Retrofitting urban drainage infrastructure: green or grey?

Abstract

This paper explores the approaches that London, Glasgow, Washington DC and Philadelphia have taken in responding to urban stormwater and combined sewer overflows challenges.In brief, London has begun construction of a large interceptor tunnel with relatively little attention yet paid to green infrastructure, Philadelphia is pursuing green infrastructure based approaches, and Washington DC and Glasgow are implementing a combination of solutions. The cases illustrate that a diversity of responses are emerging to a common environmental problem in cities around the world.

Collaborative learning for policy innovations: sustainable urban drainage systems in Leicester, England

“…A second challenge is what Benson et al (2016, p. 333) referred to as 'agency culture', or the complex bureaucratic system that discourages public participation and inclusive governance. The 'collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented and deliberative' is largely absent in flood risk management at the local level, a statement supported also by earlier research (Ansell & Gash, 2008, p. 544;Benson et al, 2016;Dolowitz, 2018 ).…”

“…These efforts help to gradually overcome disciplinary boundaries between drainage engineers, landscape architects, biodiversity officers and urban planners at LCC (Interviewee 05, LCC Biodiversity Officer). That said, the entrenched culture of conventional drainage engineering to deal with the surface water at the LCC however is one of the major structural barriers to SuDS, a finding that is corroborated also by other scholars of flooding in England (Dolowitz et al, 2018). Table 3 summarises the findings with regard to the institutional structure for collaborative learning in Leicester.…”

“…Dawes et al (2009, p. 398), in unison with Benson et al (2016), Ellis and Lundy (2016), and Pitt (2008), have emphasised the need for national level policy and legislative support to SuDS. In this light, Scotland provides useful examples of how state legislation, through the Water Environment and Water Services Act (UK Government, 2003), made Scottish Water responsible for maintenance and replacement of all shared public SuDS and encouraged property developers to adopt SuDS when retrofitting old buildings and properties (Dolowitz et al, 2018).…”

“…In the case of Leicester, a lack of capacity translates in the inability to control whether proposed SuDS features by property developers are actually implemented in practice (Interviewee 06, LCC Floods and Drainage Team). The lack of capacity at local authorities compounded by the decentralised setting of flood risk policy in the UK, and no overarching authority to oversee SuDS implementation present formidable barriers to collaborative learning (Interviewee 15, Water Company; Dolowitz et al, 2018). Another manifestation of the strained capacity of LCC is the less-than-desired level of engagement with citizens and citizen groups about the risks of flooding and protection measures against floodinga part of collaborative governance agenda in flood risk governance.…”

Managing flooding: from a problem to an opportunity

“…The unsustainable option selected for London is largely as a consequence of the fragmented governance and institutional arrangements for water management and also the dispersed responsibilities for other systems, services and utilities [37,92]. By contrast, the Mayor of Philadelphia is responsible for the wide range of services in the City, hence the nature-based approach being used there to manage urban runoff brings clear multiple benefits as well as responsibilities to the Mayor's office [9].…”