Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

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

A breakthrough in urban rain-harvesting schemes through planning for T

urban greening: Case studies from Stockholm and Barcelona
Lina Suleimana,*, Bo Olofssona, David Sauríb, Laura Palau-Rofb
a
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
b
Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Editor: Wendy Chen. A plethora of socioenvironmental issues, and growing concerns over the effects of climate change, are forcing
Keywords: cities to rethink conventional urban water management practices. However, change towards more sustainable
Barcelona practices has been remarkably slow. This paper examines two cases of greening projects aimed at urban re-
Opportunistic planning habilitation in Stockholm and Barcelona, which have turned into examples of innovative approaches to urban
Stockholm rain management. Both cities share high densities and flooding problems in certain neighborhoods. Specifically,
Transition theory the paper attempts to answer three questions: 1) what were the driving forces and key factors that facilitated the
Urban rainwater-harvesting systems breakthrough of urban rainwater-harvesting (URH) schemes based on the two cases?; 2) who were the actors
Urban rehabilitation
involved and what were their roles in moving towards URH schemes?; and 3) how can URH schemes become
part of multifunctional, sustainable urban systems? To answer these questions, the paper uses concepts of
adaptive context and capacity, and of actor agency, drawn from the transitions literature, and opportunistic and
guided flexibility planning drawn from the planning literature. Empirical material for both case studies was
obtained from policy documents and semi-structured interviews with key actors. The main results show first
political support for flexibility in public planning, the adaptive context and the capacity of the actors, especially
in taking advantage of windows of opportunity for the materialisation of new ideas. Second, the design and
implementation of these systems widened the number and scope of actors in urban water management, in-
corporating new professionals such as architects and involving more city agencies and organizations. Third,
small scale URH systems contributed not only to control urban drainage but performed other functions such as
the much-needed greening of dense areas in both cities.

1. Introduction thus long-term sustainability. Alternative solutions promise the poten-

Growing economic, social and environmental concerns, such as
urbanisation, climate change and pollution, challenge the effectiveness
of conventional drainage systems to reduce the impacts of water flows
on people and the built environment (Deak and Bucht, 2011; Kleidorfer
et al., 2014; Bell, 2015; Zhang et al., 2019). These conventional systems
have misguidedly conceived urban rain as the source of the problem in
the form of wastewater that is to be taken away from the city through
drains and sewers (Palme, 2010; van de Meene et al., 2011; Cettner
et al., 2012, 2013; Marlow et al., 2013). In contrast, new approaches
seek to incorporate other targets for urban drainage, such as aug-
menting local water supplies, increasing urban biodiversity, and reg-
ulating microclimates able to attenuate weather extremes (Ashley et al.,
2013; Fletcher et al., 2015). In other words, the aim is to turn hazards
into resources (Saurí and Palau-Rof, 2017; Cousins, 2018), promoting
tial to deal with water quality (pollution) and quantity (droughts/
floods) not only in technical terms, but also in producing socioeconomic
and ecological benefits (Echols, 2007; Deak and Bucht, 2011; Marlow
et al., 2013; European Commission, 2015).
Many different terms have been used to describe alternative solu-
tions to manage urban rain, including sustainable urban drainage sys-
tems, best management practices, urban rainwater-harvesting (URH)
systems and water-sensitive urban design (Stahre, 2002a, 2002b;
Charlesworth et al., 2003; Palme, 2010; Deak and Bucht, 2011; Marlow
et al., 2013; Fletcher et al., 2015). Components of alternative drainage
systems include, first, the control of rainwater at the source or upstream
of the catchments through vegetated roofs, collection systems, storage
basins, infiltration lawns, permeable pavements, filter strips, rain gar-
dens and local ponds, etc. Second, the slowing down of water flows in
nature-mimicking drainage systems, through waterway corridors,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lina.suleiman@abe.kth.se (L. Suleiman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126678
Received 11 May 2019; Received in revised form 31 March 2020; Accepted 1 April 2020
Available online 08 April 2020
1618-8667/ © 2020 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
L. Suleiman, et al.
swales, ditches/creeks, weirs, soakways (stone-filled) and canals, etc,
and third, the detention of flows in nature-mimicking basins (e.g.
ponds, wetlands, lakes, etc) (Charlesworth et al., 2003; Fletcher et al.,
2015). This diversity reflects the wide variety of technical options
available, and also different geographical contexts. Through various
and often simultemnsoully hydrological processes (Bell et al., 2019),
alternative drainage systems increase water resources, manage runoff
peaks, remove pollutants through sedimentation, and assist in the re-
storation of base flows through the recharging of subsurface flows and
infiltration into groundwater (Fletcher et al., 2015; Marlow et al.,
2013).
URH systems are attracting most attention as part of a new package
of alternative resources able to improve the water supply in water-
scarce areas (Aladenola and Adeboye, 2010; Ghaffarianhoseini et al.,
2016; Liuzzo et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2016). In the developing world,
and also in some European countries, URH systems are increasingly
seen as a safe alternative for providing drinking water (Islam et al.,
2010; Zhou et al., 2010; Słyś et al., 2015; Elgert et al., 2016). In the
developed world, URH systems mostly serve non-potable uses
(Domenech and Sauri, 2012; Bichai et al., 2015; Delaney and Fam,
2015; Vialle et al., 2015). Under this approach, URH systems are
commonly used in the context of private or community initiatives to
capture and use rainwater flows for ulterior purposes. However, their
role in drainage control is also recognised (Campisano et al., 2017;
Liuzzo et al., 2016). As Campisano et al. (2017, p. 196) argue: “In fact,
consolidated scientific and grey literature of the last twenty years shows
that RWH belongs to the large family of detention-based Low Impact
Development (LID) or Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) approaches
and can be adopted as a complementary measure to reduce frequency,
peaks and volumes of urban runoff if systems are appropriately de-
signed”.
Despite the enormous potential for socioenvironmental benefits,
many authors have point out that alternative drainage systems are
difficult to implement beyond demonstration purposes. Some of the
reasons for this may lie in economic constraints, such as uncertainty
around costs and benefits (Roy et al., 2008; Marlow et al., 2013).
Governance factors, particularly a fragmentation of government re-
sponsibilities, a lack of local regulation, and the resistance to change by
politicians and technical staff, may also explain difficulties in devel-
opment and implementation (Roy et al., 2008; Campisano et al., 2017;
Xiu-Juan et al., 2018). Therefore, and despite wide praise for alter-
native solutions, the transformational process towards the sustainable
management of rain in cities has been very slow (van de Meene et al.,
2011; Cettner et al., 2012; Marlow et al., 2013; Bell, 2015). In relation
to these shortcomings, the factors are primarily related to institutional
inertia and the lock-in effect of existing rainwater drainage systems.
Some studies, however, have shown that the transition from conven-
tional drainage towards URH systems is already taking off (Stahre,
2002a, 2002b; van der Brugge et al., 2005; Stahre and Geldof, 2006; de
Graaf and van der Brugge, 2010). Such a transition may be easier in
new urban developments, although evidence from Australia (Beal et al.,
2012; Farbotko et al., 2014; Low et al., 2015), for instance, suggests
that this is not necessarily true, and that periods of water crisis may
speed up such transitions even in consolidated areas. Urban re-
habilitation initiatives, in particular, may allow for the integration of
different environmental concerns (water, energy, greening, etc.) with
aesthetic and other dimensions of urban design in neighborhoods that
require rehabilitation (van der Brugge and de Graaf, 2010).
