Advancing flood resilience: the nexus between flood risk management, green infrastructure, and resilience

Abstract

Introduction:

Climate change and the fast pace of urbanization are two major factors contributing to the exacerbated risk of flooding in urban areas. Flood resilience strategies, underpinned by the principles of green infrastructure, are gaining importance as within broader spatial planning approaches, and various global cities are adopting revised policies and frameworks to improve flood risk management. Yet, such responsive approaches are still limited and context-specific.

Methods:

In this article, thematic analysis using NVivo was employed to analyse 49 documents related to flood risk management, resilience, and green infrastructure planning.

Results:

This paper reflects on the concepts of flood risk management, flood resilience and green infrastructure planning to identify the synergies between these concepts, and identify challenges that are prohibiting global flood resilience.

Discussion:

Enhancing flood resilience requires coordinated efforts, effective communication, and collaborative governance among stakeholders. The paper also draws planning recommendations for advancing flood resilience through governance and an integrated planning approach, in support of the global goals toward flood resilience.

1. Introduction

The effects of climate change are becoming increasingly pronounced and causing more severe disasters in cities across the globe. Climate change impacts are driven by various changes relating to the climate system, including changes in the water cycle, atmospheric circulation, ocean, cryosphere, biosphere and modes of variability (Hunt and Watkiss, 2011; Arias et al., 2021). Although there is a common thought about human-induced climate change, it is a continuing mechanism that affects ecosystems and communities worldwide (Wang et al., 2019). Climate change impacts are related to six categories, namely floods, heatwaves, drought, hurricanes, wildfires, and loss of glacial ice [Hunt and Watkiss, 2011; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate change impacts (NOAA), 2022]. These climate change impacts are often related to loss of life, physical and emotional suffering, property damage, decreased productivity, environmental degradation, loss of species and habitats, damage to infrastructure, a weakened economy, disrupted community coherence, political instability, and reduced quality of life [Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2017].

On average, climate-related events displace 23.1 million people each year, with 9.8 million being the result of hydrometeorological hazards and disasters (World Meteorological Organisation, 2021). In recent decades, the frequency of natural disasters recorded globally has sharply risen, and the continuous pattern will lead to further significant individual and social costs (Degg, 1992; Bănică et al., 2020). According to Pörtner et al. (2022) and the State of Climate by Australian Bureau of Meteorology and Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (BOM and CSIRO) (2020), flood risks and other climate change impacts will continue to increase.

Flooding poses an especially great risk in urban areas since it has the potential to affect a larger population, for instance; Brazil can serve as a representative example of countries encountering comparable difficulties, such as significant rural-to-urban migration resulting in unsustainable urban growth and inadequate urban stormwater drainage systems in regards to their ability to handle water conveyance and preserve water quality (Vasconcelos et al., 2022). According to the report of the latest flood in Alagoas, Brazil, which occurred in July 2023, over 20,000 people were affected by floods caused by heavy rains, resulting more than 3500 people being displaced (Davies, 2023).

Moreover, based on the report by Economics (2017), the yearly economic losses caused by floods have been calculated to be more than those caused by cyclones, storms, bushfires, and earthquakes combined, and resulted in an annual cost of $8.8 billion for Australia in 2017. Furthermore, it is estimated that 160,000 properties in Australia are currently at risk of damage (Hazard, 2018). The recent flood events in the greater Sydney areas have been costly to the local communities with the social and financial impacts. La Niña was a contributing factor to these recent floods and damages, with daily rainfall in the states of New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory witnessed an increase of over 97 percentiles leading to a significant surge in daily extreme rainfall in 2022 across these regions (Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), 2023).

It is crucial to search for solutions and discover methods that deliver urban flood resilience, through a deep investigation of vulnerability and adaptive capacity (Kotzee and Reyers, 2016). This paper reflects on the concepts of flood risk management, flood resilience and green infrastructure planning to identify the synergies between these concepts, and identify challenges that are prohibiting global flood resilience.

2. Research methodology

This paper followed a literature review pertaining to concepts of flood risk management, flood resilience and green infrastructure planning. Initially, 228 documents were identified for analysis, based on the keywords “climate change,” “green infrastructure planning,” “flood risk management,” and “flood resilience” within Google Scholar, Google platform, Science Direct, Wiley Online Library and the library of the University of Technology Sydney. This analysis was refined with the inclusion of keywords “climate adaptation” and “nature-based solutions” in addition to the previous keywords leading to the identification of 194 documents. The keyword “governance” was accordingly added leading to 49 documents which were included in the final analysis, based on their approach to governance of flood risk management, flood resilience and green infrastructure planning. Figure 1 provides a more detailed breakdown of the analysis process.

Figure 1

These 49 academic documents, including academic articles, books, technical project reports, independent reviews of recent flooding events, relevant guides, and standard handbooks, were imported in NVivo. NVivo is a Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) program that designed to facilitate qualitative research through supporting code-based inquiry, searching, theorizing, and providing the capability to annotate and edit documents (Richards, 1999). In this analysis 37 nodes¹ were identified (refer to Table 1).

From the initial analysis, a word frequency assessment was conducted across 37 nodes to identify key terms central to the research. This analysis highlighted specific words, such as “floods,” “managing,” “risks,” “plan,” “governments,” and “water” with a corresponding weighted percentage. The purpose of Table 2, presented below, is to provide a concise summary of these word frequency findings. By examining the frequency of these terms within the dataset, valuable insights into the prevailing discourse on flood resilience and green infrastructure planning are gained. This analysis forms a critical foundation for the research findings and contributes significantly to the understanding of the topic, paving the way for practical applications in real case study areas and potential integration with complementary methodologies like the Delphi method.

3. Thematic analysis

The thematic analysis focused on flood risk management, flood resilience and green infrastructure planning as accordingly captured. The thematic analysis investigated all of these concepts in terms of global status, and local status in Australia and New South Wales. The interface between these concepts were accordingly analyzed, in an attempt to draw conclusions about the interface and disjoints between these concepts.

3.1. Flood risk management

Previously, flood risk management strategies were centered around a “keep floodwater out” approach, incorporating “hard engineering solutions” as part of water management and planning principles. This approach was not effective in managing and controlling the level of vulnerability and the intricacy of flooding (Freitag et al., 2012; Lennon et al., 2014). These resistance-based strategies were adopted in flood risk management approaches, drawing on gray infrastructure and engineering (Freitag et al., 2012; Lennon et al., 2014) to control flood threats, as well as to control behavior through laws and regulations (Holling and Meffe, 1996). Although the resistance approach provided some protection against floods, it was questioned if this is an adequate approach given the uncertainty introduced by climate change and the costs associated to saving human lives, property and infrastructure, in the event that the capacity of the resistance system is exhausted (Morrison et al., 2018). As a result, the flood resilience approach has emerged as a more integrated, comprehensive and strategic approach that amalgamates both resistance-based and adaptive-based strategies to improve flood risk management (Schelfaut et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2020).

