CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceSustainable Design and Development

The Green Experiment: Cities, Green Stormwater Infrastructure, and Sustainability

Open access
Chini, Christopher, Canning, James, Schreiber, Kelsey, Peschel, Joshua, Stillwell, Ashlynn·2017·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su9010105
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Green infrastructure is a unique combination of economic, social, and environmental goals and benefits that requires an adaptable framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating. In this study, we propose an experimental framework for policy, implementation, and subsequent evaluation of green stormwater infrastructure within the context of sociotechnical systems and urban experimentation. Sociotechnical systems describe the interaction of complex systems with quantitative and qualitative impacts. Urban experimentation—traditionally referencing climate change programs and their impacts—is a process of evaluating city programs as if in a laboratory setting with hypotheses and evaluated results. We combine these two concepts into a singular framework creating a policy feedback cycle (PFC) for green infrastructure to evaluate municipal green infrastructure plans as an experimental process within the context of a sociotechnical system. After proposing and discussing the PFC, we utilize the tool to research and evaluate the green infrastructure programs of 27 municipalities across the United States. Results indicate that green infrastructure plans should incorporate community involvement and communication, evaluation based on project motivation, and an iterative process for knowledge production. We suggest knowledge brokers as a key resource in connecting the evaluation stage of the feedback cycle to the policy phase. We identify three important needs for green infrastructure experimentation: (i) a fluid definition of green infrastructure in policy; (ii) maintenance and evaluation components of a green infrastructure plan; and (iii) communication of the plan to the community.

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 · 10.3390/su9010105

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • Maintaining, inspecting, and monitoring BMPs is a small but annual cost compared to the large, infrequent costs usually associated with grey infrastructure projects, causing further challenges to Phase II MS4 permittees that may lack manpower in maintenance departments and/or employees dedicated to work on urban stormwater programs.

    “Maintaining, inspecting, and monitoring BMPs is a small but annual cost compared to the large, infrequent costs usually associated with grey infrastructure projects (Vineyard et al. 2015;Chini et al. 2017;Miller and Montalto 2019;William et al. 2020), causing further challenges to Phase II MS4 permittees that may lack manpower”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Chini et al. 2017

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Stormwater standards and preferred BMPs have evolved over the years.

    “Stormwater standards and preferred BMPs have evolved over the years (e.g., Roy et al. 2008;Chini et al. 2017).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Chini et al. 2017

    The Introduction describes a twentieth-century gray-stormwater regime and a move toward green-gray systems. Section 5 identifies green infrastructure practices in cities’ current plans, supporting a change in approaches. The paper does not establish that stormwater standards themselves have evolved over the years. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Partnerships between the community and the municipality can greatly aid in creating an iterative stormwater management program in which maintenance, monitoring, and inspection are clearly defined in the original stormwater management plan, with private landowners receiving adequate incentive and support to install and maintain BMPs on their property and municipalities forming maintenance and

    “Partnerships between the community and the municipality can greatly aid in creating an iterative stormwater management program in which maintenance, monitoring, and inspection are clearly defined in the original stormwater management plan, with private landowners receiving adequate incentive and support to install and maintain BMPs on their property and municipalities forming maintenance and”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Chini et al. 2017

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Information gained from maintenance, monitoring, and inspection programs can be tremendously valuable as cities seek to improve their programs and share information with other municipalities to improve region-and nation-wide stormwater quality.

    “Information gained from maintenance, monitoring, and inspection programs can be tremendously valuable as cities seek to improve their programs and share information with other municipalities to improve region-and nation-wide stormwater quality (Chini et al. 2017).”