Departing from alternative views on urban drainage, and by ex-
amining case studies in Stockholm and Barcelona, this paper attempts
to add empirical evidence on the rising efforts by many cities to pro-
mote integrated ways of managing drainage. The paper emphasises
URH systems designed in public projects to capture rainwater flows for
irrigation purposes. Most studies have focused on the potential of URH
systems in reducing water consumption, whereas fewer have examined
their efficiency in the retention of water in flood-susceptible residential
2
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
areas (Freni and Liuzzo, 2019), which, in certain cases, may be sig-
nificant (Steffen et al., 2013). In sum, there are limited examples of
small-scale public projects that combine both functions of URH systems
– runoff control and water reuse – at least directly, and that, on the
other hand, can contribute to much needed urban green infrastructure
(Tavakol-Davani et al., 2019). Through case studies from both cities,
the paper seeks to identify key factors that drive, facilitate or hinder the
implementation of alternative ways of planning and managing rain-
water in cities.
The case studies: Hornsgatan (Stockholm) and Jardinet del
Pedró (Barcelona)
The two cases presented in this paper – street tree irrigation in
Stockholm and vertical gardening in Barcelona – were selected as part
of a broader research project that included a variety of URH schemes,
aimed at examining challenges and opportunities for mainstreaming
URH infrastructure in three European cities (Suleiman et al., 2019).
Barcelona and Stockholm are subject to the potential impacts of climate
change (especially flooding), and are also involved in developing al-
ternative ways of managing urban drainage. Interestingly, both projects
originally aimed at improving other social and environmental aspects of
existing neighborhoods rather than having urban drainage as a primary
target. The two projects are located in very dense areas, reinforcing the
argument that small-scale rain management interventions can bear
positive benefits that transcend strict water control. Additionally, the
two projects represent examples of planned and implemented URH
systems that would be relatively easy to replicate in other areas of these
two cities, or in other cities. Therefore, through these case studies, this
paper attempts to highlight the role of small-scale public projects that
combine drainage control with rainwater use for the irrigation of public
spaces. In turn, these projects also provide a variety of socioecological
facilities – most significantly green space – that are especially needed in
densely populated neighborhoods. Next, a short background on both
projects is presented.
Hornsgatan (HG) is a long and important commercial street in the
south-central area of Stockholm that experienced high levels of air
pollution above the thresholds set by EU directive 2008/50. The city
council made a decision to solve the problem, delegating to the Traffic
Office of the city the responsibility of finding out a solution and pre-
paring a comprehensive proposal for reducing the pollution and vehi-
cular traffic, and increasing road safety (Trafikkontoret, TK; B-MS, pers.
comm., November 2015). The Traffic Office proposed a plan to plant
trees in ‘beds’ all the way along the 2 km of pavement of the street (BE,
pers. comm., February 2016). Despite the high degree of uncertainty
surrounding the proposed solution, the city council strongly supported
the idea of planting trees, approving the proposed plan in May 2009,
under the title ‘Environmental Rehabilitation of Hornsgatan’ (BE, pers.
comm., February 2016). The plan included a package of measures of
environmental and social significance (BE, pers. comm., February 2016;
TB, pers. comm., June 2016). The project was completed in 2015
(Fig. 1). An important part of the planning and implementation process
was the need for water to be collected from runoff and rooftops around
the street. In addition to the various other benefits, the tree-planted
beds turned out to be adequate for the treatment of polluted water from
the walkways and rooftops, through its infiltration into the beds and
irrigation of the trees, instead of the flow needing to be directed into the
street gutters (BE, pers. comm., June 2015; TB, pers. comm., June
2016).
The Jardinet del Pedró is a vertical garden, located on a dividing wall
in the El Raval neighbourhood of Barcelona (Fig. 2). El Raval is one of
the neighbourhoods that form the densely populated district of the
Ciutat Vella (Old Town) of Barcelona, and also one of the most affected
by urban flooding. The remodelling of dividing walls has been the re-
sponsibility of the Institute of Urban Landscape and Quality of Life
(IMPUiQV) of the Barcelona City Council, aimed at improving the
aesthetic quality of Barcelona’s built environment (JMC, pers. comm.,
February 2015). The walls, which used to divide buildings, now stand
L. Suleiman, et al.
Fig. 1. Trees planted along HG Avenue (photo by Lina Suleiman).
Fig. 2. El Jardinet del Pedró (photo by Eduard Saurí).
visible, without any clear function, causing a fracture or discontinuity
in the urban landscape that generates habitability problems for the
inhabitants of the neighbourhood and aesthetic impoverishment. With
the objective of integrating these walls into the surrounding urban
fabric, the IMPUiQV is promoting their transformation into archi-
tectural projects.
The Jardinet del Pedró (see Fig. 2) was conceived as a pilot project
to include rainwater harvesting for the first time in the remodelling of
the dividing walls. Essentially, the product is a vertical garden sup-
ported by a metal hanging structure onto which a number of waterproof
panels are placed. As well as using rainwater to irrigate the garden, the
project also has the novelty of a solar panel, installed to provide the
energy needed to pump rainwater stored in an underground tank up-
wards.
3
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
Now that the case studies have been introduced, we can present the
main research questions that are addressed in the paper: 1) what are the
driving forces and key factors that have facilitated the breakthrough of
URH schemes, based on the two URH projects in Stockholm and
Barcelona?; 2) who are the actors involved, and what are their roles in
pushing forward these URH schemes?; and 3) how can URH systems
become part of multifunctional, sustainable urban systems?
2. A conceptual framework for analysing the breakthrough of
URH schemes
In order to better understand the social and political dynamics of
URH systems and their potential for success in future ‘post-networked’
cities (Coutard and Rutherford, 2018), this paper conceptualises con-
ventional drainage systems as sociotechnical systems (STSs), implying a
complex and highly intertwined societal and technological structure
resistant to radical change. STSs involve actors, institutions and arte-
facts that interact in complex and invisible ways, resulting in specific
trajectories and accounting for the stability of the system (Geels, 2002,
2004; Smith et al., 2005; Geels and Kemp, 2007). Some authors have
argued that particular types of infrastructure, such as URH systems, are
even more complex than socio-technical systems by stressing their role
as a nexus between technology, society and natural systems (Hansen
and Pauleit, 2014; Bell, 2015).
Although STSs are assumed to be relatively stable, they rarely re-
main closed and so continuously face various, multilevel (e.g. socio-
economic, sociocultural, environmental) pressures that disrupt and
destabilise existing systems, opening windows of opportunity for
system innovation and the establishment of new system structures
(Geels, 2002, 2004; Smith et al., 2005; Geels and Kemp, 2007). How-
ever, transformation processes rarely follow linear pathways towards
change, often being messy, dynamic and unpredictable (van der Brugge
et al., 2005; Bos and Brown, 2012).
A vast and evolving body of literature addresses the transformation
of sociotechnical regimes (e.g. Markard et al., 2012; Köhler et al.,
2019). Two main theoretical frameworks have been applied to under-
stand transition processes – the multilevel perspective and transition
management. The multilevel perspective argues that transitions take
place through processes of coevolution and mutual adaptation within
and between three levels of societal development processes – niches,
sociotechnical regimes and exogenous sociotechnical landscapes (Geels,
2002, 2004; Geels and Kemp, 2007). Niches are new technical in-
novations at the experimental level. Regimes represent the existing, and
relatively stable, structure of STSs, and the landscape level defines a
regime’s external environment that encompasses broad factors and so-
cietal developments beyond the niche or regime levels. Transition
management, on the other hand, is conceptualised as a public inter-
vention to articulate particular pressures and to mobilise the co-
ordination of resources and actors to stimulate STS transition towards
sustainability goals (Rotmans et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2005; Rotmans
and Loorbach, 2009; Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010).