The flood risk management strategies are mainly classified as prevention, defense, mitigation, preparation, and recovery (Larrue et al., 2016; Matczak and Hegger, 2021). Pörtner et al. (2022), highlights the importance of incorporating green infrastructure components as part of risk management strategies, stating that concepts such as green roofs and facades, park and open space networks, urban forest and wetland management, and urban agriculture, should be incorporated into broader sustainable urban planning and infrastructure design, in quest to mitigate flood risks.

At the same time, stormwater management has undergone significant changes as a result of modifications in the nature of cities, the growing population, and the increasing frequency and intensity of flooding (Radcliffe, 2019). Initiatives relating to retention, smart stormwater management in the long-term, as well as reuse within the urban water cycle has gained importance. Various stormwater management plans have been redesigned with a greater focus on green infrastructure, as illustrated in Table 3.

3.2. Flood resilience

Resilience refers to a system ability to withstand and recover from possible damage and disruptions, as well as maintain normal operations to the greatest extent (Buckle et al., 2000; Liao, 2012). The concept of resilience in managing natural resources, recognizes that human and natural systems are complex and constantly evolving through changes (Walker et al., 2006). Resilient systems can adapt and respond to shocks and critical threshold, transforming from one stable state to another and continuously learning through this adaption process (Walker and Salt, 2012; van Veelen et al., 2015).

The idea of resilience was introduced into urban planning in the 1990s (Mileti, 1999) and has since gained attention in research and practice (Potter and Vilcan, 2020). To strengthen resilience through landscape and urban planning, planners and designers need to recognize the potential challenges, conflicts and disruptions a particular landscape or city may face, including their frequency and severity, and find ways for the city to adapt and respond to these disturbances while still maintaining a resilient state (Vale and Campanella, 2005; Ahern, 2011).

Resilience planning is tailored to each community, and context, as each has its own distinct identity, characteristics, and needs. This can be accomplished by incorporating considerations of potential shocks and stresses into the community's planning process, including its plans, zoning regulations, development standards, incentive programs, and other policies and guidelines.

Two main perspectives have been identified in the study of the linkage between resilience and urban planning (Cruz et al., 2013). The first viewpoint focuses on the integration of human and environmental goals, exploring the relationship between resilience and socio-ecological systems (Pickett et al., 1997; Holling and Gunderson, 2002; Alberti and Marzluff, 2004; Berkes, 2007). The second perspective concentrates on the relationship between resilience and spatial planning, providing principles for becoming more resilient. Furthermore, Davoudi et al. (2012) emphasized that regulating interconnected socio-ecological systems through physical and geographical boundaries, is crucial for resilient-urban planning.

According to Liao (2012), in the context of flood hazard management based on resilience, periodic floods are seen as opportunities for cities to improve their ability to withstand extreme floods. There are three viewpoints on urban flood resilience: (a) Engineering resilience refers to a system's capacity to return to stability after being disturbed by floods, (b) Ecological resilience refers to the flexibility of a natural system to be robust and flip into another domain of stability, and (c) Socio-ecological resilience system highlights the role of the local community in creating opportunities for innovation and development in response to disturbances (Folke, 2006; Davoudi et al., 2012; Index, 2014; Vitale et al., 2020). Moreover, resilience as robust concept was identified in three main categories: (1) Engineering resilience, (2) Systems resilience, and (3) Complex adaptive systems resilience (Matczak and Hegger, 2020; McClymont et al., 2020). Based on this category, flood resilience is defined as capacity to resist, capacity to absorb and recover, and capacity to transform and adapt (Alexander et al., 2016b; Hegger et al., 2016; Zevenbergen, 2016).

Smart urban development presents ways to achieve resilience in the events of floods (Balsells et al., 2015). In a resilient city, disasters, such as floods, are considered opportunities to enhance the city's sustainability and promote growth (Serre et al., 2012). It calls for multi-layer methods to analyse flood management from different scales. At the parcel or block scale, the evaluation considers building function, while at a larger scale, such as the city scale, it considers five dimensions: natural, physical, economic, social and institutional dimensions (Batica et al., 2013). The Flood Resilience Rose was created by Karrasch et al. (2021) as a management tool for actors and institutions working in the river and coastal zone management, to comprehend the complexity and interconnectivity of the different dimensions and scales related to flood resilience (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

3.3. Green infrastructure planning

Previously stormwater management approaches mainly relied on hard-engineering solutions such as culverts, sewer systems and large-capacity river, stream, and urban drainage channels (Jones and Macdonald, 2007). However, with time, the idea of “making space for water” and the integration of green infrastructure gained prominence (Flores et al., 2021). Green infrastructure is defined by Benedict and McMahon (2012) as a network of natural areas and other urban open spaces such as urban forests, grasslands, and agricultural lands. This network helps preserve the functioning of natural ecosystems and offers a variety of benefits to the general public (Benedict and McMahon, 2012). Based on the extensive benefits green infrastructure provides, such as reducing the impact of urban heat islands, lowering the need for cooling in buildings, improving resistance to storms through natural water absorption, minimizing runoff and untreated stormwater overflows into water bodies, and even providing a local source of food (Rouse and Bunster-Ossa, 2013), green infrastructure and related ecosystem services became increasingly important factors in the management of stormwater and creation of resilient urban areas (Green et al., 2021).

The development of green infrastructure has gone through three stages since 1850 (Sun et al., 2020) (Figure 3). Since the 1990s, it has been a crucial component in stormwater management methods such as Low Impact Development and stormwater Best Management Practices that originated in the USA, Sustainable Drainage Systems that originated in the UK, Water Sensitive Urban Design that originated in the Australia, Low Impact Urban Design and Development that originated in the New Zealand, Blue-Green Infrastructure that originated in the European Commission, Sponge City Program that originated in the China and Water Sensitive Settlements that originated in the South Africa (Mell, 2017; Choi et al., 2021). Green infrastructure has been recognized as a core approach in the quest toward sustainable development (Williamson, 2003; Dawson et al., 2014; Perveen et al., 2017).

Figure 3

The concept of green infrastructure has been recognized as one of the key strategies for realizing sustainable development and has been set as a more sustainable approach of managing floods compared to traditional hard infrastructures methods (Marsalek and Chocat, 2002). Green infrastructure is known to reduce the negative impacts of natural disasters and has positive outcomes on the health, well-being, economy, social-wellbeing of urban dwellers (Parker and Zingoni de Baro, 2019).

The utilization of green infrastructure approaches in flood risk management is also recognized as a method that involves the combination of natural processes to protect, revive and emulate or recreate waterways such as coastlines, rivers and floodplains. This results in a nature-based solution that not only preserves the natural ecosystem value but also lessens the flood risk (Green et al., 2021). As a result, green infrastructure is considered a multi-objective and comprehensive planning method that encompasses different types of urban green areas at various scales (Hansen and Pauleit, 2014; Artmann et al., 2019), including micro, macro and meso levels (Mabaso et al., 2021). In essence green infrastructure remains a public asset that provides environmental, community, and economic benefits to city dwellers (Tackett, 2009; Cilliers and Cilliers, 2016; Cilliers, 2019; Newman et al., 2019). This highlights the importance of considering green infrastructure from a holistic perspective, and accommodating relevant inputs and perspectives through adaptive planning and design (Ahern et al., 2014).