    From Phase II MS4 challenges: moving toward effective stormwater management for small municipalities (2022) · cites this paper as Chini et al. 2017

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. Finco, A.; Nijkamp, P. Pathways to Urban Sustainability. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2001, 3, 289-302.
  2. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992. Agenda 21. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21 (accessed on 15 October 2016).
  3. Voß, J.P.; Smith, A.; Grin, J. Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sci. 2009, 42, 275-302.
  4. Brown, R.; Keath, N.; Wong, T. Transitioning to water sensitive cities: Historical, current and future transition states. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, UK, 31 August-5 September 2008; Volume 10.
  5. Finewood, M.H. Green Infrastructure, Grey Epistemologies, and the Urban Political Ecology of Pittsburgh's Water Governance. Antipode 2016, 48, 1000-1021.
  6. Geels, F. The role of cities in technological transitions. In Cities and Low Carbon Transitions; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2011; pp. 13-28.
  7. Rip, A.; Kemp, R. Technological Change; Battelle Press: Columbus, OH, USA, 1998.
  8. Geels, F. Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850-1930)-A case study in multi-level perspective. Technol. Soc. 2005, 27, 363-397.
  9. Geels, F.W. Major system change through stepwise reconfiguration: A multi-level analysis of the transformation of American factory production (1850-1930). Technol. Soc. 2006, 28, 445-476.
  10. Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 175-198.
  11. Lawhon, M.; Murphy, J.T. Socio-technical regimes and sustainability transitions Insights from political ecology. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 354-378.
  12. Smith, A.; Raven, R. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1025-1036.
  13. Bulkeley, H.; Broto, V.C. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2013, 38, 361-375.
  14. Brown, H.S.; Vergragt, P.J. Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of systemic change: The case of a zero-energy residential building. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 107-130.
  15. Evans, J.P. Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2011, 36, 223-237.
  16. Karvonen, A.; Heur, B. Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 379-392.
  17. Brown, H.S.; Vergragt, P.; Green, K.; Berchicci, L. Learning for sustainability transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2003, 15, 291-315.
  18. Clark, W.C. Urban environments: Battlegrounds for global sustainability. Environment 2003, 45, 1.
  19. Sexton, K.; Linder, S.H. Integrated assessment of risk and sustainability in the context of regulatory decision making. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1409-1418.
  20. Ottens, M.; Franssen, M.; Kroes, P.; van de Poel, I. Modelling infrastructures as socio-technical systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 2006, 2, 133-145.
  21. Pinch, T.J.; Bijker, W.E. The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1984, 14, 399-441.
  22. Stone, D.A. Policy Paradox and Political Reason; Addison-Wesley Longman: Boston, MA, USA, 1988.
  23. Grin, J.; van de Graaf, H. Implementation as communicative action. Policy Sci. 1996, 29, 291-319.
  24. Kemp, R.; Parto, S.; Gibson, R.B. Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 12-30.
  25. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
  26. William, R.; Stillwell, A.S. Use of fragility curves to evalute the performance of green roofs. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2016, in press.
  27. Wang, R.; Eckelman, M.J.; Zimmerman, J.B. Consequential environmental and economic life cycle assessment of green and gray stormwater infrastructures for combined sewer systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11189-11198.
  28. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167-178.
  29. Schilling, J.; Logan, J. Greening the rust belt: A green infrastructure model for right sizing America's shrinking cities. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2008, 74, 451-466.
  30. Dunn, A.D. Siting green infrastructure: Legal and policy solutions to alleviate urban poverty and promote healthy communities. BC Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 2010, 37, 41.
  31. Lee, A.; Maheswaran, R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 212-222.
  32. Hamilton, S.; Quayle, M. Corridors of green and gold: Impact of riparian suburban greenways on property values. J. Bus. Adm. Policy Anal. 1999, 30, 365.
