Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio‐Hydrology in Cities

Abstract

Management of urban hydrologic processes using green infrastructure (GI) has largely focused on storm water management. Thus, design and implementation of GI usually rely on physical site characteristics and local rainfall patterns, and do not typically account for human or social dimensions. This traditional approach leads to highly centralized storm water management in a disconnected urban landscape and can deemphasize additional benefits that GI offers, such as increased property value, greenspace aesthetics, heat island amelioration, carbon sequestration, and habitat for biodiversity. We propose the Framework for Adaptive Socio‐Hydrology (FrASH) in which GI planning and implementation moves from a purely hydrology‐driven perspective to an integrated sociohydrological approach. This allows for an iterative, multifaceted decision‐making process that would enable a network of stakeholders to collaboratively set a dynamic, context‐guided project plan for the installation of GI, rather than a “one‐size‐fits‐all” installation. We explain how different sectors (e.g., governance, nongovernmental organizations, communities, academia, and industry) can create a connected network of organizations that work toward a common goal. Through a graphical Chambered Nautilus model, FrASH is experimentally applied to contrasting GI case studies and shows that this multistakeholder, connected, decentralized network with a coevolving decision‐making project plan results in enhanced multifunctionality, potentially allowing for the management of resilience in urban systems at multiple scales.

Managing Uncertainty in Runoff Estimation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Stormwater Calculator

“…The overarching philosophy of GI and LID entails mitigating against runoff formation (as infiltration-excess, or saturation-excess mechanisms), and retaining runoff volume as close to its point of generation as possible. Some examples of LID and GI include: maintaining active arbors and vegetation to maximize evapotranspiration (ET) during the growing season; removing impervious surface and restoring infiltration opportunities; disconnecting directly connected impervious surface from the collection system with interspersed pervious areas; or a combination of any or all of these approaches (Green et al, 2016;Lim, 2016;Schifman et al, 2016;Fry and Maxwell, 2017;Schifman et al, 2017). The overall objective of GI management is to keep excess stormwater runoff volume from entering the local wastewater collection system where surcharges can cause combined, septic, or both types of collection system overflows.…”

Volunteered information on nature-based solutions — Dredging for data on deculverting

“…Fostering participatory and inclusive governance with local communities can positively affect the ability of service providers to improve urban hydrological outcomes (Schifman et al, 2017). However, it would be…”

“…Kabisch and Haase (2014) stress the need to go beyond simplistic analyses of greenspace spatial distribution, and that user needs should be considered for successful GI planning and provision. Schifman et al (2017) call for a nuanced understanding of the social aspects of specific, tangible examples of practices GI . T "…”

Wastewater technopolitics on the southern coast of Belize

“…Yet, residents remain concerned about opportunities to participate in decision-making. Moving forward, a useful heuristic for BWS might be in the distinction that Schifman et al (2017) have made recently between situating versus siting infrastructure. They propose that situating infrastructure is an approach in which the nexus of several contexts defines the design and placement of an installation, such that multiple functions of the system interact synergistically in sharing a physical place (Schifman et al 2017, 10141).…”