Successful green infrastructure planning approaches relates to four key principles; integration, connectivity, multifunctionality, and participation (Ahern et al., 2014; Government Architect New South Wales, 2020). The principle of integration promotes the coordination of green spaces with other infrastructures, such as transportation and utilities to ensure a harmonious alignment between urban systems; integration involves a mutual exchange of information to achieve a desirable outcome (Index, 2014; Ambrose-Oji et al., 2017). Connectivity focuses on creating a unified network of open and green spaces, while multifunctionality prioritizes the provision of multiple benefits by combining different urban functions and reducing conflicts between green infrastructure and other infrastructures. Participation, on the other hand, involves an open and inclusive planning process that allows for collaboration and input from a variety of stakeholders (Ambrose-Oji et al., 2017). These four principles should be considered in broader spatial planning approaches (Monteiro et al., 2020) to promote sustainability and resilience.

4. Discussion

The management of urban flood resilience is complex and requires coordination at multiple levels, including proactive and practical policy entrepreneurs, the use of clear guidelines and rules, and the allocation of resources (Dieperink et al., 2018). To address these challenges, it is important to have clear and hierarchical relations, coordinating bodies, and a shared vision and strategy for water management (Alexander et al., 2016a; Matczak et al., 2016). In reflecting on the concepts of flood risk management, flood resilience and green infrastructure planning, the following points are highlighted as a way forward to enhance the interface between these concepts and approaches:

4.1. Coordination and communication

Improving flood resilience can be achieved through effective communication between scientists and practitioners, by adopting governance practices that are tailored to the existing physical, socio-cultural, and institutional context (Driessen et al., 2016). Consequently, research shows that many technical experts such as engineers are not fully embracing green infrastructure in their plans and even if they exhibit a willingness to implement green infrastructure, their efforts continue are hindered by a conventional way of thinking and are unable to address the complexities and spatial scales involved (Cousins, 2018). The aforementioned barriers to effective and sustainable stormwater governance include a lack of integration between governance systems and the communities they affect, unclear roles and responsibilities among various organizations, and a lack of motivation among stakeholders (Fitzgerald and Laufer, 2017; Prudencio and Null, 2018). In addition, fragmented governance systems (Ek et al., 2016) and changing hydrological schemes often face financial challenges, such as the inability of urban planners and decision-makers to allocate funds for green infrastructure improvement (Campbell et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017).

Political inconsistencies of unaligned borders (and scope) of various disciplines, professions, policy and legislative frameworks are further complicating the realization of broader flood resilience. In Australia, for example, the planning of stormwater management, flood risk management and flood resilience has been based on various strategies, guidelines and policies. These include the “Flood Emergency Planning for Disaster Resilience Handbook” [Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2020a] which again draws on several other strategies such as “Australian Emergency Management Arrangements [Australian Government National Recovery and Resilience Agency, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2023],” “Public Information and Warnings [Australian Government National Recovery and Resilience Agency, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2021],” “Land Use Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities [Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2020b],” “National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines [Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2020d],” “Evacuation Planning [Australian Government Attorney-General's Department, and Australian Institute for Disaster (AIDR), 2017],” “Emergency Planning [Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2020c],” “Community Recovery [Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2018],” and “Community Engagement for Disaster Resilience [Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR), 2020e].” It is a complex environment to navigate all stakeholders involved and it highlights the importance of coordination and communication between these different stakeholders, in recognizing and addressing the different levels of resilience to build community and municipal resilience, as the lack of recognition could leave some communities more vulnerable, and less resilient.

In this regard, scholars emphasized the collaborative governance concept as a method to assess and analyse collaboration among public and private sectors in dealing with uncertainty and surprise (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Hutter, 2016).

4.2. Collaborative governance

Recently the trend in urban management has shifted from a centralized government to governance; as the government struggles with the complex challenges posed by globalization and the need for input from multiple stakeholders and the general public (He et al., 2010). Governance refers to the system or framework in which different individuals or groups involved in the creation and execution of flood risk management policies operate and collaborate effectively with other stakeholders (Vinke-de Kruijf et al., 2015; Ishiwatari, 2019).

Scholars have emphasized that good governance, along with social and policy learning are crucial to achieving flood resilience (Wallington et al., 2007; He et al., 2010). Research on flood risk governance, also highlighted the role of governance frameworks in promoting the integration of green infrastructure and flood resilience, emphasizing the importance of different stakeholders such as government agencies, private sector actors, and community groups, in implementing green infrastructure as a flood resilience strategy. Governance encompasses a broad range of processes, foundations and institutions, strategies and policies, and relationships that inform decision-making and action-taking in environmental and social systems (Armitage et al., 2012; Morrison et al., 2018; Bottazzi et al., 2019). It involves, established plans and regulations that promote collaboration among stakeholders by aligning their conflicting interests (Li et al., 2018). Furthermore, effective flood resilience governance requires collaborative processes, stakeholder's engagement, a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches and decentralized approach, transparency, capacity building, inclusive governance and decision-making process, equity, and social legitimacy (Hartmann and Spit, 2016; Ng, 2016; Edelenbos et al., 2017; Dobre et al., 2018; Rodina, 2019).

A study by Driessen et al. (2018) states that there are six governance strategies to enhance flood resilience: (1) diversifying flood risk management, (2) aligning flood risk management to reduce fragmentation in policy making (Rondinelli, 1973; Mees et al., 2016), (3) involving and cooperating with both public and private actors in flood risk management, (4) having formal rules that balance legal certainty flexibility, (5) ensuring sufficient financial and other types of resources, (6) adopting normative principles to address distributional effects. This study called the STAR-FLOOD project (2012–2016), focused on governance and legal issues and considered the responsibility of governments in Belgium (Mees et al., 2016), England (Alexander et al., 2016a), France (Larrue et al., 2016), The Netherlands (Kaufmann et al., 2016), Poland (Matczak et al., 2016), and Sweden (Ek et al., 2016). These studies involved a thorough analysis and evaluation of flood risk governance and legal frameworks in the aforementioned countries at the national level and in three urban areas in each country at the local level.

4.3. Trans-disciplinary approaches

The integration of principles of urban climate change resilience and green infrastructure planning, can enhance a city's ability to function effectively (Abunnasr, 2013; van Herk et al., 2014). This calls for a trans-disciplinary approach to enhance urban green infrastructure, to realize its potential to mitigate the risk of flooding in growing metropolitan areas (Schubert et al., 2017; Vitale et al., 2020). As discussed, stormwater was once viewed as a problem, hazard, or waste, but recent advancements in urban planning, politics, and technical expertise have shifted toward treating stormwater as a resource instead of a nuisance (Cousins, 2018). The integration of stormwater management and GI strategies is becoming a globally adopted approach to urban water governance, aimed at improving water quality regulations (Cousins, 2018; Shi, 2020). This approach not only helps to mitigate the effects of extreme weather events like heavy rain and flooding, but also proves to be cost-efficient (Rayan et al., 2021). The integration of stormwater management and green infrastructure is a promising solution that balances and buffers the effects of extreme weather and promotes climate change resilience (Semadeni-Davies et al., 2008; Dreiseitl, 2015; Ossa-Moreno et al., 2017; Wihlborg et al., 2019). As argued by Ibrahim et al. (2020) for the successful implementation of green infrastructure, green governance is essential.

