Combining co-benefits and stakeholders perceptions into green infrastructure selection for flood risk reduction

Environments - MDPI

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 1-23

  Alves, Alida ^a   Gómez, Jose Patiño ^a,b   Vojinovic, Zoran ^a,b,c,d   Sánchez, Arlex ^a   Weesakul, Sutat ^b,e  

^a UNESCO IHE INSTITUTE FOR WATER EDUCATION   (Netherlands)

^b ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Thailand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE   (Serbia)

^e Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Co benefits; Decision making; Ecosystem services; Flood risk management; Green infrastructure; Human well being; Stakeholders analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 85047462406     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20763298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/environments5020029     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012.
2. Mynett, A.E.; Vojinovic, Z. Hydroinformatics in multi-colours—Part red: Urban flood and disaster management. J. Hydroinform. 2009, 11, 166. [CrossRef]
3. CIRIA. Demonstrating the Multiple Benefits of SuDS—A Business Case. Available online: http://www. susdrain.org/files/resources/ciria_guidance/ciria_rp993_literature_review_october_2013_.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2015).
4. European Commission. The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure, In-depth Report; European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
5. Center for Neighborhood Technology & American Rivers. The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits; Center for Neighborhood Technology: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010.
6. Yazdanfar, Z.; Sharma, A. Urban drainage system planning and design—Challenges with climate change and urbanization: a review. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 72, 165–179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Vojinovic, Z. Flood Risk: The Holistic Perspective. From Integrated to Interactive Planning for Flood Resilience; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2015.
8. Lundy, L.; Wade, R. Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 653–669. [CrossRef]
9. Martin, C.; Ruperd, Y.; Legret, M. Urban stormwater drainage management: The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 181, 338–349. [CrossRef]
10. Cheng, M.; Zhen, J.X.; Shoemaker, L. BMP decision support system for evaluating stormwater management alternatives. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. China 2009, 3, 453–463. [CrossRef]
11. Young, K.D.; Dymond, R.L.; Asce, M.; Kibler, D.F.; Asce, M. Development of an Improved Approach for Selecting Storm-Water Best Management Practices. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2011, 137, 268–275. [CrossRef]
12. Jia, H.; Yao, H.; Tang, Y.; Yu, S.L.; Zhen, J.X.; Lu, Y. Development of a multi-criteria index ranking system for urban runoff best management practices (BMPs) selection. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 7915–7933. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Chow, J.; Savic, D.; Fortune, D.; Kapelan, Z.; Mebrate, N. Translating legislative requirements and best practice guidance into a systematic, multi-criteria decision support framework for effective sustainable drainage design evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2013 IAHR World Congress, Chengdu, China, 8–13 September 2013.
14. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 159, 62–75. [CrossRef]
15. Schifman, L.A.; Herrmann, D.L.; Shuster, W.D.; Ossola, A.; Garmestani, A.; Hopton, M.E. Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 1–16. [CrossRef]
16. Alves, A.; Sanchez, A.; Vojinovic, Z.; Seyoum, S.; Babel, M.; Brdjanovic, D. Evolutionary and holistic assessment of green-grey infrastructure for CSO reduction. Water 2016, 8, 402. [CrossRef]
17. Jia, H.; Lu, Y.; Yu, S.L.; Chen, Y. Planning of LID–BMPs for urban runoff control: The case of Beijing Olympic Village. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 84, 112–119. [CrossRef]
18. Fratini, C.F.F.; Geldof, G.D.; Kluck, J.; Mikkelsen, P.S. Three Points Approach (3PA) for urban flood risk management: A tool to support climate change adaptation through transdisciplinarity and multifunctionality. Urban Water J. 2012, 9, 317–331. [CrossRef]
19. Moura, N.C.B.; Pellegrino, P.R.M.; Martins, J.R.S. Best management practices as an alternative for flood and urban storm water control in a changing climate. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2016, 9, 243–254. [CrossRef]
20. Recanatesi, F.; Petroselli, A.; Ripa, M.N.; Leone, A. Assessment of stormwater runoff management practices and BMPs under soil sealing: A study case in a peri-urban watershed of the metropolitan area of Rome (Italy). J. Environ. Manage. 2017, 201, 6–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-pelkonen, V.; Ka, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [CrossRef]
22. Haines-Young, R.H.; Potschin, M.B. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In Ecosystems Ecology: A New Synthesis, Chapter Six; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010.
23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5.
24. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK. An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services; Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2007.
25. Consultation on CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) Version 4, August–December 2012 and CICES-V4-3 Spreadsheet. Available online: https://cices.eu/resources/(accessed on 12 December 2017).
26. De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [CrossRef]
27. Staub, C.; Ott, W.; Heusi, F.; Klingler, G.; Jenny, A.; Häcki, M.; Hauser, A. Indicators for Ecosystem Goods and Services: Framework, Methodology and Recommendations for a Welfare-Related Environmental Reporting; Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN): Bern, Switzerland, 2011.
28. Woods-Ballard, B.; Kellagher, R.; Martin, P.; Jefferies, C.; Bray, R.; Shaffer, P. The SUDS Manual; CIRIA: London, UK, 2007.
29. UDFCD. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3, Stormwater Best Management Practice; Urban Drainage, Flood Control District, Eds.; Water Resources Publications: Denver, CO, USA, 2010.
30. Horton, B.; Digman, C.J.; Ashley, R.M.; Gill, E. BeST (Benefits of SuDS Tool) W045c BeST—Technical Guidance Release Version 3; CIRIA: London, UK, 2016.
31. Lovell, S.T.; Taylorm, J.R. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 1447–1463. [CrossRef]
32. WHO. Health and Sustainable Development. Available online: http://www.who.int/sustainabledevelopment/cities/health-risks/urban-greenspace/%0Aen/(accessed on 5 December 2015).
33. Macmullan, E.; Reich, S. The Economics of Low-Impact Development: A Literature Review; ECONorthwest: Eugene, OR, USA, 2007.
34. Derkzen, M.L.; Van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. Quantifying urban ecosystem services based on high-resolution data of urban green space: An assessment for Rotterdam, The Netherlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 1020–1032. [CrossRef]
35. Jia, H.; Yao, H.; Tang, Y.; Yu, S.L.; Field, R.; Tafuri, A.N. LID-BMPs planning for urban runoff control and the case study in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 149, 65–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Patiño Gómez, J. Assessment of Green Infrastructure Measures to Reduce Stormwater Runoff and Enhance Multiple Benefits in Urban Areas; Asian Institute of Technology: Bangkok, Thailand; UNESCO–IHE: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017.
37. Shoemaker, L.; Riverson, J.J.; Alvi, K.; Zhen, J.X.; Paul, S.; Rafi, T. SUSTAIN—A Framework for Placement of Best Management Practices in Urban Watersheds to Protect Water Quality; National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2009.
38. DEFRA. Local Action. Available online: http://urbanwater-eco.services/toolbox/(accessed on 18 December 2016).
39. Berghage, R.; Beattie, D.; Jarrett, A.R.; Thuring, C.; Razaei, F.; O’Connor, T.P. Green Roofs for Stormwater Runoff Control Green Roofs for Stormwater Runoff Control; National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2009.
40. Lorphensri, O.; Ladawadee, A.; Dhammasarn, S. Review of groundwater management and land subsidence in Bangkok, Thailand. In Groundwater and Subsurface Environments; Taniguchi, M., Ed.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2011.
41. Keerakamolchai, W. Towards a Framework for Muntifunctional Flood Detention Facilities Design in a Mixed Land Use Area: The Case of Ayutthaya World Heritage Site, Thailand. Master’s Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, UNESCO–IHE, Delft, The Netherlands, 2014.
42. Golub, D. Towards a Framework for Participatory Flood Risk Assessment in Urban Areas with Cultural Heritage: The Case of the Historic City of Ayutthaya, Thailand; UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education: Delft, The Netherlands, 2014.
43. Roachanakanan, T. Changing in drainage pattern and increasing flood risk in Thailand. In Proceedings of the Asia Flood Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 29–31 October 2013.
44. Vojinovic, Z.; Hammond, M.; Golub, D.; Hirunsalee, S.; Weesakul, S.; Meesuk, V.; Medina, N.; Sanchez, A.; Kumara, S.; Abbott, M. Holistic approach to flood risk assessment in areas with cultural heritage: A practical application in Ayutthaya, Thailand. Nat. Hazards 2016, 81, 589–616. [CrossRef]
45. Vojinovic, Z.; Keerakamolchai, W.; Weesakul, S.; Pudar, R.S.; Medina, N.; Alves, A. Combining ecosystem services with cost-benefit analysis for selection of green and grey infrastructure for flood protection in a cultural setting. Environments 2016, 4, 3. [CrossRef]
46. Cheng, C.; Ryan, R.L.; Warren, P.S.; Nicolson, C. Exploring Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Urban Growth Scenarios for Metropolitan Boston (USA): The Relationship Between Urban Trees and Perceived Density. Cities Environ. 2017, 10, 7.