How Rainwater Can Transform Cities

IN DEGREE PROJECT ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019

How Rainwater Can Transform CitiesAn Evaluation of Success Factors for Urban Rainwater Harvesting Projects in Europe

LINNÉA PAULS

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

“Building sustainable cities - and a sustainable future - will need open dialogue among all

branches of national, regional and local government.

And it will need the engagement of all stakeholders - including the private sector and civil

society, and especially the poor and marginalized. …

All around the world, we see cities developing exciting new solutions.

Let us learn from each other so we can replicate and scale up what works.”

- Ban Ki-moon, remarks at the Sustainable Cities Days, December 12th, 2013

ii

Abstract

It is evident that changing weather patterns challenge societies globally and at multiple levels

related to amongst others health, the environment, disaster management and mitigation. There is a

need for greater flexibility and resilience, which in turn can be enabled through a transition towards

increased sustainability in governance and infrastructure. Urban rainwater harvesting (URWH) is

a term used in this paper to collect various approaches to the sustainable handling of rainwater in

cities, a practice becoming increasingly common in some areas of the world. Global experiences

can be useful learning opportunities in the planning, implementation and maintenance of

sustainable urban rainwater harvesting in future smart cities.

The aim of this thesis was to synthesize the factors of success of previous projects, in order to

develop a framework tailored to the evaluation of projects concerned with rainwater harvesting.

Using an evaluative framework developed for urban sustainability transitions, the literature review

of existing projects indicates which features are most critical for the successful transition towards

mainstreaming urban rainwater harvesting. The review spanned across 18 projects of different

scale and design, from areas across the globe that have similar climatic conditions and planning

settings as European cities. The projects were chosen with regard to their diversity, yet with the

limitations to be publicly planned and providing multiple functions using collected rainwater.

The findings of the study show that successful URWH projects are: (1) found as part of urban

renewal schemes; (2) successfully implemented by involved actors with open mindsets and

flexible and collaborative working approaches; (3) maintained based on plans determined from the

onset of the project, developed together with local actors, in order to involve the community and

strengthen social inclusion.

The proposed evaluative framework indicates general trends of success among the reviewed cases.

To be fully operational, the framework should be further developed with additional URWH

projects and revised thereafter.

Key words: Climate Change Adaptation, Multifunctional Systems, Rainwater Harvesting, Urban

Sustainability Transitions

iii

Sammanfattning

Regnvatten som resurs

- En litteraturstudie om framgångsfaktorer för lokalt omhändertagande av dagvatten i Europa

Det blir alltmer tydligt att framtiden medför klimatförändringar, där modellerna är eniga om att

trenden i Europa ger fler extremer, med både torka och skyfall. På senare år har samtida utmaningar

som klimatförändringar och ökande befolkningstillväxt medfört att flera kommuner och städer har

skapat strategier för en mer hållbar stadsutveckling, där det ingår en plan för hur dagvatten ska

förvaltas. Urban Rainwater Harvesting (lokalt omhändertagande av dagvatten, URWH) används

som en samlingsterm för de naturnära system som samlar upp och tar nytta av dagvatten i städer,

till gagn för både miljön, i form av t.ex. en mer naturlig vattencykel och minskade utsläpp av orenat

avloppsvatten, och stadens invånare, som kan ta lärdom av processen och hur en hållbar hantering

av regnvatten återfås, samt knyta kontakter i grönområden.

Trots otaliga fördelar sker förvandlingen, från att regnvatten leds bort med konventionella

avloppssystem till en etablerad applicering av URWH, långsamt. Även i de städer som anses vara

i utvecklingens framkant, finns endast ett fåtal exempel på URWH. Uppsatsen ämnar

sammanställa och utvärdera 18 av de projekt som genomförts hittills inom Europa, samt i städer i

Oceanien och Nordamerika som har liknande utmaningar och förutsättningar. Resultaten ska på så

sätt kunna påvisa vilka faktorer som är mest kritiska för framgångsrika URWH-projekt. Arbetet

tar avstamp i en utvärderingsmetod som redovisas av Luederitz et al. (2016), där projekt med

målbild att skapa en hållbar stad (så kallade Urban Sustainability Transitions) bryts ned till sina

beståndsdelar för att kunna jämföras. Genom att följa ramverket fastställs tre viktiga resultat, det

vill säga tre betingelser som bör uppfyllas för att höja chansen att projekt lyckas: (1) de bör ingå i

stadsbyggnads- och renoveringsprojekt av större skala, med politisk backning; (2) genomföras av

aktörer med flexibla och kooperativa arbetsmetoder; (3) förvaltas efter bestämmelser som gjorts

vid projektstart tillsammans med lokala aktörer, för att främja lokalt engagemang och integration.

Det nya ramverket som föreslås är baserat på de generella trender som medfört genombrott för de

18 projekt som ingick i analysen. För att vara fullt applicerbart på andra URWH-projekt bör det

nya ramverket testas och utvecklas ytterligare.

Nyckelord: Hållbara städer, Klimatanpassning, Lokalt omhändertagande av dagvatten,

Regnvatten som resurs

iv

Acknowledgements

This thesis marks the final step of the five-year program Energy and Environmental Engineering,

with a two-year master’s in Environmental Engineering and Sustainable Infrastructure. Therefore,

I would first and foremost like to thank the countless inspirational professors and lecturers of

interesting courses which I have pursued during the past years, for their work in the field and the

energy with which they taught the class, you have given me a solid basis to stand on.

Special thank you also to my supervisor Lina Suleiman for her valuable support, inputs and fruitful

discussions throughout the thesis process.

Finally, I extend my gratitude to friends and family for their vital support throughout the past years

and in particular the recent months. It would have been a boring venture to go through without

your love from near and far, thank you for your encouragement and thoughts throughout the

process.

Linnéa Pauls

Stockholm, June 2019

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................ii

Sammanfattning ............................................................................................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................................................ iv

List of tables .................................................................................................................................................................................................... vii

List of figures .................................................................................................................................................................................................. vii

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................. viii

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research background .....................................................................................................................................................................2 1.2. Aim and Objectives ..........................................................................................................................................................................5 1.3. Scope and delimitations ................................................................................................................................................................6 1.4. Disposition...........................................................................................................................................................................................8

2. Research approach and method .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Data collection ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

3. Theoretical background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1. Urban sustainability transitions ............................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2. Presentation of the evaluative framework ....................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.1. Critiques of the evaluative framework ...................................................................................................................... 18

4. Literature review ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.1. Inputs .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

4.1.1. Awareness ............................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.2. Commitment ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.3. Expertise .................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 4.1.4. Trust ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.5. Support ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

4.2. Processes ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 4.2.1. Sequence of actions............................................................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.2. Sound methodology ............................................................................................................................................................ 27 4.2.3. Collaboration.......................................................................................................................................................................... 27 4.2.4. Reflexivity and learning .................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.2.5. Transparency ......................................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.3. Outputs ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.3.1. Built capacities ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.3.2. Actionable knowledge ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.3. Accountability ........................................................................................................................................................................ 30 4.3.4. Changes in physical structures ...................................................................................................................................... 30 4.3.5. Changes in social realms .................................................................................................................................................. 31 4.3.6. Transferability and scalability ....................................................................................................................................... 31 4.3.7. Accounting for unintended consequences associated with uptake............................................................. 32

4.4. Outcomes........................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 4.4.1. Socio-ecological integrity ................................................................................................................................................. 33

vi

4.4.2. Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity .................................................................................................................... 33 4.4.3. Intra- and intergenerational equity ............................................................................................................................ 34 4.4.5. Resource maintenance and efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 34 4.4.6. Socio-ecological stewardship and democratic governance ............................................................................. 35 4.4.7. Precaution and adaptation .............................................................................................................................................. 35

5. Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 5.1. Obstacles to mainstreaming URWH ..................................................................................................................................... 37 5.2. Critical features specific to URWH - a revised evaluative framework................................................................. 38

5.2.1. Inputs ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 5.2.2. Processes ................................................................................................................................................................................. 39 5.2.3. Outputs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 5.2.4. Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................................................. 41

5.3. Reflection on the research approach ................................................................................................................................... 41 5.3.1. Generalizability of results ................................................................................................................................................ 42

6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 6.1. Recommendations for further work .................................................................................................................................... 45

References ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46

Appendix A: Evaluation scheme as seen in Luederitz et al. (2016, p.11) .............................................................................. 52

Appendix B: Evaluative matrix of reviewed projects .................................................................................................................... 53

vii

List of tables

Table 1. Outline of the evaluative matrix, developed based on questions from the framework .................. 12

Table 2. Dimensions, features and evaluative questions of the framework (adapted from Luederitz et al.,

2016) ............................................................................................................................................................ 17

Table 3. Summary of case studies ................................................................................................................ 21

List of figures

Figure 1. Urban rainwater harvesting along Hornsgatan, Stockholm (Personal collection, 2019) ............. 3

Figure 2. Visual representation of the operationalization of the study ......................................................... 9

Figure 3. Overview of evaluative dimensions adapted from Luederitz et al. (2016, p. 5) .......................... 16

Figure 4. Case study locations – overview on world map (GoogleMaps) .................................................. 20

Figure 5. Malmö, Söderkullaparken (Personal collection, 2019) ............................................................... 23

Figure 6. Stockholm, Hornsgatan (Personal collection, 2019) ................................................................... 29

Figure 7. Copenhagen, Sankt Annæ Plads (Personal collection, 2019) ..................................................... 32

Figure 8. Copenhagen, Tåsinge Plads (Personal collection, 2019)............................................................ 35

viii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BMP Best Management Practice

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

EEA European Environment Agency

GI Green Infrastructure

IUWM Integrated Urban Water Management

LID Low Impact Development

RWH Rainwater Harvesting

SuDS Sustainable Urban Design

URWH Urban Rainwater Harvesting

UST Urban Sustainability Transition

WFD Water Framework Directive

WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

1

1. Introduction

Nearly three quarters of Europeans live in urban areas, and the trend towards further urbanization

is increasing globally (United Nations, 2018). Urban densification and expansion lead to an

increase in areas of hard surfaces, so called impervious areas, such as conventional rooftops, paved

roads and parking lots. Simultaneously, the extreme-weather effects of global warming are

becoming ever more apparent (“Extreme Weather Continues,”, 2018; “Climate Change Impacts

and Adaptation”, 2018). The frequency and extremity of storms and rainfall appears to increase in

some areas while droughts are affecting others. According to the European Environment Agency

(EEA), annual precipitation is decreasing in southern Europe, resulting in increased competition

between water users such as the agricultural sector, water utility companies and industries (“Key

observed,”, 2017). A decrease in summer precipitation has been observed also in the central

European region, although a simultaneous increase in flood risk is also noted (ibid). Northern

Europe has in the past decade experienced more severe alternating periods of flooding and drought,

affecting groundwater reserves and crop yields (Ward et al., 2012; “Risk för vattenbrist”, n.d.;

“Key observed,”, 2017). This is the case, for example, in parts of rural Sweden, where the shortage

of groundwater becomes evident during prolonged periods of dry weather, since low groundwater

tables affect the availability of water in private wells (Weckström, 2018).

In the urban context, on the other hand, precipitation is rarely able to infiltrate to the groundwater.

When a vast amount of rain falls within short periods of time in urban areas where a significant

fraction of surfaces are impervious, water will flow along streets and gutters and collect in lower

terrain and sewers. Existing sewer infrastructure is oftentimes insufficient for handling both an

increase in connected person equivalents and stormwater from irregular rain events, resulting in

pluvial (surface water) flooding. Furthermore, many city-centers are still reliant on combined

sewer systems, which are both expensive to maintain and difficult to expand due to the amount of

pipes, cables and tunnels already existing underground. Combined sewers collect grey water (from

sinks, baths etc.) and black water (from toilets) from buildings as well as stormwater from streets,

where after it is treated in centralized wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). A by-pass of the

treatment process prevents the plant from overflowing, however, this results in untreated

wastewater reaching the recipient. Likewise, if sewers reach their capacity, excess and untreated

2

water may back-up in the system and cause flooding of cellars or leave the system at an overflow

weir. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) events are relatively common, causing both a health risk

and environmental hazard. In addition to flooded cellars and untreated wastewater in recipient

surface waters, excess rainwater which accumulates on impervious surfaces can cause blockage of

transport infrastructure. For example, Copenhagen has in recent years experienced recurring heavy

summer rains (most notably on July 2nd, 2011 where 100mm fell within one hour) amongst others

causing important routes, such as the Lyngby highway to flood (Madsen et al., 2017). In its

“Cloudburst Management Plan”, the City of Copenhagen (2012) identifies the complexity of the

problem, as urban rainwater is both a cause of environmental degradation and economic cost as

well as a valuable resource for society. To face the concurrent problems of summer droughts and

flood risks as well as other climate change related issues, they have developed the Copenhagen

Climate Adaptation Plan. Several cities have in the recent decade formed similar ambitious plans

for a transition towards a more sustainable future, aiming to increase their resilience to climate

change. These plans are in part spurred on by European Union documents such as the Aalborg

Charter of European Cities and the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

1.1. Research background

An expansion of grey infrastructure, such as conventional sewer systems and underground

retention basins, is only a partial solution. An expansion of sewers is becoming increasingly

difficult and, in some cases, economically non-viable, in particular if piping and retention basins

are dimensioned after heavy rain events which are statistically infrequent yet require large volume

and must fit between existing sub terrain infrastructure (Fabritius Tengnagel & Aslaug Lund,

2017). However, any alternatives must also conform to guidelines and regulations specifying the

degree to which water should be treated before it reaches natural recipients. A challenging aspect

is thus how to avoid CSO events while simultaneously treating water (especially the so called first-

flush in case of irregular rain events, which has a higher concentration of pollutants) and wherever

possible also make use of rainwater that falls within the urban area. A most basic example of a

dual system consisting of sewers and water harvesting for street-side trees is depicted in Figure 1.

3

Figure 1. Urban rainwater harvesting along Hornsgatan, Stockholm (Personal collection, 2019)

Rainwater harvesting (RWH) has been practiced for millennia as a source of water for multiple

uses, but only in the past decades has urban rainwater harvesting, hereinafter URWH, received

greater attention (Campisano et al., 2017). Historically, RWH is a source of potable water in

particular and often refers to the collection, storage and on-site use of rainwater (ibid). This still

remains a more-or-less common alternative domestic water supply in parts of the world, including

developed countries such as Australia, where water is either expensive or inaccessible.

More recently, international research and development in the field of urban water has resulted in

a broadened view of URWH, driven on by several challenges as well as multiple benefits. URWH

refers to systems that collect water from urban spaces to benefit the society at large. The multiple

benefits include for instance non-potable use such as irrigation of public gardens or parks, allocated

spaces for stormwater retention, recreational areas and the natural infiltration of stormwater to

reduce stress on wastewater treatment and the risk of pluvial flooding. In addition, several social

benefits such as inclusion and integration of groups of different incomes and backgrounds have

4

been identified (e.g. Gondhalekar & Ramsauer, 2017; Lister, N.M., personal communication,

December 4, 2018).

Projects and initiatives with similar objectives have developed in parallel across urban regions of

the world, resulting in an array of practices and terminology. Therefore, a short note on the jargon

of the urban water field. As Fletcher et al. (2015) identify, the nomenclature is relevant since it can

refer to solutions implemented at different sites and with differing objectives in the urban water

system. The most overarching terms used are Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) and

Green Infrastructure (GI), which have a combined focus on several disciplines and across actors.

Similarly, Low Impact Development (LID), a term used mainly in North America and New

Zealand, refers to developments which aim at reducing the stress on nature and conventional

drainage systems by applying “catchment wide hydraulic restoration” (Fletcher et al., 2015, p.

527). Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) is the predominantly used term in the UK, referring to

a more sustainable management train approach (from source to outlet) for water, an aim which

was introduced, and to some extent legislated, in the early ´00s (ibid). However, Ward et al. (2012)

argue that rainwater harvesting for the purpose of alternative water supply has yet to develop in

the UK due to a number of inhibiting barriers, including social and technical concerns. Some

scholars, mainly in north-east Asia, call on the need to build “Sponge Cities”, coined after their

ability to soak up rainwater also in the expected events of rising seawater levels, causing

groundwater in coastal cities to rise (Gaines, 2016). In Australia, most approaches to handle urban

water are referred to as Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), a term which has gained

popularity also in the UK and New Zealand, with the objective of building water sensitive cities

which take into account aspects of water quality and conservation (Fletcher et al., 2015). In

Scandinavia, the systems are named after their intention to control rainwater locally where it first

hits a surface, “source control”, in Swedish referred to as “lokalt omhändertagande av dagvatten”

(LOD), or in Danish “lokal afledning/anvendelse af regnvand” (LAR). Further common

denominations, albeit increasingly disputed for reasons of ambiguity and subjectivity, include best

management practices (BMPs) and alternative techniques (ibid).

These initiatives are all generally considered to be methods of climate change adaptation, as they

aid in making cities more resilient to the effects of global warming. They offer solutions to the

problems of growing urban populations, increasing number of cloudbursts (torrential rain usually

5

over a short time span), outdated conventional sewer systems, undersized centralized WWTP,

while simultaneously adding value in the form of biodiversity and social inclusion, amongst others.

Ecosystem-based cities, which incorporate more green and blue aspects, are in themselves able to

function more naturally, using rainwater to grow and recharge groundwater levels which in turn

sustain other vital aspects of natural ecosystems and their benefits to humans (Lister, N.M.,

personal communication, December 4, 2018).

This thesis is based on the premise that the abovementioned initiatives inevitably include

approaches to rainwater handling, in one form or another, and thereby constitute a type of URWH

system.

1.2. Aim and Objectives

Previous scientific discourse on RWH has been oriented around water-saving aspects and technical

improvements of domestic systems (Campisano et al., 2017). In recent years, research on the

multiple benefits of urban rainwater harvesting systems has taken off (ibid; Petit-Boix et al., 2018;

García Soler et al., 2018). Increasingly, the role of key actors and policy have also been explored

(Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2016).

However, there is a limited amount of research exploring the factors to achieve a successful

transition toward rainwater harvesting systems in a larger urban regional context (García Soler et

al., 2018). One particular aspect which has yet to be adequately addressed is how URWH systems

can be compared and evaluated cross-case, to identify synergies in success factors in order to

achieve the transition. Markard et al. (2012) identified this gap in sustainability transition research,

while Luederitz et al. (2016) developed an evaluative framework for this purpose. To evaluate how

and to what extent sustainability transitions in general, and URWH systems in particular, succeed,

they must be properly compared. Two main research gaps exist, namely the lack of common

evaluative grounds for cross-case-comparison as well as the factors to success of URWH projects.

This paper will thus explore the research question of which features are most critical in planning,

developing and maintaining URWH systems. In order to discern which aspects are key to a

successful transition project, the thesis will explore:

6

(1) What characterizes the essential features of the public urban rainwater harvesting projects

that have been implemented to the present day?

(2) Which obstacles exist to mainstream the transition towards URWH?

(3) How can an evaluative scheme be applied and adapted to this specific type of transition

experiment?

These questions will be explored by analyzing cases of URWH systems through the lens of urban

sustainability transitions. Overall, the results may further the understanding to the academe of how

URWH systems can contribute to social, ecological and economic sustainability.

The resulting framework can also be used to ease the cross-case learning of URWH systems in

practice, which may be helpful for the success of current and future projects on urban rainwater

harvesting. In an even broader context, an increased amount of successful projects will aid the

Sustainable Development Goals (11) Sustainable Cities and Communities, (14) Life Below Water,

as well as (6) Clean Water and Sanitation, set by the United Nations in 2015.

1.3. Scope and delimitations

The evaluative scheme for sustainability transition experiments developed by Luederitz et al.

(2016) is applied to existing URWH systems. A temporal cut-off is set at 1990 in order to focus

the review on projects that lie in a contemporary political landscape. Since the discourse and

implementation of alternative systems to traditional sewers in itself is a relatively recent field in

the urban context, this restriction should only be a further aid in finding projects that are relevant

to future work.

The research is restricted to publicly planned projects, along with public-private-partnerships, as

there tends to be more available information on these and their comparability in terms of the

transition process is more transparent and well founded.

To account for differing practices depending on prevailing situations across Europe, the review

aims to focus on examples from Europe to the extent to which this is possible. In addition, the

evaluation extends beyond Europe to include URWH initiatives in North America, as well as in

Oceania. These continents are considered to have similar governance structures and resources to

spend on, as well as the need for, rainwater harvesting and climate change adaptation as European

7

cities. The initial background review yielded a handful of cities that globally lie in the forefront of

applying URWH. Thus, for reasons of information availability to evaluate cross-case using the

chosen theoretical framework (see Section 3), the literature review will look at these along with a

number of less-known cases. In order to reduce the subjectivity involved in the choice of case

studies across Europe, the review aims to include at least one project from each climatic zone of

Europe.

Due to the geographically varying terminology of systems handling rain and stormwater in urban

areas, this review is limited to those projects that have an explicitly planned use for the collected

water beyond providing a recreational space (e.g. for irrigation, non-potable uses, stormwater

retention, as traffic calming devices etc.). As previously mentioned, it is here assumed that projects

within the fields referred to as GI, BMP, WSUD, amongst others, may rely on rainwater to fulfill

their function, in which case they constitute a type of rainwater harvesting system. Broadening the

search to include successful practices from other continents enables the quantitative assessment of

several cases, which in turn allows for results to be more generalizable (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

Furthermore, the urban approach and uses limit the investigated literature to the transition process

towards rainwater harvesting in a larger context, rather than focusing on the chemical suitability

of rainwater as potable water and concerns related to the steps necessary to meet potable quality.

This limitation goes hand-in-hand with the focus on public projects and benefits related to urban

reformation, as these tend to view URWH as an alternative to conventional drainage rather than as

an alternative source of potable water.

It also lies beyond the scope of this thesis to take into account the economic analysis of URWH

across different cases, partially since previous studies have proven this a difficult task (e.g. Amos

et al., 2016). It should, however, be noted that costs affect the competitiveness of rainwater

harvesting compared to conventional systems, as for example the saved expenses of reduced

flooding or improved health from better air quality are also benefits of URWH.

Finally, the paper will not explore the legality of rainwater harvesting and the managing of

common resources, discussed by renowned scholars such as Elinor Ostrom. The re-filling of

groundwater reserves is an important benefit of infiltration measures, some of which are applied

8

in rainwater harvesting projects. However, given the focus here on publicly planned projects, it is

assumed that no single actor benefits from the collected water, and that it will remain part of the

water cycle in a non-degraded state.

1.4. Disposition

The introductory section introduced the relevance of the research in a global context, along with

the aims and limitations of the thesis. Section two describes the research method and

operationalization, followed by section three delving deeper into the background on urban

transition theory as well as the evaluative framework and its specific components relevant to this

analysis. Thereafter, the literature review is presented in section four and analyzed in light of the

theoretical components in a step-by-step manner. The literature review is systematically organized

after critical features of the evaluative dimensions: inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. In

section five the obstacles to mainstreaming are discussed and the adapted framework is presented,

followed by a discussion on the meaning and potential impact of the literature review results along

with a comment on their generalizability. Finally, section six concludes the findings of the review

and suggests recommendations for future work.

9

2. Research approach and method

The paper evaluates past studies, articles and project descriptions on URWH in light of transition

theory, thus applying meta-analysis as a primary source of data (O’Leary, 2014). A background

literature review facilitates deeper understanding of the state of URWH systems globally and is a

necessary means to answer the first auxiliary research question.

Through qualitative and quantitative analysis by use of a theoretical framework for the appraisal

of urban sustainability transitions, the similarities and differences between different projects are

determined. Particular regard is taken to the multiple benefits taken into account and the role of

the actors involved. These considerations aid in answering the second auxiliary research question,

as well as providing the data necessary to answer the final auxiliary question. By evaluating

URWH case studies through the theoretical framework and urban transition theory (presented in

section three) as shown in Figure 2, comments to revise the framework to be better tailored to this

specific type of sustainability transition can be made. Figure 2 represents how case studies are

“pulled through” the framework, to result in a revised framework specifying the features which

are found critical for the success of URWH projects.

Figure 2. Visual representation of the operationalization of the study

The evaluative framework applied in this review was developed by Luederitz et al. (2016).

However, urban rainwater harvesting systems seen as parts of a transition towards a more

sustainable urban future could also be evaluated solely using transition theory. Transition theory

within the field of urban sustainability involves four stages, namely pre-development, take-off,

acceleration and stabilization (Madsen et al., 2017). Furthermore, the theory involves the concept

of multi-level scale to explain a transition: macro, meso and micro (de Graaf & van der Brugge,

Literature

review of

case

studies

Evaluative

framework

Revised evaluative

framework tailored

to URWH

transitions

10

2010). Traditional transition theory proves a useful tool to explain some aspects of URWH

systems, such as the different scales of management, but does not provide an applicable framework

for cross-case comparisons. While transition theory is deemed too regime-focused for this study,

the alternative view on URWH as a socio-ecological system does not present a framework

comprehensive enough to cover aspects related to technical feasibility and multifunctionality of

hydrological systems.

Though other frameworks exist which may yield different results, the scheme by Luederitz et al.

was chosen as it consists of structured questions and was developed specifically to be applicable

to a wide range of project types. The evaluative framework developed by Luederitz et al. (2016),

further explained in section three, was selected since it draws on the broader urban transitional

setting which URWH is embedded in. The framework is generic, comprehensive, operational and

formative, thus constituting a logical basis for evaluation (ibid). As such, it was considered optimal

to use for evaluating the sustainability transition of URWH.

2.1. Data collection

This section describes in detail how the data for the literature review was collected and how the

subsequent evaluation was conducted.

Initially, the search terms “Rainwater Harvesting”, “Urban Rainwater Harvesting” and “Urban

Sustainability Transition” were used in the search engines Google Scholar database and KTH

Library Primo to aid background research and give an overview of the current features of URWH

systems and debates around the transition. The literature databases were accessed between August

2018 and February 2019.

Subsequently, to obtain literature on case studies, implemented solutions and ongoing projects, the

advanced search was primarily based on the terms “urban”; “rain”; “harvesting”. As these searches

gave insufficient results in some regions, additional terms (e.g. “green infrastructure” and

“[location]” to specify a city) were included in the search.

Wherever necessary and possible, the search was tailored to the region of interest. German, Danish

and Swedish searches were done in the local language, for instance in German, URWH is most

commonly referred to as “dezentrale Regenwasserbewirtschaftung”. The tailored search also

11

allowed for the use of varying terms, described in the introduction. As the researcher possessed a

good to fluent understanding of said languages, these case studies could be included without

jeopardizing the quality of the review.

A distinction in terminology and relevance of the case and methods applied was made at the

analysis stage based on the accessibility of sufficient information to base the evaluation on.

An extensive document review was performed to analyze case studies in depth. Quality data was

ensured by use of published articles and government websites. The review focused on web-

published scientific journal articles as these are peer reviewed and considered credible. Additional

grey literature and projects were found through references in previous literature and by

recommendation. Online sources such as governmental websites, municipal reports and project

pages were used to find further information about case studies. Although such sources may not be

mentioned in scientific research or referred to in a way that fulfilled the search criterion, they are

deemed valid as they were retrieved from government sources and necessary for the fair appraisal

of several evaluation criteria (e.g. project transparency, commitment, built capacities). All

material used is cited, referenced and was at the time of research available publicly or on

aforementioned academic search engines.

The literature review was done through the evaluative questions stated in the framework developed

by Luederitz et al. (2016), organized as features of inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes,

creating a matrix of requirements that have either been met or not, or remain unanswered due to

insufficient basis. Each definitive answer is based on and justified by a quote or section from the

reviewed text, as exemplified in Table 1. As the questions were stated as closed questions, the

resulting matrix could be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

A further implication of closed questions is decreased ambiguity, reducing the risk that the

researcher’s own norms influence the collected data. However, sustainability transitions also deal

with “soft values”, thus some of the researcher’s norms and properties may inevitably bias the

evaluation (Backhaus & Fryd, 2013; Luederitz et al., 2016).

12

Table 1. Outline of the evaluative matrix, developed based on questions from the framework

Projects →

Evaluative questions ↓

Project A Project B Project ...

Does the transition

experiment ensure

transparency throughout

the process?

Yes - [“justification” (Reference)] No -

[“justification”

(Ref.)]

...

... ... ... ...

Alternative methods of data collection, such as interviews with key actors, were not conducted due

to time constraints and the aptitude of available literature. However, it should be noted that a more

extensive review could have been facilitated by interviews held with actors involved in design and

development phases, as well as users. Furthermore, due to constraints of both time and economic

resources, site visits were only conducted at a handful of reviewed cases (namely Tåsinge Plads,

Sankt Annæ Plads, Hornsgatan, Söderkullaparken and Potsdamer Platz, see Table 3). Whereas site

visits could aid in answering a few of the evaluative questions and observe the situational context,

they are not considered necessary to obtain the understanding required for this qualitative

evaluation.

13

3. Theoretical background

The following chapter aims to clarify the theoretical background of the study. Following a

description of urban transitions in broader terms, the evaluative framework through which the

URWH systems are assessed is presented in detail. The evaluative framework was developed to

be applicable to all types of urban sustainability transitions (USTs), thus this section also aims to

prove the relevance of rainwater harvesting systems in the field of USTs.

3.1. Urban sustainability transitions

“Since a transition is described as a shift from one socio-technical regime to another, and the

regime is defined as the highly institutionalized socio-technical structures of a system, a

transition can ultimately be defined as institutional change with a particular awareness for

technologies.” (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2016, p. 301)

Urban transitions are an integral part of our ever-changing society. Sustainability transitions, like

most urban transitions, commonly occur as a result of demand and vision. Whether it be for

instance the development of a new cultural center to strengthen diversity or the construction of a

bus-rapid-transit route to shift towards increased public transportation, most transitions

furthermore include changes in both user practices and institutional structures. According to

Frantzeskaki et al. (2017), USTs are “fundamental and structural changes in urban systems through

which persistent societal challenges are addressed” (p. 1). As such, USTs are inherently concerned

with multiple benefits as projects integrate elements such as urban livability, resilience and

inclusion. Overall, sustainability challenges can be linked to three dimensions, namely social

aspects, economic aspects and ecological aspects. Within the social aspect, public involvement

and a more integrated society increases trust amongst and within different actor groups, as well as

public trust towards planning offices, strengthening society as a whole. In the economic aspect, an

investment in sustainable infrastructure reduces the risk of expensive disaster management in the

expected effects of climate change. The ecological arguments for a transition towards a more

sustainable urban society relate amongst others to reduced pollution as well as the positive

correlation between biodiversity and resilience. These three dimensions of sustainability also aid

in categorizing the multiple benefits of rainwater harvesting projects (di Marino & Lapintie, 2018).

14

It follows that USTs are particular due to their complex dynamics, allowing for conflicts and

synergies which enable broad systemic change beyond the confines of the specific city (Grin et

al., 2017). Addressing global sustainability challenges such as climate change and social inclusion

thus require transitions encompassing several institutions and dimensions both within urban areas

and across borders, which can be exemplified by the management of water resources.

Grin et al. (2017) argue that “sustainability transitions develop as a result of interactions across

scales and across contexts” (p. 364), referring to the collaborative transfer of expertise between

actors to facilitate projects which solve problems across several domains. Much like the

development of road infrastructure and the network of cell phone coverage, the infrastructure

required to bring fresh water to urban residents and wastewater out of urban areas involves a

substantial part of society. As the challenges we face change and the demand for certain safety and

life quality increases, society must transition. Fuenfschilling and Truffer (2016) discuss the role of

agency in bringing about transitions, claiming that transitions occur gradually because of the

complex interrelations between institutions, actors and technologies. Agency is shaped by the

prevailing institutional setting of a domain, explaining why the urban water sector (which is highly

institutionalized) is less prone to conform to external disruptions, but rather requires a multilateral

and inter-disciplinary push to transition (e.g. de Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010; Ward, 2010).