5. Limitations and future research directions

Flood resilience is a relatively under-explored field of research, with limited existing studies directly exploring the connection between flood risk management, flood resilience, and green infrastructure (Wise, 2008; Sayers et al., 2013; Pörtner et al., 2022). Nevertheless, it is a rapidly evolving and interdisciplinary domain that encompasses environmental science, urban planning, civil engineering, and social sciences, necessitating a wide range of expertise (Edelenbos et al., 2017; Dieperink et al., 2018; Rayan et al., 2021). The practical implementation and evaluation of strategies related to these concepts can be complex, time-consuming, and context-dependent. However, this research serves as a valuable starting point for shedding light on the nexus between flood risk management, green infrastructure, and resilience.

While this literature review has provided valuable insights into the governance of flood risk management, flood resilience and green infrastructure planning, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations that may have influenced the findings and interpretations. Firstly, the reliance on online platforms, particularly Google Scholar, may have led to an over-presentation of certain literature references, potentially biasing the review toward more widely available or prominently indexed sources. Moreover, the dynamic nature of the field and the evolution of knowledge over time may have resulted in the exclusion of recent studies or emerging research that were not yet indexed or readily accessible. Additionally, despite efforts to conduct a comprehensive search, the availability of literature on the subject matter might have been restricted, especially when exploring less-studied aspects of this research. These limitations underscore the need for caution in generalizing the conclusions and highlight the importance of staying current with the evolving literature to build upon and refine our understanding of this study. Future research endeavors should consider exploring diverse databases and employing multiple search strategies to address these limitations and ensure a more comprehensive examination of the topic.

6. Conclusion

Flood resilience strategies, underpinned by the principles of green infrastructure, are gaining importance within broader spatial planning approaches, and various global cities are adopting revised policies and frameworks to improve flood risk management. Governments are adopting practical solutions to become resilient to the impacts of climate change, particularly floods. Yet, such responsive approaches are still limited and context-specific. Different countries are using various approaches based on their environmental context, governmental system and community vulnerability. The challenges facing green infrastructure and its long-term sustainability are complex and potentially conflicting, emphasizing the need for Green Governance as a way forward. The true meaning of green governance, originated in open innovation and is achievable when the procedure of governance-decision and actions are working collaboratively, and funding is integrated effectively into various segments to tackle environmental issues (Li et al., 2018). However, centralized governance or being restricted in bottom-up or top-down approaches, high costs, lack of funding, and lack of knowledge and expertise are significant barriers to green governance (Wihlborg et al., 2019). Barriers to green governance can be complex and multifaceted, spanning across challenges relating to a lack of coordination and communication among stakeholders, conflicting priorities and goals, limited resources and funding, weak regulatory frameworks, and a lack of clear delineation of roles and responsibilities. Other factors such as population growth, climate change, and economic pressures further impact the success of green governance initiatives. The nature and severity of these barriers can vary depending on the specific context and location, and effective strategies for overcoming them will need to be tailored accordingly. By addressing these barriers, green governance can create new opportunities for broader flood resilience, as illustrated in Table 4.

In addressing these challenges Green Governance should be positioned to adequately consider the potential benefits and challenges of implementing green infrastructure strategies, using natural solutions like wetlands as well as employing combination of green-hard infrastructure such as permeable pavements to reduce flooding, and examining how these strategies can be integrated into broader flood risk management governance frameworks. It also requires understanding of the complex socio-ecological systems involved in flood risk management and how different stakeholders can collaborate to create more resilient urban environments. This research highlights the importance of advancing flood resilience through green governance and an integrated planning approach, in support of global goals toward flood resilience.

References

• 1

  AbunnasrY. (2013). Climate Change Adaptation: A Green Infrastructure Planning Framework for Resilient Urban Regions. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AhernJ. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc. Urban Plan.100, 341–343. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AhernJ.CilliersS.NiemeläJ. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a framework for supporting innovation. Landsc. Urban Plan.125, 254–259. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AhiablameL.ShakyaR. (2016). Modeling flood reduction effects of low impact development at a watershed scale. J. Environ. Manage.171, 81–91. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.036

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AhiablameL. M.EngelB. A.ChaubeyI. (2012). Effectiveness of low impact development practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water Air Soil Pollut.223, 4253–4273. 10.1007/s11270-012-1189-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AlbertiM.MarzluffJ. M. (2004). Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosyst.7, 241–265. 10.1023/B:UECO.0000044038.90173.c6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AlexanderM.PriestS.MeesH. (2016b). A framework for evaluating flood risk governance. Environ. Sci. Policy64, 38–47. 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AlexanderM.PriestS. J.MicouP.TapsellS. M.GreenC. H.ParkerD. J.et al. (2016a). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in England–Enhancing Societal Resilience through Comprehensive and Aligned Flood Risk Governance Arrangements. London: Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Ambrose-OjiB.BuijsA.GeroháziE.MattijssenT.SzárazL.Van der JagtA. P. N.et al. (2017). “Innovative governance for urban green infrastructure: a guide for practitioners,” in Work Package 6: Innovative Governance for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation GREEN SURGE Deliverable (Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen).

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory18, 543–571. 10.1093/jopart/mum032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AriasP.BellouinN.CoppolaE.JonesR.KrinnerG.MarotzkeJ.et al. (2021). “Climate change 2021: the physical science basis,” in Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Technical Summary. Geneva: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ArmitageD.De LoëR.PlummerR. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conserv. Lett.5, 245–255. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00238.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  ArmitageN.Fisher-JeffesL.CardenK.WinterK.NaidooV.SpiegelA.et al (2014). Framework and Guidelines. Available online at: https://greencape.co.za/assets/Sector-files/water/Green-infrastructre/WRC-Water-sensitive-urban-design-WSUD-for-South-Africa-framework-and-guidelines-2014.pdf (accessed August 20, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ArtmannM.KohlerM.MeinelG.GanJ.IojaI. C. (2019). How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other—a conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecol. Indic.96, 10–22. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Australian Bureau of Meteorology Australian Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (BOM CSIRO) (2020). State of The Climate 2020. Available online at: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/documents/State-of-the-Climate-2020.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Australian Government Attorney-General's Department Australian Institute for Disaster (AIDR). (2017). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Evacuation Planning. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/5617/aidr-evacuation-planning-handbook.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Australian Government Department of Home Affairs Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2020e). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Community Engagement for Disaster. Resilience. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/7989/aidr_handbookcollection_communityengagementfordisasterresilience_2020.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2023). Daily Rainfall Extremes Graph for New South Wales/ACT. Available online at: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/extremes/extreme_graphs_annual.cgi?graph=rainandyear=2022andarea=nswandpercent=97 (accessed February 20, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Australian Government Department of Home Affairs Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2020a). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Flood Emergency Planning for Disaster Resilience. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/8266/aidr_handbookcollection_flood-emergency-planning_2020.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Australian Government Department of Home Affairs Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2020b). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Land Use Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/7729/aidr_handbookcollection_land-use-planning-for-disaster-resilient-communities_2020.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Australian Government Department of Home Affairs Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2020c). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Emergency Planning. Available online at: https://www.aidr.org.au/media/8313/aidr_handbookcollection_emergencyplanning_2020.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Australian Government Department of Home Affairs Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2020d). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines. Available online at: https://www.aidr.org.au/media/7600/aidr_handbookcollection_nerag_2020-02-05_v10.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Australian Government Department of Home Affairs Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2018). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Community Recovery. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/5634/community-recovery-handbook.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Australian Government National Recovery Resilience Agency Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2021). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Public Information and Warnings. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/9104/aidr_handbookcollection_publicinfoandwarnings_2021.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Australian Government's National Emergency Management Agency Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2023). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection: Australian Emergency Management Arrangements. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/10162/handbook_aema_web_2023.pdf (accessed August 1, 2023).

