Cited by 613Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsIntegrated Water Resources ManagementHydrology and Watershed Management Studies

Impediments and Solutions to Sustainable, Watershed-Scale Urban Stormwater Management: Lessons from Australia and the United States

Roy, Allison H., Wenger, Seth J., Fletcher, Tim D., Walsh, Christopher J., Ladson, Anthony R., Shuster, William D., Thurston, Hale W., Brown, Rebekah R.·2008·Environmental Management

Abstract

In urban and suburban areas, stormwater runoff is a primary stressor on surface waters. Conventional urban stormwater drainage systems often route runoff directly to streams and rivers, thus exacerbating pollutant inputs and hydrologic disturbance, and resulting in the degradation of ecosystem structure and function. Decentralized stormwater management tools, such as low impact development (LID) or water sensitive urban design (WSUD), may offer a more sustainable solution to stormwater management if implemented at a watershed scale. These tools are designed to pond, infiltrate, and harvest water at the source, encouraging evaporation, evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, and re-use of stormwater. While there are numerous demonstrations of WSUD practices, there are few examples of widespread implementation at a watershed scale with the explicit objective of protecting or restoring a receiving stream. This article identifies seven major impediments to sustainable urban stormwater management: (1) uncertainties in performance and cost, (2) insufficient engineering standards and guidelines, (3) fragmented responsibilities, (4) lack of institutional capacity, (5) lack of legislative mandate, (6) lack of funding and effective market incentives, and (7) resistance to change. By comparing experiences from Australia and the United States, two developed countries with existing conventional stormwater infrastructure and escalating stream ecosystem degradation, we highlight challenge…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00267-008-9119-1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roy, A. H., Wenger, S. J., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., Ladson, A. R., Shuster, W. D., Thurston, H. W., & Brown, R. R.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Roy, Allison H.
Venue
Environmental Management
Published
2008-04-30
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
344-359
ISSN
  • 0364-152X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1009
OpenAlex
W2170888726
Cited by
613
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 23
FWCI
10.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Integrated Water Resources Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Keywords
urban stormwater management, watershed-scale management, water sensitive urban design, low impact development, decentralized stormwater management, groundwater recharge, stormwater reuse, institutional capacity, legislative mandates, resistance to change, Australia, United States
MeSH terms
Australia, Cities, Conservation of Natural Resources, Policy Making, Public Policy, Rain, United States, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Water Supply

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review