This is particularly relevant to URWH as its transition into a higher degree of stabilization remains

weak (Madsen et al., 2017). URWH as a niche has gained momentum over the past three decades

and continues to develop through social learning and multiple experiments and case studies around

the world (Markard et al., 2012; García Soler et al., 2018). However, the step from niche to

mainstream into a higher degree of stabilization has only succeeded in few cities (Madsen et al.,

2017; García Soler et al., 2018). An increasing amount of research in the field is therefore

concerned with bridging the gap between academics and practitioners (di Marino and Lapintie,

2018). While URWH is becoming increasingly popular, many regional departments lack the

expertise and structure to apply such initiatives on a regional urban scale (ibid). Di Marino and

Lapintie (2018), amongst other scholars, also stress the fact that the multiple so called ‘soft’

benefits, such as biodiversity and social cohesion, provided by green areas are oftentimes not

considered as profitable as conventional uses of public space. Therefore, the transition towards a

more integrated approach to urban rainwater management may require a more fundamental change

15

in the underlying structure of how projects are designed, implemented and managed. Parallels can

be drawn to the introduction of Smart Cities, which are highly connected and constantly improving

thanks to data sharing, made possible by strong networks between academics and government.

Urban rainwater harvesting is a viable sustainable alternative to conventional stormwater drainage

systems due to the ability to provide societal benefits both in everyday life in the form of, for

instance, green parks, playgrounds, or community gardens, while doubling as areas for retention

and infiltration during heavy rain events. The urban sustainability transition towards URWH is at

a take-off stage seen globally, though it remains uncertain which factors can aid in stabilizing these

practices and accelerate their implementation (Madsen et al., 2017).

3.2. Presentation of the evaluative framework

The framework which is applied in this study was developed by Luederitz et al. (2016) as a

“tentative evaluation scheme for appraising sustainability transition experiments” (p. 11). The

scheme was structured according to the logic model of evaluation, organized in the four

dimensions inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. It was developed to be used as a reflexive

learning tool, both to advise the planning and construction of transition experiments as well as to

enable the cross-case evaluation after the completion of projects (ibid).

Furthermore, the scheme includes a number of critical features which were identified and

exemplified within each of the four dimensions mentioned above, along with an evaluative

question for each feature. It is on the basis of these questions that the URWH projects reviewed in

this paper are evaluated. As previously mentioned, the questions are worded to be closed, accepting

a general yes-no answer. The implications of this are discussed further in Section 5.

A full list of the evaluative dimensions, the features and their correlated questions is found in Table

2, while Figure 3 depicts an adapted overview. A more detailed description of each feature can be

found in Appendix A.

16

Figure 3. Overview of evaluative dimensions adapted from Luederitz et al. (2016, p. 5)

The inputs to a project can traditionally be seen as monetary resources and invested work of the

involved actors. The previous section also outlined how the interactions of those involved drive a

transition process forward. This is clearly mirrored in the critical features of the input dimension,

as well as in the evaluative questions of each feature, found in Table 2.

The process features refer to the specific actions taken during the transition as well as their

sequence, as this can have a large impact on the success of experiments and the ability to meet a

desired output. This is exemplified in the feature reflexivity and learning, referring to the ability

of the process to foster these qualities among project participants.

Closely related to the process dimension are the direct outputs generated by the experiment. These

features range from more tangible structural changes to built capacities, such as interpersonal

competence for cooperation. The output dimension is probably the most relevant to this literature

review as the features encompassed within it tend to be more readily discussed or clearly visible,

such as in the feature changes in physical structures (see Table 2). The unintended consequences

refer to potential interactive effects and problem-shifting which may arise when experiments are

transferred or scaled to a different environment.

17

Finally, the outcome features are the overarching objectives of each project. While some features

can be difficult to evaluate objectively without a deep understanding of the specific project, the

outcome features are relevant to include in the review as they answer the question of effectiveness

of the project, that is to what extent the project has succeeded in producing the desired result.

Table 2. Dimensions, features and evaluative questions of the framework (adapted from Luederitz et al.,

2016)

Dimension Feature Evaluative question

Inputs Awareness Does the transition experiment involve participants that are aware of the need for transformational change pursued

through the experiment?

Commitment Does the transition experiment involve participants

committed to carrying out the experiment?

Expertise Does the transition experiment involve participants who possess the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out the

experiment?

Trust Does the transition experiment involve participants who trust each other?

Support Does the transition experiment secure sufficient support for the experimentation?

Processes Sequence of actions Is the transition experiment structured into a meaningful sequence of actions?

Sound methodology Does the transition experiment adopt a sound methodology to

conduct the experiment?

Reflexivity & learning Does the transition experiment foster reflexivity and learning

throughout the process?

Collaboration Does the transition experiment facilitate collaboration

among relevant stakeholders in the experimentation process?

Transparency Does the transition experiment ensure transparency throughout the process?

Outputs Actionable knowledge Does the transition experiment generate actionable knowledge that provides evidence on how to generate

sustainability solutions?

Accountability Does the transition experiment build confidence and commitment for generating and realizing sustainability

solutions?

Built capacities Does the transition experiment build capacities in

participants to generate sustainability solutions?

Changes in physical

structures

Does the transition experiment generate physical changes that support solutions for the identified sustainability

problem?

Changes in social realms Does the transition experiment generate societal changes

that support solutions for the identified sustainability

problem?

18

Transferability Does the transition experiment indicate how the sustainability solution can be transferred to different

contexts?

Scalability Does the transition experiment indicate the potential for and

how outputs can be scaled out to broader applications or up

to higher hierarchical levels?

Accounting for

unintended

consequences

Does the transition experiment account for unintended

consequences that are associated with the up-take of sustainability solutions?

Outcomes Socio-ecological

integrity

Do the transition experiment’s outputs strengthen socio-

ecological integrity?

Livelihood sufficiency

& opportunity

Do the transition experiment’s outputs enhance livelihood

sufficiency and opportunity?

Intra- &

intergenerational equity

Do the transition experiment’s outputs improve intra- and

intergenerational equity?

Resource maintenance

& efficiency

Do the transition experiment’s outputs contribute to overall

resource maintenance and efficiency?

Socio-ecological

stewardship &

democratic governance

Do the transition experiment’s outputs build or support socio-ecological understanding and democratic governance?

Precaution & adaptation Do the transition experiment’s outputs ensure precaution and adaptation?

3.2.1. Critiques of the evaluative framework

This section aims to summarize some critiques of the evaluative framework used and its

applicability to URWH.

As mentioned previously, the framework was chosen for its applicability and generic nature.

Although this enabled an evaluation across projects of different scales and contexts, it has the

drawback of allowing for subjective interpretation by researchers of different fields.

The evaluative scheme was developed in such a way that it should be applicable also to

experimental design phases, so called ex-ante evaluation, as well as the formative improvement of

experiments (Luederitz et al., 2016). Ex-post evaluation is meant to determine the absolute

outcomes that a project has attained with regard to sustainability, or “the extent to which a

transition experiment has contributed to sustainability” (ibid, p. 7). While this may be necessary

in the comparison between different types of transition experiments, it was deemed too extensive

for this review. However, relevant to the comparison between URWH systems is the base-line of

the review. The base-line refers to the starting point of evaluation of the different projects which

are to be evaluated. As specified in the framework, it is of particular importance for the fair

evaluation of outcome features that the temporal perspective is long enough to cover reinforcing

19

benefits. Furthermore, Luederitz et al. push on the fact that the evaluation can be simplified if

practitioners are aware of the it from the start, hence are able to document the process and relevant

interactions throughout the experiment.

Implications of closed questions include that they may constrain the results by reducing the scope

of the answer. In addition, some of the questions were worded ambiguously. Due to the broadness

of the questions they can be interpreted differently, thus the resulting answer requires a deeper

qualitative analysis to be meaningful in an evaluation. While the evaluative questions do not depict

the full depth of the feature as explained in the paper by Luederitz et al. (see Appendix A), they

are the basis on which evaluations are conducted.

20

4. Literature review

The literature review was based on 18 case studies conducted in the urban landscape of twelve

different countries, seen in Figure 4. Of these cases, 13 were located in Europe, whereas the

remainder were situated in countries with similar climate change trends and planning conditions

as European countries. The cases reviewed, along with a brief description of each, are listed in

Table 3. Most projects were selected because they had been mentioned relatively often in

background literature and were referred to as frontrunners, specifically with regard to the interest

and involvement of public actors. Others were found by the method of snowballing, and more

specific searches at locations of interest in order to reach a greater variety between projects.

Figure 4. Case study locations – overview on world map (Google, 2019)

21

Table 3. Summary of case studies

Country City Project Description Distinctive features

Albania Tirana Magnet park Redevelopment in built

environment

Political ambition to

improve livability; Meso-

scale transition

Australia Melbourne Docklands Commercial/Residential

development project

Key actors involved over

long time; Meso-scale

transition

Austria Vienna GrünStattGrau Urban greening innovation

lab (public and private

partners)

Heavy focus on “co-

creation process”

Canada Toronto Raindrop Plaza Ecosystem re-

naturalization project

Awareness-raising, create

learning opportunities

Canada Toronto Fairford Parkette Green Streets pilot project Demonstration project,

focus on lessons learned

Denmark Copenhagen Sankt Annæ Plads Climate adaptation project

in downtown square

Flooding resulted in

ambitious plans and high

support

Denmark Copenhagen Tåsinge Plads Neighbourhood-scale,

common square & public

learning focus

Part of the “climate

neighbourhood” initiative,

high local involvement

Germany Dortmund Scharnhorst Ost Model project for urban

water in the densely

populated Ruhr region

Redevelopment project,

involvement of local

actors

Germany Berlin Potsdamer Platz Part of new commercial

district development, on

former border-wall area

Green roofs; rainwater

collection; public

recreational space

Italy Milan Metropolitan Area Ecological Networks on

regional scale, in a densely

urbanised area

Meso-scale transition

Nether-

lands

Rotterdam Water City 2035 Envisioning project for the

city; set up as a

competition


Spain Barcelona Can Cortada Urban renewal project

(northern hillside suburb)

Focus on aquifer recharge

22

Spain Barcelona Jardinet del Pedró Vertical garden in dense

urban centre, at small

square along narrow street

Vertical garden

Sweden Malmö Söderkulla-

parken

Retrofitting after flooding

event, first in a line of

several similar projects

Refurbishing of run-down

neighbourhood

Sweden Stockholm Hornsgatan Remodelling of downtown

street, tree planting, part

of UrbanRain project

Combined focus on

opportunity to pursue

sustainable lifestyles

UK London Olympic Park SuDS as part of the new

Olympic Legacy park

High political and

financial support

USA Chicago Wadsworth

elementary school

Part of the Space to Grow

initiative, greening of

schoolyards

Focus on public access

and learning

USA Hoboken Resist, Delay,

Store, Discharge

(RDSD)

Facilitating uptake of GI

after hurricane Sandy,

Rebuild by Design

competition

High political support;


State of the art URWH systems are found to be characterized by their multifunctionality, as they

are often implemented to help mitigate complex problems of flood risk, create aesthetic value,

enhance environmental awareness and foster social inclusion.

Overall, it can be said that local demand and interest is a main driver for, and oftentimes crucial

for the successful implementation and maintenance of, RWH systems (Salinas Rodriguez et al.,

2014). This was especially apparent in the cases of Melbourne and Copenhagen, where the public

demand for better environmental protection and health was further accelerated to include societal

risk reduction by prolonged periods of extreme drought and recurring flooding, respectively

(Madsen et al., 2017).

Particularly the projects GrünStattGrau (english: Green instead of Grey) in Vienna and Jardinet

del Pedró in Barcelona lift the multifunctionality of vertical walls as potential gardens which can

help reduce the urban heat island effect of dense downtown areas by releasing water vapour.

23

GrünStattGrau claims that streets with green facades can reduce the perceived temperature by 13C

compared to conventional facades (Schuster, 2018).

As exemplified by the projects in Chicago, Hoboken and Malmö, the specific development and

rebuilding of playgrounds and multifunctional parks is especially effective in achieving public

interest through greater opportunity and perceived ownership. Parks and playgrounds can be used

for recreation and as meeting places in the daily life of local residents, while acting as retention or

infiltration basins in case of heavy rainfall. The playground at Söderkullaparken, depicted in Figure

5, is located at a lower elevation than its surroundings and covered with woodchips to enable

everyday play as well as infiltration.

Figure 5. Malmö, Söderkullaparken (Personal collection, 2019)

The review also includes the exploratory analysis of five meso-scale cases, namely those found in

Tirana, Melbourne, Milan, Rotterdam and Hoboken. URWH as envisioned by governments as a

measure to create future cities that are more resilient provides an insight into the management of

this specific type of sustainability transition. These projects evidence a strong support for creating

change, fostering collaborations and networks which aid in fulfilling the envisioned outcomes

across the entirety of the cityscape.

24

The following subsections are oriented according to the features identified in the theoretical

framework, describing the results of the evaluation across the cases studied (for full review see

Appendix B). As mentioned beforehand, the features were evaluated based on the closed questions

outlined in the framework and the descriptions of each critical feature.

4.1. Inputs

4.1.1. Awareness

In five of the reviewed cases, problems were made acutely aware by floods, found to be caused by

increasingly heavy precipitation, impermeable surfaces and in some cases flat terrain or

insufficient drainage, whether it be sewers or natural streams. As a result, both citizens and

government push for a solution. It was clearly distinguishable if the transition project was steered

on by a single event, such as the cloudbursts in Copenhagen and Malmö and hurricane Sandy in

Hoboken, or a multilateral push as a result of change over time as seen in Melbourne.

Simultaneously, there exists a trend calling for urban renewal, to freshen up neighbourhoods and

make them more attractive, combined with rainwater harvesting projects. In Tirana, the downtown

area was said to experience regular flooding from drainage water after heavy rain events, while a

heat-island-effect was frequent during summer months. The municipal government proposed plans

to mitigate these problems by incorporating the blue-green elements in urban planning documents,

both on a regional scale and with tangible local projects (Working group Adaptation to Climate

Change in the City of Tirana, 2015). Similar problems have raised the awareness for URWH in

Barcelona and Milan.

Only the project in Vienna, GrünStattGrau, included advertising and citizen awareness campaigns

at a larger scale, with a semi-permanent installation at a central location in the city. These are

understandably unusual for publicly planned and publicly owned projects, which may simply

prove that, despite being backed through public funds, the initiative GrünStattGrau was aimed for

adoption by private property owners.

4.1.2. Commitment

Having focused on publicly planned projects, all reviewed projects involve local government

sectors who are committed to change. In Hoboken, the “presence of strong political buy-in,

25

leadership and commitment at the local level” was considered significant for the implementation

of the project (Šakić Trogrlić et al., 2018, p. 9). However, equally important to governmental buy-

in is the commitment of local actors, residents and leaders. As demonstrated by the projects in

Scharnhorst-Ost and Wadsworth Elementary School, the engagement of locals was crucial for the

continued maintenance and correct use of the rainwater harvesting system.

As evidenced in Melbourne, one of few cities which is acclaimed to have successfully transitioned

to a more sustainable urban rainwater management, the active role of frontrunners, locally referred

to as “champions”, was pivotal in this process (Brown et al., 2013). The group of champions was

committed to change throughout the transition, building networks and continuously proposing

“appropriate strategies for challenging the status quo” (ibid, p. 706).

4.1.3. Expertise

In all reviewed cases, expertise existed within the project through co-owners or collaborators.

However, since URWH is a relatively recent field in many cities, it cannot be assumed that all

contractors know how to build and for what purpose. For instance, Backhaus and Fryd (2013)

identify the risk for construction faults, as many construction workers lack experience in building

alternative rainwater systems. Rijke (2007) interviewed stakeholders of the Docklands project in

Melbourne, finding indications that “the contractors that constructed the systems did not have

sufficient knowledge and commitment to construct the systems in the right way” (p. 38), despite

the fact that an engineering company specialized in WSUD had been involved in the process to

meet stormwater quality objectives.

Scharnhorst-Ost in Dortmund provides a good example of active involvement of stakeholders and

participants from different areas of expertise, where local residents are considered to provide

valuable contextual inputs.

4.1.4. Trust

Despite some literature demonstrating relationships of trust between practitioners and other

involved participants, it is difficult to truthfully evaluate the trust between parties. Furthermore, it

is relevant to ensure trust between the public and the local government, as the public is often

considered as the user, and benefactor, of URWH systems.