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BalsellsM.BarrocaB.BecueV.SerreD. (2015). “Making urban flood resilience more operational: current practice,” in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management, Vol. 168, No. 2 (London: Thomas Telford Ltd), 57–65. 10.1680/wama.14.00051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BănicăA.KourtitK.NijkampP. (2020). Natural disasters as a development opportunity: a spatial economic resilience interpretation. Rev. Reg. Res.40, 223–249. 10.1007/s10037-020-00141-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BaticaJ.GourbesvilleP.HuF. Y. (2013). “Methodology for flood resilience index,” in International Conference on Flood Resilience Experiences in Asia and Europe–ICFR (Exeter). 10.1201/b13715-205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  BenedictM. A.McMahonE. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island press.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  BerkesF. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat. Hazards41, 283–295. 10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  BottazziP.WinklerM. S.SperanzaC. I. (2019). Flood governance for resilience in cities: the historical policy transformations in Dakar's suburbs. Environ. Sci. Policy93, 172–180. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  BrearsR. C. (2018). Blue and Green Cities: The Role of Blue-green Infrastructure in Managing Urban Water Resources. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1057/978-1-137-59258-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  BrownR.RogersB.WerbeloffL. (2016). Moving Toward Water Sensitive Cities. Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  BuckleP.MarsG.SmaleS. (2000). New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag.15, 8–14. 10.3316/ielapa.369155833780624

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CampbellC. W.DymondR. L.DritschelA. (2016). Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016. Bowling Green, KY: Western Kentucky University, 1–50.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  CardenK.ArmitageN.Fisher-JeffesL.WinterK.MauckB.SanyaT.et al. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for implementing water sensitive design in South Africa. WRC Project Report K, 5. Pretoria: Water Research Commission.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  ChoiC.BerryP.SmithA. (2021). The climate benefits, co-benefits, and trade-offs of green infrastructure: a systematic literature review. J. Environ. Manage.291, 112583. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112583

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  CilliersE. J. (2019). Reflecting on green infrastructure and spatial planning in Africa: the complexities, perceptions, and way forward. Sustainability11, 455. 10.3390/su11020455

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  CilliersJ.CilliersS. (2016). Planning for Green Infrastructure: Options for South African Cities. Johannesburg: South African Cities Network.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR). (2017). Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook Collection- Managing the Floodplain: A Guide to Best Practice in Flood Risk Management in Australia. Available online at: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/3521/adr-handbook-7.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  CousinsJ. J. (2018). Remaking stormwater as a resource: technology, law, and citizenship. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water5, e1300. 10.1002/wat2.1300

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  CouttsA. M.TapperN. J.BeringerJ.LoughnanM.DemuzereM. (2013). Watering our cities: the capacity for Water Sensitive Urban Design to support urban cooling and improve human thermal comfort in the Australian context. Prog. Phys. Geogr.37, 2–28. 10.1177/0309133312461032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  CruzS. S.CostaJ. P. T.de SousaS. A.PinhoP. (2013). “Urban resilience and spatial dynamics,” in Resilience Thinking in Urban Planning, eds A. Eraydin and T. Tasan-Kok (New York, NY: Springer), 53–69. 10.1007/978-94-007-5476-8_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  DarM. U. D.ShahA. I.BhatS. A.KumarR.HuisinghD.KaurR.et al. (2021). RETRACTED: blue green infrastructure as a tool for sustainable urban development. J. Clean. Prod. 318, 128474. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128474

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  DarnthamrongkulW.MozingoL. A. (2021). Toward sustainable stormwater management: understanding public appreciation and recognition of urban Low Impact Development (LID) in the San Francisco Bay Area. J. Environ. Manage.300, 113716. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113716

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  DaviesR. (2023). Brazil – Severe Floods in Alagoas and Pernambuco, 14 Killed in Building Collapse. Floodlist, Copernicus of the European Union. Available online at: https://floodlist.com/america/brazil-floods-alagoas-pernambuco-july-2023 (accessed August 1, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  DavisA. P.HuntW. F.TraverR. G.ClarM. (2009). Bioretention technology: overview of current practice and future needs. J. Environ. Eng.135, 109–117. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:3(109)

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  DavoudiS.ShawK.HaiderL. J.QuinlanA. E.PetersonG. D.WilkinsonC.et al. (2012). Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end? “Reframing” resilience: challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture management system in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: what does it mean in planning practice? Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: a cautionary note: edited by Simin Davoudi and Libby Porter. Plan. Theory Pract.13, 299–333. 10.1080/14649357.2012.677124

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  DawsonR.WyckmansA.HeidrichO.KöhlerJ.DobsonS.FeliuE.et al. (2014). Understanding Cities: Advances in Integrated Assessment of Urban Sustainability. Centre for Earth Systems Engineering Research (CESER). Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  DefraJ. (2005). Review of Impacts of Rural Land Use and Management on Flood Generation Impact Study Report. London: Defra - Flood Management Division/ Ergon House.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  DeggM. (1992). Natural disasters: recent trends and future prospects. Geography336, 198–209.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  DieperinkC.MeesH.PriestS. J.EkK.BruzzoneS.LarrueC.et al. (2018). Managing urban flood resilience as a multilevel governance challenge. Ecol. Soc.23, 31. 10.5751/ES-09962-230131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DietzM. E. (2007). Low impact development practices: a review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water Air Soil Pollut.186, 351–363. 10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  DobreC. C.Vinke-de KruijfJ.MorettoL.RanzatoM. (2018). Stormwater management in transition: the influence of technical and governance attributes in the case of Brussels, Belgium. Environ. Sci. Policy85, 1–10. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  DreiseitlH. (2015). Blue–green social place-making: infrastructures for sustainable cities. J. Urban Regen. Renew.8, 161–170. Available online at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/hsp/jurr/2015/00000008/00000002/art00007

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DriessenP. P.HeggerD. L.BakkerM. H.van RijswickH. F.KundzewiczZ. W. (2016). Toward more resilient flood risk governance. Ecol. Soc.21, 53. 10.5751/ES-08921-210453

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  DriessenP. P.HeggerD. L.KundzewiczZ. W.Van RijswickH. F.CrabbéA.LarrueC.et al. (2018). Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change. Water10, 1595. 10.3390/w10111595

