Mehrafarin Takin
Elizelle Juanee' Cilliers
Sumita Ghosh- 1School of Built Environment, Faculty of Design Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia
- 2Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
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. Research design flowchart. Source: Developed by authors based on Haddaway et al. (2017).
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).
Table 1. Nodes in NVivo for the analysis of 49 documents.
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.
Table 2. Word frequency in analyzed 49 documents.
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.
Table 3. List of stormwater management plans with green infrastructure focus based on analysis of 49 documents.
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. The Flood Resilience Rose. Source: Developed by the authors based on Karrasch et al. (2021).
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 development stages of green infrastructure. Source: Developed by authors based on Sun et al. (2020).
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.
Table 4. Approaches to enhance broader flood resilience.
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.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^Nodes (or Codes): Within NVivo, “nodes” (sometimes referred to as “codes”) serve as labels or categories applied to specific segments of text in qualitative data analysis. These nodes facilitate the organization and categorization of information, aiding in the identification of recurring themes, patterns, and insights within the dataset.
References
Abunnasr, Y. (2013). Climate Change Adaptation: A Green Infrastructure Planning Framework for Resilient Urban Regions. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc. Urban Plan. 100, 341–343. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021
Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., and Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a framework for supporting innovation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125, 254–259. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020
Ahiablame, L., and Shakya, R. (2016). Modeling flood reduction effects of low impact development at a watershed scale. J. Environ. Manage. 171, 81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.036
Ahiablame, L. M., Engel, B. A., and Chaubey, I. (2012). Effectiveness of low impact development practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water Air Soil Pollut. 223, 4253–4273. doi: 10.1007/s11270-012-1189-2
Alberti, M., and Marzluff, J. M. (2004). Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosyst. 7, 241–265. doi: 10.1023/B:UECO.0000044038.90173.c6
Alexander, M., Priest, S., and Mees, H. (2016b). A framework for evaluating flood risk governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 64, 38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.004
Alexander, M., Priest, S. J., Micou, P., Tapsell, S. M., Green, C. H., Parker, D. 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.
Ambrose-Oji, B., Buijs, A., Geroházi, E., Mattijssen, T., Száraz, L., Van der Jagt, A. 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).
Ansell, C., and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18, 543–571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032
Arias, P., Bellouin, N., Coppola, E., Jones, R., Krinner, G., Marotzke, J., 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.
Armitage, D., De Loë, R., and Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conserv. Lett. 5, 245–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00238.x
Armitage, N., Fisher-Jeffes, L., Carden, K., Winter, K., Naidoo, V., Spiegel, A., 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).
Artmann, M., Kohler, M., Meinel, G., Gan, J., and Ioja, I. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.001
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Balsells, M., Barroca, B., Becue, V., and Serre, D. (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. doi: 10.1680/wama.14.00051
Bănică, A., Kourtit, K., and Nijkamp, P. (2020). Natural disasters as a development opportunity: a spatial economic resilience interpretation. Rev. Reg. Res. 40, 223–249. doi: 10.1007/s10037-020-00141-8
Batica, J., Gourbesville, P., and Hu, F. Y. (2013). “Methodology for flood resilience index,” in International Conference on Flood Resilience Experiences in Asia and Europe–ICFR (Exeter). doi: 10.1201/b13715-205
Benedict, M. A., and McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island press.
Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat. Hazards 41, 283–295. doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7
Bottazzi, P., Winkler, M. S., and Speranza, C. I. (2019). Flood governance for resilience in cities: the historical policy transformations in Dakar's suburbs. Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 172–180. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.013
Brears, R. C. (2018). Blue and Green Cities: The Role of Blue-green Infrastructure in Managing Urban Water Resources. New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59258-3
Brown, R., Rogers, B., and Werbeloff, L. (2016). Moving Toward Water Sensitive Cities. Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.
Buckle, P., Mars, G., and Smale, S. (2000). New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 15, 8–14. doi: 10.3316/ielapa.369155833780624
Campbell, C. W., Dymond, R. L., and Dritschel, A. (2016). Western Kentucky University Stormwater Utility Survey 2016. Bowling Green, KY: Western Kentucky University, 1–50.
