75. Adegun, O.B. Green infrastructure in relation to informal urban settlements. J. Archit. Urban. 2017, 41, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Seiler, K.P.; Gat, J.R. Groundwater Recharge from Run-Off, Infiltration and Percolation; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 55. [Google Scholar]
  77. Lerner, D.N. Groundwater recharge in urban areas. Atmos. Environ. B 1990, 24, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Newcomer, M.E.; Gurdak, J.J.; Sklar, L.S.; Nanus, L. Urban recharge beneath low impact development and effects of climate variability and change. Water Resour. Res. 2014, 50, 1716–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kidmose, J.; Troldborg, L.; Refsgaard, J.C.; Bischoff, N. Coupling of a distributed hydrological model with an urban storm water model for impact analysis of forced infiltration. J. Hydrol. 2015, 525, 506–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bhaskar, A.S.; Hogan, D.M.; Nimmo, J.R.; Perkins, K.S. Groundwater recharge amidst focused stormwater infiltration. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 2058–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mooers, E.W.; Jamieson, R.C.; Hayward, J.L.; Drage, J.; Lake, C.B. Low-impact development effects on aquifer recharge using coupled surface and groundwater models. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2018, 23, 04018040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ahiablame, L.M.; Engel, B.A.; Chaubey, I. Effectiveness of low impact development practices: Literature review and suggestions for future research. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 4253–4273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chang, N.B.; Lu, J.W.; Chui, T.F.M.; Hartshorn, N. Global policy analysis of low impact development for stormwater management in urban regions. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 368–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jefferson, A.J.; Bhaskar, A.S.; Hopkins, K.G.; Fanelli, R.; Avellaneda, P.M.; McMillan, S.K. Stormwater management network effectiveness and implications for urban watershed function: A critical review. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 4056–4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, C.; Fletcher, T.D.; Duncan, H.P.; Burns, M.J. Can stormwater control measures restore altered urban flow regimes at the catchment scale? J. Hydrol. 2017, 549, 631–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Moskovkin, V.M.; Serkina, O.; Lesovik, R.V.; Mitrokhin, A.A. Trends in studying urban runoff: A retrospective analysis. Amaz. Investig. 2018, 7, 228–239. [Google Scholar]
  87. Lee, J.G.; Heaney, J.P. Directly connected impervious areas as major sources of urban stormwater quality problems-evidence from south Florida. In Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Stormwater Research and Watershed Management Conference, Tampa, FL, USA, 22–23 May 2002. [Google Scholar]
  88. Mulvaney, T.J. On the use of self-registering rain and flood gauges in making observations of rainfall and flood discharges in a given catchment. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Irel. 1851, 4, 18–31. [Google Scholar]
  89. Thornthwaite, C.W. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr. Rev. 1948, 38, 55–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Makkink, G.F. Testing the Penman formula by means of lysimeters. J. Inst. Water Eng. 1957, 11, 277–288. [Google Scholar]
  91. Penman, H.L. Estimating evaporation. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1956, 37, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Blume, T.; Zehe, E.; Bronstert, A. Rainfall—Runoff response, event-based runoff coefficients and hydrograph separation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2007, 52, 843–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hoeg, S.; Uhlenbrook, S.; Leibundgut, C. Hydrograph separation in a mountainous catchment—Combining hydrochemical and isotopic tracers. Hydrol. Process. 2000, 14, 1199–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ladouche, B.; Probst, A.; Viville, D.; Idir, S.; Baqué, D.; Loubet, M.; Probst, J.L.; Bariac, T. Hydrograph separation using isotopic, chemical and hydrological approaches (Strengbach catchment, France). J. Hydrol. 2001, 242, 255–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ha, K.C.; Kim, Y.C.; Kim, S.Y. Monitoring of soil water content and infiltration rate by rainfall in a water curtain cultivation area. J. Geol. Soc. Korea 2016, 52, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Donahue, W.F. Determining Appropriate Nutrient and Sediment Loading Coefficients for Modeling Effects of Changes in Landuse and Landcover in Alberta Watersheds; Technical Report; Water Matters Society of Alberta: Canmore, AB, Canada, 2013; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1880/111976 (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  97. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice, No. 37, USA, 1970. Available online: https://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?dockey=0139396 (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  98. Nicklow, J.W.; Boulos, P.F.; Muleta, M.K. Comprehensive Sewer Collection Systems Analysis Handbook for Engineers and Planners; MWH Soft Pub.: Pasadena, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  99. Korea Water and Wastewater Works Association (KWWA). Drainage Sewer Design Guideline (DSDG). Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=180440&viewCls=lsPtnThdCmp&urlMode=lsEfInfoR&lsId=001815&chrClsCd=010202#0000 (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  100. Rantz, S.E. Suggested Criteria for Hydrologic Design of Storm-Drainage Facilities in the San Francisco Bay Region California; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1971. Available online: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr71341 (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  101. Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). Hydrology and Drainage Design Procedure Prepared by Water Resources Engineering, USA. Available online: https://www.scwa2.com/ (accessed on 9 May 2022).