The “champions”, mentioned as frontrunners and pivotal change agents to the transition in

Melbourne, represented different sectors and were generally involved in the change process over

26

two decades, finally enabling them to earn significant trust amongst local groups (Brown et al.,

2013).

Another relationship of trust found to be relevant to infrastructure projects is that between planners

and contractors or builders. As mentioned under the feature ‘expertise’, and also tying in to the

features ‘capacity building’, ‘reflexivity’ and a meaningful ‘sequence of actions’, it is important

for the success of the project to secure mutual understanding with the contractors.

4.1.5. Support

In terms of support, a key enabler for the majority of the reviewed projects was economic support

from local governments and philanthropic societies. All reviewed projects were supported in one

form or another, either receiving funding from municipal government, water companies, or both.

While the Olympic Legacy park in London stands out as it received significant support from the

government due to its importance as a showcase for visitors from across the globe, public funding

and economic rewards for innovative projects present an additional support and create awareness

for other URWH projects.

As argued by de Graaf and van der Brugge (2010), it is also crucial for private landlords and

corporations to invest in urban renewal projects, initiatives that are commonly supported only if

the value of real estate increases as a result. Similarly, both Scharnhorst-Ost in Dortmund and the

Magnet Park in Tirana received support based on the joint effort to uplift the area and add rainwater

harvesting elements.

4.2. Processes

4.2.1. Sequence of actions

As the review included projects of different magnitude, from very local to regional scales, the

actions taken in the transitions are vastly different. The retrofitting of a public square or park

requires actions such as site inspection, interviews with local residents, re-planning of sewage

systems and other underground infrastructure, building and planting. In contrast, the meso-scale

shift towards more sustainable stormwater management requires a set of actions more focused on

policy to enable for instance the transferability and scalability of demonstration projects.

The Rotterdam Water City 2035 plan was initiated through a non-official contest, which enabled

the project to develop with “decreased political risk” (de Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010, p. 1285).

27

Once the vision had been chosen as the winner of the contest, the step towards solidifying the plan

was easier, relatively seen (ibid).

4.2.2. Sound methodology

All projects have a clear aim, for instance to reduce the risk of CSO or to decrease the heat island

effect, and a more or less detailed method or idea to achieve said aim through measures involving

rainwater harvesting. Given the longer timeframe of planning for transformative water

infrastructure seen relatively in relation to conventional systems, there may exist a dissonance

between actors’ visions and strategies to implement them (de Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010).

Methods to transition indeed require a more flexible approach (ibid), as adopted by the team of

champions in Melbourne who were described as “opportunistic” and having a “learning-by-doing

philosophy” (Brown et al., 2013, p. 706). As stated by the Toronto and Region Conservation

Authority, the “multidisciplinary nature of the project - requiring expertise from landscape

architects and water resources engineers” (p. 2) resulted in a prolonged implementation time of the

Fairford Parkette. Such aspects should be considered when planning future URWH projects, as to

secure sound methodology and project management.

4.2.3. Collaboration

All projects show clear collaboration efforts between different actors, however, this does not

guarantee to “ensure empowerment of participants” (p. 11) as specified by Luederitz et al. (2016).

This feature is complex as it covers collaboration between different government departments,

academia and the local residents.

The planners of both Tåsinge Plads and Scharnhorst-Ost collaborated with local residents to

optimise the URWH systems and their maintenance, “so that the neighbours continue to be actively

engaged in the development of the square” (Klimakvarter, n.d.).

However, this feature also raises the question of who is responsible for writing the project report,

and if collaborations are mutually beneficial and positive. The Stockholm City Traffic Office

(Trafikkontoret), partially responsible for the planning of Hornsgatan, stated that “the work has

been efficient and relatively free of conflicts” (p. 7). This project was not the only one that

demonstrated a fragmentation between involved government organisations, responsible for

different areas of expertise. Some practitioners (e.g. Fabritius Tengnagel & Aslaug Lund, 2017)

stress the importance of the technical feasibility of projects, while researches (e.g. Backhaus &

28

Fryd, 2013) may emphasize the role of landscape-architects to meet the goals of aesthetic

performance of urban rainwater harvesting projects. The collaboration between planners with

different focus areas is crucial for the success of URWH projects.

4.2.4. Reflexivity and learning

This feature refers to the iterative analysis of all components, processes and actors of the

experiment and its context (Luederitz et al., 2016). In this meaning, none of the reviewed projects

has enough basis to fulfill this feature. However, reflexivity within some crucial aspects has been

found in a number of projects. A clearly iterative, step-by-step development process has been

ensured by VicUrban, the development authority of the Melbourne Docklands project, who

evaluate each completed parcel of land before the development of the next parcel can start (Rijke,

2007).

4.2.5. Transparency

Despite the common competitional nature of development projects, where consultants and

contractors present their ideas and tenders, publicly planned projects generally require some

transparency in their modus operandi. Several of the reviewed cases, among them the projects in

Tirana, Hornsgatan and Scharnhorst-Ost, presented more or less up-to-date plans at open meetings

where local residents were invited to partake.

The initiative GrünStattGrau stands out as the only project where a semi-permanent information

stand was installed. This provided some transparency, although it should be noted that this does

not guarantee the disclosure of non-biased information.

4.3. Outputs

4.3.1. Built capacities

Explicitly stated built capacities of the reviewed projects ranged from hands-on learning about

upkeep and urban gardening to organisational capacity building through workshops and

conferences. The involvement of schools in transformation processes (as seen at Wadsworth

Elementary School and in Scharnhorst-Ost) enables the subject of urban rainwater harvesting to

be discussed and implemented in classrooms, teaching children the value of water through hands-

on learning experiences. In Scharnhorst-Ost, the local school is responsible for the upkeep of

29

retention basins and have incorporated the theme “new handling of rainwater” in their grade one

through ten syllabuses (Emschergenossenschaft, n.d.).

Further built capacities can be found in the multifunctionality of the reviewed projects. As

exemplified in the case of Hornsgatan, a street refurbishing project including tree-planting in

Stockholm (seen in Figure 6), participants gained increased access to bike stands, making biking

more convenient especially where street side parking was removed. However, the project did not

explicitly educate or encourage participants to bike. Overall, URWH pose a knowledge addition

to adults and children alike.

Figure 6. Stockholm, Hornsgatan (Personal collection, 2019)

4.3.2. Actionable knowledge

Luederitz et al. (2016) specify this feature into three types of knowledge outputs: analytical-

descriptive knowledge explaining the problem, anticipatory-normative knowledge focused on the

goal and transformational knowledge to create successful transitions.

Several of the reviewed projects, amongst others in Vienna, Hoboken and Malmö, aimed to be the

basis for the creation of best-practice-guidelines, building on transformational knowledge. These

projects were one of the first of their kind in their respective city and thus will most likely be used

as references in potential upscaling or replications in similar contexts.

30

In Toronto, a single landscape architecture firm has become the main consultant responsible for

the design of Green Streets projects and appears to be the main contractor as they are referenced

in the technical guidelines of the city’s Green Streets ambition, where the Fairford Parkette is a

pilot project. Experience gathered from a multitude of projects enabled the firm to develop

actionable knowledge which in turn could provide a comprehensive and evidence-supported guide

to facilitate the uptake of similar projects.

4.3.3. Accountability

URWH solutions require cross-sectoral cooperation and are often driven by niche leaders with

clear visions (e.g. Rijke, 2007). Actors involved in a transition process which they consider

meaningful and which yields positive results tend to have an increased confidence and

commitment to change (Luederitz et al., 2016). This is evidenced in several reviewed cases, most

specifically by the “champions” in Melbourne and the involvement of pupils at the local school in

Scharnhorst-Ost.

To ensure the successful maintenance of Raindrop Plaza in Toronto, the planning department

expressed the importance of choosing plant and tree species that were familiar to park maintenance

workers. Likewise, as stated in literature on Tåsinge Plads and Jardinet del Pedró, local plants were

chosen to create a small scale “rainforest”. Such measures are considered more flexible than

conventional planning as they increase the connection to local situations and thereby also the

community-felt ownership of the system.

4.3.4. Changes in physical structures

All reviewed projects demonstrate a change in physical structures in one way or another. While

regional projects, such as Rotterdam Water City 2035, initiate greater plans with the building of

small-scale green roof projects, the majority of the reviewed cases involve the complete rebuilding

of a park, public square or neighbourhood.

A telling indication of the complexity of URWH projects is also their level of completion, or to

some extent merely their initiation. Despite being set in cities in the forefront of sustainable

development, only approximately 60% of the projects reviewed appear to be finalized. For

example, the Raindrop Plaza in Toronto, planned for 2018, and the Magnet Park in Tirana, show

no progress. Reasons could be ownership questions and maintenance planning, as URWH often

31

requires frequent, “park-like”, maintenance compared to conventional grey infrastructure. At the

same time, flexibility allows for ongoing adaptation and improvement of URWH systems which

have a shorter lifespan than grey stormwater infrastructure (de Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010).

4.3.5. Changes in social realms

Several scholars argue that alternative types of rainwater systems require radically novel

management and maintenance structures (e.g. de Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010; Ward, 2010).

Overall, it is found that the development and management of the reviewed cases has created new

networks and collaborations, in turn affecting social realms either amongst local actors or between

governmental departments. The literature review indicates that leaders hope to raise awareness and

encourage locals to act sustainably through the introduction of URWH systems. While changing

some social structures, it remains a big step to significantly influence the conventional practices.

As Karvonen (2011) writes, “source control is more an evolution in stormwater management than

a revolution” (p. 19), thus indicating that the transition of URWH from pilot projects to mainstream

implementation will occur incrementally.

4.3.6. Transferability and scalability

Merely half of the reviewed cases touched upon the transferability or scalability of the project.

Several of these cases stated the importance of pilot projects to be successful, so as to thereby

demonstrate how novel systems indeed can be effective in handling rainwater while providing

additional benefits. Moreover, practitioners emphasise certain “lessons learned” which would aid

upscaling and application of a similar system elsewhere. As stated by Fabritius Tengnagel and

Aslaug Lund (2017), in reflection to the Sankt Annæ Plads project in Copenhagen, "…it is

necessary to identify the many technical challenges associated with transforming the surfaces of

our cities… so that future projects can achieve their best potential” (p. 12). The technical

challenges, albeit less readily discussed, remain important since green solutions require certain

water flows in order to remain functional. As an example, the rainwater retention measures

implemented at Sankt Annæ Plads proved more complicated than first envisioned due to existing

infrastructure blocking the natural flow of collected rainwater into the nearby harbour, requiring

flexible planning and innovative alternative solutions including a sub-terrain drain, depicted in

Figure 7.

32

Furthermore, planning for a larger regional transformation from the onset allows for greater

support, in turn increasing the chance of success. As seen in amongst others in Hoboken and

Rotterdam, competitions were organised “with the vision of catalyzing the transformation of the

whole affected region” (Šakić Trogrlić et al., 2018, p. 3) through increased involvement of local

actors.

However, solely applying past successes to future projects does not guarantee another successful

project. As identified by Saurí and Palau-Rof (2017), the spatial context in which the transition

occurs is highly relevant given the impact of varying rainfall patterns on more or less densified

areas, “a more explicit and comprehensive consideration of spatial issues would certainly improve

the transition framework” (p. 478). Backhaus and Fryd (2013) also stress the importance of site-

specific design for the meaningful adoption of systems.

Figure 7. Copenhagen, Sankt Annæ Plads (Personal collection, 2019)

4.3.7. Accounting for unintended consequences associated with uptake

Overall, the references and project descriptions tend to highlight the positive aspects of the

transformation, thus a limited amount of unintended consequences were discussed. As Backhaus

and Fryd (2013) identify, many case projects were, and are still, built with ambitious views and

generous funding to prove the attractiveness of multifunctional rainwater harvesting solutions.

However, "mismanagement may reduce their technical performance and general attractiveness"

33

(ibid, p. 61) in the long run. The general trend amongst the reviewed projects presents a lack of

consideration of the importance of maintenance in order to maintain both functionality and

attractiveness of the system.

Another consequence of implementing URWH may be that the transition towards sustainable

drainage in particular areas reinforces a socially unjust urban growth, as suggested by Saurí and

Palau-Rof (2017). None of the reviewed projects touched upon this as a negative consequence, but

rather stressed the positive aspects of making neighbourhoods more attractive.

4.4. Outcomes

4.4.1. Socio-ecological integrity

URWH can aid practitioners and passers-by to internalise ecological proficiencies from planning

through to completion of the project and the ensuing use or enjoyment of it. While it cannot be

proven that all parks encourage a greater care for nature, greenery is considered to be calming and

to stimulate creativity. In line with the findings of the feature “built capacities”, several projects

strengthen socio-ecological integrity by providing space for activity and learning. At Tåsinge

Plads, for example, the municipality had erected information signs about the purpose of the new

rainwater park and its different features (seen in Figure 8).

However, public parks are not finite resources, meaning the circumference of engaged local

residents could expand. The Fairford Parkette in Toronto makes a good point in their Lessons

Learned, stating that a higher emphasis on public involvement in the early planning stages could

have improved the community stewardship for the project as well as “eco-literacy messaging”

(Toronto and Region Conservation Agency, n.d.).

4.4.2. Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity

The proposed or implemented URWH systems allow for the use of rainwater as a resource (e.g.

for irrigation of parks), while decreasing the risk for flooding and CSO events. Livelihood

sufficiency can thereby be secured through access to learning opportunities, such as public gardens

and liberated space for inhabitants to pursue more sustainable lifestyles, e.g. the bike lanes on

Hornsgatan and the pathways built as part of the Olympic Legacy park.

Indeed, eight of the reviewed projects were situated in poorer areas, as a dual action to improve

the neighbourhood both ecologically and socially. This is a general trend among sustainable

34

rainwater systems, as stated by Saurí and Palau-Rof (2017) “their development is currently often

linked to large operations of urban rehabilitation of degraded neighbourhoods as part of a more

general sustainability package” (p. 478), which by de Graaf and van der Brugge is explained by

the fact that rehabilitation measures carry a larger weight in politics. Thus, this feature is

considered of importance when it comes to the de facto implementation and upscaling of URWH

systems.

4.4.3. Intra- and intergenerational equity

The schoolyard transformations in Chicago exemplify the multiple ways in which the everyday

use by children as well as the public availability of rain gardens enables future generations to

pursue more sustainable lives. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

is co-funding the transformation of 34 schoolyards, with the aim to “serve over 15,000 Chicago

Public School students and their families, providing access to nature, outdoor classrooms, space

for physical activity and recreation and edible gardens to support nutrition education” (“Space to

Grow,”, 2018).

Further projects were, as previously mentioned, concerned with the remodelling of run-down

neighbourhoods and making use of reclaimed land, often former ports and industrial areas (such

as Rotterdam and Melbourne). This has the potential to strengthen intragenerational equity through

increasing living standards and the access to housing.

4.4.5. Resource maintenance and efficiency

Every step towards a more resource-efficient urban water management is a transition in the

direction of a more sustainable future. URWH secures the use of rainwater as irrigation or

infiltration to groundwater, thereby contributing to resource-efficiency. However, the re-use of

water, ranging from water playgrounds and community gardens, multiplies its use and raises the

efficiency of the system.

The aspect of resource maintenance is a particularly important issue in URWH. In order for the

systems to function as intended, they require regular maintenance, ranging from grass-cutting to

cleaning of water pipes and outlet valves. Whereas vertical green walls, as seen in Jardinet del

Pedró, call for a more innovative type of “gardening”, most other projects require maintenance

similar to that of a traditional urban park: grass-cutting, trimming plants and litter-removal.

35

4.4.6. Socio-ecological stewardship and democratic governance

According to Luederitz et al. (2016), “this feature refers to arrangements that support individual

and collective engagement in sustainability decision-making” (p. 8). Ultimately, such engagement

is required for practitioners and users to feel ownership and that their input can contribute to

positive change. The political influence and incentives to support certain visions is necessary for

meaningful change to occur at a larger scale, as seen in for instance Hoboken and Rotterdam.

However, the small-scale involvement of local residents has proven effective in building socio-

ecological stewardship for the maintenance of parks such as Tåsinge Plads.