Despite their wider applicability, the two theoretical frameworks
have been criticised for not paying enough attention to the issues of
complexity, power, politics, agency and contingencies, and how in-
dividuals and organisations act to affect trajectories towards change in
STS regimes (Shove and Walker, 2007; Lawhon and Murphy, 2012).
According to many authors, a single and comprehensive analytical
framework for elucidating the formative aspects that can induce and
materialise sociotechnical transformation processes is still missing
(Shove and Walker, 2007; Lawhon and Murphy, 2012; Markard et al.,
2012; Furlong, 2014).
Accordingly, this paper draws on literature in the fields of URH,
transition management and planning and applies concepts of adaptive
context and capacity, and actor agency from the transition management
framework (Smith et al., 2005; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009), and
concepts of ‘guided flexibility’ and ‘opportunistic planning’ from
L. Suleiman, et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678

Fig. 3. Conceptual and analytical framework for understanding the breakthrough of publicly planned and implemented, innovative STSs for managing urban
rainwater.

planning studies to analyse the breakthrough of URH schemes for approach’s advocates, guided flexibility in planning has connotations of
managing rainwater as outcomes of urban greening projects in the two enabling, easing, adapting, adjusting, allowing and correcting, and
case studies (Fig. 3). implications of capability to change and adaptation to uncertainty to-
wards sustainability. The necessity to provide correct and new instru-
ments to facilitate planning, and a space for actor networking, experi-
2.1. Adaptive capacity and context, and agency
mentation and learning, for the development of alternative
technologies and societal innovations, has also been emphasised (Schot
In principle, transition management is a public steering approach
and Geels, 2008; Tasan-Kok, 2008; van der Brugge and de Graaf, 2010;
that is intended to facilitate transitions towards sustainability goals
Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010; Bos and Brown, 2012; Moore et al., 2014;
through governance processes. The governance of STS transitions is
Luederitz et al., 2016).
understood to be a long-term effort, comprising activities around the
Also, transition studies emphasise the significance of timing, which
planning and system design, implementation, monitoring and evalua-
means finding the right moment to use openings or link-ups to ongoing
tion of system performance for systematic social and technical learning
developments in broader policy contexts (Voß et al., 2009). In the same
and refinement (Kemp et al., 2007; Voß et al., 2009; Loorbach, 2010;
vein, other scholars have linked actors, norms and values, and their
Voß and Bornemann, 2011). To understand system change, scholars
cognitive abilities with timing and windows of opportunity, describing
have emphasised the role of context in terms of adaptive capacity and
the concept of ‘opportunistic planning’. According to this concept, in
context – that is, in terms of available resources and actor coordination,
the real world, during the execution of an original plan, unexpected
as well as actor agency and power relations – and their implications for
events might occur allowing actors to take advantage of unforeseen
governance processes that identify the form and direction of STS change
opportunities. Hence, the merging of an opportunistic plan with an
(Smith et al., 2005). The intensity with which, and how, particular
existing plan facilitates the achievement of goals that were not origin-
pressures are articulated by the regime members, the legal support and
ally envisaged (Patalano and Seifert, 1997; Cashmore et al., 2018).
availability of resources within or beyond the members of the incum-
However, studies on implemented URH projects warn against the sub-
bent regime, and the extent to which responses to these pressures are
optimal outcomes of ad-hoc and opportunistic planning approaches
coordinated, define effective regime transformation. These contextual
when the projects prioritise economic factors or the consecution of
issues are identified as adaptive capacity (Smith et al., 2005). Authors
goals that do little to promote strategic outcomes at higher spatial levels
have also highlighted the roles of actor agency and power relations in
(Kuller et al., 2018a, b). From this view, ad-hoc and opportunistic
managing transition processes because both facilitate the compatibility
planning is seen as the opposite of the holistic approach required for
of multilevel pressures, inducing structural change (van der Brugge
planning URH.
et al., 2005; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009). To emphasise the role of
agency, transition management scholars describe actors who are in-
3. Methodology
volved as active ‘regime members’, having available resources for
change and meeting expectations. Smith (2007) used the concept of
Empirical data from the two projects in Stockholm and Barcelona
‘normative advocacy’ to highlight the importance of norms and agency
was collected in 2015 and 2016 using in-depth, structured interviews,
in system transition processes, wherein regime members push for
site study visits, and a comprehensive analysis of the policies, plans and
widespread change. Underlining the power factor, transition manage-
project reports by the authors in each city (see Table 1).
ment studies affirm that the interaction between regime members and
A catalogue of open-ended interview questions, categorised into
components is rarely an equal process. Power relations influence how
research themes, was synthesised and used by the authors. In-depth
niches are subsequently interpreted, adapted and accommodated
interviews were conducted with all the key actors involved in each of
within the incumbent regime, in particular contexts.
the cases, including the governmental offices participating in the pro-
jects, the contractors, water utilities and residents (see Table 1). When
2.2. Flexibility and opportunity in planning needed, more than one interview was performed with an interviewee.
The interviews were face-to-face communications, conducted in the
Adaptive capacity and context alone are not adequate to ensure form of interactive dialogue with the interviewees, and covered the
successful processes and outcomes. Innovative solutions and the wide following research themes:
application of URH are unlikely to be achieved under a rigid planning
approach that requires the accomplishment of hard and fixed goals ▪ the policy context of the two urban greening projects in Stockholm
(Roy et al., 2008; Kuller et al., 2018a, b). Planning studies argue instead and Barcelona;
for the ‘guided flexibility’ approach to easing planning and im- ▪ the goals, driving forces and values that defined the URH systems,
plementation (Tasan-Kok, 2008; Muñoz Gielen and Tasan-Kok, 2010). originally designed as urban greening and rehabilitation projects;
This is done by providing the correct instruments to help achieve as ▪ the actors involved in the planning process, their interests and
much certainty as possible in an uncertain world. According to the

4
L. Suleiman, et al.
Table 1
Procedure for data collection, including actors involved, their roles/positions and the number of visits to them, and the project reports and policy statements accessed
from each project.
Case study Interviews No. of
site
visits
Hornsgatan (HG), Traffic and tree-planting planners Urban 2 Reports and official statements, published by the City of Stockholm, regarding the project,
Stockholm Environment office Stockholm Water
Company Landscape Development office
Contractors
Jardinet del Pedró Urban Ecology office BCASA (Barcelona 3 Policy documents: Plan for the Inner Improvement of the Raval (PERI) – 1981 Mesura de Govern
(JdP), Barcelona Water Cycle Company) Landscape
Architecture office Contractors Residents
values, and the planning process dynamic;
▪ the type of technology ‘niche’ that was selected and used, aspects of
social and technical learning and knowledge transferability; and
▪ the outcomes from the two projects.
For the study, project documents, reports and relevant policies, se-
lected based on consultations with the public offices responsible for the
urban greening projects, were examined. The contents of the interview
transcriptions and the project documents and polices were system-
atically analysed, regarding the research themes addressed in the paper.
The research also included site visits by the research teams for the two
projects, and joint visits were undertaken by all authors to the actors
involved in each of the projects. The data collected were analysed
within the conceptual framing of this paper, in order to provide an
understanding of the transformation path towards the sustainable
management of rain in cities.