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  DrosouN.SoetantoR.HermawanF.ChmutinaK.BosherL.HatmokoJ. U. D.et al. (2019). Key factors influencing wider adoption of blue–green infrastructure in developing cities. Water11, 1234. 10.3390/w11061234

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  EconomicsD. A. (2017). Building Resilience to Natural Disasters in Our States and Territories. Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities (ABRDRSC). London: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  EdelenbosJ.Van BuurenA.RothD.WinnubstM. (2017). Stakeholder initiatives in flood risk management: exploring the role and impact of bottom-up initiatives in three ‘Room for the River'projects in the Netherlands. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.60, 47–66. 10.1080/09640568.2016.1140025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  EkK.GoytiaS.PetterssonM.SpegelE. (2016). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in Sweden: Adaptation to Climate Change? STAR FLOOD Consortium. Utrecht. ISBN: 978-94-91933-10-3

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  FitzgeraldJ.LauferJ. (2017). Governing green stormwater infrastructure: the Philadelphia experience. Local Environ.22, 256–268. 10.1080/13549839.2016.1191063

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  FloresC. C.VikolainenV.CrompvoetsJ. (2021). Governance assessment of a blue-green infrastructure project in a small size city in Belgium. The potential of Herentals for a leapfrog to water sensitive. Cities117, 103331. 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103331

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  FolkeC. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Change16, 253–267. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  FreitagB.BoltonS.WesterlundF.ClarkJ. (2012). Floodplain Management: A New Approach for a New Era. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  GersoniusB.AshleyR.Salinas-RodríguezC.RijkeJ.RadhakrishnanM.ZevenbergenC.et al. (2016). Flood resilience in Water Sensitive Cities: Guidance for Enhancing Flood Resilience in the Context of An Australian Water Sensitive City. Clayton, CA: Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, 1–77.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Gimenez-MarangesM.BreusteJ.HofA. (2021). A new analytical tool for a more deliberate implementation of sustainable drainage systems. Sustain. Cities Soc.71, 102955. 10.1016/j.scs.2021.102955

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Government Architect New South WalesAustralia. (2020). Greener Places. Available online at: https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/resources/ga/media/files/ga/design-guides/framework-document-greener-places-2020-06-02.pdf (accessed December 8, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  GreenD.O'DonnellE.JohnsonM.SlaterL.ThorneC.ZhengS.et al. (2021). Green infrastructure: the future of urban flood risk management?Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water8, e1560. 10.1002/wat2.1560

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  HaddawayN.MacuraB.WhaleyP.PullinA. (2017). ROSES flow diagram for systematic reviews. Version1:m9. 10.6084/m9.figshare.5897389.v3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  HansenR.PauleitS. (2014). From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio43, 516–529. 10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  HartmannT.SpitT. (2016). Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels–Consequences of the European flood risk management plan. Environ. Sci. Policy55, 361–367. 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  HazardF. (2018). New South Wales. NSW SES.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  HeJ.BaoC. K.XieJ.ShuT. F.JiangD. H. (2010). On evaluation index system for effectiveness of ecological plan with case of Taicang Eco-city Plan. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin19, 985–990.

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  HeggerD. L.DriessenP. P.WieringM.Van RijswickH. F.KundzewiczZ. W.MatczakP.et al. (2016). Toward more flood resilience: is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?Ecol. Soc.21, 52. 10.5751/ES-08854-210452

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  HollingC. S.GundersonL. H. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  HollingC. S.MeffeG. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol.10, 328–337. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  HoyerJ.DickhautW. (2010). “Water sensitive urban design for a sustainable stormwater management in the city of the future,” in 5th SWITCH Scientific Conference Sustainable Water Management in the City of the Future (Lodz), 13–15.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  HoyerJ.DickhautW.KronawitterL.WeberB. (2011). Water Sensitive Urban Design: Principles and Inspiration for Sustainable Stormwater Management in the City of the Future. Berlin: Jovis, 18–20.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  HuntA.WatkissP. (2011). Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Clim. Change104, 13–49. 10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  HutterG. (2016). Collaborative governance and rare floods in urban regions–dealing with uncertainty and surprise. Environ. Sci. Policy55, 302–308. 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  IbrahimA.BartschK.SharifiE. (2020). Green infrastructure needs green governance: lessons from Australia's largest integrated stormwater management project, the River Torrens Linear Park. J. Clean. Prod.261, 121202. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  IgnatievaM.MeurkC. D.StewartG. H. (2008). Low Impact Urban Design and Development (LIUDD): Matching Urban Design and Urban Ecology.

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  IndexC. R. (2014). City Resilience Framework. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation and ARUP, 928.

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  IshiwatariM. (2019). Flood risk governance: establishing collaborative mechanism for integrated approach. Prog. Disaster Sci.2, 100014. 10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  JonesP.MacdonaldN. (2007). Getting it wrong first time: building an interdisciplinary research relationship. Area39, 490–498. 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00767.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  KarraschL.RestemeyerB.KlenkeT. (2021). The ‘flood resilience rose': a management tool to promote transformation towards flood resilience. J. Flood Risk Manag.14, e12726. 10.1111/jfr3.12726

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  KaufmannM.Doorn-HoekveldW. V.GilissenH. K.Van RijswickH. F. M. W. (2016). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in the Netherlands: Drowning in Safety. Utrecht: STARFLOOD Consortium.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  KocK.EkmekciogluÖ.ÖzgerM. (2021). An integrated framework for the comprehensive evaluation of low impact development strategies. J. Environ. Manage.294, 113023. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  KotzeeI.ReyersB. (2016). Piloting a social-ecological index for measuring flood resilience: a composite index approach. Ecol. Indic.60, 45–53. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  LarrueC.BruzzoneS.LévyL.GralepoisM.SchellenbergerM.TrémorinJ. B.et al. (2016). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in France: from State Policy to Local Strategies.Tours: STAR-FLOOD Consortium.

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  LennonM.ScottM.O'NeillE. (2014). Urban design and adapting to flood risk: the role of green infrastructure. J. Urban Des.19, 745–758. 10.1080/13574809.2014.944113

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  LiL.CollinsA. M.CheshmehzangiA.ChanF. K. S. (2020). Identifying enablers and barriers to the implementation of the Green Infrastructure for urban flood management: a comparative analysis of the UK and China. Urban For. Urban Green.54, 126770. 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126770

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  LiW.XuJ.ZhengM. (2018). Green governance: new perspective from open innovation. Sustainability10, 3845. 10.3390/su10113845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  LiY.LiY.WuW. (2016). Threshold and resilience management of coupled urbanization and water environmental system in the rapidly changing coastal region. Environ. Pollut.208, 87–95. 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.08.042

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  LiaoK. H. (2012). A theory on urban resilience to floods—a basis for alternative planning practices. Ecol. Soc.17, 48. 10.5751/ES-05231-170448

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  LiuB. W.WangM. H.ChenT. L.TsengP. C.SunY.ChiangA.et al. (2020). Establishment and implementation of green infrastructure practice for healthy watershed management: challenges and perspectives. Water-Energy Nexus3, 186–197. 10.1016/j.wen.2020.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  MabasoA.ChivhengeE.ZingiG. K.MusevaT. (2021). “Provision of green infrastructure as an urban resilience strategy in Masvingo City, Zimbabwe,” in Climate Change Impact, Adaptation and Mitigation in Zimbabwe, 19. Bonn: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  MarsalekJ.ChocatB. (2002). International report: stormwater management. Water Sci. Technol.46, 1–17. 10.2166/wst.2002.0657

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  MartinP. (2000). Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: Design Manual for England and Wales. London: Ciria.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  MatczakP.HeggerD. (2021). Improving flood resilience through governance strategies: gauging the state of the art. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water8, e1532. 10.1002/wat2.1532

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  MatczakP.HeggerD. L. (2020). Flood risk governance for more resilience—reviewing the special issue's contribution to existing insights. Water12, 2122. 10.3390/w12082122

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  MatczakP.LewandowskiJ.ChoryńskiA.SzwedM.KundzewiczZ. W. (2016). “Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in Poland,” in Looking for Strategic Planning in a Country in Transition, STAR-FLOOD Receives Funding from the EU 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement, 308364 (Utrecht).