Further, in Barcelona, Saurí and Palau-Rof (2017) see the opportunity to enhance citizenship

values through new discourses on the 'water-sensitive city' (p. 488).

Figure 8. Copenhagen, Tåsinge Plads (Personal collection, 2019)

4.4.7. Precaution and adaptation

Most URWH projects are intrinsically concerned with the adaptation to unknown risks, albeit

assumed to be steadily increasing extremes, whether it be drought, flooding or high temperatures.

As such, the experiments’ outputs ensure precaution and adaptation. Several projects also included

a plan for sustainable irrigation during periods of dry weather, for instance by pumping water from

36

stormwater reservoirs using energy from solar panels as seen at the Jardinet del Pedró and Tåsinge

Plads. Figure 8 depicts the water harvesting “umbrellas” and “raindrops”, which release water

when a tilting-plate pump is in use (for children’s play), found at Tåsinge Plads.

The municipal report “Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Action Plan” for Tirana states

clearly that the primary course of action should be to implement projects that are cost-effective

and beneficial “even if climate change impacts do not occur as expected” (Working group

Adaptation to Climate Change in the City of Tirana, 2015, p. 12). These options, coined “no-regret-

measures”, can reduce the risk of paying for an expansion of conventional rainwater retention

infrastructure which may turn out to be over-dimensioned. URWH systems are thus seen as

solutions to concurrent problems faced in contemporary urban settings, ranging from the heat-

island effect to social divides, as they can provide multiple benefits beyond rainwater retention.

37

5. Discussion

The discussion is divided into three parts. First, an account of the obstacles to implementation, as

found in the reviewed literature and case studies, is given. Then, the revised framework for

evaluating URWH systems will be presented. Thereafter follows a section reflecting on the

research approach and the implications and reliability of the findings.

5.1. Obstacles to mainstreaming URWH

Although hundreds of pilot projects exist, whereof 18 have been reviewed herein, the pathway to

mainstreaming URWH is not straight forward. Some of the challenges have been mentioned

among the case studies and other reviewed literature, while others are merely touched upon or

implied in the discussions of the academic papers. First and foremost, there exists a perceived

difficulty of planning collaboratively with several actors, as compared to the conventional

development of sewer infrastructure. Issues related to rainwater and flooding are traditionally

responsibilities of the department for waste and sewers, who have little to do with parks in the

European cities of today. Instead of the conventional solution of removing the water as soon as

possible, these departments are now asked to collaborate with parks and recreation departments,

taking local and political visions into account. Incorporating natural elements both requires a

different (more frequent) maintenance and results in a system of shorter life-span, as compared to

grey infrastructure. While this is not necessarily a drawback of URWH (it allows for adaptation to

the systems within a foreseeable temporal horizon of around 20 years, rather than 70 years) it adds

to the notion that URWH are cumbersome systems.

In addition, the review identifies lacking knowledge in the field of natural systems among

construction workers (Melbourne) as well as the lack of community involvement (Toronto) as

obstacles to creating successful systems which are utilized in their intended way. Specifically vis-

à-vis the multiple social benefits of URWH, which are already difficult to quantify, the URWH

projects are seldom evaluated fully upon completion. There exists little research on which types

of URWH features (such as playground structures, water pumping mechanisms, urban gardening)

are most frequently adopted or appreciated by users, which may however be highly dependent on

the social context.

38

Overall, the lack of common denominations, as discussed in the introduction, and difficulty of

finding successful and completed demonstration projects in different scales and contexts en masse,

contribute to the slow introduction of URWH as viable alternatives to conventional practices.

5.2. Critical features specific to URWH - a revised evaluative framework

The literature review and analysis show three critical factors which seem to be determinant of

successful projects: (1) URWH systems receive greater attention and are more likely to be

implemented successfully as part of greater urban renewal schemes; (2) the successful

implementation of URWH systems requires the involved actors to have an open mindset and

flexible and collaborative working approach; (3) maintenance of the system should be included in

the initial plans and developed together with local actors, in order to involve the community and

strengthen social inclusion. These are found to be primordial as they can be identified within the

reviewed cases, or alternatively either suggested or explicitly mentioned as methods by which the

success of the respective projects could have been improved.

To flesh out the different aspects of the transition towards a more sustainable URWH system has

proven a difficult task, partially due to differing contextual settings, but perhaps mainly because

of the complexity and interconnectedness of all features of the transition. Not only do actors need

to collaborate, they also must build capacities in local and coming generations, so that a continuous

cycle of new leaders can invoke awareness and support in order to mainstream the growing number

of pilot and demonstration projects.

It is important to distinguish between a project having the ability to enable change and actually

radically changing the norms of urban rainwater management. For instance, it is yet undetermined

if the Chicago schoolyard transformations impact the ways in which rainwater is handled

elsewhere in the city, state or country, as these considerations are not explicit aims of the Space to

Grow project. However, as with several of the projects reviewed, the successful implementation

of URWH creates real-world examples which are discussed in research and magazines.

Summarizing the literature review findings, the most critical features determining the success of a

URWH project are outlined in the following revised framework. In an effort to reduce the

complexity and perceived repetition of the systems’ features, the revised framework aims to reduce

the overlap between them by clearly specifying the intentions and, where possible, boiling down

the number of features.

39

The revised framework aims to enable a better cross-case comparison of URWH systems

specifically, seen as a specific type of sustainability transition. While remaining comprehensive

by keeping many of the initial features determined by Luederitz et al. (2016), these contextualised

questions would allow URWH projects to be evaluated cross-case in a less ambiguous way.

Together with the three critical aspects mentioned initially, the revised framework is generic

enough to be applicable to different kinds of URWH projects, while simultaneously providing

more defined guidelines for future researchers.

5.2.1. Inputs

Based on the reviewed cases, the input features awareness, commitment and support are vital for

successful project initiation and development of an URWH project. The features are revised to

focus on specific actors of importance during the initiation phase. While expertise is necessary for

the creation of functioning hydrological systems, it is assumed that the necessary know-how of

building is brought in by contractors and consultants who are more experienced in the field. The

feature trust was not included as it is relative and should be fulfilled by other features.

- Awareness: Does the URWH project involve participants, either political actors or

individual change-makers, that are aware of the need for transformational change

pursued through the experiment?

- Commitment: Does the URWH project involve participants committed to carrying out the

experiment through necessary collaborations and open discussions?

- Expertise: Does the URWH project involve participants from different fields who together

possess the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out the experiment?

- Support: Does the URWH project secure sufficient support, both economic and from

local residents, for the experimentation?

5.2.2. Processes

An inherent juxtaposition here is the fact that urban transitions, at larger scale, are “unpredictable

and unruly processes” (Frantzeskaki et al., 2017, p. 15), yet small-scale niche experiments leading

to the transition should follow a clear process in order to be comparable and applicable elsewhere.

In order to discern the actions necessary for the specific project to develop from the sequence of

actions required in policy to enable upscaling and mainstreaming, these are specified into two

40

evaluative questions. The features transparency and collaboration are merged as they go hand-in-

hand, as trust-building features.

- Sound methodology of local URWH project: Does the URWH project adopt a reflexive

method to conduct the experiment?

- Transparency and collaboration: Does the URWH project foster learning and build trust

through collaborative workshops from project initiation and onwards?

- Sequence of actions of meso-scale URWH transition: Is the URWH transition structured

into a meaningful sequence of actions?

5.2.3. Outputs

The literature review determines mutually reinforcing actions that are pivotal for participants from

the planning stage through to maintenance of the project to feel empowered in their contribution

to positive change. Therefore, questions better tailored to URWH specifically should be more

focused on the features built capacities, actionable knowledge and accountability, as these will

also aid in the upscaling of URWH. The changes in physical and social structures are considered

to be intrinsic aspects of URWH projects, thus they are omitted in the revised framework as they

are found in every case study.

- Built capacities: Does the URWH project build capacities in participants and users to act

sustainably in their day-to-day life?

- Actionable knowledge and accountability: Does the URWH project generate actionable

knowledge that allows practitioners to build confidence and commitment for generating

and realizing sustainability solutions?

- Facilitate up-take:

○ Transferability: Does the URWH project indicate how the sustainability solution

can be transferred to different contexts?

○ Scalability: Does the URWH project indicate the potential for and how outputs

can be scaled out to broader applications or up to higher hierarchical levels?

○ Accounting for unintended consequences: Does the URWH project reflect upon

unintended consequences that are associated with its uptake?

41

5.2.4. Outcomes

The outcome features are considered highly relevant as they are related to the multifunctional

benefits which give URWH systems their “edge” over conventional grey infrastructure systems.

Indeed, sustainability outcomes, which are reached by successfully achieving the

multifunctionality of various URWH systems, are necessary for projects to be considered as

successes in the long run.

Despite this, the features socio-ecological integrity, resource maintenance and efficiency and

precaution and adaptation are not included in the revised framework as they are considered

inherent features of the transition towards sustainable urban rainwater systems, or covered by

previous features such as the reflexive process and continuous learning focus. Therefore, the

revised evaluative questions for the process outcomes are combined to the following critical

features.

- Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity: Do the URWH project’s outputs enhance

livelihood sufficiency and opportunity through continuous community involvement?

- Intra- and intergenerational equity: Do the URWH project’s outputs improve intra- and

intergenerational equity through sustainability learning opportunities?

- Socio-ecological stewardship and democratic governance: Do the URWH project’s

outputs build or support socio-ecological understanding and democratic governance?

5.3. Reflection on the research approach

This section reflects on how the scope and delimitations set affect the generalizability of the results.

The delimitations set prior to the literature review induce important consequences which should

be reflected upon. Most importantly, the subjectivity of “relevance”, both in choice of case projects

and the finding of quotes to answer the evaluative questions. Inevitably, the selection of cases

nuances the findings as the projects were chosen based on found references, location and

availability of information (a number of cases were indeed disregarded due to lack of information).

Therefore, the quantitative analysis cannot fully fulfill its intended aim and the findings are

generalizable only to a small extent. The plethora of projects provide a telling insight into the

complexity of the transition towards URWH, however it also limits the analysis to a generalized

view of the stages of transition rather than purely completed projects on local scale.

42

Furthermore, the temporal limit, to include projects initiated from 1990 and onwards, results in a

bias towards successful projects. This ensues naturally since less successful projects from earlier

decades are less frequently mentioned in literature (de Graaf & van der Brugge, 2010). In contrast,

more recent projects tend to have a higher coverage in news articles and governmental webpages

despite their stage of completion, as evidenced for instance in Malmö and Toronto. Therefore, it

was also important to remain critical in distinguishing between ambitious visions and plans and

actual projects.

5.3.1. Generalizability of results

Due to the high context-dependence of sustainability transitions, in line with the claim by Šakić

Trogrlić et al. (2018) stating that in GI “every case study is unique and cannot be transferred to

others since function is dependent on local characteristics” (p. 4), it cannot be claimed that the

results from this review are applicable in all future URWH projects. Given that the review aimed

to synthesize existing knowledge to generalize the state-of-the-art successes, meant that since no

new interviews were conducted the information found was at times incomplete. The researcher

was thus unable to fill all data gaps, resulting in an outcome based more heavily on affirmative

answers.

As mentioned in the critiques of the evaluative framework (Section 3.2.1), there exists a need for

a common baseline in order to fairly evaluate experiments cross-case. This has not been achieved

within the scope of this thesis as the evaluations were conducted on projects at different levels of

completion, by a third-party researcher: it was based on published materials rather than first-hand

insight into each project and the evaluation was not planned for from the start, thus the available

literature rarely covered all features of evaluation.

Some of the reviewed case studies were of such small scale that documentation did not allow for

sufficient evaluation of all critical features (for instance “sound methodology”) within the frames

of the specific project, but was rather put in a larger context of sustainability discourse in the city.

While a political regional vision can have a large influence on which type of project is selected, it

does not automatically ensure the success of its implementation as this also relies on other factors

(such as community involvement, ownership, expertise etc.).

Furthermore, several projects are not described in peer reviewed articles but rather on websites

and in grey literature such as municipal reports. Therefore, the reviewed literature may also be

43

subject to bias by the respective authors of papers and reports. Many project profiles and articles

emphasize the successful aspects, especially since UWRH remains in an acceleration phase

making it vulnerable to criticism (Rijke, 2007). Furthermore, early adopters and pro-URWH

researchers and practitioners may be reluctant to explicitly discuss failures. This resulted in a

majority of the evaluative questions being answered affirmatively, and consequently there existed

a higher likelihood that an omitted answer to a given question indicates that the critical feature has

not been fulfilled. However, lacking basis for the claim, these questions were left blank. This,

along with the inherent subjectivity of evaluation, implies that the findings are merely indicative

of general trends among the reviewed cases, and as such the proposed revised framework should

be further developed with new URWH projects.

44

6. Conclusion

URWH is one solution out of a larger range necessary to increase climate resilience and adapt to

changing weather patterns, as well as provide some level of water security and other societal

benefits. The institutionalization from niche to mainstream remains a central topic of discourse, as

the complexity of transformation of the cityscape relies on collaboration between public

companies and municipal actors as well as private companies and interest groups.

Previous research within the field explicitly referred to as rainwater harvesting has focused mostly

around domestic systems, with some more recent literature drawing on the need to further explore

the multiple benefits of URWH and how to bridge the gap between academia and practitioners, as

well as from private to public spaces. However, literature on urban planning and climate change

adaptation was more readily available and included projects which in their objectives were to some

extent concerned with the handling of rainwater in the urban landscape.

The literature review was thus conducted with the aim to identify key processes and features

critical to the successful design, initiation and maintenance of URWH systems. With regard to the

investigative nature of this paper, the aim was not to summarize URWH projects, but rather to

analyze similarities and differences between them in order to identify which features are critical

for the success of such sustainability transitions.

The presented research identifies awareness of the problem by political leaders and committed

actors, along with sufficient support, as critical input features. Further, a reflexive process as well

as collaboration with and involvement of local residents are pivotal for the project to commence.

The efficient and successful transfer of practices and know-how amongst practitioners is vital for

the success of URWH systems. Special emphasis in this process can be developed by encouraging

learning and capacity-building. The projects are found to be more successful, and receive greater

political support, if they are part of urban renewal schemes. Support and perceived ownership by

local actors ensure intended use and management of the systems.

Inevitably, the transition towards a more sustainable urban future will require joint efforts by an

informed community, engaged leaders, experts, and governmental incentives.

45

This thesis has shown that rainwater cannot only transform cities to make them more blue and

green, it also has the means to foster collaboration and a more inclusive society, making urban

spaces more livable. It provides a point of departure for further studies aiming to synthesize

enabling factors in the field of urban rainwater harvesting.

6.1. Recommendations for further work

As determined by the literature review, not all researchers had the same parameters in mind when

reviewing aspects of URWH projects. In order to synthesize case studies and evaluate the enabling

factors cross-case, the parameters should be equal. The paper calls on the need for both more

research on the comparison between projects as well as increased evaluation of projects in order

to replicate successes. Future evaluations of URWH systems could thus focus on:

● How the outcome features can be better analysed, as these are significant for the

attractiveness of URWH.

● Further work targeting European cities specifically could seek for a greater compliance

with the Urban Wastewater Directive of 1991 and the Water Framework Directive.

● In-depth analysis on the regional benefits of implementing rainwater harvesting systems in

public buildings.

● Adjusting and building upon the revised framework to encompass URWH systems beyond

the European scope, to evaluate critical factors of success in regions with different

governance regimes, such as in African countries or central and south America.

46

References

Backhaus, A., & Fryd, O. (2013). The aesthetic performance of urban landscape-based stormwater

management systems: a review of twenty projects in Northern Europe. Journal of Landscape

Architecture, 8(2), 52-63.

Brotchie, R. et al.. (2017). IWM Review: Key findings inform Melbourne’s long-term planning

efforts. Worldwater: Stormwater Management, 5(1), pp.14-16.

Brown, R. R., Farrelly, M. A., & Loorbach, D. A. (2013). Actors working the institutions in

sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne's stormwater management. Global

Environmental Change, 23(4), 701-718.