  102. Kim, Y.R.; Hwang, S.H. Estimation of runoff coefficient through impervious covers analysis using long-term outflow simulation. J. Korean Soc. Water Wastewater 2014, 28, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kim, T.; Kim, T.J.; Lee, B.R. Estimation of runoff coefficient according to revision of design criteria, in case of park. J. Wetl. Res. 2016, 18, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Kim, J.H. A Study on Runoff Coefficient Estimation of Rational Method in Natural Basin. Ph.D. Thesis, Hongik University, Seoul, Korea, 2003. Available online: https://dl.nanet.go.kr/file/fileDownload.do?linkSystemId=NADL&controlNo=KDMT1200353638 (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  105. Kim, J.H.; Park, Y.J.; Choi, H.H.; Song, J.W. A study on runoff coefficient estimation of rational method in natural basin. In Proceedings of the Korea Water Resources Association Conference, Kwangju, Korea, 1 May 2004; pp. 173–177. Available online: https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/CFKO200411722769768.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  106. Lee, Y.D.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, Y.T. Study on improved method for calculating runoff coefficient of rational method. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 2007, 7, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  107. Gong, H.; Pan, Y.; Xu, Y. Spatio-temporal variation of groundwater recharge in response to variability in precipitation, land use and soil in Yanqing Basin, Beijing, China. Hydrogeol. J. 2012, 20, 1331–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kwon, I.H.; Jung, K.J.; Yoo, S.Y. A study on the characteristics of urban linear park and the changes of neighboring area-focused on gyeongui-line forest park in seoul. Urban. Des. 2020, 21, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Mathias, S.A.; Sorensen, J.P.R.; Butler, A.P. Soil moisture data as a constraint for groundwater recharge estimation. J. Hydrol. 2017, 552, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Anandan, K.S.; Sahay, S.N.; Karthikeyan, S. Delineation of recharge area and artificial recharge studies in the Neyveli hydrogeological basin. Mine Water Environ. 2010, 29, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zlotnik, V.A.; Kacimov, A.; Al-Maktoumi, A. Estimating groundwater mounding in sloping aquifers for managed aquifer recharge. Groundwater 2017, 55, 797–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Owor, M.; Taylor, R.G.; Tindimugaya, C.; Mwesigwa, D. Rainfall intensity and groundwater recharge: Empirical evidence from the upper nile basin. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 035009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, H.; Gao, J.E.; Zhang, M.; Li, X.; Zhang, S.; Jia, L. Effects of rainfall intensity on groundwater recharge based on simulated rainfall experiments and a groundwater flow model. Catena 2015, 127, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Harbor, J.M. A practical method for estimating the impact of land-use change on surface runoff, groundwater recharge and wetland hydrology. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1994, 60, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pappas, E.A.; Smith, D.R.; Huang, C.; Shuster, W.D.; Bonta, J.V. Impervious surface impacts to runoff and sediment discharge under laboratory rainfall simulation. Catena 2008, 72, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Schueler, T.R.; Fraley-McNeal, L.; Cappiella, K. Is impervious cover still important? Review of recent research. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2009, 14, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Chithra, S.V.; Nair, M.V.H.; Amarnath, A.; Anjana, N.S. Impacts of impervious surfaces on the environment. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 2015, 4, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  118. Klein, R.D. Urbanization and stream quality impairment 1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1979, 15, 948–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Rozos, E.; Makropoulos, C. Assessing the combined benefits of water recycling technologies by modelling the total urban water cycle. Urban Water J. 2012, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Liu, Z.H.; Wang, Y.L.; Peng, J. Remote sensing of impervious surface and its applications: A review. Prog. Geogr. 2010, 29, 1143–1152. [Google Scholar]