  • Google Scholar

• 104

  McClymontK.MorrisonD.BeeversL.CarmenE. (2020). Flood resilience: a systematic review. J. Environ. Plann. Manag.63, 1151–1176. 10.1080/09640568.2019.1641474

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  MeesH.SuykensC. B. R.BeyersJ. C.CrabbéA.DelvauxB.DeketelaereK.et al. (2016). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in Belgium: Dealing with Flood Risks in an Urbanised and Institutionally Complex Country. STAR-FLOOD Consortium. Antwerp: Antwerp University.

  • Google Scholar

• 106

  MellI. C. (2017). Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis. Landsc. Res.42, 135–145. 10.1080/01426397.2016.1250875

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  MiletiD. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  MitchellV. G. (2006). Applying integrated urban water management concepts: a review of Australian experience. Environ. Manage.37, 589–605. 10.1007/s00267-004-0252-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  MonteiroR.FerreiraJ. C.AntunesP. (2020). Green infrastructure planning principles: an integrated literature review. Land9, 525. 10.3390/land9120525

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  MorrisonA.WestbrookC. J.NobleB. F. (2018). A review of the flood risk management governance and resilience literature. J. Flood Risk Manag.11, 291–304. 10.1111/jfr3.12315

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Climate change impacts (NOAA) (2022). Climate change Impacts. Available online at: https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts

  • Google Scholar

• 112

  NewmanG.DongyingL.RuiZ.DingdingR. (2019). Resilience through regeneration: the economics of repurposing vacant land with green infrastructure. Landsc. Archit. Front.6, 10. 10.15302/J-LAF-20180602

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  NgS. (2016). Governance beyond the government: responding to a reactionary flood governance regime in Ayutthaya, Thailand. Habitat Int.52, 11–19. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  O'DonnellE. C.LamondJ. E.ThorneC. R. (2017). Recognising barriers to implementation of Blue-Green Infrastructure: a Newcastle case study. Urban Water J.14, 964–971. 10.1080/1573062X.2017.1279190

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  OnumaA.TsugeT. (2018). Comparing green infrastructure as ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction with gray infrastructure in terms of costs and benefits under uncertainty: a theoretical approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.32, 22–28. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  Ossa-MorenoJ.SmithK. M.MijicA. (2017). Economic analysis of wider benefits to facilitate SuDS uptake in London, UK. Sustain. Cities Soc.28, 411–419. 10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  ParkerJ.Zingoni de BaroM. E. (2019). Green infrastructure in the urban environment: a systematic quantitative review. Sustainability11, 3182. 10.3390/su11113182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  PerveenS.KamruzzamanM.YigitcanlarT. (2017). Developing policy scenarios for sustainable urban growth management: a Delphi approach. Sustainability9, 1787. 10.3390/su9101787

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  PickettS. T.BurchW. R.DaltonS. E.ForesmanT. W.GroveJ. M.RowntreeR.et al. (1997). A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst.1, 185–199. 10.1023/A:1018531712889

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  PörtnerH. O.RobertsD. C.AdamsH.AdlerC.AldunceP.AliE.et al. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Geneva: IPCC.

  • Google Scholar

• 121

  PotterK.VilcanT. (2020). Managing urban flood resilience through the English planning system: insights from the ‘SuDS-face'. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A378, 20190206. 10.1098/rsta.2019.0206

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  PrudencioL.NullS. E. (2018). Stormwater management and ecosystem services: a review. Environ. Res. Lett.13, 033002. 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa81a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  RadcliffeJ. C. (2019). “History of water sensitive urban design/low impact development adoption in Australia and internationally,” in Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design, eds A. K. Sharma, T. Gardner, and D. Begbie (Sawston, CA: Woodhead Publishing), 1–24. 10.1016/B978-0-12-812843-5.00001-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  RamírezF.DavenportT. L.KallarackalJ. (2013). “Bogotá's urban wetlands: environmental issues,” in Current Politics and Economics of South and Central America, eds G. Lavigne, and C. Cote, Vol. 6 (Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers), 403.

  • Google Scholar

• 125

  RauchW.SeggelkeK.BrownR.KrebsP. (2005). Integrated approaches in urban storm drainage: where do we stand?Environ. Manag.35, 396–409. 10.1007/s00267-003-0114-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  RayanM.GruehnD.KhayyamU. (2021). Green infrastructure indicators to plan resilient urban settlements in Pakistan: local stakeholder's perspective. Urban Clim.38, 100899. 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100899

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  RichardsL. (1999). Data alive! The thinking behind NVivo. Qual. Health Res.9, 412–428. 10.1177/104973239900900310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  RodinaL. (2019). Defining “water resilience”: debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water6, e1334. 10.1002/wat2.1334

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  RodriguesA. L. M.da SilvaD. D.de Menezes FilhoF. C. M. (2021). Methodology for allocation of best management practices integrated with the urban landscape. Water Resour. Manag.35, 1353–1371. 10.1007/s11269-021-02791-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  RondinelliD. A. (1973). Urban planning as policy analysis: management of urban change. J. Am. Inst. Plann.39, 13–22. 10.1080/01944367308977650

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  RouseD. C.Bunster-OssaI. F. (2013). Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach (No. 571). London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 132

  RoyA. H.WengerS. J.FletcherT. D.WalshC. J.LadsonA. R.ShusterW. D.et al. (2008). Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States. Environ. Manage.42, 344–359. 10.1007/s00267-008-9119-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  SallustioL.PeroneA.VizzarriM.CoronaP.FaresS.CocozzaC.et al. (2019). The green side of the grey: assessing greenspaces in built-up areas of Italy. Urban For. Urban Green.37, 147–153. 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  SayersP.YuanyuanL.GallowayG.Penning-RowsellE.FuxinS.KangW.et al. (2013). Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach. Paris: UNESCO.