Christian Amos, C., Rahman, A., & Mwangi Gathenya, J. (2016). Economic analysis and

feasibility of rainwater harvesting systems in urban and peri-urban environments: A review of the

global situation with a special focus on Australia and Kenya. Water, 8(4), 149.

Campisano, A., Butler, D., Ward, S., Burns, M. J., Friedler, E., DeBusk, K., ... & Han, M. (2017).

Urban rainwater harvesting systems: Research, implementation and future perspectives. Water

Research, 115, 195-209.

The City of Copenhagen, Technical and Environmental Administration. (2012). Cloudburst

Management Plan 2012.

The City of Toronto, Complete Streets Team. (2017). Green Streets Technical Guidelines (Version

1.0).

De Graaf, R., & Van Der Brugge, R. (2010). Transforming water infrastructure by linking water

management and urban renewal in Rotterdam. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

77(8), 1282-1291.

47

di Marino, M., & Lapintie, K. (2018). Exploring the concept of green infrastructure in urban

landscape. Experiences from Italy, Canada and Finland. Landscape Research, 43(1), 139-149.

EmscherKommunen starten gemeinsame Offensive "Wasser in der Stadt von morgen". (2018,

March 21). Retrieved Jan. 10, 2019 from

https://www.dortmund.de/de/leben_in_dortmund/nachrichtenportal/alle_nachrichten/nachricht.js

p?nid=521460

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation. (2018, May 24). Retrieved Sept. 28, 2018 from

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation

Emschergenossenschaft. (n.d.). Neuer Umgang mit dem Regenwasser in Scharnhorst-Ost,

Dortmund. [Brochure]. Essen: Emschergenossenschaft.

Extreme Weather Continues in 2018 - a Continuing Call to Climate Action. (2018, June 20)

Retrieved Aug. 29, 2018 from https://unfccc.int/news/extreme-weather-continues-in-2018-a-

continuing-call-to-climate-action

Fabritius Tengnagel, M. & Aslaug Lund, A.. (2017). Cloudburst projects transform urban living,

prevent flooding. World Water: Stormwater Management, 5(1), 12-13.

Fletcher, T. D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W. F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., ... & Mikkelsen, P. S.

(2015). SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more–The evolution and application of terminology

surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, 12(7), 525-542.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. IN SEALE, C., GOBO,

G., AND, JFG & SILVERMAN, D. Qualitative Research Practice: Concise Paperback Edition.

Frantzeskaki, N., Broto, V. C., Coenen, L., & Loorbach, D. (Eds.). (2017). Urban sustainability

transitions (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Routledge.

https://www.dortmund.de/de/leben_in_dortmund/nachrichtenportal/alle_nachrichten/nachricht.jsp?nid=521460

https://www.dortmund.de/de/leben_in_dortmund/nachrichtenportal/alle_nachrichten/nachricht.jsp?nid=521460

https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation

https://unfccc.int/news/extreme-weather-continues-in-2018-a-continuing-call-to-climate-action

https://unfccc.int/news/extreme-weather-continues-in-2018-a-continuing-call-to-climate-action

48

Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2016). The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in

socio-technical systems—An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 298-312.

Gaines, J. M. (2016). Water potential. Nature, 531(7594 S1), S54-S54.

García Soler, N., Moss, T., & Papasozomenou, O. (2018). Rain and the city: Pathways to

mainstreaming rainwater harvesting in Berlin. Geoforum, 89, 96-106.

Gondhalekar, D., & Ramsauer, T. (2017). Nexus City: operationalizing the urban water-energy-

food nexus for climate change adaptation in Munich, Germany. Urban Climate, 19, 28-40.

Google. (2019). Mapped projects. Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1wbTc7g7-

E24d_Ugtyug1reqX1BK7bKdZ&ll=8.474896750321655%2C0&z=2

Grin, J., Frantzeskaki, N., Broto, V. C., & Coenen, L. (2017). Sustainability Transitions and the

City: Linking to transition studies and looking forward. In Urban Sustainability Transitions (pp.

359-367). New York, NY: Routledge.

Karvonen, A. (2011). Politics of urban runoff: nature, technology, and the sustainable city. MIT

Press.

Key observed and projected climate change and impacts for the main regions in Europe. (2017,

February 23). Retrieved Sept. 28, 2018 from

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/key-past-and-projected-impacts-and-effects-

on-sectors-for-the-main-biogeographic-regions-of-europe-5

Klimakvarter. (n.d.). Tåsinge Plads. Retrieved Oct. 10, 2018, from

http://klimakvarter.dk/en/projekt/tasinge-plads/

Lister, N.M. (2018, December 4). Public lecture.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1wbTc7g7-E24d_Ugtyug1reqX1BK7bKdZ&ll=8.474896750321655%2C0&z=2

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1wbTc7g7-E24d_Ugtyug1reqX1BK7bKdZ&ll=8.474896750321655%2C0&z=2

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/key-past-and-projected-impacts-and-effects-on-sectors-for-the-main-biogeographic-regions-of-europe-5

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/key-past-and-projected-impacts-and-effects-on-sectors-for-the-main-biogeographic-regions-of-europe-5

http://klimakvarter.dk/en/projekt/tasinge-plads/

49

Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D. J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J. J., ... & Farrelly, M. A.

(2017). Learning through evaluation–A tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transition

experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 61-76.

Madsen, H. M., Brown, R., Elle, M., & Mikkelsen, P. S. (2017). Social construction of stormwater

control measures in Melbourne and Copenhagen: A discourse analysis of technological change,

embedded meanings and potential mainstreaming. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

115, 198-209.

Malmberg, Tobias. (2018). Så ska Malmö klara hundraårsregnet. Planering i Malmö, 2018(1), pp.

18-19. Retrieved Jan. 20, 2019 from

https://issuu.com/malmostadsbyggnadskontor/docs/pim_18_1web

Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of

research and its prospects. Research policy, 41(6), 955-967.

Space to Grow Celebrates National Infrastructure Week. (2018, May 17). Retrieved Feb. 10, 2019

from https://www.spacetogrowchicago.org/space-to-grow-celebrates-national-infrastructure-

week/

Olympic Park Legacy Company. (2012). Creating the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. [Brochure]

London: Olympic Park Legacy Company Limited.

O'Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project. Sage.

Petit-Boix, A., Devkota, J., Phillips, R., Vargas-Parra, M. V., Josa, A., Gabarrell, X., ... & Apul,

D. (2018). Life cycle and hydrologic modeling of rainwater harvesting in urban neighborhoods:

Implications of urban form and water demand patterns in the US and Spain. Science of the total

environment, 621, 434-443.

/Users/linnea/Documents/EESI%20master/THESIS/%20

https://issuu.com/malmostadsbyggnadskontor/docs/pim_18_1web

https://www.spacetogrowchicago.org/space-to-grow-celebrates-national-infrastructure-week/



50

Rijke, J. S. (2007). Mainstreaming innovations in urban water management–Case studies in

Melbourne and the Netherlands. (Doctoral dissertation, MSc thesis, October 2007, Delft

University of Technology, The Netherlands).

Risk för vattenbrist. (n.d.) Retrieved Sept. 24, 2018 from https://www.smhi.se/vadret/vadret-i-

sverige/risk-for-vattenbrist

Šakić Trogrlić, R., Rijke, J., Dolman, N., & Zevenbergen, C. (2018). Rebuild by design in

Hoboken: A design competition as a means for achieving flood resilience of urban areas through

the implementation of green infrastructure. Water, 10(5), 553.

Salinas Rodriguez, C. N., Ashley, R., Gersonius, B., Rijke, J., Pathirana, A., & Zevenbergen, C.

(2014). Incorporation and application of resilience in the context of water‐sensitive urban design:

linking European and Australian perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(2), 173-

186.

Saurí, D., & Palau-Rof, L. (2017). Urban drainage in Barcelona: From hazard to resource?. Water

Alternatives, 10(2), 475-492.

Schuster, B. (2018, August 13). Grüne Fassaden für das Kretaviertel [Green Facades for the Kreta-

block]. Retrieved Feb. 01, 2019 from https://www.meinbezirk.at/favoriten/c-lokales/gruene-

fassaden-fuer-das-kretaviertel_a2823440

Stadsbyggnadskontoret. (2018, August 24). Söderkullaparken. Retrieved Jan. 20, 2019 from

https://malmo.se/Stadsplanering--trafik/Stadsplanering--visioner/Malmos-

stadsmiljo/Skyfallsanpassning/Hur-gor-vi-i-Malmo/Aktuellt-.html

Susdrain.org. (2012). Olympic Park, London. Retrieved Jan. 10, 2019 from

https://www.susdrain.org/case-studies/case_studies/olympic_park_london.html

https://www.smhi.se/vadret/vadret-i-sverige/risk-for-vattenbrist

https://www.smhi.se/vadret/vadret-i-sverige/risk-for-vattenbrist

https://www.meinbezirk.at/favoriten/c-lokales/gruene-fassaden-fuer-das-kretaviertel_a2823440

https://www.meinbezirk.at/favoriten/c-lokales/gruene-fassaden-fuer-das-kretaviertel_a2823440

https://malmo.se/Stadsplanering--trafik/Stadsplanering--visioner/Malmos-stadsmiljo/Skyfallsanpassning/Hur-gor-vi-i-Malmo/Aktuellt-.html




https://www.susdrain.org/case-studies/case_studies/olympic_park_london.html

51

Toronto and Region Conservation Agency (TRCA). (n.d.). Fairford Parkette, Toronto Green

Streets [Brochure]. Retrieved Feb. 01, 2019 from

https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2017/08/Fairford-Parkette-Case-Study_2017.pdf

United Nations. (2018, May 16). 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects (Report).

Retrieved Sept. 25, 2018 from https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-

of-world-urbanization-prospects.html

Ward, S. (2010). Rainwater harvesting in the UK: a strategic framework to enable transition from

novel to mainstream.

Ward, S., Barr, S., Butler, D., & Memon, F. A. (2012). Rainwater harvesting in the UK: Socio-

technical theory and practice. Technological forecasting and social change, 79(7), 1354-1361.

Weckström, J. (2018). Lägsta grundvattennivåerna i delar av landet på 42 år. Retrieved Sept. 1,

2018 from https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/orebro/lagsta-grundvattennivaerna-i-landet-pa-42-ar

Wiek, A., Kay, B., & Forrest, N. (2017). Worth the trouble?!: An evaluative scheme for urban

sustainability transition labs (USTLs) and an application to the USTL in Phoenix, Arizona. In

Urban Sustainability Transitions. (pp. 227-256). Taylor and Francis.

Working group Adaptation to Climate Change of the City of Tirana (Ed.). (2015). Adapting our

City to a Changing Climate - Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Action Plan for Tirana

(Albania, Directorate of Environmental Policies and Environmental Education). Sheshi

Skënderbej: Bashkia Tiranë.

https://sustainabletechnologies.ca/app/uploads/2017/08/Fairford-Parkette-Case-Study_2017.pdf

https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html

https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/orebro/lagsta-grundvattennivaerna-i-landet-pa-42-ar

52

Appendix A: Evaluation scheme as seen in Luederitz et al. (2016, p.11)

53

Appendix B: Evaluative matrix of reviewed projects

Appendix B

1

Article / SourcesMalmberg, (2018), Stahre (2002) UrbanRain.se, Trafikkontoret

Fabritius Tegnagel & Aslaug Lund klimakvarter.dk

Backhaus & Fryd (2013); Emschergenossenschaft (n.d.); dortmund.de (2018)

stadtentwicklung.berlin.de; Backhaus & Fryd OPLC Brochure; susdrain.org Sakic Trogrlic et al. (2018)

City (Project) Malmö - Söderkullaparken Stockholm - HornsgatanCopenhagen - Sankt Annæ Plads

Copenhagen - Tåsinge Plads Dortmund - Scharnhorst Ost

Berlin - Potsdamer Platz London - Olympic Park Chicago - Wadsworth school Hoboken - RBD

Inputs

Awareness

Yes - acute awareness raised after 2014 downpour [translated from Malmberg] "the ongoing shift was accelerated by the event"

Yes - Hornsgatan known to be one of the most polluted streets in Stockholm. "with the aim to reduce the pollution to Mälaren, rainwater from sidewalks and roofs has been treated by infiltration swales" - p 2(7)

Yes - the experienced "skybrud" clearly made all parties aware of the problem

Yes - after "cloudbursts", part of the "climate resilient neighbourhood of Østerbro"

Yes - "green areas showing clear deficiencies" (translated from initiative page) social housing area in need of upkeep and remodelling of the public spaces; "the initiative started from within, by locals" (translated, Emscher. p.6)

Yes - major project to remediate contaminated area, "Lower Lee Valley is now being radically and rapidly transformed." (OPLC brochure)

Yes - "Managing stormwater is especially important in Chicago because of the cities combined sewer system." (MWRD, 2018) local and national governments aware of increasing flood risks

Yes - "Even though it is evident that there was awareness and initial political supoort for mitigating the flooding effects in Hoboken, it was not until Hurricane Sandy that a recognition of a need for change fully emerged." (p.8)

Commitment

Yes - the municipality (Malmö stad) and water company (VA Syd)

Yes - the investments made prove a certain level of commitment

Yes - "the inhabitants and other actors were very involved throughout the project" (translated, Emscher. p.6); "Public participation a key issue" (B&F 2013)

Yes - several important stakeholders including the London Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games, the environment agency, Thames Water, local Boroughs… (Susdrain.org)

Yes - "This innovative partnership ensures that the schoolyards are designed by and for the communities they serve." (MWRD, 2018)

Yes - "The main driver for enabling city-wide implementation for GI is the presence of strong political buy-in, leadership and commitment at the local level. Interviewees believe that the current governing body is seeing GI as a real opportunity and is allocating significant financial and human resources to the implementation." (p9)

Expertise

Yes - water company (VA syd) and engineering consultants (Malmberg, 2018)

Yes - technical expertise at Rambøll and landscaping Schønherr

Yes - several advisors with different areas of expertise involved

Yes - "the economic support enabled the hiring of a engineering consultancy, who not only possessed ingeneurial skills in urban planning and technical design, but also managed some organisational aspects" (translated, Emscher. p.6)

Yes - hired contractors for design & building (Susdrain)

Yes - Schools are supported with expertise from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation and Department of Water Management (MWRD)

Yes - "The competition attracted leaders from the industry and served as a raising awareness activity in the community." (p11)

Trust

Yes - the retrofitting of Söderkullaparken is one type of measure, which together with two others ("linjeverksamhet" and "informationsarbete") involve actors across the city who all rely on each other (Malmberg)

Yes - "partnerships can further lead to increased understanding between the groups"

Yes - collaboration and support from municipality, local schools, economic support etc proves mutual trust

Yes - Given the 1,5 million USD grant per school, participants are entrusted and have the financial means and support to complete the transformation. (MWRD)

Yes - "..it was ensured that the RDSD Strategy is representative of the needs of local community, thus creating the ownership of the solution." (p.10)

Appendix B

2

Support

Yes - the municipality (Malmö stad) and water company (VA Syd)

Yes - "govt support for sustainable city" - Iveroth +

Yes - funding (economic support) from municipality and water utility company and philantropic foundation

Yes - support from municipality

Yes - financial support from local & regional government, and EU refinancing grant (Emscher.,p.4)

Yes - the project proposal was selected the winning plan of a urban growth competition in 1991

Yes - substantial economic support given the importance & media coverage of building the Olympic park

Yes - "Capital funding and expertise comes from Chicago Public Schools, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and the Chicago Department of Water Management." (MWRD 2018)

Yes - "U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $230 million to the State of New Jersey... to implement the strategy."(p8) + support from Mayor, but only partial financial support "To implement other parts of RDSD, significant public and private resources will be needed." (p.11) + "Interviewees believe that the current governing body is seeing GI as a real opportunity and is allocating significant financial and human resources to the implementation." (p9)

otherProcesses

Sequence of actions

Yes - immediate measures following the 2014 downpour decided upon & implemented first, while having a plan for how to successively improve the greater city

Yes - "Trafikontoret can conclude that the project has met the intended goals and stayed within timeframe and budget." (p2)

No - "competitions seldom incorporate sufficient technical data" ... "during the detailed design phase, it became clear that the proposed surface-based solution could not be carried out due to an existing 120-year-old brick walled wastewater pipe of significant historical value and efficiency"

Yes - "The challenge was to synergistically combine the planned development and drainage to save costs" (translated, Emscher. p.3). municipality takes actions to improve stormwater management simultaneously as other improvements are made in the area

Yes - "Designing the two models [Games-time and Games mode] in tandem has ensured that the process of transformation will be rapid and efficient…" (OPLC)

Yes - actions (construction) documented by MWRD (youtube video)

Yes - the acronym itself hints att the logical sequence of actions within the project: "Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge"

Sound methodolody

Yes - plans drawn with help from consulting engineers (Malmberg)

Yes - the project was divided in phases & emphasis was placed on the need to keep the road open during the building project (Trafikkontoret)

No - "discrepancy between the original vision for the landscape solution and the actual possibilites that could be constructed due to existing conditions caused a complete redesign to both the original landscape vision and technical design"

Yes - vision/aim: "to control and retain as much as possible of the rainwater falling around the square."