4. Results
4.1. Driving forces facilitating the breakthrough of URH schemes
4.1.1. Horngartan
The Stockholm City Council delegated to the city’s Traffic Office the
solving of the pollution problem in Horngartan, which exceeded the
limits set by the EU, and the improvement of the urban quality of the
avenue. Through strong political commitment and financial support,
the city was the main driving force behind the project and a key factor
in its success. The city allocated all the economic resources needed for
the planning and implementation of the project, despite the involved
overestimated costs for the diversion of underground infrastructure
networks and unanticipated implementation challenges. In addition,
the city pushed for coordination among actors by strongly backing their
decisions. Coordination involved the Traffic Office, municipal infra-
structure companies, and contractors involved in the excavation and
construction of the tree beds.
4.1.2. Jardinet del Pedró
In Barcelona, more than 100 dividing walls have been remodelled
since 1985, but it was not until 2010 that vegetation began to be used
as a component of these projects (JMC, pers. comm., February 2015).
With the plan for the Remodelling of Dividing Walls 2012–2014, new
criteria, such as the efficient use of resources, were introduced
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
Project and policy documents
‘Environmental Rehabilitation of Hornsgatan’ (in Swedish, Miljöupprustning av HG) Phases 2 and 3,
Implementation Decision, Statement 2011:73 RII (Dnr 314−669/2011) Phase 1, Final report (Dnr
T2008−320–02,022), 2012−03-29 Phases 2 and 3, Final Report (Dnr T2008−320–02,022),
2015−09-02 Phase 5, Implementation Decision for Phase 5 (DNR T2012−007-055 39),
2013−03-26 ‘Planting Beds in the City of Stockholm: A handbook’, 2009.02.23 Policy
documents: ‘Stormwater Strategy – Stockholm, route to sustainable stormwater’, 2015−03-09
del Pla de remodelació de parets mitgeres de Barcelona 2012–2014 (Municipal Goverment Programme
for the remodelling of dividing walls in Barcelona 2012–2014) Cobertes i Murs Verds a Barcelona. Estudi
sobre les existents, les potencials i les estratègies d'implantació (Green Cover and Walls in Barcelona.
Study on existing and potential elements and of strategies for implementation) Pla del Verd i la
Biodiversitat 2020 (Green and Biodiversity Plan 2020) Ordenança municipal dels usos del paisatge urbà
de la Ciutat de Barcelona 2006 (Municipal Ordinance on uses of the urban landscape of Barcelona
2006) Memòria 25 anys Barcelona Posa’t guapa 2010 (Report on 25 years of the programme,
Barcelona, beautify yourself) Additional materials:
http://www.alicanteforestal.es/jardin-vertical-en-barcelona/
https://www.arquitectes.cat/iframes/paisatge/cat/mostrar_projecte.php?id_projecte = 8370&
lan = es
(IMPUiQV, (Institut del paisatge Urbà i Qualitat de Vida), 2012). The
Barcelona City Council took all the responsibility for the project, the
funding for which was provided by allowing the use of building facades
for temporary advertising. The fees collected from this activity were
used to fund projects such as the remodelling of the dividing walls. As
well as funding the project, the IMPUiQV coordinated design and im-
plementation.
4.2. Actors involved, their roles and agency
4.2.1. Horngartan
The Traffic Office was the executive body for the project. This public
entity was assigned the responsibility of putting forward a plan and
implementing it in order to solve the air pollution problem in what
became a social and technical learning process regarding tree planting.
The idea of tree planting, using structural soil, came from an individual
working at the office, who subsequently became the tree-planting ad-
ministrator. Testing the new idea was strongly resisted by the civil
engineers, who could not see the feasibility of planting trees alongside
the narrow pavements, of using rainwater or of locating the planting
beds below street level. Resistance was overcome by the political de-
cisiveness in pushing for actor coordination and creative thinking on
how to manage these challenges. Thus, the traffic officer and the pro-
moter of the tree-planting idea had to transform technical knowledge
into a complete and innovative scheme. A knowledge of tree planting
and structural soil techniques were obtained by listening to experts,
picking up ideas from various places, collecting pieces of indigenous/
local knowledge from different parts of the world, and putting all these
together (BE, pers. comm., June 2015; BE, pers. comm., February
2016).
Timely events played a significant role in facilitating the process. A
break from the usual work patterns and habits was made possible when
the Department of Street and Real Estate went through a reorganisa-
tion, from which an office devoted to traffic emerged. By working in the
background during this reorganisation, it was possible for the traffic
officer to begin the implementation of new and innovative systems,
without having to go through multilevel bureaucratic procedures (BE,
pers. comm., February 2016). The tree layout was approved only five
years later because the planting process was successful (BE, pers.
comm., February 2016).
The implementation process was also challenging, in terms of
managing space, people and traffic mobility, and due to unexpected
5
L. Suleiman, et al.
Fig. 4. Stockholm scheme for urban tree planting (after Embrén, 2016).
costs related to the diversion of underground lines and pipes, and
knowledge gaps and uncertainty regarding the water flow beneath the
planted trees. All these issues were resolved through a learning process
and the political support and commitment of key actors. Whilst the
Stockholm Water Company is, in principle, responsible for urban
drainage management, including being responsible for any damage
caused by uncontrolled water flows, it did not take the lead in pro-
posing the rainwater harvesting, but it was concerned about the water
flow beneath the planted trees. To address safety issues, the tree beds
were sealed beneath the trees.
An innovative technique for the planting beds was developed during
the planning and implementation process (Fig. 4). They are composed
of a mound of structural soil mixture, consisting of three layers (soil,
charcoal and crushed rock or recycled concrete). The mixture stabilises
the soil, allows air to circulate, promotes tree growth by using rain-
water for irrigation and decreases the risk of the roots damaging the
pavement or underground pipes (BE, pers. comm., June 2015; Embrén,
2016). Since then, the technique has become a complementary system
for the treatment of urban rain and runoff, but in a sustainable way – a
goal that was not originally intended (BE, pers. comm., June 2015; TB,
pers. comm., June 2016; Embrén, 2016). The Traffic Office has been
responsible for the maintenance and annual testing of the development
of the trees (BE, pers. comm., February 2016; TB, pers. comm., June
2016). Currently the Traffic Office and the Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences use the software i-Tree (US Department of
Agriculture, 2018) as a tool for urban forestry analysis and for assessing
the economic benefits of, and environmental services provided by, trees
(BE, pers. comm., February 2016).
4.2.2. Jardinet del Pedró
An architect from the IMPUiQV authored the wall-greening project.
Other actors involved in the project were the Park and Garden Service
of the Barcelona City Council (vegetation cover and maintenance),
BCASA (a municipal company with responsibilities for drainage), the
Energy Agency of Barcelona (responsible for the solar panels installed
6
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
on the nearby rooftops of a church and a theatre), Alicante Forestal (the
company commissioned to build the vertical garden), as well as prop-
erty owners and neighbours. The latter however, did not participate in
the project or its implementation; they were simply informed of its
development. However, neighbours, indirectly and perhaps unwit-
tingly, did participate because the species used in the vertical garden
were selected according to both the local climate and from among those
being grown on the balconies of the surrounding buildings (see Fig. 2).
Rainwater is harvested from the roof of the building where the
vertical garden is installed, and is collected in a tank located on the
ground floor. The energy needed to pump water from the tank to the
upper parts of the garden comes from two solar panels, located on the
roofs of the Teatre del Raval and the Carme Parish (see Fig. 5). Initially,
the garden was to be irrigated with water from the local aquifer, but
due to its high salinity, it was finally agreed with BCASA (municipal
drainage company) that a rainwater-harvesting system would be built
(MGF, pers. comm., February 2015).