Carden, K., Armitage, N., Fisher-Jeffes, L., Winter, K., Mauck, B., Sanya, T., et al. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for implementing water sensitive design in South Africa. WRC Project Report K, 5. Pretoria: Water Research Commission.
Choi, C., Berry, P., and Smith, A. (2021). The climate benefits, co-benefits, and trade-offs of green infrastructure: a systematic literature review. J. Environ. Manage. 291, 112583. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112583
Cilliers, E. J. (2019). Reflecting on green infrastructure and spatial planning in Africa: the complexities, perceptions, and way forward. Sustainability 11, 455. doi: 10.3390/su11020455
Cilliers, J., and Cilliers, S. (2016). Planning for Green Infrastructure: Options for South African Cities. Johannesburg: South African Cities Network.
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).
Cousins, J. J. (2018). Remaking stormwater as a resource: technology, law, and citizenship. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 5, e1300. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1300
Coutts, A. M., Tapper, N. J., Beringer, J., Loughnan, M., and Demuzere, M. (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. doi: 10.1177/0309133312461032
Cruz, S. S., Costa, J. P. T., de Sousa, S. A., and Pinho, P. (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. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5476-8_4
Dar, M. U. D., Shah, A. I., Bhat, S. A., Kumar, R., Huisingh, D., Kaur, R., et al. (2021). RETRACTED: blue green infrastructure as a tool for sustainable urban development. J. Clean. Prod. 318, 128474. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128474
Darnthamrongkul, W., and Mozingo, L. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113716
Davies, R. (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).
Davis, A. P., Hunt, W. F., Traver, R. G., and Clar, M. (2009). Bioretention technology: overview of current practice and future needs. J. Environ. Eng. 135, 109–117. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:3(109)
Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L. J., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson, G. D., Wilkinson, C., 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. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.677124
Dawson, R., Wyckmans, A., Heidrich, O., Köhler, J., Dobson, S., Feliu, E., et al. (2014). Understanding Cities: Advances in Integrated Assessment of Urban Sustainability. Centre for Earth Systems Engineering Research (CESER). Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University.
Defra, J. (2005). Review of Impacts of Rural Land Use and Management on Flood Generation Impact Study Report. London: Defra - Flood Management Division/ Ergon House.
Dieperink, C., Mees, H., Priest, S. J., Ek, K., Bruzzone, S., Larrue, C., et al. (2018). Managing urban flood resilience as a multilevel governance challenge. Ecol. Soc. 23, 31. doi: 10.5751/ES-09962-230131
Dietz, M. E. (2007). Low impact development practices: a review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water Air Soil Pollut. 186, 351–363. doi: 10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z
Dobre, C. C., Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Moretto, L., and Ranzato, M. (2018). Stormwater management in transition: the influence of technical and governance attributes in the case of Brussels, Belgium. Environ. Sci. Policy 85, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.015
Dreiseitl, H. (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
Driessen, P. P., Hegger, D. L., Bakker, M. H., van Rijswick, H. F., and Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2016). Toward more resilient flood risk governance. Ecol. Soc. 21, 53. doi: 10.5751/ES-08921-210453
Driessen, P. P., Hegger, D. L., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Van Rijswick, H. F., Crabbé, A., Larrue, C., et al. (2018). Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change. Water 10, 1595. doi: 10.3390/w10111595
Drosou, N., Soetanto, R., Hermawan, F., Chmutina, K., Bosher, L., Hatmoko, J. U. D., et al. (2019). Key factors influencing wider adoption of blue–green infrastructure in developing cities. Water 11, 1234. doi: 10.3390/w11061234
Economics, D. 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.
Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Roth, D., and Winnubst, M. (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. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1140025
Ek, K., Goytia, S., Pettersson, M., and Spegel, E. (2016). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in Sweden: Adaptation to Climate Change? STAR FLOOD Consortium. Utrecht. ISBN: 978-94-91933-10-3
Fitzgerald, J., and Laufer, J. (2017). Governing green stormwater infrastructure: the Philadelphia experience. Local Environ. 22, 256–268. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1191063
Flores, C. C., Vikolainen, V., and Crompvoets, J. (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. Cities 117, 103331. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103331
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 253–267. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
Freitag, B., Bolton, S., Westerlund, F., and Clark, J. (2012). Floodplain Management: A New Approach for a New Era. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gersonius, B., Ashley, R., Salinas-Rodríguez, C., Rijke, J., Radhakrishnan, M., Zevenbergen, C., 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.