Yes - "In September 1997 a planning-workshop was done, upon which later the investments were based" (translated, Emscher. p.3)

Yes - a significant amount of time has been devoted to the detailed planning of visions and strategies (OPLC)

Yes - "With more than 760 acres of impermeable surface in a highly urbanized area, Chicago Public Schools schoolyards present a significant opportunity for changing the way stormwater is managed on public land in Chicago." clear vision by MWRD

Yes - "Interviewees stated that the proposed strategy is comprehensive and on the scale of an urban district, requiring significant investments and future dedication." (p9)

Collaboration

Yes - between municipal government and water company

Yes - "Information meeting was held before project initiation, together with Stockholm Vatten, for businesspersons, inhabitants and property owners, and contact has been sustained throughout the building process." p 7(7)

Yes - "collaboration results in savings for all investors"

Yes - "This engagement provides an ideal basis for the transformation of Tåsinge Plads, so that the neighbours continue to be actively engaged in the development of the square."

Yes - "the Regenwasserforum [forum for Rainwater] allowed for round-table-discussion between all actors regarding ideas and projects, their development, and financial grants" (translated, Emscher. p.3)

Yes - "Effective integration between project teams." (Susdrain)

Yes - collaboration with partners, and with regard taken to the needs of the local school & community (playground for elementary school students) (MWRD)

Yes - "The collaboration between authorities, the private sector and philanthropists created conditions for innovation through the creation and exchange of ideas between international experts and design teams." (p.12)

Appendix B

3

Reflexivity and learning

Yes - to some extent, since Söderkullaparken is the first in a line of planned park-projects (Fosieparken will be next)

Yes - phases should allow for reflexivity from one phase to the next

Yes - solution was redesigned after encountering problems to initial design

Yes - reflexivity through the forum for Rainwater round-table discussions as well as (on a regional scale) the "Water in the city of tomorrow" collaboration

Yes - Wadsworth is one of 34 schoolyards were the transformation is planned, reflexivity and learning will be possible from one project to the next (MWRD)

Yes - "…the RBD approach went a step further by undertaking serious efforts to involve the community while developing the designs." (p10) + "Even so, some of the interviewees proposed the necessity for establishing a partnership with academic institutions (e.g., Stevens Institute of Technology, Rutgers University) that would move the process of implementation forward." (p11)

Transparency

Yes - "what has been done and is planned" updates on malmo.se

Yes - transparency through information meetings

Yes - since the project was cofunded by the municipality, amongst others, the intentions and actions were transparent

Yes - "Regenwasserforum" with bi-annual meetings + yearly information pamphlets for all inhabitants + initial workshops

Yes - goals, visions and actions are openly communicated (susdrain; OPLC)

Yes - transformation of public schoolyards with neighbourhood-scale benefits, the projects are well-covered by local media

Yes - large focus on involvement of local community throughout the process

otherOutputs

Built capacities

Yes - to some extent: the project includes a decrease in automobile parking spots and increase in bike stands, enabling participants to "activate new behavioural patterns"

No - lacking "participants" per se, but recalling personal communication (lecture by M. Fabritius Tegnagel, November 2017) there were some troubles with communication between different actors - eg technical teams and planners etc

Yes - ex: "In the middle of the square are 'water parasols' and drops as structural elements that collect the water, so that children can use it for play."

Yes - example: "the upkeep of retention basins has been integrated in the pedagological work and the theme "new handling of rainwater" encorporated into grade 1 - 10 syllabuses" (translated, Emscher. p.4)

Yes - (indirectly) the km of cycling paths and walkways, along with other sports grounds, enables participants and visitors to activate new behavioural patterns

Yes - schoolyard transformations increases the classroom discussions on rainwater and stormwater retention and use (MWRD)

Actionable knowledge

Yes - through the initiative [translated] "Tillsammans gör vi plats för vattnet [Together we make space for water]"

Yes - the City of Copenhagen Climate Adaptation plan is used as a guideline

Yes - seen in the form of swales, filter strips, ponds, etc and planting of native species "for biodiversity .. For their ability to withstand a changing climate." (OPLC p17)

Yes - "The schoolyard’s transformation will promote physical activity, accommodate STEM-focused experiential learning, reduce runoff pollution, and demonstrate the benefits of green infrastructure construction as well as reduce flood risks." (Stormwater magazine)

Yes - RBD principle to "emphasize GI as a preferred option for stormwater management from the outset." (p 7), the competition resulted in several actionable plans to incorporate GI in redevelopment

Accountability

Yes - both municipal practitioners and involved stakeholders (landlords) gain valuable experiences, building confidence, through the initiatives (Malmberg)

Yes - both local schools and regional governments use the project as an important reference to futher work on rainwater handling

Yes - ambitious project with committed participants

Yes - successful transformations builds further confidence among involved actors and the public

Yes - "Detailed planning done through the next phase of the RDSD project and further commitment from the local leaders will decrease the uncertainties connected with GI and help facilitate wider implementation." (p12)

Appendix B

4

Changes in physical structures

Yes - lowered terrain in parks to create natural retention ponds when necessary Yes - planted trees

Yes - it is a landscape-based stormwater management project, Tegnagel stresses the importance of technical feasability though

Yes - creation of rain park and playground

Yes - images of new above-ground streams and water playgrounds

Yes - part of a new development

Yes - rebuilding and remodelling 102 hectare park

Yes - "Wadsworth’s 3,530 square-meter (m2) outdoor play area and 223-m2 playground were replaced with an artificially turfed athletic field, a running track, a basketball court, a playground with a rubberized surface, and vegetable gardens donated by The Kitchen Community (Boulder, Colorado)." (Stormwater magazine),

Yes - "..the municipality is working on delivering the first Resilience Park and incorporating the findings from RDSD, the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan, plans for designated redevelopment and the master plan." (p.8)

Changes in social realms

Yes - "Together we make space for water" (translated, Malmberg) was created to offer help and advice to local landlords.

Yes - "additional benefits can be realized in the economic partnerships that can drive an increased cooperation between the investing parties and a local anchoring by including residents and other local parties."

Yes - creation of new working groups with the focus on rainwater management, e.g. "Naturlehrpfad"

Yes - the project has the ability to transforms practices and norms related to the value of water

Yes - "The RBD approach, by requiring extensive collaboration, created a nexus between the key urban water management stakeholders in Hoboken." (p.10)

Transferability Yes - "potential"

Yes - "…it is necessary to identify the many technical challenges associated with transforming the surfaces of our cities… … so that future projects can achieve their best potential."

Yes - e.g. the involvement of local schools and creation of working groups for upkeep (Emscher, p.5)

Yes - "Design & implementation of the SuDS scheme with client/stakeholder buy-in" stated by susdrain as an overcome challenge. In addition, the park will amongst others host the European Urban Green Infrastructure Conference 2019 - enabling global planners to visit.

Yes - lessons learned regarding processes can be applied in the building development of the planned remaining schoolyards

Yes - [general] "A typical feature of GI is also that they are highly context specific, …, which implies that every case study is unique and cannot be transferred to others since fuction is dependent on local characteristics." (p4)

Scalability

Yes - the outputs and outcomes from Söderkullaparken should be able to be generalized to other planned retrofitting projects Yes - "potential"

Yes - "…it is necessary to identify the many technical challenges associated with transforming the surfaces of our cities… … so that future projects can achieve their best potential."

Yes - collaboration between municipalities to learn from experiences and practices

Yes - partners are keen to share experiences (Stormwater Magazine)

Yes - "The competition was organized with the vision of catalyzing the transformation of the whole affected region towards being flood resilient." (p3)

Account for unintended consequences otherOutcomes

Socio-ecological integrity

Yes - "We will create multifunctional spaces. … On regular days the low walls around low-terrain playgrounds can be used to sit on, while they are used to retain water during heavy rainfall events." (Karin Nilsson as seen in Malmberg)

Yes - adaptations referred to as "urban environment improvements" = stadsmiljöåtgärder

Yes - coupling the refurbishing of the neighbourhood with the introduction of rainwater collection & retention ponds

Yes - "The opportunities to enhance the biodiversity and amenity of the public realm through appropriate specification of drainage infrastructure." (susdrain)

Yes - "The improvements to James Wadsworth Elementary School.. enable more than 50 percent of the schoolyard’s previously impervious grounds to absorb stormwater effectively" (Stormwater magazine) Yes - redesign for citizens and reduced CSOs

Appendix B

5

Livelihood sufficiency and opportunity

Yes - "..the project also had a vision to improve the conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.."

Yes - "This has created a blossoming, creative urban life that helps in strengthening familiarity, community and ownership among the local residents."

Yes - opportunities created for exersicing capabilities in the upkeep of rainwater basins etcetc

Yes - access to "recreational opportunities...food growing and biodiversity" (OPLC p15)

Yes - the transformed schoolyards will be accessible to the school children, their families and the public, creating opportunity to learn through access to the equipment and gardens

Yes - "The Mayor of Hoboken is 110% behind green infrastructure and she wants it, she wants to add open space and parks in the city, she wants to reduce flooding and improve environmental quality, she wants to improve property values…" (local gov't interview, p 9)

Intra- and intergenerational equity

Yes - investments to create multifuntional spaces all over the city, also in more neglected areas, to enhance livability (Malmberg)

Yes - "the aim is that Hornsgatan, one of Stockholms longest central streets, transforms into a coherent, unified avenue" p 2(7)

Yes - "This type of co-funded, landscape-based stormwater management can be used,…, as a driver to upgrade neglected urban areas and provide cities with the potential to sumultaneously create more livable streets and more resilient cities."

Yes - adapted syllabus at local school to encorporate "rainwater management" (Emscher.)

Yes - accessibility to and through the park for surrounding neighbourhoods and other visitors, "wide range of recreational opportunities" (OPLC brochure)

Yes - “Space to Grow aims to serve over 15,000 Chicago Public School students and their families, providing access to nature, outdoor classrooms, space for physical activity and recreation and edible gardens to support nutrition education.” (MWRD, 2018).

Yes - improving accessibility to greenery, reducing sewer backup and related risks

Resource maintenance and efficiency

Yes - "Here we are implementing change to limit the negative effects of downpours in the future" (Malmberg) projects aim to decrease the risk and severity of disaster management after expected increasing storms (Malmberg)

Yes - "The overall approach of incorporating and including several potential projects in an area at the same time-…- not only saves money but also reduces the hassle to local citizens."

Yes - "Altogether, Tåsinge Plads can delay and percolate rainwater from a surrounding area of 4300m2"

Yes - "Further goals of the project were … the decrease in incidental rental costs, the relieving of existing canals, and an increase in urban and land use quality through integrated planning processes." (translated, Emscher. p.3)

Yes - using rainwater in stead of potable freshwater for flushing & irrigation

Yes - "The efficient transfer from Games to Legacy minimising waste." (susdrain)

Yes - stormwater retention decreases the risk for CSOs

Socio-ecological stewardship and democratic governance

No ? - public doesnt seem particularly involved, nor does the decision-making process seem to allow input from others than the planned owners

Yes - the involvement of locals was a goal from the start of the project, enhancing trust, understanding and ownership

Yes - "By lessening the load on our sewer system, we are reducing flooding and also improving area water quality. We are happy to partner on this program and make a difference in educating students and the community about the value of water." (Kari Steele as seen in MWRD)

Yes - the Research by Design competition as a "new" form of GI governance

Precaution and adaptation

Yes - "Ensuring that projects remain true to their designed visions should help cities significantly in creating more livable public spaces while strengthening the resilience needed to adapt to climate change."

Yes - an information sign clearly states the intentions behind each project feature

Yes - "The management of extreme flood events taking into account potential impacts of climate change." (susdrain)

Yes - the transformed schoolyards create learning opportunities regarding flood risk and ressource maintenance

Yes - "Detailed planning done through the next phase of the RDSD project and further commitment from the local leaders will decrease the uncertainties connected with GI and help facilitate wider implementation." (p12)

other

Appendix B

6

Rijke (2007) ; Brotchie et al. (2017)

De Graaf & Van Der Brugge (2010)

Sustainable Technologies Case Study

Park People (2017), GSTG (2017), Schollen & Company Inc. urbanrain.se Saurí & Palau-Rof (2017)

Webpage (tatwort) + news article Schuster (2018)

Adaptation Action Plan report / Climate Change Adaptation (CCA)

Melbourne - DocklandsRotterdam - Water City 2035 / Zuiderpark

Milan - Metropolitan Area / Parco Nord

Toronto - Fairford Parkette Toronto - Raindrop Plaza /

Barcelona - Jardinet del Pedro Barcelona - Can Cortada

Vienna - GrünStattGrau

Tirana - urban greening / Magnet Project (p.66)

Yes - Millenium drought (1997-2009) + "flooding is predicted to increase due to densification and climate impacts." (Brotchie et al.) + Eutrophication as another driver to improve harbour water quality (Madsen et al., p.202)

Yes - need to handle the "water challenge", "…the incremental appraoch was insufficient to deal with the challenges." (p.1284) + After the floods of 1993 and 1995 it was widely acknowledged that the existing regime could not fully control the water.(Rijke, p. iii)

Yes - Milan known as an early adopter of Green Networks (2000s) + Parco Nord established in early 80s

Yes - both planning & water utility company aware of retrofitting opportunity; + "the project was spurred by a community request for pedestrian improvements to the area"

Yes - increased number of severe storms and floods experienced in recent years

Yes - "…dividing walls in Barcelona are exposed causing an important impact on the urban landscape." (urbanrain.se project profile)

Yes - "…many parts of the city still suffered from periodic inundation. In 1997, a new plan identified these problematic areas and analysed the causes of flooding using a combined computer model…" (p. 484) + drought 2008

Yes - the Kreta-viertel/Innenfavoriten is a dense urban area in central Vienna, affected by urban heat island effects and high particulate matter (webpage)

Yes - experienced heat island effect, municipal government aims to implement cooling measures such as green streets, more open water in public space, etc (p.48) + annual flooding known to be a problem (Lana River, p.50) + downtown area: "The main problem is regular flooding from drainage water after heavy rainfall." (p57)

Yes - "The development authority of Docklands has a strong commitment to incorporate WSUD in Docklands at a precinct scale coherent to the ESD principles." (Rijke, p.36) + public and government committed to necessary improvements, although discussion remains on what methods are best (Brotchie et al)

Yes - "The micro scale change agents that were interviewed has a couple of characteristis, they …were highly motivated to change the current situation .. [and] open-minded for new ideas.." (p.1286)

Yes - collaborators committed to improvement and saw the potential impact of a successful demonstration project

Yes - government, academia and businesses (eg. Schollen & Company Inc.)

Yes - "Actors involved: IMPUQV (City Council), Alicante Forestal (commercial firm), Raval Theatre, owners of the building and neighbourhood association." (Urbanrain.se)

Yes - "The plan [2009 Plan for the Development of Alternative Water Sources in Barcelona] has to be contextualised within the growing interest of the city for sustainability issues and the approval in 2002 of the Citizen Commitment for Sustainability." (p.485)

Yes - "more than 300 network partners from industry, academia and public authorities" [translated] (webpage)

Yes - the transition is backed by a committed municipality, as proven by the ambitions set in the report, eg "by setting standards and limits for sealed surfaces in detailed urban development plans" (p59) + "HIGH" priority of action (p.81)

No - "The builders had little understanding of what they were building and had no experience of building it." (Rijke, p.38) + "The development authority hired an engineering company that is specialised in WSUD for setting the stormwater quality objectives. Afterwards, the same engineering company worked together with developers to meet the stormwater quality objectives." (Rijke, p.36)

Yes - "… 15 project members were selected: six designers, five water management experts, one member from the economic management department and three external members from the waterboards." (p.1285)

Yes & No - eg "Parks, Capital and Operations and Maintenance staff advised on the design" + use of Green Streets Technical Guidelines (GSTG) +

Yes - Green Streets Technical Guidelines published in 2017, based on dozens of precedent manuals and existing foundational documents

Yes - "SUDS in Barcelona owe a great deal to a single landscape architect who is behind almost all projects currently being developed in the city..." (p.488) + "Moreover and in agreement with interdisciplinary nature of alternative systems collaboration (not always easy) between different departments of the city council, in our case, parks and gardens, urban landscape, and urban water cycle has been formalised through the creation of a task force on SUDS." (p.488)

Yes - partners, such as GrünStattGrau, backed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG)

Yes - international experiences (eg images from Boston) and expert knowledge (planning documents) have been considered in the report

Yes - [between micro-scale change agents] "…convinced that the water management targets in Rotterdam could only be accomplished through cooperation." (p.1286)

No - "Coordination and approval issues can pose challenges during delivery of a new kind of project in the righ-of-way with multiple stakeholders" (from Lessons Learned)

No - "…90% of the current SUDS projects in the city are led by the same landscape architect from BAGURSA [municipal company in charge for redevelopment of city neighbourhoods] who had to face certain attitudes of mistrust by BCASA [municipal company in charge of urban drainage]." (p.486)

Yes - significant focus on the "co-creation process" (webpage)

Yes - "This [working process] shows clearly the philosphy of an active and participatory process with the relevant actors of the city administration rather than to deliver just an expert driven report at the end of the process, which would then lack ownership." (p17)

Appendix B

7

Yes - national strategy for ecologically sustainable development; support from local, regional governments

Yes - "It was a prestigeous project because it received strong executive support from department directors" + "Besides executive support, political support was an important factor." (p.1286)

Yes - regional government pushing for more ambitious visions

Yes - "Many departments worked collaboratively to fund and implement the project; …."

Yes - "Support for this initiative [integration of Green Infrastructure into Toronto's network of streets] has been building over several years from local and provincial levels of government." (GSTG, p.8)

Yes - funding typologies, also for maintenance (urbanrain.se)

Yes - through public funding (UrbanRain.se)

Yes - financial support from the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG)

Yes - municipal paper raises the need for standards to enforce implementation of blue-green development (p.48)

Described as: "A welcoming public destination for the local community with the functionality of a bio-retention facility to absorb and clean water to demonstrate that form and function can co-exist."

Significant focus also on advertisement and marketing campaigns, i.e. online platforms, event materials, creating citizen awareness

"The CCA action plan is one of the first climate change related action plans in the Balkans." (p14)

Yes - "After a part of the development is developed, the development authority evaluates the result together with the private developer who has constructed it." (Rijke, p.39)

Yes - initiated as a competition "The non-official status [of the policy-process] decreased the political risk." (p.1285)

Yes - (to some extent) While the purpose and delivered actions of the interventions is often stated, a documented chain of activities has not been found for any of the projects under way (by Schollen & Company Inc)

Yes - "In 2017, the city is expected to have a full Technical Plan for SUDS.." (p.487)

Yes - among the many proposed measures, the purpose, scope and delivered actions of each measure is clearly described in a point-form list (eg water management p 58)

Yes - "This ESD Guide measures and rates environmental performance (including water, energy, the suitability of building materials and the quality of indoor and outdoor spaces) of developments in Docklands, based on performance indicators that award points for environmental performance." (Rijke, p.36)

Yes - "The second water plan (WP2) was developed in 2006 and 2007 and is a specification of Water City 2035 into official policy." (p.1285)

Yes - "Because of the multidisciplinary nature of the project - requiring expertise from landscape architects and water resources engineers - some additional time was required to see the project through to fruition."

Yes - as seen in detailed GSTG document, "…the [documents] provide an initial level of site screening that will help users to identify a palette of GI options… that would be viable given the specific site conditions and circumstances." (GSTG, p.11)

Yes - "The project's goal is to collect runoff from roofs and streets through Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS), with the aim of reduce rainwater runoff in order to avoid the saturation of the sewage network." (Project Profile urbanrain.se)

Yes - clear vision (20 % of the potential areas should be green by 2022) and means to achieve goal, i.e. through citizen involvement workshops (Schuster, 2018)

Yes - clearly described "working steps, tools and responsibilities" (p.16)

Yes - "The development of Melbourne Docklands is not a masterplanned process, but a collaborative process between the development authority (VicUrban) and private developers, based on market demand." (Rijke, p.36)

Yes - "They [contest project participants] learned to understand each other's stakes and cooperate from the start." (p.1285)

Yes - between academics & politicians

Yes - "By collaborating well and working together, City staff were able to work through gaps in information, process and skill sets to make the project a reality and satisfy all the parties involved."

Yes - between "...various city departments as well as utility and service providers…" (GSTG, p.iii)

Yes - collaboration between municipal and commercial actors and well as landlords

Yes - "Driven by Barcelona Gestió Urbanística S.A. (BAGURSA), with different city departments intervening (Parks and Gardens, Clavegueram de Barcelona S.A. (CLABSA), groundwater, maintenance, paving, etc.). Other actors are commercial firms (Atlantis, Wavin), consulting firms (PMEnginyeria) and neighbourhood associations." (UrbanRain.se)

Yes - [translated] "…new ideas can be developed upon through a co-creation process involving unconventional actors (local inhabitants, political leaders and public authorities" (webpage)

Yes - "…a project working group consisting of experts of the City of Tirana, GIZ, CCAWB team, German and Albanian experts (consultants) facilitated and coordinated the working process.." (p14)

Appendix B

8

Yes - "After the development of a part of a parcel has been completed, this is evaluated by the development authority before the developer is allowed to continue the development of his parcel." (Rijke, p.36)

No - The contest and WP2 were well-structured learning processes, but the authors also discuss the rigid urban planning regime which "excludes innovative options to be considered and developed." (p. 1289)

Yes - "Lessons learned" specified several aspects to consider prior to future projects, ex:

Yes - [translated] "Learning by doing is also a focus of the innovation lab, as is the sharing of Best Practice methods across the country." (webpage)

Yes - "The working group was firstly trained on the steps and continuously guided on how to use and fill the assessment tools" (p17) + "The activities in Tirana are embedded in a wider international framework to allow an exchange of experiences, to mutually learn from other's appraoches an to raise the international political awareness on Western Balkans progress…" (p14)

Yes - open plan, contest, involvement

Yes - well-documented planning and result leaflet

Yes - the "Mugli" showroom at the central station keeps citizens informed (Schuster, 2018)

Yes - example: "During the project time two of the Working Group meetings were opened to a wider group of stakeholders in order to collect feedback and receive opinions." (p17)

The documents Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Action Plan and the Sustainable Enegy Action Plan "guide [the municipality] in providing a better living environment for [its] citizens and contribute to a sustainable development of the capital" (Xhindi, Deputy Mayor, in report)

Yes - Melbourne has a strong history of WSUD knowledge building & sharing through eg Corporate Research Centres (CRCs) and conferences (Madsen et al., 2017)

Yes - eg the involvement of politicians in WP1 preface + "recent wirk of urban water governance researchers suggest that organizational capacity building is a key factor to further advance the transition" (p. 1287)

No - "There is a need for greater public consultation and engagement prior to finalizing design, in order to improve the eco-literacy messaging about the project and promote community stewardship" (part of Lessons Learned)

Yes - some of the techniques listed in the GSTG include capacity-building benefits such as "promoting biodiversity" and "encouraging ecological linkages"; Park People writes that the plaza will "provide opportunities for learning about ecological systems"

Yes - "capacities of selected representatives and decision makers are developed to follow-up implementation of the developed measures after setting up the action plan" (p11)

Yes - many texts available (eg Rijke, 2007; Brown et al., 2013; Madsen et al., 2017; etc)

No - "There is a need for staff training on essential knowledge related to LID practices and their inspection in order to prevent misunderstandings between City departments." (Lessons Learned, case study)

Yes - the GSTG documents provide comprehensive & evidence-supported instructions

Yes - "Professionally, these projects also certified the emergence of new actors in drainage planning, especially landscape architects." (p.486)

Yes - (indirectly) as the AIM is to use the project in Kretaviertel/Innenfavoriten to generate exatcly such guidelines for best-practice to reduce the heat-island-effect

Yes - the paper proposes solutions that are well-tried and known to work, such as planting trees "the used plant species should be heat resistant" (p.56) and using water-penetrating concrete for sidewalks etc

Yes - "The 2-summer handover period is a period of two years during which the builder of an asset is responsible for the maintenance before it is handed over to the local council." (Rijke, p.39)

No - "Incentives for building contractors to construct urban water innovations are currently lacking." (p.1289)

Yes - as an "official Green Streets pilot project", participating city departments were accountable for the project outcome"

Yes - "A strong emphasis on maintenance. … A study … found that when park staff were included within the process of chosing plants for green infrastructure projects, the maintenance requirements were similar to traditional parkland development." (ParkPeople, p.8)

Yes - the experiment aims to "reduce the negative effects of densification and climate change for downtown dwellers" (webpage) and act as a pilot project for GrünStattGrau

Yes - communicating the importance of climate change adaptation areas, such as the disconnection of sealed surfaces from the wastewater drainage system and introduction of rain water infiltration + "develop multifunctional uses for retention spaces in case of low precipitation periods", to the public is a part of the water management plan (p.58, p.59)

Appendix B

9

Yes - visible land development

Yes - "Squares are transformed into water retention squares to store excess water during periods of heavy rainfall. Buildings with flat roofs have green roofs that are used for water retention, capture dust particles and improve water quality." (p.1285) + eg Zuiderpark

Yes - resulted in more green spaces

Yes - "…the right turn lane … was eliminated and the space was used to build a landscaped bioretention area and public seating."

Yes - The project "will transform a wide turning lane and traffic island into a new permeable plaza with rain gardens." (ParkPeople, p.7)

Yes - visible retrofitting & but without large infrastructure changes

Yes - SUDS implemented "draining pavement, filter strips, detention ponds…" (UrbanRain.se)

Yes - [translated] "Through the creation of physical and digital infrastructures new themes can be identified … " (webpage)

Yes - "structural measures: green structures; water system; urban structure; building design" (p25)

Yes - (as a result of general WSUD work, not Docklands specifically) "actors promoted WSUD technologies in policy making. The result was among other things the Clearwater Program, which is a state funded industry supporting organization still existing." (Madsen et al., 2017)

Yes - "A network was formed between these change agents that continued to exist after the contest." (p.1286)

Yes - "Through this project, the city will create a new green community gathering space, …, provide opportunities for learning about ecological systems…" (Park People, p.7)

Yes - "However, mutual mistrust appears to be receding and, since 2014, a working group on SUDS has been created..." (p.486)

Yes - [translated] "The laboratory is the first network location for greening of public and private space" (webpage)

Yes - "non-structural measures (e.g. awareness raising, restrictions, etc.)

Yes - "Evaluation and replication increases the competitiveness of innovations against mono-functional mainstream infrastructure." (p.1289)

Yes - pilot project with aim to promote further green streets projects

Yes - "First vertical garden with RWH. Used to create a standard design to replicate easily" (urbanrain.se)

Yes - "This working group […] has produced a blueprint of ´good practices´ aimed at the more formal introduction of SUDS in plans for the construction and renovation of parks and other public spaces in the city." (p.487)

Yes - [translated] "The project focuses on Vienna in the first stage, but is represented across Austria in [so called] synergi-cities" (webpage)

Yes - e.g. the planting of trees along roads will occur step-by-step, allowing for lessons learned to be applied at different locations (in theory)

Yes - the parcel-by-parcel system;

Yes - "Evaluation and replication increases the competitiveness of innovations against mono-functional mainstream infrastructure." (p.1289)

No - "..it is highly unlikely that these projects [SUDS] will represent a substantial change in the current dominant structure of urban drainage in the city.." (p488)

Yes - reflection on the involvement of social housing

Yes - critizism related to the insufficiency of SUDS in handling stormwater -- met with simultaneous will to expand / strengthen the conventional system

Yes - "Even if climate change impacts do not occur as expected, the measures will still be beneficial and cost-effective. Such adaptation options are called no-regret measures." (p12)

Yes - " According to the interviewees WSUD is a crucial concept to achieve high quality amenity and minimum environmental impact that would be well received by the public." (Rijke, p.39)

Yes - increased greenery available, decreased flood risk

Yes - "Creation of usable and attractive community space, including native plants and habitat for pollinators, which also improves stormwater management." (under Achievements of the project)

Yes - "In Barcelona, SUDS in parks and in rehabilitated neighbourhoods integrate drainage functions with these functions of social interaction." (p.488)

Yes - simultaneously creating "living space for insects", increasing biodiversity (Schuster, 2018)

Yes - "The project is foreseen to provide ecological corridors, valuable habitats and shaded areas providing a wide variety of environmental amenities much appreciated by the citizens." (p.62)

Appendix B

10

Yes - eg Zuiderparken Yes - park seating

Yes - "Acquifer recharge with good quality water" (UrbanRain.se) which is livelihood sufficiency at the most basic level

Yes - The proposed adaptation measures aim to secure a sufficient livelihood in the city regardless of climate change impacts

Yes - "Green Streets help to build a city that is resilient to climate change and contributes to an improved quilty of life." (GSTG, p.6)

No - "...the transition to the water-sensitive city, at least in the Barcelona case, is hampered by urban geographies and histories that at the very best allow for a very limited coexistence of both drainage options while producing inequalities in terms of access to environmental amenities." (p.488)

Yes - refurbishing / retrofitting of dense and run-down neighbourhood

Yes - urban renewal of neighbourhoods "… aims at regenerating the city's last natural and recreational assets…" (p.63)

Yes - cheaper to treat water before it reaches the bay + slight decrease in potable mains consumption (Rijke, p.39)

Yes - [in theory] "Incorporation of construction and mainetance knowledge in design phase. Selection based on costs, quality and system impacts." (Table 1)

Yes - "The plaza will use the captured rainwater to help trees onsite, with bioretention areas in soil cells below the permeable paving." (Park People, p.7)

Yes - aquifer recharge & compliance to WFD

Yes - (indirectly?) using rainwater to create green spaces

Yes - "Urban requalification projects are plannes in this case study area, which give a good opportunity to reflect options to adopt to climate change and to integrate CCA standards." (p.47)

No - "There is a need for greater public consultation and engagement prior to finalizing design, in order to improve the eco-literacy messaging about the project and promote community stewardship" (part of Lessons Learned)

Yes - "...the 'water-sensitive city' may also become a renewed arena for the enhancement of citizenship values." (p.488)

Yes - citizen involvement through workshops and awareness campaigns

Yes - "The plan [Urban Regulatory Plan for Tirana, approved Feb 2013] encourages the Municipality to play an active role between the parties to promote the development of the city in cooperation with land owners and to provide oppotunitues for public service

Yes - "Staged development decreases the risk of wrong construction for the development authority and developers… This is particularly important for the introduction of innovative technologies such as WSUD. " (Rijke, p.39)

Yes - emphasise the "long term perspective" but with shorter infrastructure lifespans

Yes - SUDS and more sustainable conventional drainage seen as necessary means to solve overflow problems

Yes - adaptation to increased temperatures (however, no mention of irrigation during drought?)

Yes - due to the uncertainty of the climate change models in the area it is excplicitly stated that consideration for increased run-off through greening would be a "low-regret-measure" (p.58) + "plan for additional reservce spaces to increase the water retention in the area on the long term, if the increasing intensity of heavy rain events will be validated in future climate change projections" (p.59)

TRITA TRITA-ABE-MBT-19482

www.kth.se

How Rainwater Can Transform Cities

Documents

Transcript of How Rainwater Can Transform Cities