CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityLand Use and Ecosystem Services

From the household to watershed: A cross-scale analysis of residential intention to adopt green stormwater infrastructure

Open access
Coleman, Sarah, Hurley, Stephanie, Rizzo, Donna, Koliba, Christopher, Zia, Asim·2018·Landscape and Urban Planning
DOI 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Improved stormwater management for the protection of water resources requires bottom-up stewardship from landowners, including adoption of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI). We use a statewide survey of Vermont paired with a cross-scale and spatial analysis to evaluate the influence of interacting spatial, social, and physical factors on residential intention to adopt GSI across a complex social-ecological landscape. Specifically, we focus on how three GSI practices, (“rain garden (bio retention),” “infiltration trenches,” and “actively divert roof runoff to a rain barrel/lawn/garden instead of the street/sewer”) vary with barriers to adoption, and household attributes across stormwater contexts from the household to watershed scale. Private landowners, who may be motivated more by on-site and neighborhood stormwater problems, may gravitate toward practices like infiltration trenches compared with practices (e.g., rain gardens) perceived to serve stormwater function over larger areas. Diversion of roof runoff was found to be more likely to be a part of a larger assembly of green behaviors. Improved stormwater management outcomes at the watershed, town, neighborhood, and household levels depend on adaptive approaches and adjusting strategies along the rural-urban gradient, across the bio-physical landscape, and according to varying norms and institutional arrangements.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.005

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Local communities may not easily recognize the value of ecosystem services resulting from green infrastructure changes.

    “but local communities may not easily recognize the value of ecosystem services resulting from these changes (Elmqvist et al. 2015;Coleman et al. 2018;Miller and Montalto 2019).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Coleman et al. 2018

    The paper describes ecosystem services provided by green stormwater infrastructure and, in §4.1, reports residents’ “no need” and “doesn’t look good” responses as barriers to adopting some practices. These findings support the possibility that residents do not perceive some benefits, but the paper does not establish that local communities have difficulty recognizing the value of the resulting ecosystem services specifically. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ensuring public education and outreach materials focus on stakeholder values and preferences will improve local buy-in and create long-term support for urban stormwater planning and management programs.

    “Ensuring public education and outreach materials focus on stakeholder values and preferences will improve local buy-in and create long-term support for urban stormwater planning and management programs (Coleman et al. 2018;Miller and Montalto 2019;McKenzie 2021).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Coleman et al. 2018

    Section 4.4 recommends that outreach pay more attention to residents’ motivations for adopting green stormwater infrastructure and says this may improve stormwater management across scales. It does not establish that values-focused education materials will improve local buy-in or create long-term support for planning and management programs; the citing sentence states those outcomes more definitively than the source does. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Highlighting the tangible local benefits to communities could be most effective at changing stakeholder perceptions even if the overall ecological benefits are small locally and substantial regionally.

    “Appealing to a sense of regional community and promoting conservation based on existence value may help but highlighting the tangible local benefits to communities could be most effective and changing stakeholder perceptions even if the overall ecological benefits are small locally and substantial regionally (Coleman et al. 2018;McKenzie 2021).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Coleman et al. 2018

    The Abstract says landowners may be more motivated by on-site and neighborhood stormwater problems than by practices perceived to serve larger areas. Section 4.4 also recommends tailoring outreach to residential motivations. Neither passage establishes that highlighting tangible local benefits is the most effective way to change stakeholder perceptions, or assesses the claimed contrast between small local and substantial regional ecological benefits. Page numbers were not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Individuals to target for outreach and education represent diverse positions in the community and demographic groups.

    “Individuals to target for outreach and education represent diverse positions in the community and demographic groups (Coleman et al. 2018;William et al. 2020), which requires a diverse set of approaches and partners with empirically based knowledge of effective approaches to education (e.g., colleges and universities and associated extension offices).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Coleman et al. 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Ahiablame, L. M., Engel, B. A., & Chaubey, I. (2013). Effectiveness of low impact de- velopment practices in two urbanized watersheds: Retrofitting with rain barrel/cis- tern and porous pavement. Journal of Environment Management, 119, 151-161.
  2. Ando, A. W., & Freitas, L. P. C. (2011). Consumer demand for green stormwater man- agement technology in an urban setting: The case of Chicago rain barrels. Water Resources Research, 47, W12501. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011070. · DOI
  3. Arnold, C. L., Jr, & Gibbons, C. J. (1996). Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 243-258.
  4. Baptiste, A. K. (2014). "Experience is a great teacher": Citizens' reception of a proposal for the implementation of green infrastructure as stormwater management technology. Community Development, 45, 337-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014. 934255. · DOI
  5. Baptiste, A. K., Foley, C., & Smardon, R. (2015). Understanding urban neighborhood differences in willingness to implement green infrastructure measures: A case study of Syracuse, NY. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2014.11.012. · DOI
  6. Brown, H. L., Bos, D. G., Walsh, C. J., Fletcher, T. D., & RossRakesh, S. (2016). More than money: How multiple factors influence householder participation in at-source stormwater management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59, 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.984017. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Carpenter, S. R., Stanley, E. H., & Vander Zanden, M. J. (2011). State of the World's freshwater ecosystems: Physical, chemical, and biological changes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 75-99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ- 021810-094524. · DOI
  8. Carter, T., & Fowler, L. (2008). Establishing green roof infrastructure through environ- mental policy instruments. Environmental Management, 42, 151-164. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00267-008-9095-5. · DOI
  9. Coleman, S., Hurley, S., Koliba, C., & Zia, A. (2017). Crowdsourced Delphis: Designing solutions to complex environmental problems with broad stakeholder participation. Global Environmental Change, 45, 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha. 2017.05.005. · DOI
  10. Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents' perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: A methodological note. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010303419034. · DOI
  11. Crisostomo, A., Ellis, J., & Rendon, C. (2014). Will this rain barrel fix my flooding: Designing effective programs to incentivize private property stormwater interven- tions. Proceedings of Water and Environment Journal, 2014, 1593-1622. https://doi. org/10.2175/193864714815943007. · DOI
  12. Dietz, M. E. (2007). Low impact development practices: A review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 186, 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z. · DOI
  13. Fraser, J. C., Bazuin, J. T., Band, L. E., & Grove, J. M. (2013). Covenants, cohesion, and community: The effects of neighborhood governance on lawn fertilization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 115, 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02. 013. · DOI
  14. Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2013). Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in re- sidential landscapes. Ecological Economics, 86, 258-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2012.07.016. · DOI
  15. Green, O. O., Shuster, W. D., Rhea, L. K., Garmestani, A. S., & Thurston, H. W. (2012). Identification and induction of human, social, and cultural capitals through an ex- perimental approach to stormwater management. Sustainability, 4, 1669-1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4081669. · DOI
  16. Guilbert, J., Beckage, B., Winter, J. M., Horton, R. M., Perkins, T., & Bomblies, A. (2014). Impacts of projected climate change over the Lake Champlain Basin in Vermont. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 53, 1861-1875. https://doi.org/10. 1175/JAMC-D-13-0338. · DOI
  17. Hathaway, E., & Hunt, W.F. (2007). Stormwater BMP Costs. Division of Soil and Water Conservation Community Conservation Assistance Program, North Carolina. · DOI
  18. Howell, R. A. (2013). It's not (just) "the environment, stupid!" Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environmental Change, 23, 281-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10. 015. · DOI
  19. Hurley, S., Shrestha, P., & Cording, A. (2017). Nutrient leaching from compost: Implications for bioretention and other green stormwater infrastructure. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 3. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY. 0000821. · DOI
  20. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Moss, T., & Newig, J. (2010). Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: Setting the stage for a broader debate. Environmental Management, 46, 1-6. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00267-010-9531-1. · DOI
  22. Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92, 282-292. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.010. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor governance and the en- vironment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365-387. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-094659. · DOI
  24. Noppers, E. H., Keizer, K., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Steg, L. (2014). The adoption of sustainable innovations: Driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Global Environmental Change, 25, 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.012. · DOI
  25. Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diagnostic ap- proach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37, 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834. · DOI
  26. Pagella, T. F., & Sinclair, F. L. (2014). Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provi- sion. Landscape Ecology, 29, 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9983-9. · DOI
  27. Pechenick, A. M., Rizzo, D. M., Morrissey, L. A., Garvey, K. M., Underwood, K. L., & Wemple, B. C. (2014). A multi-scale statistical approach to assess the effects of connectivity of road and stream networks on geomorphic channel condition. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 39, 1538-1549. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3611. · DOI
  28. Qiu, J., & Turner, M. G. (2013). Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 12149-12154. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310539110. · DOI
  29. Rosenberg, S., & Margerum, R. D. (2008). Landowner motivations for watershed re- storation: Lessons from five watersheds. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51, 477.
  30. Roy, A. H., Wenger, S. J., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., Ladson, A. R., Shuster, W. D., ... Brown, R. R. (2008). Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: Lessons from Australia and the United States. Environmental Management, 42, 344-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008- 9119-1. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Thurston, H. W. (2006). Opportunity costs of residential best management practices for stormwater runoff control. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 132, 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2006) 132:2(89). · DOI
  32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Low Impact Development: A literature review (No. EPA 2000 Office of Water 841-B-00-005).
  33. Wear, D. N., Turner, M. G., & Naiman, R. J. (1998). Land cover along an urban-rural gradient: Implications for water quality. Ecological Applications, 8, 619-630. https:// doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998) 008[0619:LCAAUR]2.0.CO;2. · DOI
  34. Wemple, B. C., Clark, G. E., Ross, D. S., & Rizzo, D. M. (2017). Identifying the spatial pattern and importance of hydro-geomorphic drainage impairments on unpaved roads in the northeastern USA. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4113 n/a-n/a. · DOI
  35. Wemple, B. C., & Jones, J. A. (2003). Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, mountain catchment. Water Resources Research, 39, 1220. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 2002WR001744. · DOI
  36. Wilson, C., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2007). Models of decision making and residential energy use. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 169-203. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev.energy.32.053006.141137. · DOI
  37. Wright, T. J., Liu, Y., Carroll, N. J., Ahiablame, L. M., & Engel, B. A. (2016). Retrofitting LID practices into existing neighborhoods: Is it worth it? Environmental Management, 57, 856-867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0651-5. · DOI
  38. Zhang, X., Guo, X., & Hu, M. (2015). Hydrological effect of typical low impact develop- ment approaches in a residential district. Natural Hazards, 80, 389-400. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11069-015-1974-5. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coleman, S., Hurley, S., Rizzo, D., Koliba, C., & Zia, A.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Coleman, Sarah
ORCID
Venue
Landscape and Urban Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
180
Pages
195-206
ISSN
0169-2046 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.09.005
OpenAlex
W2890107371
Cited by
51
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Landscape and Urban Planning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1101317)
  • Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (1101317, EPS‐1101317)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
green stormwater infrastructure, rain gardens, infiltration trenches, rain barrels, barriers to adoption, household characteristics, social-ecological systems, urban-rural gradient

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