Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Sustainable Drainage Systems for transitioning to sustainable urban

flood management in the European Union: A review
Marc Gimenez-Maranges*, Jürgen Breuste, Angela Hof
Research Group on Urban and Landscape Ecology, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstraße 34, 5020, Salzburg,
Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Technical and governing approaches to urban flooding in the European Union (EU) are currently con-
Received 27 February 2019 ventional and centralised. This widespread paradigm has become increasingly ineffective and needs
Received in revised form radical transformation. A promising alternative strategy involves the development of Sustainable
17 January 2020
Drainage Systems (SuDS), which mimic natural processes to manage floods. In this article, the effects of
Accepted 18 January 2020
Available online 21 January 2020
SuDS, as a transitional pathway from conventional to sustainable flood management, are reviewed.
Levels of development and support of SuDS in various contexts and at different scales within the Eu-
^ as de
Handling editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo ropean Union are also examined. Scholarly work to date has been limited and technically focused. The
Almeida transition remains a local, slow, and mainly northern European phenomenon. The research attention on
technical performance indicates a continuing need for evidence of the effectiveness of SuDS. Further
Keywords: research is needed to gain a broad-based perspective on the transformation process.
Transition © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Flood management
Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)
Urban
European union (EU)

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Systematic search for peer-reviewed journal literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Topics addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Spatial coverage and scales addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Data processing: analytical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Advanced search through key words in the core collection of web of science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Aim 1: main lines of research within the EU for the last 18 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Transition processes as a research topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Thematic focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Typologies of SuDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.4. Social actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.5. Scale and unit of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Aims 2 and 3: assess existing knowledge about the socio-technical transition to more sustainable urban flood management in the EU, including its
geographical and scalar patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Transitioning in the technical performance of stormwater systems in the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.2. Transitioning to more sustainable urban flood management: the case of the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marc.gimenezmaranges@sbg.ac.at (M. Gimenez-Maranges),
juergen.breuste@sbg.ac.at (J. Breuste), angela.hof@sbg.ac.at (A. Hof).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120191
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191

4.1. Transitioning to more sustainable urban flood management in the EU: lessons learned from the literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Overarching perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. Social sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.3. Technical performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.4. Degree of transitioning in the EU: a multi-scalar perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Research gaps and directions for future studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Limitations of the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Introduction translate into a severe shift in surface runoff patterns (Goonetilleke

et al., 2005), both within and downstream of the urban fabric.
The term “flood” refers to any episode entailing the overflowing Imperviousness and fast conveyance of stormwater are linked to a
of water or flowing of water in areas usually not submerged. In sharp reduction in the hydrologic functions of the landscape, such
urban areas, two main phenomena are generally related to the as infiltration, retention, and evapotranspiration. The typical con-
occurrence of flooding: the overflow of watercourses (fluvial or sequences are high flow peaks and large runoff volumes, as well as
overbank flooding) and the generation of stormwater during pre- a fast runoff movement and high frequency of flooding (Conte et al.,
cipitation events (flash flooding). This paper is focused on the 2012; Niemczynowicz, 1999; Woods-Ballard et al., 2007).
branch of urban flood management, dealing with the mitigation of Conventional governance and technically oriented flood risk
stormwater events, which are presently managed through the management approaches are not just the source of severe current
construction of “urban drainage systems”. These systems are challenges in urban systems, but their inherent traits also make
designed to move water from its initial position to a preferred them unsuitable for addressing future sustainability issues (Ashley
location. Stormwater management remained a largely unaddressed et al., 2003; Dhakal and Chevalier, 2016). Incremental change (i.e.,
issue until the mid-1990s. Increases in impervious areas due to small and customarily not fundamental changes) (Roggema et al.,
urban sprawl during the last century increased city flooding and, 2012) has been shown to be incapable of steering the whole sys-
thus, pressure to implement urban flood management schemes in tem toward a more sustainable management paradigm (Markard
most urban areas in industrialised countries. These typically et al., 2012). Instead, a drastic and systemic transition of the
employ large and centralised drainage systems of pipes and gutters entire system (planning, design, construction, operation, manage-
(Brown et al., 2008; Porse, 2013). They are specifically targeted at ment, governance, and perception of flood risk handling), i.e.,
the quick removal of stormwater from cities (Brown et al., 2008; radical change, is necessary. Transitions are processes involving the
Novotny et al., 2010) to control the water and reduce the probability transformation of a society (e.g., the way a society governs itself, the
of flooding (Novotny et al., 2010). techniques it uses) or one of its sub-systems, such as wastewater
The prevailing in-field logic has been shaped by highly cen- management and mobility (Rotmans et al., 2001). An increasingly
tralised and top-down governance structures (Dhakal and used concept is the notion of socio-technical systems, through
Chevalier, 2016), in which scientific, technical, and linear solu- which emphasis is put on the societal dimension of the trans-
tions are developed (Giddens, 1999). The decisions have been based formation process in addition to technical innovations (Geels,
on scientific analyses (Fischer, 1990), while public participation 2004). This has led to the portrayal of transitioning as a shift in
remains residual and is discouraged by technical complexities. The the dominant socio-technical system, including actors, technolo-
appraisal of citizens is commonly disregarded because of its limited gies, and institutions (e.g., mindset, and regulations).
technical relevance (Dhakal and Chevalier, 2016). A promising strategy for responding to flood management
At its core, this technocratic approach includes the dispersion challenges involves the development of so-called Sustainable
and fragmentation of organisational responsibilities, with no single Drainage Systems (SuDS), also commonly referred to, in various
government agency coordinating all relevant fields for the effective contexts, as stormwater control measures, Best Management
management of flood risk, such as urban planning and sewer Practices, Low Impact Developments, and Water Sensitive Urban
management. Several government departments individually Designs. In this document, the term “SuDS” is used to denominate
address urban space issues without meaningful cooperation. these systems, comprised of above ground mechanisms (Wahl,
However, urban issues (e.g., stormwater and urban green space 2009), through which natural processes (infiltration, evapotrans-
management) are inherently related (Hoang and Fenner, 2016). piration, filtration, retention, and reuse) are mimicked to handle
Moreover, while city agencies are responsible for stormwater from potential flood events (Perales-Momparler, 2015). Examples
private properties, they have no authority over its proper man- include the use of filter strips, swales, and ponds, which prevent or
agement in these spaces. This compounds the frequent mismatch control flooding at the source, site, or regional level (Woods-Ballard
between urban boundaries and those of hydrologic units, which et al., 2007). According to Li et al. (2016), SuDS adoption is a pivotal
usually prevents the integrated management of stormwater in the step toward the realisation of the principles of the “sponge cities”
latter (Dhakal and Chevalier, 2016; Werritty, 2006). conceptda promising alternative paradigm in urban stormwater
While this paradigm has become mainstream in practice and management. Through this notion, which is particularly popular in
deeply embedded in the social mindset (Brown and Farrelly, 2009; China, cities are conceived as sponges that infiltrate, retain, store,
Niemczynowicz, 1999), many challenges have arisen from its clean, use, and drain stormwater (Jia et al., 2016). Additionally, SuDS
adoption in the contexts of climate change and increasing urban adoption can potentially contribute to the attainment of the United
populations. Its underlying principles, in the stormwater context, Nations (UN) sustainable development goals, especially targets 11.5
 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191
and 13.1, which address the build-up of resilient urban areas and
the mitigation and adaptation to natural disasters (e.g., flooding)
related to climate change, respectively (UN, 2015). In flood man-
agement, they constitute a promising approach to the need for
integrated and inclusive measures to prevent or reduce hazard
exposure and vulnerability to disasters, highlighted in the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2015). Integrated
and sustainable management of floods as targeted in the European
Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (European Commission, 2007) might
also be satisfied by SuDS implementation.
However, compared with traditional approaches, there is a
distinct shortage of evidence regarding the sustainability of SuDS
(Newman et al., 2013; Perales-Momparler et al., 2017). So far, there
has been no systematic review, in which lessons emerge from
scholarship regarding the following: 1) initiatives adopted in
different places or at different scales (e.g., national, and local); and
2) social and technical transformations related to the imple-
mentation of SuDS. Despite the widespread recognition of differ-
entiated strategies and sustainability pathways based on
geographical location (Hegger et al., 2013; Li et al., 2014; Roy et al.,
2008), the spatiality of sustainability transformations remains a
line of research requiring more attention (Coenen et al., 2012;
Markard et al., 2012). Concerning SuDS, a clear spatial vision would
be a basis for the following: a) better adaptation of practice to
place; b) understanding the reasons for spatial dissimilarities in the
implementation of SuDS (Mguni et al., 2015); and c) obtaining a
more global perspective on the issues, as pointed out by Truffer and
Coenen (2012). This literature review contributes to the construc-
tion of this spatial vision by compiling and assessing current
scholar knowledge, such that the socio-technical transformation of
urban stormwater management practices can be better understood
and substantiated in various contexts and at various scales. Key
technological aspects for proper performance and subsequent
diffusion of SuDS are also reviewed.
The paper adds value to results from previous international
projects in sustainable urban flood management underpinned by
the European Commission, such as DAYWATER (see Chouli et al.,
2007), STAR-FLOOD (see Hegger et al., 2013), SWITCH (see Knauer
et al., 2011), and AQUAVAL (see Perales-Momparler et al., 2013).
With a major or minor focus on SuDS, these research projects
investigated and sought to foster more sustainable flood manage-
ment practices in various contexts within and outside the European
Union (EU) and the creation of tools to facilitate their imple-
mentation. However, a comprehensive EU perspective on socio-
technical transitions from conventional to sustainable urban
drainage cannot be gained through the analysis of their results,
either because of their constrained spatial, scalar, or thematic
coverage or their limited attention to SuDS.
The aims of this literature review are: 1) portrayal of the main
lines of research undertaken within the EU in the field of sustainable
urban drainage since the beginning of the 21st century; 2) assess-
ment of the existing knowledge about the socio-technical transition
from conventional to more sustainable urban flood management, in
the EU, which SuDS deployment might enhance; and 3) examination
of the geographical spatiality and scalar patterns of this transition. To
that end, academic articles on comprehensive implementation pro-
jects, pilots, plans, policies, design schemes, social movements, and
debates existing within the EU and related to the adoption of SuDS
are reviewed (Section 2). Results from this review are detailed in
Section 3, and lessons and derived areas of future research are dis-
cussed in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are drawn on the most
relevant insights and contributions to the literature regarding the
flood risk transition (Section 5).
3
2. Methodology
2.1. Systematic search for peer-reviewed journal literature
Papers for review were compiled through an advanced search in
the core collection of Web of Science through keywords. Peer
reviewed journal articles written in English were surveyed,
covering a time span of over 19 years (2000e2019). The keywords
employed related to the topic of the essays and were as follows:
(“Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems” OR “Sustainable Drainage
Systems” OR “Best Management Practices” OR “Low Impact
Development” OR “Water Sensitive Urban Design” OR “Innovative
Stormwater Management” OR “sustainable stormwater systems”
OR “sustainable stormwater management” OR “sustainable
stormwater practices” OR “sustainable flood management” OR
“regenerative flood management” OR “regenerative stormwater
conveyance” OR “regenerative stormwater management” OR
“adaptive flood management” OR “adaptive stormwater manage-
ment” OR “adaptive stormwater culture” OR “sensitive flood man-
agement” OR “water sensitive stormwater management” OR
“positive flood management” OR “positive stormwater manage-
ment”) AND (“European Union” OR “Sweden” OR “Swedish” OR
“Finland” OR “Finnish” OR “Denmark” OR “Danish” OR “Estonia” OR
“Estonian” OR “Latvia” OR “Latvian” OR “Lithuania” OR “Lithuanian”
OR “Romania” OR “Romanian” OR “Bulgaria” OR “Bulgarian” OR
“Greece” OR “Greek” OR “Cyprus” OR “Cypriot” OR “Croatia” OR
“Croatian” OR “Slovenia” OR “Slovene” OR “Hungary” OR “Hun-
garian” OR “Slovakia” OR “Slovak” OR “Czech Republic” OR “Czech”
OR “Poland” OR “Polish” OR “Germany” OR “German” OR “Austria”
OR “Austrian” OR “Italy” OR “Italian” OR “Malta” OR “Maltese” OR
“France” OR “French” OR “Luxembourg” OR “Luxembourger” OR
“Belgium” OR “Belgian” OR “Netherlands” OR “Dutch” OR “United
Kingdom” OR “UK” OR “British” OR “Ireland” OR “Irish” OR “Spain”
OR “Spanish” OR “Portugal” OR “Portuguese”).
The search results were categorised and refined according to
their relevance. The area of research for each essay was categorised
as: 1) environmental sciences; 2) water resources; 3) engineering
environmental; 4) engineering civil; 5) geosciences multidisci-
plinary; 6) ecology; 7) green sustainable science technology; 8) soil
science; 9) environmental studies; 10) geography physical; 11) ur-
ban studies; 12) public environmental occupational health; 13)
meteorology and atmospheric sciences; 14) geography; 15) com-
puter science interdisciplinary applications; 16) rehabilitation; 17)
planning development; 18) multidisciplinary sciences; 19) inter-
national relations; 20) engineering geological; or 21) construction
building technology.
2.2. Topics addressed
Information was extracted from each essay and then entered
into a matrix (Table 1) in order to respond to aim 1. The socio-
technical aspects defined were used to gain insights into the po-
tential of SuDS to initiate a transition (aim 2). Further, for each
geographical area and scale (see Section 2.3): 1) the sustainability
paradigms pursued (e.g., regenerative sustainability paradigm);
and 2) the present paradigms (e.g., conventional flood manage-
ment) were explored (aim 3). Information was also obtained
regarding the following: the amount of scholar knowledge gener-
ated, and the presumed degree of transitioning accomplished in
each geographical area or at each scale.
2.3. Spatial coverage and scales addressed
The European Union (EU) was set as the spatial unit of interest
(Fig. 1). All 28 nations constituting it have sovereignty on flood
4 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191