  121. Kim, Y.R.; Hwang, S.H.; Lee, Y.S. Development of water circulation status estimation model by using multiple linear regression analysis of urban characteristic factors. J. Korean Soc. Water Wastewater 2020, 34, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Matsushita, J.; Ozaki, M.; Nishimura, S.; Ohgaki, S. Rainwater drainage management for urban development based on public-private partnership. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wang, X. An applied research in the rural landscape of rainwater collection system based on the concept of LID. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data and Smart City, Halong Bay, Vietnam, 19–20 December 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Wang, Z.; Bell, G.E.; Penn, C.J.; Moss, J.Q.; Payton, M.E. Phosphorus reduction in turfgrass runoff using a steel slag trench filter system. Crop Sci. 2014, 54, 1859–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Duchene, M.; McBean, E.A. Discharge characteristics of perforated pipe for use in infiltration trenches 1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1992, 28, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Seibert, J.; Rodhe, A.; Bishop, K. Simulating interactions between saturated and unsaturated storage in a conceptual runoff model. Hydrol. Process. 2003, 17, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Spence, C. A paradigm shift in hydrology: Storage thresholds across scales influence catchment runoff generation. Geogr. Compass 2010, 4, 819–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Xu, C.Y.; Chen, D. Comparison of seven models for estimation of evapotranspiration and groundwater recharge using lysimeter measurement data in Germany. Hydrol. Process. 2005, 19, 3717–3734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Doble, R.C.; Crosbie, R.S. Review: Current and emerging methods for catchment-scale modelling of recharge and evapotranspiration from shallow groundwater. Hydrogeol. J. 2017, 25, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Leavesley, G.H.; Lichty, R.W.; Troutman, B.M.; Saindon, L.G. Precipitation-runoff modeling system: User’s manual. Water-Resour. Investig. Rep. 1983, 83, 4238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Milewski, A.; Sultan, M.; Yan, E.; Becker, R.; Abdeldayem, A.; Soliman, F.; Gelil, K.A. A remote sensing solution for estimating runoff and recharge in arid environments. J. Hydrol. 2009, 373, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bent, G.C. Effects of forest-management activities on runoff components and ground-water recharge to Quabbin Reservoir, central Massachusetts. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 143, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Schooling, J.T.; Carlyle-Moses, D.E. The influence of rainfall depth class and deciduous tree traits on stemflow production in an urban park. Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 18, 1261–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 01098 g001 550
Figure 1. Photograph of Drain Gage G3′s construction, diagram, and status.
Figure 1. Photograph of Drain Gage G3′s construction, diagram, and status.
Land 11 01098 g001
Land 11 01098 g002 550
Figure 2. Classification of experiments according to 4 ground materials.
Figure 2. Classification of experiments according to 4 ground materials.
Land 11 01098 g002
Land 11 01098 g003 550
Figure 3. Photos of the land cover status of the living zones-4 study sites.
Figure 3. Photos of the land cover status of the living zones-4 study sites.
Land 11 01098 g003
Land 11 01098 g004 550
Figure 4. Photos of the land cover status of the walking spheres-4 study sites.
Figure 4. Photos of the land cover status of the walking spheres-4 study sites.
Land 11 01098 g004
Land 11 01098 g005 550
Figure 5. Amount of groundwater penetration compared to the monthly precipitation of the three ground materials: (a) regression equation for the vegetation area (Va) penetration; (b) regression equation for the permeable sidewalk (Ps) penetration; (c) regression equation for the some pervious sidewalk (SPs) penetration.
Figure 5. Amount of groundwater penetration compared to the monthly precipitation of the three ground materials: (a) regression equation for the vegetation area (Va) penetration; (b) regression equation for the permeable sidewalk (Ps) penetration; (c) regression equation for the some pervious sidewalk (SPs) penetration.