Gimenez-Maranges, M., Breuste, J., and Hof, A. (2021). A new analytical tool for a more deliberate implementation of sustainable drainage systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 71, 102955. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.102955
Government Architect New South Wales, Australia. (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).
Green, D., O'Donnell, E., Johnson, M., Slater, L., Thorne, C., Zheng, S., et al. (2021). Green infrastructure: the future of urban flood risk management? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 8, e1560. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1560
Haddaway, N., Macura, B., Whaley, P., and Pullin, A. (2017). ROSES flow diagram for systematic reviews. Version 1:m9. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5897389.v3
Hansen, R., and Pauleit, S. (2014). From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio 43, 516–529. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2
Hartmann, T., and Spit, T. (2016). Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels–Consequences of the European flood risk management plan. Environ. Sci. Policy 55, 361–367. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.013
He, J., Bao, C. K., Xie, J., Shu, T. F., and Jiang, D. H. (2010). On evaluation index system for effectiveness of ecological plan with case of Taicang Eco-city Plan. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 19, 985–990.
Hegger, D. L., Driessen, P. P., Wiering, M., Van Rijswick, H. F., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Matczak, P., et al. (2016). Toward more flood resilience: is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward? Ecol. Soc. 21, 52. doi: 10.5751/ES-08854-210452
Holling, C. S., and Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Holling, C. S., and Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328–337. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x
Hoyer, J., and Dickhaut, W. (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.
Hoyer, J., Dickhaut, W., Kronawitter, L., and Weber, B. (2011). Water Sensitive Urban Design: Principles and Inspiration for Sustainable Stormwater Management in the City of the Future. Berlin: Jovis, 18–20.
Hunt, A., and Watkiss, P. (2011). Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Clim. Change 104, 13–49. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6
Hutter, G. (2016). Collaborative governance and rare floods in urban regions–dealing with uncertainty and surprise. Environ. Sci. Policy 55, 302–308. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.028
Ibrahim, A., Bartsch, K., and Sharifi, E. (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. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121202
Ignatieva, M., Meurk, C. D., and Stewart, G. H. (2008). Low Impact Urban Design and Development (LIUDD): Matching Urban Design and Urban Ecology.
Index, C. R. (2014). City Resilience Framework. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation and ARUP, 928.
Ishiwatari, M. (2019). Flood risk governance: establishing collaborative mechanism for integrated approach. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2, 100014. doi: 10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100014
Jones, P., and Macdonald, N. (2007). Getting it wrong first time: building an interdisciplinary research relationship. Area 39, 490–498. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00767.x
Karrasch, L., Restemeyer, B., and Klenke, T. (2021). The ‘flood resilience rose': a management tool to promote transformation towards flood resilience. J. Flood Risk Manag. 14, e12726. doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12726
Kaufmann, M., Doorn-Hoekveld, W. V., Gilissen, H. K., and Van Rijswick, H. F. M. W. (2016). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in the Netherlands: Drowning in Safety. Utrecht: STARFLOOD Consortium.
Koc, K., Ekmekcioglu, Ö., and Özger, M. (2021). An integrated framework for the comprehensive evaluation of low impact development strategies. J. Environ. Manage. 294, 113023. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113023
Kotzee, I., and Reyers, B. (2016). Piloting a social-ecological index for measuring flood resilience: a composite index approach. Ecol. Indic. 60, 45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.018
Larrue, C., Bruzzone, S., Lévy, L., Gralepois, M., Schellenberger, M., Trémorin, J. B., et al. (2016). Analysing and Evaluating Flood Risk Governance in France: from State Policy to Local Strategies. Tours: STAR-FLOOD Consortium.
Lennon, M., Scott, M., and O'Neill, E. (2014). Urban design and adapting to flood risk: the role of green infrastructure. J. Urban Des. 19, 745–758. doi: 10.1080/13574809.2014.944113
Li, L., Collins, A. M., Cheshmehzangi, A., and Chan, F. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126770
Li, W., Xu, J., and Zheng, M. (2018). Green governance: new perspective from open innovation. Sustainability 10, 3845. doi: 10.3390/su10113845
Li, Y., Li, Y., and Wu, W. (2016). Threshold and resilience management of coupled urbanization and water environmental system in the rapidly changing coastal region. Environ. Pollut. 208, 87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.08.042
Liao, K. H. (2012). A theory on urban resilience to floods—a basis for alternative planning practices. Ecol. Soc. 17, 48. doi: 10.5751/ES-05231-170448
Liu, B. W., Wang, M. H., Chen, T. L., Tseng, P. C., Sun, Y., Chiang, A., et al. (2020). Establishment and implementation of green infrastructure practice for healthy watershed management: challenges and perspectives. Water-Energy Nexus 3, 186–197. doi: 10.1016/j.wen.2020.05.003
Mabaso, A., Chivhenge, E., Zingi, G. K., and Museva, T. (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.
Marsalek, J., and Chocat, B. (2002). International report: stormwater management. Water Sci. Technol. 46, 1–17. doi: 10.2166/wst.2002.0657
Martin, P. (2000). Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: Design Manual for England and Wales. London: Ciria.
Matczak, P., and Hegger, D. (2021). Improving flood resilience through governance strategies: gauging the state of the art. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 8, e1532. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1532
Matczak, P., and Hegger, D. L. (2020). Flood risk governance for more resilience—reviewing the special issue's contribution to existing insights. Water 12, 2122. doi: 10.3390/w12082122
Matczak, P., Lewandowski, J., Choryński, A., Szwed, M., and Kundzewicz, Z. 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).
McClymont, K., Morrison, D., Beevers, L., and Carmen, E. (2020). Flood resilience: a systematic review. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 63, 1151–1176. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1641474
Mees, H., Suykens, C. B. R., Beyers, J. C., Crabbé, A., Delvaux, B., Deketelaere, K., 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.
Mell, I. C. (2017). Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis. Landsc. Res. 42, 135–145. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2016.1250875
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Mitchell, V. G. (2006). Applying integrated urban water management concepts: a review of Australian experience. Environ. Manage. 37, 589–605. doi: 10.1007/s00267-004-0252-1
Monteiro, R., Ferreira, J. C., and Antunes, P. (2020). Green infrastructure planning principles: an integrated literature review. Land 9, 525. doi: 10.3390/land9120525
Morrison, A., Westbrook, C. J., and Noble, B. F. (2018). A review of the flood risk management governance and resilience literature. J. Flood Risk Manag. 11, 291–304. doi: 10.1111/jfr3.12315
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
Newman, G., Dongying, L., Rui, Z., and Dingding, R. (2019). Resilience through regeneration: the economics of repurposing vacant land with green infrastructure. Landsc. Archit. Front. 6, 10. doi: 10.15302/J-LAF-20180602
Ng, S. (2016). Governance beyond the government: responding to a reactionary flood governance regime in Ayutthaya, Thailand. Habitat Int. 52, 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.029
O'Donnell, E. C., Lamond, J. E., and Thorne, C. R. (2017). Recognising barriers to implementation of Blue-Green Infrastructure: a Newcastle case study. Urban Water J. 14, 964–971. doi: 10.1080/1573062X.2017.1279190
Onuma, A., and Tsuge, T. (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. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.01.025
Ossa-Moreno, J., Smith, K. M., and Mijic, A. (2017). Economic analysis of wider benefits to facilitate SuDS uptake in London, UK. Sustain. Cities Soc. 28, 411–419. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.002
Parker, J., and Zingoni de Baro, M. E. (2019). Green infrastructure in the urban environment: a systematic quantitative review. Sustainability 11, 3182. doi: 10.3390/su11113182
Perveen, S., Kamruzzaman, M., and Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Developing policy scenarios for sustainable urban growth management: a Delphi approach. Sustainability 9, 1787. doi: 10.3390/su9101787
Pickett, S. T., Burch, W. R., Dalton, S. E., Foresman, T. W., Grove, J. M., Rowntree, R., et al. (1997). A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst. 1, 185–199. doi: 10.1023/A:1018531712889
Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D. C., Adams, H., Adler, C., Aldunce, P., Ali, E., et al. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Geneva: IPCC.
Potter, K., and Vilcan, T. (2020). Managing urban flood resilience through the English planning system: insights from the ‘SuDS-face'. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 378, 20190206. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2019.0206
Prudencio, L., and Null, S. E. (2018). Stormwater management and ecosystem services: a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 033002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa81a
Radcliffe, J. 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. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812843-5.00001-0
Ramírez, F., Davenport, T. L., and Kallarackal, J. (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.
Rauch, W., Seggelke, K., Brown, R., and Krebs, P. (2005). Integrated approaches in urban storm drainage: where do we stand? Environ. Manag. 35, 396–409. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-0114-2
Rayan, M., Gruehn, D., and Khayyam, U. (2021). Green infrastructure indicators to plan resilient urban settlements in Pakistan: local stakeholder's perspective. Urban Clim. 38, 100899. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100899
Richards, L. (1999). Data alive! The thinking behind NVivo. Qual. Health Res. 9, 412–428. doi: 10.1177/104973239900900310
Rodina, L. (2019). Defining “water resilience”: debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 6, e1334. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1334
Rodrigues, A. L. M., da Silva, D. D., and de Menezes Filho, F. C. M. (2021). Methodology for allocation of best management practices integrated with the urban landscape. Water Resour. Manag. 35, 1353–1371. doi: 10.1007/s11269-021-02791-w
Rondinelli, D. A. (1973). Urban planning as policy analysis: management of urban change. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 39, 13–22. doi: 10.1080/01944367308977650
Rouse, D. C., and Bunster-Ossa, I. F. (2013). Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach (No. 571). London: Routledge.
Roy, A. H., Wenger, S. J., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., Ladson, A. R., Shuster, W. 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. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9119-1
Sallustio, L., Perone, A., Vizzarri, M., Corona, P., Fares, S., Cocozza, C., et al. (2019). The green side of the grey: assessing greenspaces in built-up areas of Italy. Urban For. Urban Green. 37, 147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.018
Sayers, P., Yuanyuan, L., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Fuxin, S., Kang, W., et al. (2013). Flood Risk Management: A Strategic Approach. Paris: UNESCO.
Schelfaut, K., Pannemans, B., Van der Craats, I., Krywkow, J., Mysiak, J., Cools, J., et al. (2011). Bringing flood resilience into practice: the FREEMAN project. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 825–833. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.02.009
Schubert, J. E., Burns, M. J., Fletcher, T. D., and Sanders, B. F. (2017). A framework for the case-specific assessment of green infrastructure in mitigating urban flood hazards. Adv. Water Resour. 108, 55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.07.009
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., and Gustafsson, L. G. (2008). The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: combined sewer system. J. Hydrol. 350, 100–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.05.028
Serre, D., Barroca, B., and Laganier, R. (eds)., (2012). Resilience and Urban Risk Management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. doi: 10.1201/b12994
Shi, L. (2020). Beyond flood risk reduction: how can green infrastructure advance both social justice and regional impact? Socio-Ecol. Pract. Res. 2, 311–320. doi: 10.1007/s42532-020-00065-0
Shojaeizadeh, A., Geza, M., Bell, C., McCray, J., and Hogue, T. (2021). A site-scale tool for performance-based design of stormwater best management practices. Water 13, 844. doi: 10.3390/w13060844
Stewart, E., Lin, Y., Cole, S. J., Moore, R. J., Xu, J., Yuan, Z., 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). doi: 10.3311/FloodRisk2020.13.10
Sun, Y., Deng, L., Pan, S. Y., Chiang, P. C., Sable, S. S., Shah, K. J., et al. (2020). Integration of green and gray infrastructures for sponge city: water and energy nexus. Water-Energy Nexus 3, 29–40. doi: 10.1016/j.wen.2020.03.003
Tackett, T. (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. doi: 10.1061/41009(333)48
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.
Thurston, H. W. (ed.)., (2011). Economic Incentives for Stormwater Control. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. doi: 10.1201/b11071
Turcios, A. E., Miglio, R., Vela, R., Sánchez, G., Bergier, T., Włodyka-Bergier, A., 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. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2021.104583
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
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
Vale, L. J., and Campanella, T. J. (2005). “Conclusion: axioms of resilience,” in The Resilient City (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 335–356. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780195175844.003.0022
van Herk, S., Zevenbergen, C., Gersonius, B., Waals, H., and Kelder, E. (2014). Process design and management for integrated flood risk management: exploring the multi-layer safety approach for Dordrecht, The Netherlands. J. Water Clim. Change 5, 100–115. doi: 10.2166/wcc.2013.171
van Roon, M., and van Roon, H. (2009). Low Impact Urban Design and Development: The Big Picture. An Introduction to the LIUDD Principles and Methods Framework. Lincoln: Manaaki Whenua Press.
van Veelen, P. C., Stone, K., and Jeuken, A. (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. doi: 10.1680/wama.14.00062
Vasconcelos, A. F., Barbassa, A. P., dos Santos, M. F. N., and Imani, M. A. (2022). Barriers to sustainable urban stormwater management in developing countries: the case of Brazil. Land Use Policy 112, 105821. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105821
Vinke-de Kruijf, J., Kuks, S. M., and Augustijn, D. C. (2015). Governance in support of integrated flood risk management? The case of Romania. Environ. Dev. 16, 104–118. doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2015.04.003
Vitale, C., Meijerink, S., Moccia, F. D., and Ache, P. (2020). Urban flood resilience, a discursive-institutional analysis of planning practices in the Metropolitan City of Milan. Land Use Policy 95, 104575. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104575
Walker, B., and Salt, D. (2012). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Walker, B. H., Salt, D. A., and Reid, W. V. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Wallington, T., Bina, O., and Thissen, W. (2007). Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27, 569–584. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.007
Wang, H., Mei, C., Liu, J., and Shao, W. (2018). A new strategy for integrated urban water management in China: sponge city. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 61, 317–329. doi: 10.1007/s11431-017-9170-5
Wang, R., Eckelman, M. J., and Zimmerman, J. 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. doi: 10.1021/es4026547
Wang, Y., Meng, F., Liu, H., Zhang, C., and Fu, G. (2019). Assessing catchment scale flood resilience of urban areas using a grid cell based metric. Water Res. 163, 114852. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.114852
Wihlborg, M., Sörensen, J., and Olsson, J. A. (2019). Assessment of barriers and drivers for implementation of blue-green solutions in Swedish municipalities. J. Environ. Manage. 233, 706–718. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.018
Wise, S. (2008). Green infrastructure rising. Planning 74, 14–20. Available online at: https://trid.trb.org/view/872442
Wong, T. H. (2006). An overview of water sensitive urban design practices in Australia. Water Pract. Technol. 1, wpt2006018. doi: 10.2166/wpt.2006018
Wong, T. H., and Brown, R. R. (2009). The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water Sci. Technol. 60, 673–682. doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.436
Wong, T. H. F., Allen, R. A., Brown, R. R., Deletic, A., Gangadharan, L., Gernjak, W., et al. (2013). Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City: Blueprint. Clayton, VIC: The Centre for Water Sensitive Cities Australia.
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
Zevenbergen, C. (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).
Zhang, D., Gersberg, R. M., Ng, W. J., and Tan, S. K. (2017). Conventional and decentralized urban stormwater management: a comparison through case studies of Singapore and Berlin, Germany. Urban Water J. 14, 113–124. doi: 10.1080/1573062X.2015.1076488
Keywords: climate change, green infrastructure, flood resilience, governance framework, flood risk management
Citation: Takin M, Cilliers EJ and Ghosh S (2023) Advancing flood resilience: the nexus between flood risk management, green infrastructure, and resilience. Front. Sustain. Cities 5:1186885. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2023.1186885
Received: 16 March 2023; Accepted: 13 September 2023;
Published: 04 October 2023.
Edited by:
Mariana Madruga de Brito, Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres (HZ), GermanyReviewed by:
Ismael Aguilar-Barajas, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (ITESM), MexicoSusanne Charlesworth, Coventry University, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2023 Takin, Cilliers and Ghosh. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Elizelle Juanee' Cilliers, jua.cilliers@uts.edu.au