  • Google Scholar

• 135

  SchelfautK.PannemansB.Van der CraatsI.KrywkowJ.MysiakJ.CoolsJ.et al. (2011). Bringing flood resilience into practice: the FREEMAN project. Environ. Sci. Policy14, 825–833. 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  SchubertJ. E.BurnsM. J.FletcherT. D.SandersB. F. (2017). A framework for the case-specific assessment of green infrastructure in mitigating urban flood hazards. Adv. Water Resour.108, 55–68. 10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.07.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  Semadeni-DaviesA.HernebringC.SvenssonG.GustafssonL. G. (2008). The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: combined sewer system. J. Hydrol.350, 100–113. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.05.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  SerreD.BarrocaB.LaganierR. (eds). (2012). Resilience and Urban Risk Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 10.1201/b12994

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  ShiL. (2020). Beyond flood risk reduction: how can green infrastructure advance both social justice and regional impact?Socio-Ecol. Pract. Res.2, 311–320. 10.1007/s42532-020-00065-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  ShojaeizadehA.GezaM.BellC.McCrayJ.HogueT. (2021). A site-scale tool for performance-based design of stormwater best management practices. Water13, 844. 10.3390/w13060844

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  StewartE.LinY.ColeS. J.MooreR. J.XuJ.YuanZ.et al. (2021). “Sponge cities and sustainable drainage systems: sharing best practice in China and the UK,” in FLOODrisk 2020-4th European Conference on Flood Risk Management (Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics). 10.3311/FloodRisk2020.13.10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  SunY.DengL.PanS. Y.ChiangP. C.SableS. S.ShahK. J.et al. (2020). Integration of green and gray infrastructures for sponge city: water and energy nexus. Water-Energy Nexus3, 29–40. 10.1016/j.wen.2020.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  TackettT. (2009). “Seattle's policy and pilots to support green stormwater infrastructure,” in Low Impact Development for Urban Ecosystem and Habitat Protection (Westin Seattle, WA), 1–4. 10.1061/41009(333)48

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  The State Council of the People's Republic of China (2015). Guideline to Promote Building Sponge Cities. Available online at: http://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2015/10/16/content_281475212984264.cn/policies/latest_releases/2015/10/16/content_281475212984264.

  • Google Scholar

• 145

  ThurstonH. W. (ed.). (2011). Economic Incentives for Stormwater Control. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 10.1201/b11071

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  TurciosA. E.MiglioR.VelaR.SánchezG.BergierT.Włodyka-BergierA.et al. (2021). From natural habitats to successful application-Role of halophytes in the treatment of saline wastewater in constructed wetlands with a focus on Latin America. Environ. Exp. Bot.190, 104583. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104583

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  United Kingdom Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (2019). Blue Green Infrastructure. A Roadmap Towards a Blue Green Infrastructure Manual. Available online at: https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/354f40aa-1481-4b7f-a1eb-82c806893409/BGI-Manual-Report.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 148

  United States Environmental protection Agency (EPA) (2023). Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/storm-water-management-model-swmm

  • Google Scholar

• 149

  ValeL. J.CampanellaT. J. (2005). “Conclusion: axioms of resilience,” in The Resilient City (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 335–356. 10.1093/oso/9780195175844.003.0022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  van HerkS.ZevenbergenC.GersoniusB.WaalsH.KelderE. (2014). Process design and management for integrated flood risk management: exploring the multi-layer safety approach for Dordrecht, The Netherlands. J. Water Clim. Change5, 100–115. 10.2166/wcc.2013.171

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  van RoonM.van RoonH. (2009). Low Impact Urban Design and Development: The Big Picture. An Introduction to the LIUDD Principles and Methods Framework.Lincoln: Manaaki Whenua Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 152

  van VeelenP. C.StoneK.JeukenA. (2015). “Planning resilient urban waterfronts using adaptive pathways,” in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management, Vol. 168, No. 2 (London: Thomas Telford Ltd.), 49–56. 10.1680/wama.14.00062

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  VasconcelosA. F.BarbassaA. P.dos SantosM. F. N.ImaniM. A. (2022). Barriers to sustainable urban stormwater management in developing countries: the case of Brazil. Land Use Policy112, 105821. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105821

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  Vinke-de KruijfJ.KuksS. M.AugustijnD. C. (2015). Governance in support of integrated flood risk management? The case of Romania. Environ. Dev.16, 104–118. 10.1016/j.envdev.2015.04.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  VitaleC.MeijerinkS.MocciaF. D.AcheP. (2020). Urban flood resilience, a discursive-institutional analysis of planning practices in the Metropolitan City of Milan. Land Use Policy95, 104575. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104575

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  WalkerB.SaltD. (2012). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  WalkerB. H.SaltD. A.ReidW. V. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 158

  WallingtonT.BinaO.ThissenW. (2007). Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.27, 569–584. 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  WangH.MeiC.LiuJ.ShaoW. (2018). A new strategy for integrated urban water management in China: sponge city. Sci. China Technol. Sci.61, 317–329. 10.1007/s11431-017-9170-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  WangR.EckelmanM. J.ZimmermanJ. B. (2013). Consequential environmental and economic life cycle assessment of green and gray stormwater infrastructures for combined sewer systems. Environ. Sci. Technol.47, 11189–11198. 10.1021/es4026547

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  WangY.MengF.LiuH.ZhangC.FuG. (2019). Assessing catchment scale flood resilience of urban areas using a grid cell based metric. Water Res.163, 114852. 10.1016/j.watres.2019.114852

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  WihlborgM.SörensenJ.OlssonJ. A. (2019). Assessment of barriers and drivers for implementation of blue-green solutions in Swedish municipalities. J. Environ. Manage.233, 706–718. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  WilliamsonK. S. (2003). Growing with Green Infrastructure. Doylestown, PA: Heritage Conservancy.

  • Google Scholar

• 164

  WiseS. (2008). Green infrastructure rising. Planning74, 14–20. Available online at: https://trid.trb.org/view/872442

  • Google Scholar

• 165

  WongT. H. (2006). An overview of water sensitive urban design practices in Australia. Water Pract. Technol. 1, wpt2006018. 10.2166/wpt.2006018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  WongT. H.BrownR. R. (2009). The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water Sci. Technol.60, 673–682. 10.2166/wst.2009.436

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  WongT. H. F.AllenR. A.BrownR. R.DeleticA.GangadharanL.GernjakW.et al. (2013). Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City: Blueprint. Clayton, VIC: The Centre for Water Sensitive Cities Australia.

  • Google Scholar

• 168

  World Meteorological Organisation (2021). State of the Global Climate 2020- Climate Change Indicators and Impacts Worsened in 2020. Available online at: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-change-indicators-and-impacts-worsened-2020

  • Google Scholar

• 169

  ZevenbergenC. (2016). Flood Resilience. An Edited Collection of Authored Pieces Comparing, Contrasting, and Integrating Risk and Resilience with an Emphasis onWays to Measure Resilience. Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC).

  • Google Scholar

• 170

  ZhangD.GersbergR. M.NgW. J.TanS. K. (2017). Conventional and decentralized urban stormwater management: a comparison through case studies of Singapore and Berlin, Germany. Urban Water J.14, 113–124. 10.1080/1573062X.2015.1076488

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  ZhangY.ShenZ.LinY. (2021). “The construction of water-sensitive urban design in the context of Japan,” in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 691, No. 1 (Bristol: IOP Publishing), 012015. 10.1088/1755-1315/691/1/012015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar