Green infrastructure for sustainable urban water management: Practices of five forerunner cities

In the search for both immediate solutions and long-term transitions towards sustainability, green infrastructures (GI) are increasingly linked to urban water management. In this study, the GI-based urban water management practices of five cities famous for their progressive approach to water manage...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cities Vol. 74; pp. 126 - 133
Main Authors: Liu, Li, Jensen, Marina Bergen
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 01.04.2018
Elsevier Science Ltd
Subjects:
Best practice
Cities
City managers
Cognition
Constraints
Consumption
Drinking water
Environmental protection
Green infrastructure
Infrastructure
Innovations
Natural environment
Pilot projects
Planning
Regulation
Resource management
Risk management
Sponge city
Sustainability
Sustainability management
Sustainability transition
Sustainable urban water management
Urban areas
Water resources management
Water supply
Watershed management
Singapore
Sponge city
Sustainable urban water management
Sustainability transition
Green infrastructure
ISSN:0264-2751, 1873-6084
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the search for both immediate solutions and long-term transitions towards sustainability, green infrastructures (GI) are increasingly linked to urban water management. In this study, the GI-based urban water management practices of five cities famous for their progressive approach to water management were investigated. Based on reviews of open-source city plans and strategies, supplemented with information obtained directly from city managers, the purpose was to share best practices for the transition to sustainable urban water management and to gain insight into the role, if any, of GI in urban water management. An analytical frame based on transition theory was adopted. All five cities represented states of transition at the near end of a sustainable urban water management scale. Despite some overlap in challenges concerning water supply, environmental protection, and flood risk management, the development target of each city was unique, as were their solutions. GI has been applied as a way to reduce water footprints in Singapore and Berlin, to protect the environment in Philadelphia, and to help save potable water for consumption in Melbourne and Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city. Despite differences in scale, GI was, in all cases, applied as a supplement to the conventional water infrastructure. All five cities reveal a strong top-down approach towards sustainable urban water management and a strong mindset on GI's role for future development. However, all five cities point to similar challenges for GI implementation, including space and cost constrains as well as barriers for inter-sectorial and stakeholder collaboration, which limit the speed of city-wide upscaling of GI solutions and full realization of GI benefits. The study indicates a need for a simultaneous change in the cognitive, normative, and regulative conditions of the urban water management regime for sustainability transition. Such a change requires a better balance between top-down and bottom-up planning to overcome barriers and foster innovation. The five cities jointly contribute to a noteworthy list of green solutions, city-wide strategies and guidelines, pilot project programs, regulations, and incentive programs, which may serve as inspiration for other cities' transition plans. •UWM=urban water management•The case cities present a number of GI solutions for UWM at different scales.•Explicit awareness of GI's potentials seems to be a prerequisite for linking to UWM.•GI's value for improving a city's livability enhances its application for UWM.•A range of institutional and technical barriers hinders GI application for UWM.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0264-2751
1873-6084
DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.013