4.2.3. URH systems as multifunctional, sustainable urban systems
4.2.3.1. Horngartan. The Horngartan project opened a window of
opportunity for the emergence, and later breakthrough and
replication, of rainwater harvesting facilities in Stockholm. Many
similar projects have been planned and implemented in built
environments, and have been perceived as being highly successful
(GO, pers. comm., May 2015; IA, pers. comm., July 2015). By law, all
new development areas must have trees planted in beds along their
constructed streets (GO, pers. comm., May 2015; IA, pers. comm., July
2015). Apart from the direct and various social benefits (safety, security
for pedestrians and bike riders, improved air quality, open areas for
outdoor cafés), the application of the new technique has generated
unanticipated and positive benefits and synergies in the urban setting.
Planting trees using biochar has been replicated not only along the
avenues, but also in parks and public spaces around the city. Stockholm
opened the first large-scale biochar plant in 2017, in which garden and
park waste is turned into a charcoal-like product (biochar) that acts as a
L. Suleiman, et al.
Fig. 5. Jardinet del Pedró. Cross-section and principal system components of the rainwater watering system. Modified after http://www.arquitectes.cat/iframes/
paisatge/fotos_proj/8a_BIENNAL/P8370/P8370F6.jpg.
carbon sink. The gas by-product from the biochar production process
generates energy for the city’s district heating system. This technique
won the Mayor’s Challenge competition in 2014 for its proposal, ‘Grow
Stockholm to be a cleaner, healthier and greener city’.
4.2.3.2. Jardinet del Pedró. The small scale of the project did not
prevent it from being considered a very interesting alternative for
urban drainage, whilst providing also some green space, which is very
scarce in the old Barcelona neighborhoods (Ajuntament de Barcelona
(Barcelona City Council), 2013). With the aim of expanding these types
of projects in the city, since 2014, the IMPUiQV has been working on
standardised vertical gardening units, which are economically viable
and easy to install. The prototype is a vertical garden, organised into
modules, making it suitable for the different characteristics of dividing
walls. This prototype includes a rainwater harvesting system and the
solar panels needed to produce the energy for pumping the water.
(MGF, pers, comm, February 2015).
Once in operation, some occupants of the flats adjacent to the
garden complained of damp walls that turned out to be the result of
deficiencies in the operation of the irrigation system. These were
quickly resolved. Since then, the project has not presented any other
problems, and is generally praised by the residents of the adjacent
building and by their neighbours. Flexibility of design and a strong
adaptive capacity to the existing built environment, have allowed the
replication of this project on other dividing walls in the city.
5. Comparative analysis and discussion
The two projects examined in this paper constitute examples of
changing approaches to drainage management in two very different
urban environments, where some of the rainwater has been diverted
away from its original outlet (the drains), being used instead for local
irrigation. Despite the obvious differences in the characteristics and
scope of the projects, the study has shown how both projects share a
number of common features that warrant their consideration as ex-
amples of new ways of managing rain in cities.
7
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
In terms of the conceptual framing of this paper, both cases can be
understood as novel sociotechnical developments, constituted by niches
(URH systems) taking the form of street-level tree beds (Stockholm) or
vertical gardening (Barcelona), both using rainwater that would
otherwise have flowed into the sewer system. These novel URH schemes
developed relatively rapidly into regimes. The quest for sustainable
approaches to urban rain management exerts pressures on existing
conventional systems, and new, alternative projects find a suitable
context for their consolidation, whilst also providing an alternative
water resource for irrigation. The transition may appear to have been
quite straightforward and successful, given the change in status from
pilot project to replicable model that can be employed elsewhere. This
is likely because these projects had a clear authorship, and were the sole
responsibility of the TA or the IMPUiQV, thus overcoming the institu-
tional obstacles that are often encountered when STS change involves a
plethora of actors from different disciplines and administrations.
The driving forces behind the two projects that translated into sus-
tainable urban rainwater management systems differed between the
two cities. However, it can be said that neither project was initially
intended to be a sustainable drainage scheme. Instead, the URH systems
evolved from opportunistic plans that were originally aimed at pro-
viding solutions to environmental and social problems in the cities, but
where key actors later recognised opportunities for increasing the uti-
lity of the plans to achieve other sustainability goals. As has been
concluded in other studies, the inherent dynamics of the urban en-
vironment provide opportunities for synergistically retrofitting blue-
green measures with other structural changes in the urban form (van
der Brugge and de Graf, 2010; Voskamp and Van de Ven, 2015).
In terms of context and the type of actors involved, there are clear
structural similarities between the two cases. Both projects were for-
warded by political decisions, and the planning actions and key re-
sponsible actors came mainly from the local public administration. In
addition, for both the HG and JdP, the experts who were ostensibly
responsible for urban drainage management not only failed to take the
lead in proposing rainwater harvesting, but were also reluctant about
its effectiveness. Managers of the conventional drainage systems
L. Suleiman, et al.
expressed concerns about the uncontrolled water flow beneath the
planted trees (Stockholm) or initially manifested a preference for
groundwater resources (Barcelona). This made the emergence of new
‘experts’ in drainage management more visible. Therefore, transitions
towards new drainage systems, such as URHs, might promote changes
in the dominant technical and managerial expertise; for example, from
water engineers to architects and urban planners (Brown et al., 2013;
Cousins, 2018).
The strong political decisions, support, and commitment to allocate
resources to the Traffic department (Stockholm), the support of the
IMPUiQV department of the City Council (Barcelona), and the avail-
ability of resources (in the Barcelona case, the project funded itself)
were key factors in the process of change. These contextual issues broke
down institutional and cognitive barriers, pushing these new STSs to
success in the eyes of not only the city departments involved, but also in
the eyes of the public. In the case of HG, the project defined not what
was actually possible, but what people believed to be possible. In the
case of the JdP, the city was so satisfied with the results that it has
become a model for the mainstreaming of vertical gardens for the di-
viding walls of Barcelona. The analyses of the two cases do not diverge
from the vast body of literature that stresses the imperativeness of a
receptive context and the adaptive capacity to make STS change (e.g.
Smith et al., 2005; Cettner et al., 2014).
In both cases, successful transition was also facilitated by additional,
but significant, factors. Experimentation with new STSs often involves
embracing factors of risk and uncertainty. In this sense, neither project
developed smoothly. In the vertical garden of the JdP, there were
complaints raised by the neighbours regarding initial technical pro-
blems. In HG, tree planting, originally proposed to solve an air pollution
problem, was also cloaked in a high degree of uncertainty, meeting with
strong opposition from some professionals and utility companies who
feared the uncontrolled flow of rainwater and the underground growth
of tree roots. However, the URH projects were made possible due to
contributions from other experts – traffic engineers, in the case of HG,
and architects, in the case of the JdP – who became very active in the
transition towards the development of rainwater harvesting systems in
both cities. In the case of HG, the tree-planting officer worked in-
dependently, developing technological knowledge in the planning
phase that made the plan operationally feasible, and pushing for the
construction of the scheme when the time was right. It is therefore
questionable whether today’s planning and administrative systems en-
able such paradigm shifts without individual agency and political ad-
vocacy (Hodson and Marvin, 2010; Brown et al., 2013).
The two cases also highlight the significance of ensuring flexibility
in planning and designing. Originally, the solutions for dealing with
societal and environmental pressures were neither known nor pre-
defined, providing space for the emergence of new ideas. According to
studies of planning in practice, flexibility is a positive asset for cap-
turing the full public value of a proposed solution (Muñoz Gielen and
Tasan-Kok, 2010; Fitzgerald and Laufer, 2017). This also coincides with
other transition studies that have highlighted the necessity of providing
an arena for actor networking; that is, for the development of niches,
experimentation and learning (Bos and Brown, 2012; Luederitz et al.,
2016).