Land 11 01098 g005
Table
Table 1. Selection of study sites for evaluating the water balance of urban parks.
Table 1. Selection of study sites for evaluating the water balance of urban parks.
ClassificationLocationArea
Total
(ha)		Green Space
(ha)(%)
Urban Park within a Living Zone (Over 10,000 m2)
Life 11326, Wadong-ri-dong, Paju-si, Gyeonggi-do2.161.3160.65
Life 21101, Donae-dong, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do2.931.8663.48
Life 31078, Donae-dong, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do1.310.9165.00
Life 4Wonheung-dong, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do1.651.3179.39
Neighborhood park within a walking sphere (over 30,000 m2)
Walk 11640-1, Unnam-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon4.843.0763.43
Walk 2363, Dongsan-dong, Deogyang-gu, Goyang-si9.035.9365.67
Walk 3603, Yeonsu-dong, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do3.022.2172.65
Walk 4371, Dongsan-dong, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do6.044.5475.17
Table
Table 2. Analysis of monthly groundwater penetration.
Table 2. Analysis of monthly groundwater penetration.
ItemWeather StatusVaPsSPsIs
Precipitation
(mm)		Evapotranspiration
(mm)		Penetration
(mm)		Ratio
(%)		Penetration
(mm)		Ratio
(%)		Penetration
(mm)		Ratio
(%)		Penetration
(mm)		Ratio
(%)
January25.222.745.6322.332.8511.330.341.3400
February31.535.516.9922.203.8312.160.120.3900
March67.161.6614.9022.219.1213.590.500.7400
April144.288.5525.0917.4014.4510.021.380.9500
May84.3106.118.3821.8110.5312.490.670.7900
June95.2118.117.8318.7310.0510.560.670.7000
July252.4145.544.6917.7122.709.002.911.1500
August34.6134.79.1126.324.5013.020.280.8200
September135.683.5925.6018.8811.768.680.710.5200
October163.357.2723.4414.3514.608.941.831.1200
November102.832.9115.6115.199.088.830.690.6700
December58.223.677.2412.444.978.540.350.5900
Total1194.4910.3214.5117.96118.459.9210.430.8700
The ratio is the monthly precipitation to the penetration proportion; for evapotranspiration, the PET of Equation (3) was calculated based on the air pressure data of the meteorological station in the Jeonju area, the experimental region.
Table
Table 3. Analysis of the status of the land cover of the study sites.
Table 3. Analysis of the status of the land cover of the study sites.
Study SitesTotal AreaVaPsSPsIsOther
Life 1 (m2)21,599.113,100.0642.93723.62643.61490.0
Ratio (%)100.060.63.017.212.26.9
Life 2 (m2)29,300.018,600.0929.29502.90267.9
Ratio (%)100.063.53.232.40.00.9
Life 3 (m2)14,000.09100.00.04516.8197.5185.7
Ratio (%)100.065.00.032.31.41.3
Life 4 (m2)16,500.013,100.00.01732.91559.3107.8
Ratio (%)100.079.40.010.59.50.7
Walk 1 (m2)48,400.030,700.05248.59289.43032.3129.8
Ratio (%)100.063.410.819.26.30.3
Walk 2 (m2)90,30059,300.02613.222,984.35402.50.0
Ratio (%)100.065.12.926.25.90.0
Walk 3 (m2)30,489.022,150.0978.61355.94852.71151.8
Ratio (%)100.072.63.214.45.73.8
Walk 4 (m2)60,400.045,400.0958.08957.94556.0528.1
Ratio (%)100.075.21.614.87.50.9
Table
Table 4. Results of evaluating the runoff rate per land use type of the study sites.
Table 4. Results of evaluating the runoff rate per land use type of the study sites.
SiteVaPsSPsIsTotal
mm/ha
Life 1159.2618.60177.93205.11560.91
Life 2166.7019.82334.769.80531.08
Life 3170.690.00333.0029.34533.03
Life 4208.490.00108.40108.29425.18
Walk 1166.5767.76198.1070.02502.45
Walk 2172.4518.08262.7264.13517.38
Walk 3190.7820.0645.90211.08467.82
Walk 4197.389.91153.0890.22450.59
Average179.0419.28201.7498.50498.56
Table
Table 5. Results of evaluating the infiltration rate per land use type of the study sites.