Table 1
Information extracted from each essay.

Information Information extracted

category
General Authors and year of publication
information Research questions
Methodological approach
Principal technical and/or social findings
Unit and scale of Unit of analysis Catchment, administrative unit, sewer-shed, or single Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
analysis Scale of analysis Local, regional, national, or EU scale
Key issues Attention paid to transition processes a) focus on transition processes; b) focus on the current position in the transition; or c) no focus on transition
addressed processes
Stage of SuDS development analysed (if a) “stage 0” (non-existence); b) “social stage” (social movements); c) “planning stage” (plans/policies); d)
any) “design stage” (design schemes); e) pilots; or f) comprehensive adoption
Socio-technical aspects embraced a Aspect 1: Technical criteria utilised to E.g., adaptability of the structures to distinct precipitation scenarios
manage floods
Aspect 2: Probability of flooding
Aspect 3: General knowledge Measures to alleviate flood risk and their proper management
regarding: The strains of conventional practices
Aspect 4: People’s mindset vis-a -vis E.g., stormwater perceived as a valuable element in the urban
stormwater environment or as a waste product
Aspect 5: Governance paradigm for stormwater management
Aspect 6: Policies and tools
Technical traits of the SuDS elements Trait 1: Types of SuDS E.g. green roofs, swales
assessed (if any) Trait 2: Number of SuDS types studied and interconnection among them (SuDS management train)
Actors who were the focus of the a) local community; b) hydro-engineers; c) urban, landscape planners and other professionals; d) local/
research (if any) regional/national/European authorities; e) other actors
a
Six aspects were defined, four based on the institutional indicators in Rogers et al. (2015), with two added to portray SuDS technical-related issues.

Fig. 1. Spatial coverage of this literature review: The European Union (EU) (source of the underlying cartographic data: Eurostat (2018)).

management interventions, although the EU has active involve- governments. Differences, regarding flood management, between
ment in environmental legislation, with direct effects on the pol- European countries within and outside the EU (Knill and Tosun,
icies of member states (Carmin and VanDeveer, 2005). An example 2009) were not considered.
is the obligatory implementation of the EU Floods Directive by all Four spatial scales were considered: 1) the local scale,
 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191
corresponding to municipalities where SuDS have been adopted,
including their network of actors and institutions; and 2) the
regional, 3) national, and 4) EU scale, considering their respective
actors and institutions (e.g., polices, and mindset) that can influ-
ence the deployment of SuDS in urban areas. For those papers
reporting analyses at the local scale, their climate region was
determined and recorded using cartography and climate categories
provided by the European Environmental Agency (2009).
This approach was expected to provide a broad perspective and
detailed knowledge on flood management transition in the EU by
embracing not only the distinct socio-ecological contexts but also
the interactions among actors and institutions at different scales. It
accommodated a wide range of socio-cultural divergences, with
potential impact on SuDS development, under the umbrella of a
communal institutional framework, i.e., the EU. For example, urban
structures in northern, central, and southern European countries
are quite disparate (Kasanko et al., 2006). Moreover, differences in
flood experiences, as a result of the diversity of European climate
regions, influence debates, strategies, intervention options, and
people mindset (Hegger et al., 2013).
2.4. Data processing: analytical framework
To thoroughly analyse the transition under review, the data on
paradigms were processed using the Arenas of Development (AoD)
approach. AoD was devised by Jørgensen and Sørensen (1999) and
Jørgensen (2012), and it was considered a promising approach for
the analysis of transitions by Chang et al. (2017). Through AoD,
systems are conceptualised as an ensemble of arenas, defined as
stages where actions are performed. Their foci, dynamics, and
boundaries are a product of the internal relations and tensions
among actor-worlds, which are temporally stable networks of ac-
tors who share knowledge, practices, and perspectives in their core
activities. In this sense, actors can be concurrently engaged in more
than one arena, with no need to deal with confronting visions if no
collision occurs among them. Within this frame, a transition un-
folds when conflicting views and alternative practices emerge,
entailing contention among actors, thereby giving rise to a shift in
the configurations (Jørgensen, 2012). This study used the visual
representation of AoD proposed by Valderrama Pineda and
Jørgensen (2016) (Fig. 2) to interpret the direction of current
transitioning pathways for each of the spatial and scalar units for
which information was available. In this visual representation, the
evolution over time of arenas and their relative power, including
the emergence of new arenas, their disappearance and the dy-
namics among them are portrayed in a temporal scale, to gain a
better visual understanding of the sequence of the transition over
time.
In this study, two axes (an axis on institutions and an axis on
techniques) are included in the representation (the two arrows in
Fig. 2), to discern whether the system is transitioning in either
social or technical or socio-technical terms. The left extreme of the
axes correspond to the institutions and techniques prevailing in the
initial stages of the transition analysed, whereas the tip of the ar-
row of the axes displays the institutions and techniques prevailing
at present/in the future. Institutions and techniques in these axes
are defined through the socio-technical aspects of Table 1 (see
Fig. 2). The aim is to explicitly ascribe the emergence and/or dy-
namics among arenas to changes in the institutions or/and tech-
niques. The location of each arena in the schema becomes thus
crucial: if a new arena (alternative to the conventional arena(s))
emerges supporting a shift in institutions, it will be situated close to
the tip of the arrow of the “institutions” axis in the schema, while it
will be situated in a central position between both axes, if a shift in
both techniques and institutions is underpinned. The degree of
5
transitioning to a new paradigm that the reality represents is
qualitatively provided by stating whether clear, weak or no signals
of transitioning are identified for each of the socio-technical as-
pects of Table 1. The vertical width of each arena is illustrative of
their relative power in society (see clarifying example in Fig. 2).
To ensure the quality of these analyses, the data compilation and
evaluation process for the papers reviewed was regularly and
thoroughly controlled by the first author. This ensured that the
analytical criteria applied throughout the process were consistent.
3. Results
3.1. Advanced search through key words in the core collection of
web of science
The search yielded a total of 322 documents over the last 19
years. After the refinement process, 80 scientific papers (see Ap-
pendix) remained and were reviewed.
3.2. Aim 1: main lines of research within the EU for the last 18 years
3.2.1. Transition processes as a research topic
A great majority of papers (74%) do not focus on transitioning
processes. Eleven papers focus on transition processes; meanwhile,
12 papers focus on the current position in the transition to a new
paradigm, i.e., a more sustainable urban flood management. Of the
nine papers that mention new paradigms, the majority discuss the
water sensitive city model (67%), followed by the regenerative ur-
ban built environment (22%), while adaptive stormwater manage-
ment and integrated management receive less attention (11% each).
Different stages in the transition process to a new paradigm
were discussed in 66 papers. Among these, pilot and experimental
sites rank highest, followed by plans and policies related to the
regulatory stage (12%), comprehensive deployment (12%), and
design schemes (9%). It is striking that social movements are non-
existent in the analysed literature. In addition, 35% of these 66
papers report no transitioning in their case studies.
3.2.2. Thematic focus
Analysis of the thematic focus of the reviewed papers reveals
that the majority focus on the technical performance of SuDS (i.e.,
the generation of runoff). Additional lines of research are in the
arenas of technical paradigms, mindset/perceptions, governance,
and policies or tools (Fig. 3). A closer look reveals that most of the
research (65%) in the technical management arena has been
focused solely on the paradigm in force (e.g., SuDS, and sewer
system), while one-third discussed ways in which SuDS have been
or can be implemented (e.g., flexible structures). With respect to
the technical performance of SuDS, 59% of the papers do not
consider any specific single factor affecting runoff. The rest of the
papers that focus on technical performance explored its de-
pendency on a particular bio-physical factor (24%) or human-based
factor (20%).
3.2.3. Typologies of SuDS
Analysis of SuDS typologies revealed that 32% of the papers did
not study any particular SuDS typology. Green roofs (26%) and
permeable pavements (22%) were most numerous, followed by
ponds (13.5%), swales (12%), and dry basins (11%). Infiltration
trenches, porous pavements, rain barrels, and wetlands all received
little attention (Fig. 4). A binary split of the papers into the cate-
gories “only one SuDS studied” and “more than one” reveals that
more than half (57%) of the research papers reported on more than
one SuDS type. When the SuDS management train was considered,
there was a strong bias toward research on single devices. Only
6 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191

Fig. 2. Schematic visual representation of the Arenas of Development (AoD) approach (adapted from Valderrama Pineda and Jørgensen (2016)).

Fig. 3. Main lines of research identified in the literature review.

 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191 7

Fig. 4. Results on Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) typologies studied.

21.5% of the articles focused on a comprehensive serial SuDS
arrangement.
3.2.4. Social actors
Almost one-third of the assessed papers explicitly focused on
social actors. These papers concentrated heavily on hydro-
engineers and other professionals (e.g. urban planners), as well as
the local authorities. The local community, regional and national
authorities, and other actors such as manufacturers, students and
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) followed (Fig. 5). This
reflects the main lines of research identified above; it is the actors
responsible for and familiar with the technical systems and the
actors in governance and policy implementation that receive the
most research attention.
3.2.5. Scale and unit of analysis
The majority of the 80 papers take the administrative unit as the
analysis unit, followed by the SuDS (31%), while roughly one-quarter
of the papers use the urban or suburban catchment as the analysis
unit. The sewershed is given negligible research attention. This
mismatch between urban and hydrological system boundaries
illuminates the distinction between the possible, as delimited by data
constraints, and the desirable in terms of flood risk management.
Half of the EU countries have been reported on, with northern
and southern European countries receiving the most attention. In
particular, the United Kingdom (UK), Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and
Italy fare prominently in research, with five or more papers. Eastern
European countries remain poorly represented in the literature.
Local scale analysis predominates (81.5%), with only 15% and 6% of
papers reporting results at the national or regional scale, respec-
tively. Research embracing the entire EU (e.g., on EU policy) has not
yet been reported. Regarding thematic focus, there are significant
differences according to the chosen analytical scale. Work on the
technical performance of SuDS dominates the literature at the local
scale (73%), followed by work on the technical paradigm (16.5%)
and the governance system (13.5%). In contrast, most attention at
the national scale is paid to the technical paradigm (75%), gover-
nance (50%), and policies or other tools (50%). In individual coun-
tries, local analysis and, therefore, technical performance are
dominant. Most diverse were the UK, where all thematic focuses
and analytical levels have been addressed, followed by Sweden,
Denmark, and Spain (Figs. 6 and 7).

Fig. 5. Results on social actors studied.

8 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191

Fig. 6. Spatial and scalar coverage of the research (source of the underlying cartographic data: Eurostat (2018))*.
A ¼ total number of papers on Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) per country; B ¼ number of papers on SuDS per country at the national scale; C ¼ number of papers on SuDS per
country at the regional scale; D ¼ number of papers on SuDS per country at the local scale.
* Countries abbreviations - AT: Austria; BE: Belgium; BG: Bulgaria; CY: Cyprus; CZ: Czech Republic; DE: Germany; DK: Denmark; EE: Estonia; EL: Greece; ES: Spain; FI: Finland; FR:
France; HR: Croatia; HU: Hungary; IE: Ireland; IT: Italy; LT: Lithuania; LU: Luxembourg; LV: Latvia; MT: Malta; NL: Netherlands; PL: Poland; PT: Portugal; RO: Romania; SE: Sweden;
SI: Slovenia; SK: Slovakia; UK: United Kingdom.

Fig. 7. Research arenas by country.

The temperate maritime climate zone ranks highest among the
climate zones studied (62% of papers), followed by the subtropical
continental (Mediterranean) with 12%; coverage of the cold tran-
sitional, temperate transitional, cold intermediate, subtropical
maritime, and subtropical intermediate climate zones was sparse.
3.3. Aims 2 and 3: assess existing knowledge about the socio-
technical transition to more sustainable urban flood management in
the EU, including its geographical and scalar patterns
The thematic, spatial, and scalar coverage in the SuDS literature
mirrors the fragmented knowledge on the transition to more
 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191
sustainable flood management in the EU. Just a few insights could
be gained on specific issues and, in particular, geographical areas.
Concerning the former, work on the technical performance of SuDS
stands out, as it is the only issue which has been researched at sites
throughout the EU (see Fig. 7). Meanwhile, the UK is the only EU
country where research has been extensive, addressing the three
scalar levels defined in this paper: national, regional, and local.
Therefore, an overall multi-scalar perspective of transition can only
be gained by using results from the UK. This might indicate major
progress in the process of transition but might not be representa-
tive of the EU broadly. Nevertheless, the availability of outcomes at
multiple scales can improve understanding of the transition pro-
cess in Europe. Consequently, results in this section only address
the transitioning in the: 1) technical performance of stormwater
systems (Section 3.3.1) and 2) UK (Section 3.3.2).
3.3.1. Transitioning in the technical performance of stormwater
systems in the EU
Authors such as Burszta-Adamiak and Mrowiec (2013) (green
roofs in Wroclaw, Poland e temperate transitional climate);
Perales-Momparler et al. (2017) (several SuDS types in Benaguasil
and Xa tiva, Spain e subtropical continental climate); Stovin (2010)
(green roofs in Sheffield, UK e temperate maritime climate); and
Villarreal et al. (2004) (SuDS in series in Augustenborg, Malmo €,
Sweden e temperate maritime climate), have underlined the
capability of SuDS to reduce runoff volume and peaks in a variety of
urban contexts and climates. Nonetheless, the major focus of
scholars on green roofs and permeable pavements has resulted in
the low or non-existent coverage of other SuDS types within the
diversity of EU socio-ecological contexts. Thus, there is limited
opportunity, from this study, to generalise on the efficacy of SuDS
within the EU context. Among the specific findings:
- Green roofs: Average runoff retention was 51.9% and 70%e80%
for green roofs in Bologna (Italy) (Cipolla et al., 2016a) and
Wroclaw (Poland) (Burszta-Adamiak and Mrowiec, 2013),
respectively. The average reduction of annual runoff in Odense
and Copenhagen was 43%e68% (Denmark) (Locatelli et al.,
2014).
- Permeable pavements: Permeable pavements in Granada
(Spain) (Rodríguez-Rojas et al., 2018) and the Netherlands
(Boogaard et al., 2014) totally absorbed rainfall during highly
regular precipitation events. A simulation of permeable pave-
ments in an urban catchment in Espoo (Finland) suggested an
average runoff reduction of 40%e50% (Jato-Espino et al., 2016).
At a minimum, the adoption of green roofs and permeable
pavements can potentially translate into a stormwater manage-
ment transition, in many EU locations (e.g., northern Italy and
Denmark). Several aspects that have to be considered include:
- The specific traits of each site: 1) the permeability of the subsoil
(Bockhorn et al., 2015); 2) the groundwater conditions, as
infiltration-based solutions are problematic if the groundwater
table is close to the surface (Roldin et al., 2012); 3) the intensity,
duration, and frequency of rainfall (Locatelli et al., 2014;
Rodríguez-Sinobas et al., 2018); 4) climate change (Rodríguez-
Sinobas et al., 2018; Semadeni-Davies et al., 2008); and 5) ur-
banisation (Semadeni-Davies et al., 2008).
- The features and management of the structures: 1) type of SuDS
that is adopted (e.g., type of permeable pavement) (Cipolla et al.,
2016b); 2) age of the structures (Boogaard et al., 2014); 3) type of
maintenance tasks carried out (e.g., vacuuming in permeable
pavements) (Winston et al., 2016); 4) filling material utilised
and the degree of compaction of the subsoil (Cipolla et al.,
9
2016b); and 5) available storage, slope, and vegetation typol-
ogy (e.g., grasses) used in green roofs (Burszta-Adamiak and
Mrowiec, 2013; Locatelli et al., 2014).
3.3.2. Transitioning to more sustainable urban flood management:
the case of the UK
Urban flood management in the UK occurs in either the con-
ventional flood management arena or the SuDS arena. Notwith-
standing some local-scale exceptions and the case of Scotland,
there is resistance to the adoption of SuDS (Ashley et al., 2015), and
conventional flood management practices remain dominant
(Melville-Shreeve et al., 2018). In places where regional policy is
more stringent (e.g., Scotland) and leading actors, individuals, or
groups, are locally engaged (some cities), there is building mo-
mentum for a SuDS transition. Thus far, change remains technically
focused, with minimal transformation in mindset, knowledge, or
governance (Table 2 and Fig. 8).
4. Discussion
4.1. Transitioning to more sustainable urban flood management in
the EU: lessons learned from the literature
4.1.1. Overarching perspective
No multi-scalar perspective on stormwater management tran-
sition in the EU can be gained from the work reviewed from the
literature. The research has been of limited scope in the themes,
scales, and regions addressed, with a clear bias toward the
following: 1) technical performance; 2) local scale; and 3) examples
in the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and Italy. This reflects a
research field in its infancy in Europe, despite a recent boom. Low
interest, to date, from the scientific community, especially on the
social dimensions of SuDS, reflects the limited deployment of SuDS
in the EU. As Chouli et al. (2007) underscored, the transition across
Europe is just beginning, notwithstanding early implementations
of SuDS in the 20th century in e.g., Scotland (Jose et al., 2015).
Nearly half of the papers addressing the technical performance of
SuDS were based on scenario modelling in areas where SuDS have
not been deployed, further reflecting the limited adoption across
the EU.
Newman et al. (2013) described a nationwide reticence to
change and a slow pace of transition in Sweden and the UK, despite
a number of world-leading local pilots, such as in the Augustenborg
quarter of Malmo € (Sweden) (Villarreal et al., 2004). Despite modest
progress at the national level, engagement in sustainable flood
management projects is becoming common in some Swedish
municipalities, where a variety of alternatives are being practised
(Cettner, 2012). The reviewed papers revealed that, for the UK and
Sweden, change is primarily taking place at the neighbourhood and
single building level, while transition at larger scales remains
challenging. This mirrors the situation in Australia and the USA
(Roy et al., 2008), where SuDS are being implemented in local
communities but are far from becoming a widespread national
phenomenon.
According to Stovin (2010), the reasons behind the UK situation
include the following: 1) perceived risks associated with the per-
formance of SuDS, as representative data on UK conditions is
missing (mindset); 2) lack of tools for modelling of SuDS perfor-
mance (tools); and 3) lack of incentives for utilities, authorities, and
developers to adopt SuDS (tools). Cettner et al. (2012) identified the
conventional stormwater management culture as one of the chief
factors hindering change in Sweden (mindset). This is strongly
connected to influential views on the rationality and desirability of
existing systems, which make transition difficult. Fear of failure, the
10 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191

Table 2
Key traits of the transition to more sustainable urban flood management at the national, regional, and local scales in the UK, according to the literature.

Scale Aspects analysed Current state of affairs

National Technical management The uptake of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) has been limited (Stovin, 2010) and geographically disparate (Ashley et al.,
scale paradigm 2015). New policy at the regional level has fostered a shift toward management through SuDS in new developments (Ashley et al.,
2013). The are no requirements for retrofitting projects (Stovin et al., 2013).
Knowledge There is a mounting recognition on the benefits of SuDS adoption (Stovin et al., 2013).
Mindset SuDS are perceived as short-term and risky solutions (Hoang and Fenner, 2016).
Governance The required shift in governance structures has not occurred. Cooperation is low among stakeholder groups (Ashley et al., 2013;
Hoang and Fenner, 2016).
Policies and tools Policies/tools are mostly provided at the regional scale. Guidance, etc. at the national scale include “BeST” (Benefit of SuDS Tool), a
valuation tool (Ashley et al., 2015).
Regional Technical management Concerning England and Wales, the uptake of SuDS remains rather limited. However, in Scotland, SuDS has become business-as-
scale a paradigm usual (Ashley et al., 2015).
Knowledge The flood authorities are becoming more acquainted with SuDS (Ellis and Lundy, 2016).
Mindset The conventional arena is starting to be questioned (Werritty, 2006).
Governance Technocratic governance systems are in force, lacking the required cooperation structures among stakeholders. An exception is the
partnership approaches successfully set in motion by the Scottish SuDS Working Party (Shutes et al., 2005).
Policies and tools One of the main engines of change in England and Wales is the Flood and Water Management Act launched in 2010. Through it, the
adoption of SuDS is encouraged in new constructions (Stovin et al., 2013) but not obligatory (Melville-Shreeve et al., 2018). The
policy in force in Scotland are the control activities regulations (Ashley et al., 2013).
Local scale Technical management At the city scale, progress to a SuDS arena remains patchy. Change is evident at the district level through projects such as those in
b
paradigm Llanelli and Dundee. In the former, conventional and SuDS arenas are co-dominant (Ellis et al., 2016), while in the latter, SuDS is
prevailing (Jose et al., 2015).
Technical performance Performance in Llanelli has improved after the implementation of SuDS within the sewer system (Ellis et al., 2016).
Knowledge Professionals in Newcastle are knowledgeable of SuDS (O’Donnell et al., 2017). In Ardler Village, the SuDS terminology was familiar
to only 33% of the respondents (residents) (Jose et al.,2015).
Mindset Reluctance to adopt SuDS is a strong barrier in Newcastle (O’Donnell et al., 2017).
Governance Partnerships are working in Newcastle and Llanelli (Ellis et al., 2016; Hoang and Fenner, 2016), though this is unusual (O’Donnell
et al., 2017).
Policies and tools Strategic planning frameworks have been launched in Newcastle (O’Donnell et al., 2017), but no enforcement structures.
a
No paper dealt with SuDS in North Ireland, hence only results on England, Wales, and Scotland are presented.
b
High variance exists from city to city and project to project. Three representative examples have, thus, been selected for the evaluation: 1) the city of Newcastle (England);
2) a retrofitting project in the city of Llanelli (Wales); and 3) the district of Ardler Village, in Dundee (Scotland), where stormwater is handled wholly through SuDS.

limited interest of engineers in solutions without advanced tech-
nology, economic costs, and the absence of available land (Cettner
et al., 2014a, 2014b) are additional hurdles identified by Swedish
scholars. Similar challenges have been described by O’Sullivan et al.
(2012) in Ireland, and Petrucci et al. (2013) in France (Table 3).
These examples corroborate, for at least these parts of the EU, the
institutional nature of barriers to change recognised by Brown and
Farrelly (2009).
Engaged leading actors, developing SuDS projects at the
neighbourhood and single building scale, appear, thus, to be the
principal leaders of the transition across Europe, not only in the UK
and Sweden. Outcomes in the Netherlands (Van Der Brugge and De
Graaf, 2010) and Spain (Perales-Momparler et al., 2017; Rodríguez-
Rojas et al., 2018) support this hypothesis. Most policy adaptations
have been the result of small shifts of non-obligatory-nature and
have translated into little change in stormwater management
practices. As Cettner et al. (2014a) stressed for Sweden, the plan-
ning process has limited influence on change in practice. A shift is,
instead, the result of situations such as: 1) the occurrence of
extreme events (e.g., floods); 2) climate change discourse; 3) suc-
cess of previous projects; 4) a municipality’s strong environmental
profile; or 5) sensitised local community. Many of these enablers
have been identified in a wide range of EU countries, including the
UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, and Spain (Ashley et al., 2015;
Cettner et al., 2014a, 2014b; Mguni et al., 2015; O’Sullivan et al.,
2012; Perales-Momparler et al., 2017) (Table 3). Paradoxically, the
importance of a sensitised local community is not evident in the 80
essays reviewed, despite the role that grassroots initiatives have
played; e.g. in the development of solar/wind energy in Austria and
Denmark (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013).
The analysis was unable to identify trends, enablers, or chal-
lenges specific to any of the existing SuDS techniques. In the UK, as
a partial exception, there is some tendency towards an increase in
the number of constructed wetlands throughout the country
(Shutes et al., 2005), while the uptake of green roofs remains
limited (Stovin, 2010). Wetlands, ponds, and natural infiltration are
the most commonly used SuDS techniques in Sweden (Cettner,
2012).
4.1.2. Social sphere
Despite the potential significance of institutional change, shifts
in practice are mostly perceived as simply the incorporation of a
new technique (e.g., SuDS) within an already established institu-
tional framework. This is particularly noticeable at all scales above
the neighbourhood/building level. At that scale, certain institu-
tional changes, among various degrees of transitioning, can be
observed, at least in the UK. The divergence is illustrated by the
following: 1) during a retrofitting project in Llanelli (Wales, UK),
partnership alliances and information campaigns for the local
community were developed (Ellis et al., 2016); whereas 2) in a SuDS
project in Bristol (England, UK), no communication channels were
set up with future residents of the development; indeed, they were
unaware of the stormwater system deployed in their district
(Everett et al., 2016). The strategies of Swedish municipalities show
similar variation (Cettner, 2012). In line with results in Dhakal and
Chevalier (2016), at the national/regional/city level, reports
indicate:
- Technocratic governance structures are the norm, exemplified
by the UK and Sweden (Cettner et al., 2014a; Ellis and Lundy,
2016; Werritty, 2006).
- Weak cooperation among stakeholders (e.g., the water and the
urban planning departments) (Ashley et al., 2013; Cettner et al.,
2014a, 2014b; Ellis and Lundy, 2016; Hoang and Fenner, 2016;
O’Sullivan et al., 2012) and limited crossover between science
 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191 11

Fig. 8. Transition to more sustainable urban flood management at the national, regional, and local scales in the UK.

and practice (Cettner et al., 2014a, 2014b) persists, at least in
Ireland, Sweden, and the UK.
Exceptions include the cities of Rotterdam (Netherlands) (Van
Der Brugge and De Graaf, 2010) and Copenhagen (Denmark)
(Mguni et al., 2015), where networks of stakeholders have been
encouraged in support of the development of SuDS schemes for the
entire city and not just for a single project. A mismatch between
administrative and hydrological boundaries was also noticed e.g., in
Scotland and Ireland (O’Sullivan et al., 2012; Werritty, 2006).
12 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191

Table 3
Papers reviewed and used to support the overarching discussion on transition processes in the EU. Selection based on the divergent thematic, scalar and spatial focus of the
research studies, as well as the significance of the results obtained.

Reference Aim Country Scale of analysis

Ashley et al. (2015) Analysis of the trajectory in practice to date and provision of recommendations for better supporting UK National scale
change.
Cettner et al. (2012) Evaluation of historical reasons explaining the slow path of change of stormwater management. Sweden National scale
Cettner et al. (2014a) Understanding the existent conditions to support action in the discourse around sustainable stormwater Sweden National scale
practices.
Cettner et al. (2014b) Exploration of the experts perception and the engagement in the sustainable stormwater management Sweden National scale
discourse.
Jose et al. (2015) Investigation of the multiple benefits of SuDS implementation, beyond water quantity and quality. UK Local scale
Mguni et al. (2015) Identification of opportunities and barriers, from a governance perspective, for the adoption of SuDS. Denmark Local scale
O’Sullivan et al. (2012) Exploration of the technical paradigm in force and the barriers and perception of experts on SuDS. Ireland National scale
Perales-Momparler et al. Analysis of the perception of experts and the hydrological and pollutant removal performance of various Spain Regional and local
(2017) SuDS. scale
Petrucci et al. (2013) Evaluation of policy on SuDS and its impacts if widely applied at the catchment scale. France Regional and local
scale
Shutes et al. (2005) Identification of the pollutant removal capability of constructed wetlands and the design approaches UK National scale
available.
Stovin (2010) Exploration of the hydrological performance of a green roof. UK Local scale
Villarreal et al. (2004) Assessment of the hydrological performance of a comprehensive arrangement of SuDS in series Sweden Local scale

A more significant institutional change at the national/regional
scale has taken place in the mindset and knowledge of pro-
fessionals, although this change also remains residual. Practitioners
are now reported to be knowledgeable about SuDS in Sweden and
the UK (Cettner et al., 2014a; Stovin et al., 2013) and new visions,
within which SuDS is a real alternative, have been reported in the
Valencia region (Spain) and Sweden (Cettner et al., 2014b; Perales-
Momparler et al., 2017). Studies such as Novotny et al. (2010) and
Roy et al. (2008) also describe a mounting regard for stormwater as
a resource. This is, however, far from widespread outside and even
within the EU. In many countries, including Italy (Conte et al., 2012)
and China (Li et al., 2014), there continues to be little awareness of
the advantages of non-piped systems. Further, knowledge and
positive perceptions of SuDS have grown in a mostly simplistic way.
SuDS is insufficiently understood as an integrated system (SuDS
management train), as described for Ireland by O’Sullivan et al.
(2012). This might be related to the prevailing engineering cul-
ture, as pointed out by Cettner et al. (2012) and Petrucci et al. (2013)
for Sweden and France, in which new techniques may be applied,
but the underlying thinking changes little. Awareness of the exis-
tence and functionality of SuDS by residents, in districts where
SuDS have been adopted, was found to be low in two of the three
articles dealing with popular awareness (all in the UK).
4.1.3. Technical performance
Newman et al. (2013) and Perales-Momparler et al. (2017) called
for more scientific evidence of the runoff reduction performance of
SuDS, compared with traditional piped approaches. The degree of
response is not clear from the reviewed articles. First, most papers
focus on single SuDS elements (see Section 3.2.3.), and this limits
understanding of the effectiveness of the system. Second, 11 of the
29 papers that reported real-world tests of SuDS performance (i.e.,
on experimental sites, in pilots, or in areas where SuDS have been
comprehensively implemented) were based on experimental sites.
This restricts the practical applicability of the findings, as system
adjustments will be required to suit the individual traits of every
new location, e.g., the degree of soil compaction (see Section 3.3.1).
The choice of SuDS type should depend on local conditions, and
results in experimental sites can only be directly transferred to
areas where the local conditions are similar to the idealised
experimental conditions (see Bockhorn et al., 2015). Third, only for
green roofs and permeable pavements has research been con-
ducted in a wide range of contexts (see Section 3.3.1.). In these
cases, performance improvements were reported from divergent
localities (Boogaard et al., 2014; Burszta-Adamiak and Mrowiec,
2013; Cipolla et al., 2016a; Jato-Espino et al., 2016; Locatelli et al.,
2014; Rodríguez-Rojas et al., 2018), with runoff reductions
ranging from 40% to 100%.
SuDS do not only allow a quantitative regulation of runoff, but
also an improvement in water quality and human health and well-
being, an increase in urban biodiversity and carbon dioxide
sequestration, and a reduction of the urban heat island effect
(Charlesworth, 2010), among others. Little efforts have been
devoted, however, to the evaluation of these multiple functions,
with the exception of water quality-related issues (L€ ahde et al.,
2019). Significant attenuation of pollutant loads in stormwater
was detected by Gomez-Ullate et al. (2011), Perales-Momparler
et al. (2017) and Shutes et al. (2005). In Perales-Momparler et al.
(2017), performances ranged from 35% (total suspended solids) to
60% (total nitrogen) for swales, and the 100% volumetric efficiency
of basins reduced the surcharges in the sewer system. High nutrient
concentrations have been observed, however, in runoff from green
roofs, which is problematic in watersheds sensitive to nutrient
additions (Malcolm et al., 2014). Further, pollution attenuation
might be reduced with climate change (see Alamdari et al., 2019). A
thorough coordination of the SuDS potential functions, considering
the site-specific conditions and future scenarios, is essential in the
decision-making and design process, if the transition toward a
paradigm where stormwater systems provide multiple benefits to
€hde et al., 2019). Pos-
our citizens is to be successfully attained (La
itive costs-benefit outcomes have been associated with SuDS, at
least if relatively cheap measures such as ponds are adopted (see
Morgan and Fenner, 2017), even though knowledge of the main-
tenance and operational costs of SuDS is lacking (Duffy et al., 2008).
Consequently, the economic and societal benefits of SuDS imple-
mentation are not yet clear.
4.1.4. Degree of transitioning in the EU: a multi-scalar perspective
The larger number of papers and wider range of themes and
scales described in research on northern European countries
(especially Denmark and Sweden) and the UK, might indicate a
more advanced stage of transitioning. In Germany, infiltration and
reuse of stormwater, for gardening and cleaning, are also quite
popular (Chouli et al., 2007). Meanwhile, the almost complete
absence of papers from eastern Europe might indicate a low degree
of transitioning in this area. Countries in the western
 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191
Mediterranean, with less studies than in northern Europe and a
predominant focus on technical performance and use of pilot
studies, may be in a phase in between. Perales-Momparler (2015)
pointed out the early stage of SuDS implementation in Spain and
the need for evidence on the effectiveness of SuDS under Medi-
terranean conditions. Indeed, the need to furnish data on the
effectiveness of SuDS under local conditions has been recognised as
a crucial factor for further implementation of SuDS. Research of this
type reflects an initial implementation stage. On the other hand, the
prevailing focus on local scale research in most countries appears to
relate to the key role of this scale in the process of change.
4.2. Research gaps and directions for future studies
Both implementation projects and research studies can be seen
as a technical monologue. Issues going beyond technical and site-
specific SuDS perspectives remain under developed in the peer-
reviewed journal literature. Most research studies use modelling
attempts, performance-based scenario analyses and/or monitoring
tools for the assessment of SuDS effectiveness in the attenuation of
flood risk at the building or neighbourhood level. The main aim is to
shed light to SuDS hydrologic effectiveness in divergent bio-
physical contexts, while crucial social aspects for the trans-
formation process, such as the knowledge and visions of stake-
holders on stormwater management, remain not analysed in many
contexts, with the exception of northern European countries and
the UK, where SuDS have received the most attention among
scholars. Up-scaling of change processes from the building/neigh-
bourhood to the city, regional and national scale have also received
little attention. The three latter scales and climate zones, other than
the temperate maritime climate zone, have been little assessed.
Indeed, the analysis of socio-technical transitions in urban flood
management remains a research field in its infancy in the EU.
Further research is especially needed:
- Exploring and understanding transition processes in the man-
agement of stormwater in distinct socio-ecological contexts
and/or at different scales, including the assessment of the main
socio-technical shifts that are occurring (historical perspective),
to better understand: 1) the barriers and enablers encountered;
and 2) those actions essential to enable further change.
- Identifying the prevailing knowledge and mindset of stake-
holders (including residents) and governance structures, and
potential enablers of institutional change. This has only been
thoroughly analysed in Sweden and the UK, despite academic
recognition that barriers for change are basically institutional
(Brown and Farrelly, 2009) and radical change depends on the
mutual interrelations among technological innovations, in-
stitutions and actors’ strategies (Fuenfschilling and Truffer,
2016). A comprehensive exploration of this interplay,
including the power relations among actors, etc., remains an
area for further investigation. Further exploration is also
required on the characteristics of the technical paradigm in
force.
- On the role of the local community in the transition process,
which has been unexplored so far. Papers give exclusive atten-
tion to top-down change processes. Even those papers focusing
on social actors mainly concentrate on water engineers, urban
planners and local authorities, whereas little insights have been
gained on residents, NGOs, etc.
- Giving empirical data on the performance of SuDS, other than
green roofs and permeable pavements, under distinct bio-
physical conditions. For instance: 1) soakaways have only been
researched in Denmark and Sweden; 2) wetlands in Sweden and
the UK; and 3) basins in Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Assessment
13
of comprehensive arrangements of SuDS in series (management
train) is typically missing (only five real case studies) but ur-
gently required.
- Understanding transformation processes at the national,
regional, and also the city scale, given that most scholarly work
currently focuses on the neighbourhood/building/car-park level.
Further research is also needed to verify the role of engaged
leading actors at the neighbourhood and single building scale in
the transition process, as well as to determine the roles that
policy and other factors play in the emergence of engaged ac-
tors, e.g., when rules become enforceable by law.
- Exploring eastern and southern European contexts, as: 1) nearly
no academic work has been produced on the former; and 2)
most work on the latter is focused on SuDS technical perfor-
mance. Central European countries, such as Germany and
Austria, would also benefit from additional research attention.
A multi-scalar perspective encompassing divergent contexts
and interrelated scales has yet to be undertaken and could only
occur once the gaps identified above are filled. Hence, the shortage
of academic research on the spatiality of sustainability trans-
formations, pointed out by Coenen et al. (2012) and Markard et al.
(2012), is confirmed for the EU. Therefore, insights into the par-
ticularities of each transitioning context and scale are not possible.
The strengths and weaknesses of the transition pathways already
trodden can rarely be identified and little information can be pro-
vided to stakeholders on the available transitioning opportunities.
This impedes communication to society of the need for tran-
sitioning and limits societal support for transitions in multiple
contexts and at different scales. The reviewed studies identified
challenges and enablers shared in various contexts. Similar strate-
gies might, hence, be advantageous to diverse locations within the
EU.
4.3. Limitations of the review
The shortage of papers covering the full range of themes, scales,
and regions across Europe makes premature any generalisation of
the above results to the entire EU. The only area in which conclu-
sions can be drawn for a wide range of contexts is the technical
performance of popular systems. Any suggestions going beyond the
technical performance of green roofs and permeable pavements
should be taken as hypotheses, which need to be proven in future
research. This may be a consequence of the focus of this paper on
peer-reviewed journal literature. Academic analysis of the grey
literature on this topic, in each of the countries covered, would be a
valuable complement to this review.
5. Conclusions
A review of 80 scientific papers on the implementation of SuDS
within the EU has revealed that, to date, both the in-practice
transformation process and the associated research have been
limited and technically focused. The research effort has focused on
either the evaluation of the technical performance of pilots or
exploration of future SuDS scenarios. This reflects a pressing need
for empirical evidence of the effectiveness of SuDS under divergent
bio-physical contexts. While the absence of such an evidence re-
mains a barrier to change in some areas, there is also a need for
further academic work: 1) going beyond this technical trap; 2)
embracing the analysis of comprehensive projects (i.e., not only
single SuDS elements); and 3) exploring the dynamics occurring
above the single project scale. Social, scalar, and spatial issues are of
great importance to the necessary transformational process. No real
change can be attained without a concurrent shift in social
14 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191
awareness and understanding. Further, overall perspectives on the
on-going state of affairs, interrelations among decision levels, or
the reasons behind spatial disparities will not become clear unless
scholars investigate stormwater-related practices in distinct
geographical areas and at all scales.
This review showed that the existing research is insufficient for
a comprehensive understanding of the transitioning process in the
EU. Only in the UK and Sweden can a more complete picture be
built. More work is particularly needed in eastern, southern, and
central European countries. Any generalisation of results across the
EU is therefore premature. Nonetheless, the following issues did
emerge. Their validity across Europe will need to be established by
future research:
- To date, transitions in urban stormwater management have
been a local and mainly technical phenomenon, performed by
engaged leading actors. New approaches have typically occurred
at the neighbourhood or lower scale, while change at the city/
regional/national level has been insignificant. The non-
enforceable nature of most policy has generally limited its effect.
- The UK, Sweden, and Denmark are leading the transition within
the EU, although, even from a strictly technical viewpoint, SuDS
implementation remains patchy even in these countries. Eastern
European countries seem to be at a very initial stage, while
southern European countries are somewhere in between.
- Apart from some policy, the most significant institutional
change has been in the knowledge and mindset of professionals,
although this change remains residual. SuDS are perceived as
alternative solutions to current challenges, but the traditional
engineering culture is still dominant. A new technique may be
applied, but the underlying thinking remains.
- Findings on the technical performance of green roofs and
permeable pavements show that, at least, these two SuDS ele-
ments can support a shift toward more sustainable stormwater
systems in a wide range of EU contexts. The corroborated ca-
pabilities of these two SuDS elements are the basis for better
master planning and adaptation in the context of climate/
environmental changes. Nevertheless, the specific traits of each
site and the features and management of the adopted structures
have to be considered if solutions are to be adopted more
widely. The opportunities, provided by SuDS, for climate change
mitigation have not received attention in this review. Previous
research (e.g., Charlesworth, 2010) has identified diverse pros-
pects, e.g., carbon dioxide sequestration, but has also stressed
the importance of urban transformations through new ap-
proaches, such as SuDS (and of this review), for the mitigation of
the effects of climate change.
The possible role of SuDS implementation as a master plan for
socio-technical change should encourage the scientific community
to provide additional evidence on the transformational potential of
SuDS in different contexts. Through its findings, including the
research gaps, and its generated hypotheses, this review, by
providing a first attempt at a multi-scale and socio-technical
perspective at the EU level, should enhance current understand-
ing of the SuDS phenomenon. Additionally, it is expected to lay a
foundation for the construction of a more comprehensive body of
academic work on SuDS in the future. The denoted gaps and the
potentials that emerge should steer scientists to respond with
literature of a wider scope and spatiality that better embraces the
full range of decision scales. Especially promising is the detection of
key shared socio-technical enablers of, and challenges to, change
and of performance rates in various contexts. This should prompt
exploration in a wider range of locations in order to establish the
validity of the hypotheses generated in this paper. This knowledge
is crucial for the promotion of both bottom-up (e.g., grassroots
initiatives) and top-down (e.g., creation and update of polices)
change processes. Although the role of a sensitised local commu-
nity could not be fully assessed through this review, the trans-
mission of knowledge to local social groups can become a first step
in the transition towards the desired paradigm.
Up-scaling of processes to the city, regional, national, and even
global level has been found challenging in the few countries (i.e.,
Sweden and the UK) where more comprehensive analyses, at
multiple scales, have been undertaken. Having identified this issue,
this review also pointed to the need to work with societal groups to
develop methodological approaches and strategies to overcome the
barriers. The first steps in a transition towards more sustainable
flood management are being taken in some localities; slow traces of
change are already detectable in some countries. Science should
play a constructive role in supporting this process. A meaningful
shift should be supported and accelerated by researchers.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the University of Salzburg through
a research fellowship granted to the first author in 2017. We are
very thankful for this funding. The authors of this paper are also
very thankful to Mr Jan Keily and the reviewers from the language
editing service of ElSevier for the very valuable corrections and
comments on the English spelling and grammar, and Ms Lina
Martini for her support during the review process. This enabled
substantial improvement of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120191.
References
Alamdari, N., Sample, D.J., Ross, A.C., Easton, Z.M., 2019. Evaluating the impact of
climate change on water quality and quantity in an urban watershed using an
ensemble approach. Estuar. Coast 43 (1), 56e72. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12237-019-00649-4.
Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Davies, J., Jowitt, P., Smith, H., 2003. Sustainable
decision making for the UK water industry. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Sustain. 156,
41e49.
Ashley, R., Lundy, L., Ward, S., Shaffer, P., Walker, L., Morgan, C., Saul, A., Wong, T.,
Moore, S., 2013. Water-sensitive urban design: opportunities for the UK. Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng. - Munic. Eng. 166, 65e76. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.12.00046.
Ashley, R., Walker, L., D’Arcy, B., Wilson, S., Illman, S., Shaffer, P., Woods-Ballard, B.,
Chatfield, P., 2015. UK sustainable drainage systems: past, present and future.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Civ. Eng. 168, 125e130. https://doi.org/10.1680/
cien.15.00011.
Bockhorn, B., Klint, K.E.S., Jensen, M.B., Møller, I., 2015. Use of geological mapping
tools to improve the hydraulic performance of SuDS. Water Sci. Technol. 71,
1492e1499.
Boogaard, F., Lucke, T., Beecham, S., 2014. Effect of age of permeable pavements on
their infiltration function. Clean 42, 146e152. https://doi.org/10.1002/
clen.201300113.
Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M.A., 2009. Challenges ahead: social and institutional factors
influencing sustainable urban stormwater management in Australia. Water Sci.
Technol. 59, 653e660. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.022.
Transitioning to water sensitive cities: historical, current and future transition
states. In: Brown, R., Keath, N., Wong, T.H.F.M.-C. (Eds.), 2008. 11th International
Conference on Urban Drainage (Edinburgh).
Burszta-Adamiak, E., Mrowiec, M., 2013. Modelling of green roofs’ hydrologic per-
formance using EPA’s SWMM. Water Sci. Technol. 68, 36e42.
Carmin, J., VanDeveer, S.D.M.-C. (Eds.), 2005. EU Enlargement and the Environment:
Institutional Change and Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe.
Routledge, Oxford.
Cettner, A., 2012. Overcoming Inertia to Sustainable Stormwater Management
 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191
Practice. Luleå University of Technology, Luleå.
Cettner, A., So €derholm, K., Viklander, M., 2012. An adaptive stormwater culture?
Historical perspectives on the status of stormwater within the Swedish urban
water system. J. Urban Technol. 19, 25e40. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10630732.2012.673058.
Cettner, A., Ashley, R., Hedstro € m, A., Viklander, M., 2014a. Assessing receptivity for
change in urban stormwater management and contexts for action. J. Environ.
Manag. 146, 29e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.024.
Cettner, A., Ashley, R., Hedstro € m, A., Viklander, M., 2014b. Sustainable development
and urban stormwater practice. Urban Water J. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1573062X.2013.768683.
Chang, R., Zuo, J., Zhao, Z., Soebarto, V., Zillante, G., Gan, X., 2017. Approaches for
transitions towards sustainable development: status quo and challenges. Sus-
tain. Dev. 25, 359e371. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1661.
Charlesworth, S.M., 2010. A review of the adaptation and mitigation of global
climate change using sustainable drainage in cities. J. Water Clim. Change 1,
165e180. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2010.035.
Chouli, E., Aftias, E., Deutsch, J.-C., 2007. Applying storm water management in
Greek cities: learning from the European experience. Desalination 210, 61e68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.05.033.
Cipolla, S.S., Maglionico, M., Stojkov, I., 2016a. A long-term hydrological modelling
of an extensive green roof by means of SWMM. Ecol. Eng. 95, 876e887. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.07.009.
Cipolla, S.S., Maglionico, M., Stojkov, I., 2016b. Experimental infiltration tests on
existing permeable pavement surfaces. Clean 44, 89e95. https://doi.org/
10.1002/clen.201400550.
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., Truffer, B., 2012. Toward a spatial perspective on sus-
tainability transitions. Res. Pol. 41, 968e979. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.respol.2012.02.014.
Conte, G., Bolognesi, A., Bragalli, C., Branchini, S., Carli, A., Lenzi, C., Masi, F.,
Massarutto, A., Pollastri, M., Principi, I., 2012. Innovative urban water man-
agement as a climate change adaptation strategy: results from the imple-
mentation of the project “water against climate change (WATACLIC). Water 4,
1025e1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/w4041025.
Dhakal, K.P., Chevalier, L.R., 2016. Urban stormwater governance: the need for a
paradigm shift. Environ. Manag. 57, 1112e1124.
Duffy, A., Jefferies, C., Waddell, G., Shanks, G., Blackwood, D., Watkins, A., 2008.
A cost comparison of traditional drainage and SUDS in Scotland. Water Sci.
Technol. 57, 1451e1459. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.262.
Ellis, J.B., Lundy, L., 2016. Implementing sustainable drainage systems for urban
surface water management within the regulatory framework in England and
Wales. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 630e636. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2016.09.022.
Ellis, C., Cripps, R., Russ, M., Broom, S., 2016. Transforming water management in
Llanelli, UK. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Civ. Eng. 169, 25e33. https://doi.org/10.1680/
jcien.15.00027.
European Commission, 2007. The EU floods directive. https://ec.europa.eu/
environment/water/flood_risk/implem.htm accessed 21 October 2019.
European Environmental Agency, 2009. Main climates of Europe. https://www.eea.
europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/climate accessed 10 May 2018.
Eurostat, 2018. Countries. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gisco/geodata/
reference-data/administrative-units-statistical-units/countries accessed 27
December 2018.
Everett, G., Lamond, J., Morzillo, A.T., Chan, F.K.S., Matsler, A.M., 2016. Sustainable
drainage systems: helping people live with water. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Water
Manag. 169, 94e104. https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.14.00076.
Fischer, F., 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. SAGE Publ.
Fuenfschilling, L., Truffer, B., 2016. The interplay of institutions, actors and tech-
nologies in socio-technical systems d an analysis of transformations in the
Australian urban water sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 103, 298e312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.023.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems:
insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutions theory.
Res. Pol. 33, 897e920.
Giddens, A., 1999. Risk and responsibility. Mod. Law Rev. 62, 1e10. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1468-2230.00188.
Gomez-Ullate, E., Novo, A.V., Bayon, J.R., Hernandez, J.R., Castro-Fresno, D., 2011.
Design and construction of an experimental pervious paved parking area to
harvest reusable rainwater. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (9), 1942e1950. https://
doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.175.
Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Ginn, S., Gilbert, D., 2005. Understanding the role of
land use in urban stormwater quality management. J. Environ. Manag. 74,
31e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.08.006.
Hegger, D.L.T., Green, C., Driessen, P., Bakker, M., Dieperink, C., Crabbe , A.,
Deketelaere, K., Delvaux, B., Suykens, C., Beyers, J.C., Fournier, M., Larrue, C.,
Manson, C., van Doorn-Hoekveld, W., van Rijswick, M., Kundzewicz, Z.W.,
Goytia Casermeiro, S., 2013. Flood Risk Management in Europe: Similarities and
Differences between the STAR-FLOOD Consortium Countries. Star Flood Con-
sortium, Utrecht.
Hoang, L., Fenner, R.A., 2016. System interactions of stormwater management using
sustainable urban drainage systems and green infrastructure. Urban Water J. 13,
739e758. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.1036083.
Jato-Espino, D., Sillanp€aa€, N., Charlesworth, S., Andre s-Dome nech, I., 2016. Coupling
GIS with stormwater modelling for the location prioritization and hydrological
simulation of permeable pavements in urban catchments. Water 8, 451. https://
15
doi.org/10.3390/w8100451.
Jia, H., Wang, Z., Yu, S.L., 2016. Opportunity and challenge: China’s sponge city plan.
Hydrolink 4, 100e102.
Jørgensen, U., 2012. Mapping and navigating transitionsdthe multi-level perspec-
tive compared with arenas of development. Res. Pol. 41, 996e1010. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.001.
Jørgensen, U., Sørensen, O.H., 1999. Arenas of development - a space populated by
actor-worlds, artefacts, and surprises. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 11, 409e429.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095373299107438.
Jose, R., Wade, R., Jefferies, C., 2015. Smart SUDS: recognising the multiple-benefit
potential of sustainable surface water management systems. Water Sci. Tech-
nol. 71, 245e251.
Kasanko, M., Barredo, J.I., Lavalle, C., McCormick, N., Demicheli, L., Sagris, V.,
Brezger, A., 2006. Are European cities becoming dispersed? Landsc. Urban
Plann. 77, 111e130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.003.
Knauer, S., de Oliveira Nascimento, N., Butterworth, J., Smits, S., Lobina, E., 2011.
Towards Integrated Urban Water Management in Belo Horizonte, Brazil: a Re-
view of the SWITCH Project, pp. 1e37.
Knill, C., Tosun, J., 2009. Hierarchy, networks, or markets: how does the EU shape
environmental policy adoptions within and beyond its borders? J. Eur. Publ. Pol.
16, 873e894. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760903088090.
La€hde, E., Khadka, A., Tahvonen, O., Kokkonen, T., 2019. Can we really have it all?d
designing multifunctionality with sustainable urban drainage system elements.
Sustainability 11, 1854. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071854.
Li, C., Liang, J., Sun, H., 2014. Applying green infrastructure theory in adaptive
stormwater management. New Ideas New Century 2, 251e257.
Case studies of the sponge city program in China. In: Li, X., Li, J., Fang, X., Gong, Y.,
Wang, W.M.-C. (Eds.), 2016. World Environmental and Water Resources
Congress.
Locatelli, L., Mark, O., Mikkelsen, P.S., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Bergen Jensen, M.,
Binning, P.J., 2014. Modelling of green roof hydrological performance for urban
drainage applications. J. Hydrol 519, 3237e3248. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2014.10.030.
Malcolm, E.G., Reese, M.L., Schaus, M.H., Ozmon, I.M., Tran, L.M., 2014. Measure-
ments of nutrients and mercury in green roof and gravel roof runoff. Ecol. Eng.
73, 705e712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.030.
Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field
of research and its prospects. Res. Pol. 41, 955e967. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.respol.2012.02.013.
Melville-Shreeve, P., Cotterill, S., Grant, L., Arahuetes, A., Stovin, V., Farmani, R.,
Butler, D., 2018. State of SuDS delivery in the United Kingdom. Water Environ. J.
32 (1), 9e16.
Mguni, P., Herslund, L., Jensen, M.B., 2015. Green infrastructure for flood-risk
management in Dar es Salaam and Copenhagen: exploring the potential for
transitions towards sustainable urban water management. Water Pol. 17,
126e142. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2014.047.
Morgan, M., Fenner, R., 2017. Spatial evaluation of the multiple benefits of sus-
tainable drainage systems. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Water Manag. 172, 39e52.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jwama.16.00048.
Newman, R., Ashley, R., Cettner, A., Viklander, M., 2013. The Role of Context in
Framing Discourses in the Transition from Piped to Sustainable Stormwater
Systems. NOVATECH.
Niemczynowicz, J., 1999. Urban hydrology and water management e present and
future challenges. Urban Water 1, 1e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-0758(99)
00009-6.
Novotny, V., Ahern, J., Brown, P., 2010. Water Centric Sustainable Communities:
Planning, Retrofitting, and Building the Next Urban Environment. Wiley M4 -
Citavi, Hoboken.
Ornetzeder, M., Rohracher, H., 2013. Of solar collectors, wind power, and car
sharing: comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots in-
novations. Global Environ. Change 23, 856e867. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2012.12.007.
O’Donnell, E.C., Lamond, J.E., Thorne, C.R., 2017. Recognising barriers to imple-
mentation of Blue-Green Infrastructure: a Newcastle case study. Urban Water J.
14, 964e971. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2017.1279190.
O’Sullivan, J.J., Bruen, M., Purcell, P.J., Gebre, F., 2012. Urban drainage in Ireland -
embracing sustainable systems. Water Environ. J. 26, 241e251. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1747-6593.2011.00282.x.
Perales-Momparler, C.S., 2015. A Regenerative Urban Stormwater Management
Methodology: the Role of SUDS Construction and Monitoring in the Transition
of a Mediterranean City. Universitat Polite cnica de Valencia, Valencia.
~ oz-Bonet, J.L.,
Perales-Momparler, S., Jefferies, C., Perigüell, E., Peris-García, P.P., Mun
2013. Inner City SUDS Retrofitted Sites to Promote Sustainable Stormwater
Management in the Mediterranean Region of Valencia: AQUAVAL (Lifeþ EU
Programme). NOVATECH, pp. 1e10.
Perales-Momparler, S., Andre s-Dome nech, I., Herna ndez-Crespo, C., Valle s-
Mora n, F., Martín, M., Escuder-Bueno, I., Andreu, J., 2017. The role of monitoring
sustainable drainage systems for promoting transition towards regenerative
urban built environments: a case study in the Valencian region, Spain. J. Clean.
Prod. 163, S113eS124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.153.
Petrucci, G., Rioust, E., Deroubaix, J.-F., Tassin, B., 2013. Do stormwater source
control policies deliver the right hydrologic outcomes? J. Hydrol 485, 188e200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.018.
Porse, E., 2013. Stormwater governance and future cities. Water 5, 29e52. https://
doi.org/10.3390/w5010029.
16 M. Gimenez-Maranges et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120191
Rodríguez-Rojas, M.I., Huertas-Ferna ndez, F., Moreno, B., Martínez, G., Grindlay, A.L.,
2018. A study of the application of permeable pavements as a sustainable
technique for the mitigation of soil sealing in cities: a case study in the south of
Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 205, 151e162. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2017.09.075.
Rodríguez-Sinobas, L., Zubelzu, S., Perales-Momparler, S., Canogar, S., 2018. Tech-
niques and criteria for sustainable urban stormwater management. The case
study of Valdebebas (Madrid, Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 172, 402e416. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.070.
Rogers, B.C., Brown, R.R., Haan, F.J., Deletic, A., 2015. Analysis of institutional work
on innovation trajectories in water infrastructure systems of Melbourne,
Australia. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 15, 42e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eist.2013.12.001.
Roggema, R., Vermeend, T., Dobbelsteen, A., 2012. Incremental change, transition or
transformation? Optimising change pathways for climate adaptation in spatial
planning. Sustainability 4, 2525e2549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4102525.
Roldin, M., Fryd, O., Jeppesen, J., Mark, O., Binning, P.J., Mikkelsen, P.S., Jensen, M.B.,
2012. Modelling the impact of soakaway retrofits on combined sewage over-
flows in a 3km2 urban catchment in Copenhagen, Denmark. J. Hydrol 452e453,
64e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.027.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: tran-
sition management in public policy. Foresight 3, 15e31.
Roy, A.H., Wenger, S.J., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., Ladson, A.R., Shuster, W.D.,
Thurston, H.W., Brown, R.R., 2008. Impediments and solutions to sustainable,
watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and
the United States. Environ. Manag. 42, 344e359. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-008-9119-1.
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., Gustafsson, L.-G., 2008. The
impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Swe-
den: suburban stormwater. J. Hydrol 350, 114e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2007.11.006.
Shutes, B., Ellis, J.B., Revitt, D.M., Scholes, L.N.L., 2005. Constructed wetlands in UK
urban surface drainage systems. Water Sci. Technol. 51, 31e37.
Stovin, V., 2010. The potential of green roofs to manage Urban Stormwater. Water
Environ. J. 24, 192e199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2009.00174.x.
Stovin, V.R., Moore, S.L., Wall, M., Ashley, R.M., 2013. The potential to retrofit sus-
tainable drainage systems to address combined sewer overflow discharges in
the Thames Tideway catchment. Water Environ. J. 27, 216e228. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1747-6593.2012.00353.x.
Truffer, B., Coenen, L., 2012. Environmental innovation and sustainability transitions
in regional studies. Reg. Stud. 46, 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00343404.2012.646164.
UN, 2015. Sustainable development goals. https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ accessed 21 October
2019.
UNDRR, 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. https://www.unisdr.
org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework accessed 21 October 2019.
Valderrama Pineda, A.F., Jørgensen, U., 2016. Creating Copenhagen’s Metro e on the
role of protected spaces in arenas of development. Environ. Innov. Soc. Tran-
sitions 18, 201e214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.002.
Van Der Brugge, R., De Graaf, R., 2010. Linking water policy innovation and urban
renewal: the case of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Water Pol. 12, 381e400.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2010.037.
Villarreal, E.L., Semadeni-Davies, A., Bengtsson, L., 2004. Inner city stormwater
control using a combination of best management practices. Ecol. Eng. 22,
279e298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.06.007.
Wahl, S., 2009. Stormwater Best Management Practices: a First Guide for Landscape
Architects. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Werritty, A., 2006. Sustainable flood management: oxymoron or new paradigm?
Area 38, 16e23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2006.00658.x.
Winston, R.J., Al-Rubaei, A.M., Blecken, G.T., Viklander, M., Hunt, W.F., 2016. Main-
tenance measures for preservation and recovery of permeable pavement sur-
face infiltration rate–The effects of street sweeping, vacuum cleaning, high
pressure washing, and milling. J. Environ. Manag. 169, 132e144. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.026.
Woods-Ballard, B., Kellagher, R., Martin, P., Jefferies, C., Bray, R., Shaffer, P., 2007. The
SuDS Manual, No C697. Construction Industry and Research Association (CIRIA),
London.