Also in both cases, certain unforeseen events experienced around
the time of the implementation of the projects opened windows of
opportunity that allowed for the achievement of unintended goals and
stimulated transition paths towards URH. Groundwater was found to be
too salty to be used as an irrigation resource in Barcelona, and the air
pollution problem (the original aim of the tree-planting plan) was un-
expectedly solved by the prohibition of spiked tires in Stockholm,
which shifted the goal of the tree planting towards the environmental
rehabilitation of the avenue. In addition, the traffic officer took ad-
vantage of an opportunity that surfaced through organisational re-
structuring that enabled him to embark on the construction process.
Opportunism and flexibility in planning is often perceived negatively,
8
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
opening windows of opportunity for serving only private goals (Tasan-
Kok, 2008). This study does not support such findings, or the arguments
of (Kuller et al., 2018a,b), concerning negative outcomes from oppor-
tunistic planning at the urban level. We find that flexibility in municipal
planning allowing opportunistic actors struggling for the achievement
of multiple socio-environmetal goals may lead to positive outcomes
when sociotechnical experiments are standardised and replicated at the
city level. In our cases, the projects allowed innovative sociotechnical
and multifunctional urban services to be put in place. It is also clear that
transitions often develop in unexpected ways, and that the pursuit of
sustainability in rain management may be realised quite unin-
tentionally.
The desire to improve the (aesthetic) quality of the urban landscape
in Barcelona, and to improve the air quality in Stockholm, constituted
the leitmotif of both projects, and not some objective concerning sus-
tainable rain management, per se. However, in both cases, URH took
advantage of the window of opportunity that was created by the more
general objectives of urban planning. As argued, the planning and im-
plementation of URH schemes rarely go as originally intended, but are
often adapted to reflect new contingencies and altered goals (Saurí and
Palau-Rof, 2017; García Soler et al., 2018; Suleiman et al., 2019).
Sociotechnical transformations also entail learning processes (Kemp
et al., 2007; Bos and Brown, 2012; Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010;
Luederitz et al., 2016). In addition to technical development and
learning, both cases have proved that alternative solutions can be im-
plemented, even in densely built-up areas. Both projects use relatively
singular urban spaces (building walls and sidewalks), which proves that
the development of alternative URH systems need not be constrained by
scale or form, but may be adaptable to different urban environments.
This may be especially relevant for the denser areas of many cities,
where space availability is normally a constraint and where small-scale
projects that do not need new residential development or renewal may
provide alternative ways of managing water. Both projects also con-
tribute to the enhancement of expert dialogue and interactions, and the
assessment of rainwater as a resource, and represent good examples of
successful STSs towards sustainability objectives, stimulating the
adoption of similar solutions elsewhere in the respective cities.
Finally, both projects provided a number of socioenvironmental
benefits by increasing urban greening and enhancing urban aesthetics.
The green infrastructure as natural and sustainable drainage systems
contributed to enhancing the urban quality of dense and decaying
neighbourhoods (Barcelona) and linking sustainability goals through
the wide application of trees-planting using the biochar technique along
the avenues, parks and public spaces in the city (Stockholm). These
outcomes support the argument that green infrastructure is a key to
urban renaissance and sustainability (Mell, 2009)
6. Summary and conclusion
The main question posed by this paper concerned the identification
of key factors that drive, facilitate or hinder the implementation of URH
schemes, and the roles of the actors involved in pushing forward these
schemes. Reggarding the three research questions, results show first
political support for flexibility in public planning, for the adaptive
context and for the capacity of actors, especially in terms of taking
advantage of windows of opportunity for the materialisation of new
ideas. Second, the design and implementation of these systems widened
the number and scope of actors in urban water management, in-
corporating new professionals such as architects and involving more
city agencies and organizations. Third, small scale URH systems con-
tributed not only to control urban drainage but performed other func-
tions such as the much-needed greening of dense areas in both cities.
In line with much of the transition research that focuses on adap-
table and receptive contexts, this study points to the significant role of
political decisions and municipal policies and plans in initiating the
process of STS change, managing transitions, allocating or/mobilising
L. Suleiman, et al.
resources, and fostering the coordination of actors for the development
of innovative sociotechnical solutions to particular problems – in this
case, urban drainage.
The study reveals how urban planning may be a determinant in the
transition towards the development of rainwater-harvesting systems in
cities, when the roles, responsibilities and project authorships are
clearly defined. Traditionally, urban planning and water planning have
proceeded quite independently from each other, following a strict se-
paration of functions. Nevertheless, the transition towards sustain-
ability appears to have found urban planners to be more attentive than
water planners, for whom the overarching issues of security, technical
certainty and accountability still constitute the main rationale in the
design and implementation of urban drainage systems. Urban planners,
on the contrary, through their positional role, tend to strive for multi-
functional solutions. In both cases, urban planners were the main pro-
moters of green infrastructure projects, in which rainwater harvesting
became a basic component. However, in facilitating nonlinear and
multifunctional systems to cope with diverse, complex urban chal-
lenges, what seems crucial for urban planners is to make room for the
flexibility needed to stimulate creative ideas and solutions. As has
emerged from this paper, flexibility in drafting plans and designing new
ideas, solutions and human agency/advocacy is a significant factor in
creating STS niches.
This study also revealed how unforeseen events and their timing
may influence planning and implementation processes of STSs by
shifting original goals and opening windows of opportunity for the
achievement of other, unanticipated goals and consequences. It was
found that opportunistic planning and implementation are not ne-
cessarily negative features, but may become positive assets, when op-
portunities arise, for increasing the usefulness of municipal plans. This
issue, however, requires further research to understand the contexts in
which opportunistic planning may lead to positive or negative out-
comes, and whether positive opportunistic planning and human agency
can be related.
Finally, the paper proposes that urban planning needs to assess the
issue of urban rain in terms of it being a resource rather than a hazard.
In this sense, URH systems provide a number of socioenvironmental
benefits, including water quality, green spaces, cleaner air and gen-
erally better urban aesthetics. For these reasons, rainwater-harvesting
facilities may become a key issue for the sustainability and resilience of
cities.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author certify that she has NO affiliations with or involvement
in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial
interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This paper was produced as part of the research project ‘UrbanRain’
focusing on opportunities for, and challenges to, mainstreaming URH
facilities in three different European cities – Barcelona, Berlin and
Stockholm. We are grateful to the Swedish Research Council for
Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas) for
the research grant that made this study possible. We also appreciate the
commitment received from the respondents who supported this study in
Stockholm and Barcelona. We are also grsateful to the editor and to
three anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism and feedback on
previous versions of the paper.
References
Ajuntament de Barcelona (Barcelona City Council), 2013. Mitgeres Verdes I
Autosuficients. (Green and Self-sufficient Dividing Walls). Available at. http://
w110.bcn.cat/portal/site/PaisatgeUrba/menuitem.
9
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
Aladenola, O.O., Adeboye, O.B., 2010. Assessing the potential for rainwater harvesting.
Water Resour. Manag. 24 (10), 2129–2137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-
9542-y.
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. 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.12.00046. Issue ME.
Beal, C.D., Sharma, A., Gardner, T., Chong, M., 2012. A desktop analysis of potable water
savings from internally plumbed rainwater tanks in South-East Queensland.
Australia. Water Resources Management 26, 1577–1590. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-011-99730.
Bell, S., 2015. Renegotiating urban water. Prog. Plann. 96, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.progress.2013.09.001.
Bell, C.D., Spahr, K., Grubert, E., Stokes-Draut, J., Gallo, E., McCray, J.E., Hogue, T.S.,
2019. Decision making on the gray-green stormwater infrastructure continuum. J.
Sustain. Water Built Environ. 5, 4018016. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.
0000871.
Bichai, F., Ryan, H., Fitzgerald, C., Williams, K., Abdelmoteleb, A., Brotchie, R., Komatsu,
R., 2015. Understanding the role of alternative water supply in an urban water se-
curity strategy: an analytical framework for decision-making. Urban Water J. 12 (3),
75–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.895844.
Bos, J.J., Brown, R.R., 2012. Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-
technical transitions in the urban water sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (7),
1340–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.006.
Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M.A., Loorbach, D.A., 2013. Actors working the institutions in
sustainability transitions: the case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Glob.
Environ. Chang. Part A 23, 701–718.
Brugge, Rvander, Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., 2005. The transition in Dutch water man-
agement. Reg. Environ. Change 5 (4), 164–176.
Campisano, A., Butler, D., Ward, S., Burns, M., Friedler, E., DeBusk, K., Fisher-Jeffes, L.,
Ghisi, E., Rahman, A., Furumai, H., Han, M., 2017. Urban rainwater harvesting
systems: research, implementation and future perspectives. Water Resourdes
Research 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.056.
Cashmore, M., Fox, M., Long, D., Magazzeni, D., Ridder, B., 2018. Opportunistic planning
in autonomous underwater missions. Ieee Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 15 (2), 519–530.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2016.2636662.
Cettner, A., Söderholm, 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 (3), 25–40.
Cettner, A., Ashley, R., Hedström, A., Viklander, M., 2013. Sustainable development and
urban stormwater practice. Urban Water J. 11 (3), 185–197.
Cettner, A., Ashley, R., Hedström, A., Viklander, M., 2014. Assessing receptivity for
change in urban stormwater management and contexts for action. J. Environ.
Manage. 146, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.024.
Charlesworth, S., Harker, E., Rickard, S., 2003. A Review of Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SuDS): A Soft Option for Hard Drainage Questions? Geography 88 (2), 99–107.
Cousins, J.J., 2018. Remaking stormwater as a resource: technology, law and citizenship.
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1300.
Coutard, O., Rutherford, J. (Eds.), 2018. Beyond the Networked City: Infrastructure
Reconfigurations and Urban Change in the North and South. Routledge, London.
Deak, J., Bucht, E., 2011. Planning for climate change: the role of indigenous blue in-
frastructure, with a case study in Sweden. Town Plan. Rev. 82 (6), 669–685.
Delaney, C., Fam, D., 2015. The ‘meaning’ behind household rainwater use: an Australian
case study. Technol. Soc. 42, 179–186. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0160791X15000500.
de Graaf, R., van der Brugge, R., 2010. Transforming water infrastructure by linking
water management and urban renewal in Rotterdam. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
77 (8), 1282–1291.
Domenech, L., Sauri, D., 2012. A comparative appraisal of the use of rainwater harvesting
in single and multi-family buildings of the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain):
social experience, drinking water savings and economic costs. J. Clean. Prod. 19
(6–7), 598–608.
Echols, S., 2007. Artful rainwater design in the urban landscape. J. Green Build. 2 (4),
101–122.
Elgert, L., Austin, P., Picchione, K., 2016. Improving water security through rainwater
harvesting: a case from Guatemala and the potential for expanding coverage. Int. J.
Water Resour. Dev. 32 (5), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.
1104499.
Embrén, B., 2016. Planting urban trees with biochar. Biochar Journal 2016 Retrieved
April 20th from. www.biochar-journal.org/en/ct/77.
European Commission, 2015. Results of the Public Consultation on the Key Features of an
EU Urban Agenda. Commission Staff Working Document 2015 SWD, Brussels
27.5.2015109 final/2. Retrieved from. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
sources/consultation/urb_agenda/pdf/swd_2015.pdf.
Farbotko, C., Walton, A., Mankad, A., Gardner, J., 2014. Household rainwater tanks:
mediating changing relations with water? Ecol. Soc. 19 (2) Art. 62. www.jstor.org/
stable/26269566.
Fitzgerald, Joan, Laufer, Joshua, 2017. Governing green stormwater infrastructure: the
Philadelphia experience. Local Environ. 22 (2), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13549839.2016.1191063.
Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Viklander, M.,
2015. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – the evolution and application of termi-
nology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J. 12 (7), 525–542. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1573062x.2014.916314.
Freni, G., Liuzzo, L., 2019. Effectiveness of Rainwater Harvesting Systems for Flood
Reduction in Residential Urban Areas. Water 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w11071389.
L. Suleiman, et al.
Furlong, K., 2014. STS beyond the “modern infrastructure ideal”: extending theory by
engaging with infrastructure challenges in the South. Technol. Soc. 38, 139–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.04.001.
García Soler, N., Moss, T., Papasozomenou, O., 2018. Rain and the city: pathways to
mainstreaming rainwater harvesting in Berlin. Geoforum 89, 96–106. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.010.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31 (8–9), 1257–1274.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: in-
sights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res.
Policy 33 (6–7), 897–920.
Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., 2007. Dynamics in socio-technical systems: typology of change
processes and contrasting case studies. Technol. Soc. 29 (4), 441–455.
Ghaffarianhoseini, Ali., Tookey, J., Ghaffarianhoseini, Amirhosein., Yusoff, S.M., Hassan,
N.B., 2016. State of the art of rainwater harvesting systems towards promoting green
built environments: a review. Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (1), 95–104. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19443994.2015.1021097.
Hansen, R., Pauleit, S., 2014. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A
conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for
urban areas. AMBIO 43 (4), 516–529.
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2010. Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would
we know if they were? Res. Policy 39 (4), 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.
2010.01.020.
IMPUiQV, (Institut del paisatge Urbà i Qualitat de Vida), 2012. Remodelació De Mitgeres.
http://w110.bcn.cat/portal/site/PaisatgeUrba/menuitem.
b368854318184aa433433343a2ef8a0c/?vgnextoid=
7bf4330e4ef39210VgnVCM10000074fea8c0RCRD&vgnextchannel=
7bf4330e4ef39210VgnVCM10000074fea8c0RCRD&lang=ca.
Islam, M.M., Chou, F.N.-F., Kabir, M.R., Liaw, C.-H., 2010. Rainwater: a potential alter-
native source for scarce safe drinking and arsenic contaminated water in Bangladesh.
Water Resour. Manag. 24 (14), 3987–4008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-
9643-7.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., 2007. Transition management as a model for
managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain.
Dev. World Ecol. 14 (1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469709.
Kleidorfer, M., Mikovits, C., Jasper-Tönnies, A., Huttenlau, M., Einfalt, T., Rauch, W.,
2014. Impact of a changing environment on drainage system performance. Procedia
Eng. 70, 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.105.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F.,
Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S.,
Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist,
B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B.,
Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of
the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 31, 1–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
Kuller, M., Bach, P.M., Ramirez-Lovering, D., Deletic, A., 2018a. What drives the location
choice for water sensitive infrastructure in Melbourne, Australia? Landsc. Urban
Plan. 175, 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.018.
Kuller, M., Farrelly, M., Deletic, A., Bach, P.M., 2018b. Building effective Planning
Support Systems for green urban water infrastructure—practitioners’ perceptions.
Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.011.
Lawhon, M., Murphy, J.T., 2012. Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions:
insights from political ecology. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 354–378. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0309132511427960.
Liuzzo, L., Notaro, V., Freni, G., 2016. A reliability analysis of a rainfall harvesting system
in Southern Italy. Water 8 (1), 18. Retrieved from. http://www.mdpi.com/2073-
4441/8/1/18.
Loorbach, D., 2010. Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive,
complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23 (1), 161–183.
Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., 2010. Infrastructure. Futures 42, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.futures.2009.11.009.
Low, K.G., Grant, S.B., Hamilton, A.J., Gan, K., Saphores, J.-D., Arora, M., Feldman, D.L.,
2015. Fighting drought with innovation: Melbourne’s response to the Millennium
Drought in Southeast Australia. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2, 315–328. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1087.
Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D.J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J.J., Westley, F.R.,
2016. Learning through evaluation – a tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability
transition experiments. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.
005.
Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of
research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41, 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2012.02.013.
Marlow, D.R., Moglia, M., Cook, S., Beale, D.J., 2013. Towards sustainable urban water
management: a critical reassessment. Water Res. 47 (20), 7150–7161.
Meene, S.Jvande, Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M.A., 2011. Towards understanding governance
for sustainable urban water management. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 21 (3),
1117–1127.
Mell, I.C., 2009. Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng. Sustain. 162 (1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2009.162.1.23.
Moore, M.-L., Porten, Svonder, Plummer, R., Brandes, O., Baird, J., 2014. Water policy
reform and innovation: a systematic review. Environ. Sci. Policy 38, 263–271.
Muñoz Gielen, D., Tasan-Kok, T., 2010. Flexibility in planning and the consequences for
public-value capturing in the UK, Spain and the Netherlands. Eur. Plan. Stud. 18 (7),
1097–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654311003744191.
Palme, U., 2010. Multiple conceptions of sustainable urban water systems: problem or
asset? Water Policy 12 (3), 425–443.
10
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
Patalano, A.L., Seifert, C.M., 1997. Opportunistic planning: being reminded of pending
goals. Cogn. Psychol. 34 (1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0655.
Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., 2009. Complexity and transition management. J. Ind. Ecol. 13
(2), 184–196.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition
management in public policy. Foresight 3 (1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14636680110803003.
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. Manage. 42, 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9119-1.
Saurí, D., Palau-Rof, L., 2017. Urban drainage in Barcelona. From hazard to resource?
Water Alternatives 10 (2), 475–492.
Schot, J., Geels, F.W., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation
journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal. Strateg.
Manag. 20, 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651.
Sharma, A., Pezzaniti, D., Myers, B., Cook, S., Tjandraatmadja, G., Chacko, P., Walton, A.,
2016. Water sensitive urban design: an investigation of current systems, im-
plementation drivers, community perceptions and potential to supplement urban
water services. Water 8 (7), 272. Retrieved from. http://www.mdpi.com/2073-
4441/8/7/272.
Shove, E., Walker, G., 2007. Caution! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable
transition management. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Sp. 39, 763–770. https://doi.org/10.
1068/a39310.
Słyś, D., Stec, A., Dziopak, J., 2015. The analysis of possibilities of using rainwater har-
vesting systems in residential buildings in Poland. In: Hlavínek, P., Zele\vnáková, M.
(Eds.), Storm Water Management: Examples from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
Poland. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 67–81. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-25835-5_6.
Smith, A., 2007. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical
regimes. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 19 (4), 427–450.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical
transitions. Res. Policy 34 (10), 1491–1510.
Stahre, P., 2002a. Integrated Planning of Sustainable Stormwater Management in the City
of Malmo, Sweden, in: Global Solutions for Urban Drainage. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/40644(2002)168.
Stahre, P., 2002b. Recent experiences in the use of BMPs in malmö, Sweden. Linking
Stormwater BMP Designs and Performance to Receiving Water Impact Mitigation.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 225–235. https://doi.org/10.
1061/40602(263)16.
Stahre, P., Geldof, G.D., 2006. On the road to a new stormwater planning approach: from
Model A to Model B. Water Pract. Technol. 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2006.
005.
Steffen, J., Jensen, M., Pomeroy, C.A., Burian, S.J., 2013. Water supply and stormwater
management benefits of residential rainwater harvesting in U.S. Cities. J. Am. Water
Resour. Assoc. 49 (4), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12038.
Suleiman, L., Olofsson, B., Saurí, D., Palau, L., Soler, N.G., Papasozomenou, O., Moss, T.,
2019. Diverse pathways – common phenomena: comparing transitions of Urban Rain
Harvesting systems in Stockholm, Berlin, Barcelona. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1589432.
Tasan-Kok, T., 2008. Changing interpretations of ‘Flexibility’ in the planning literature:
from opportunism to creativity? Int. Plan. Stud. 13 (3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13563470802521382.
Tavakol-Davani, H.E., Tavakol-Davani, H., Burian, S.J., McPhersond, B.J., Barber, M.E.,
2019. Green infrastructure optimization to achieve pre-development conditions of a
semiarid urban catchment. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 6. https://doi.org/10.
1039/c8ew00789f.
US Department of Agriculture, 2018. I-Tree. Tools for Assessing and Managing Forests &
Community Trees. Retrieved from. USDA Forest Service. https://www.itreetools.
org.
van der Brugge, R., de Graaf, R., 2010. Linking water policy innovation and urban re-
newal: the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Water Policy 12, 381–400. https://
doi.org/10.2166/wp.2010.037.
Vialle, C., Busset, G., Tanfin, L., Montrejaud-Vignoles, M., Huau, M.-C.X., Sablayrolles, C.,
2015. Environmental analysis of a domestic rainwater harvesting system: a case study
in France. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102, 178–184. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0921344915300574.
Voskamp, I.M., Van de Ven, F.H.M., 2015. Planning support system for climate adapta-
tion: composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to
extreme weather events. Build. Environ. 83, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2014.07.018.
Voß, J.-P., Bornemann, B., 2011. The politics of reflexive governance: challenges for
designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecol. Soc. 16 (2).
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art9/.
Voß, J.-P., Smith, A., Grin, J., 2009. Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition
management. Policy Sci. 42 (4), 275–302.
Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Yue, T., Jing, X., 2019. Impacts of climate change on urban rain-
water harvesting systems. Sci. Total Environ. 665, 272–284. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.135.
Zhou, Y., Shao, W., Zhang, T., 2010. Analysis of a rainwater harvesting system for do-
mestic water supply in Zhoushan, China. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A
11 (5), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A0900608.
L. Suleiman, et al.
Further reading
BE, 23 February, 2016. Interview in person, Traffic Officer. Stockholm City. .
BE, 4 June, 2015. Interview in person, Traffic Officer. Stockholm City. .
B-MS, 30 November, 2015. Communication Via Phone Call.
GO, 11 May, 2015. Interview in person, Landscape Architect. Stockholm City. .
IA, 1 July, 2015. Interview in person, Environmental Head, Exploitation Office.
Stockholm City. .
JF, 26 May, 2015. Interview in Person. Water Enginner at Stockholm Water Company.
JMC, 18 February, 2015. Interview in person, Chief Architect. Institute for the
11
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 51 (2020) 126678
Improvement of the Urban Landscape, City of Barcelona.
MGF, 18 February, 2015. Interview in person, Architect. Institute for the Improvement of
the Urban Landscape, City of Barcelona.
Qiao, Xiu-Juan, Kristoffersson, Anders, Randrup, Thomas B., 2018. Challenges to im-
plementing urban sustainable stormwater management from a governance perspec-
tive: a literature review. Journal of Cleaning Production 196, 943–952. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.049.
TB, 10 June, 2016. Communication in person, Project Contractor. Sverige AB,
Infrakonsult.