Table 5. Results of evaluating the infiltration rate per land use type of the study sites.
SiteVaPsSPsIsTotal
mm
Life 1107.952.792.010.00112.75
Life 2112.992.973.790.00119.75
Life 3115.690.003.770.00119.46
Life 4141.310.001.230.00142.54
Walk 1112.9010.152.240.00125.29
Walk 2116.892.712.970.00122.57
Walk 3129.313.000.520.00132.83
Walk 4133.791.481.730.00137.00
Average121.352.892.280.00126.52
Table
Table 6. Results of evaluating the water balance analysis of the study sites.
Table 6. Results of evaluating the water balance analysis of the study sites.
SiteRunoffInfiltration RateEvapotranspiration
mm(%)mm(%)mm(%)
Life 1560.9152.33112.7510.52398.1637.15
Life 2531.0849.55119.7511.17420.9939.28
Life 3533.0349.73119.4611.15419.3339.12
Life 4425.1839.67142.5413.30504.1047.03
Walk 1502.4546.88125.2911.69444.0841.43
Walk 2517.3848.27122.5711.44431.8740.29
Walk 3467.8243.65132.8312.39471.1743.96
Walk 4450.5942.04137.0012.78484.2345.18
Average498.5646.52126.5211.80446.7441.68
Table
Table 7. Results of evaluating the water resource recharge amount of the study site.
Table 7. Results of evaluating the water resource recharge amount of the study site.
SiteMount by 1 haMount by Site Areas
RunoffEvapotranspirationTotalInfiltrationEvapotranspirationTotal
Life 11127.53981.65109.12435.408600.2611,035.66
Life 21197.54209.95407.43508.6812,335.0115,843.68
Life 31194.64193.35387.91564.935493.227058.15
Life 41425.45041.06466.42351.918317.6510,669.56
Walk 11252.94440.85693.76064.0421,493.4727,557.51
Walk 21225.74318.75544.411,068.0738,997.8650,065.93
Walk 31328.34711.76040.04011.4714,229.3318,240.80
Walk 41370.04842.36212.38274.8029,247.4937,522.29
Average1265.24467.45732.64909.9117,339.2922,249.20
Table
Table 8. Statistical analysis of the sidewalk forms influencing the water balance of urban parks.
Table 8. Statistical analysis of the sidewalk forms influencing the water balance of urban parks.
ItemRegression EquationDetermination Coefficient (R2)
Runoff rateGreen area ratioy = −0.1383x + 137.130.9270
Permeable sidewalk area ratioy = 2.5849x + 490.580.0360
Some pervious sidewalk area ratioy = 3.1108x + 437.760.4476
Impervious sidewalk area ratioy = −0.871x + 506.560.0170
Infiltration rateGreen area ratioy = 0.6417x − 13.0090.9345
Permeable sidewalk area ratioy = −0.6188x + 128.430.0440
Some pervious sidewalk area ratioy = −0.654x + 139.300.4224
Impervious sidewalk area ratioy = 0.1576x + 125.080.0119
EvapotranspirationGreen area ratioy = 0.1762x − 10.5560.9246
Permeable sidewalk area ratioy = −1.9662x + 452.810.0339
Some pervious sidewalk ratioy = −2.4568x + 494.760.4545
Impervious sidewalk area ratioy = 0.7134x + 440.190.0185
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Son, J.; Kwon, T. Evaluation and Improvement Measures of the Runoff Coefficient of Urban Parks for Sustainable Water Balance. Land 2022, 11, 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071098

AMA Style

Son J, Kwon T. Evaluation and Improvement Measures of the Runoff Coefficient of Urban Parks for Sustainable Water Balance. Land. 2022; 11(7):1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071098

Chicago/Turabian Style

Son, Jinkwan, and Taegeun Kwon. 2022. "Evaluation and Improvement Measures of the Runoff Coefficient of Urban Parks for Sustainable Water Balance" Land 11, no. 7: 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071098

APA Style

Son, J., & Kwon, T. (2022). Evaluation and Improvement Measures of the Runoff Coefficient of Urban Parks for Sustainable Water Balance. Land, 11(7), 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071098

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop