Framework, Procedure, and Tools for Comprehensive Evaluation of Sustainable Stormwater Management: A Review

Abstract

To better evaluate and enhance the performance and benefit of sustainable stormwater management (SSWM) in developing countries, this study proposes a comprehensive evaluation framework based on thorough literature review. This framework re-classifies evaluation goals and indicators into four aspects—stormwater system, integrated management, social engagement, and urban development. The purpose of this review is to provide a guideline for decision makers to choose appropriate goals and indicators according to different regional context. Meanwhile, a structured procedure for comprehensive evaluation of SSWM is proposed to guide a well-organised decision-making process. Furthermore, pros and cons of eight decision support tools, as well as their functional focus, are compared, aiming to provide references for SSWM in developing countries. Outcomes presented in this review are expected to support decision makers in the process of screening optimal SSWM strategies and monitoring SSWM projects.

Comprehensive Assessment of Water Sensitive Urban Design Practices based on Multi-criteria Decision Analysis via a Case Study of the University of Melbourne, Australia

“…According to general stormwater goals (See Table 2), GSI cases [68][69][70][71], and functional specifications of selected WSUD (See Appendix A), 10 sub-criteria and several indicators from functional, economic, social, and environmental variables were determined and shown in Figure 5. The rationale for each sub-criterion and indicator is as follows.…”

“…In fact, there are several good attempts of combining stormwater management and MCDA to score, rank, and select the optimal option by a more generalizable framework. At the theoretical level, Jayasooriya et al [47] Sapkota et al [98], Sapkota et al [46], and Wu et al [71] reported that the establishment of a standard comprehensive assessment framework for GSI is significant and it can further assist decision-makers to make a more reasonable, inclusive, and well-informed decision. At the practical level, Morales-Torres et al [48] reported a decision supported tool called E2STORMED based on MCDA method to assess the multi-benefits of different GSI, and Kuller et al [31] also developed a rapid GSI-based MCDA tool for WSUD assets (called SSANTO), to assist stakeholders engaged in the urban planning in focusing on opportunities and needs of WSUD.…”

“…Meanwhile, the results produced from MUSIC do not consider the underground pipes and it assumed that these existing conventional approaches have no influence on the facilities performance. Finally, MUSIC is a software only applicable to Australia and New Zealand, and the regional limitations will make it difficult to extend to the global scale [71]. Subjectivity of experts is another limitation of the study.…”

Assessment of Blue and Green Infrastructure Solutions in Shaping Urban Public Spaces—Spatial and Functional, Environmental, and Social Aspects

“…Urbanization processes have also led to the disappearance of many forms of natural water infrastructure, and the dangerous effects of storms and floods are exacerbated by climate change. Commonly used forms of water discharge into stormwater drainage systems lead to an increase in the water deficit in cities [7]. The degradation of sewage systems [8][9][10] and their inefficiency make them ineffective in the event of torrential rains, and they also disrupt hydrological cycles, which is detrimental to the shaping of urban environments and the people living in them [11,12].…”

Social Barriers and the Hiatus from Successful Green Stormwater Infrastructure Implementation across the US

“…Historically, quantitative decision support tools have been developed with the main aim to maximize GSI performance to control runoff and water pollution and to be costeffective [48][49][50][51][52]. On the other hand, despite the extensive attempts made to expand the assessment work to include the social aspect of decision support [17,48,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64], they lack a deeper understanding of the public perceptions and associated cognitive bias perspective to resolve the implementation dilemma from a bottom-up approach [65] as examined in other environmental issues [43,44]. This shortcoming can affect the expected outcomes envisioned by major decision-makers [42,66].…”