  33. Oberndorfer, E.; Lundholm, J.; Bass, B.; Coffman, R.R.; Doshi, H.; Dunnett, N.; Gaffin, S.; Köhler, M.; Liu, K.K.; Rowe, B. Green roofs as urban ecosystems: Ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience 2007, 57, 823-833.
  34. Baik, J.J.; Kwak, K.H.; Park, S.B.; Ryu, Y.H. Effects of building roof greening on air quality in street canyons. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 61, 48-55.
  35. Santamouris, M. Regulating the damaged thermostat of the cities-Status, impacts and mitigation challenges. Energy Build. 2015, 91, 43-56.
  36. William, R.; Goodwell, A.; Richardson, M.; Le, P.V.; Kumar, P.; Stillwell, A.S. An environmental cost-benefit analysis of alternative green roofing strategies. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 1-9.
  37. Malinowski, P.A.; Stillwell, A.S.; Wu, J.S.; Schwarz, P.M. Energy-Water Nexus: Potential Energy Savings and Implications for Sustainable Integrated Water Management in Urban Areas from Rainwater Harvesting and Gray-Water Reuse. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2015, 141, A4015003, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR. 1943-5452.0000528. · DOI
  38. Turner, T. City as Landscape: A Post Post-Modern View of Design and Planning; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 1996.
  39. Rudlin, D.; Falk, N. Building the 21st Century Home: The Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1999.
  40. Lovell, S.T.; Taylor, J.R. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1447-1463.
  41. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 159, 62-75.
  42. Raven, R.P.; Heiskanen, E.; Lovio, R.; Hodson, M.; Brohmann, B. The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (niche) technologies meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2008, 28, 464-477.
  43. Gallo, C.; Moore, A.; Wywrot, J. Comparing the adaptability of infiltration based BMPs to various US regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 106, 326-335.
  44. Broto, V.C.; Bulkeley, H. Maintaining Climate Change Experiments: Urban Political Ecology and the Everyday Reconfiguration of Urban Infrastructure. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013, 37, 1934-1948.
  45. Badham, R.; Clegg, C.; Wall, T. Socio-technical theory. In Handbook of Ergonomics; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  46. Boschma, R.A.; Lambooy, J.G. Evolutionary economics and economic geography. J. Evol. Econ. 1999, 9, 411-429.
  47. Freeman, C. Innovation, changes of techno-economic paradigm and biological analogies in economics. Rev. Écon. 1991, 42, 211-231.
  48. Gunderson, L.; Holling, C. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
  49. Lall, S. Understandging technology development. Dev. Chang. 1993, 24, 719-753.
  50. Nelson, R.R.; Winter, S.G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009.
  51. Norgaard, R.B. Coevolutionary development potential. Land Econ. 1984, 60, 160-173.
  52. Van den Bergh, J.C. Evolutionary thinking in environmental economics. J. Evol. Econ. 2007, 17, 521-549.
  53. Meadowcroft, J. What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sci. 2009, 42, 323-340.
  54. Shove, E.; Walker, G. CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environ. Plan. A 2007, 39, 763-770.
  55. Shove, E.; Walker, G. Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 471-476.
  56. Gibbs, D.; O'Neill, K. Rethinking sociotechnical transitions and green entrepreneurship: The potential for transformative change in the green building sector. Environ. Plan. A 2014, 46, 1088-1107.
  57. Boyer, R.H. Grassroots innovation for urban sustainability: Comparing the diffusion pathways of three ecovillage projects. Environ. Plan. A 2015, 47, 320-337.
  58. Hodson, M.; Marvin, S. Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Res. Policy 2010, 39, 477-485.
  59. Frantzeskaki, N.; Coenen, L.; Castán Broto, V.; Loorbach, D. (Eds.) Urban Sustainability Transitions; Routledge Studies in Sustainability Transitions: London, UK, 2017.
  60. Bulkeley, H.; Broto, V.C.; Maassen, A. Low-carbon transitions and the reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 1471-1486.
  61. Broto, V.C.; Bulkeley, H. A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 92-102.
  62. Berkhout, F. Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2006, 18, 299-311.
  63. Nevens, F.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gorissen, L.; Loorbach, D. Urban Transition Labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 111-122.
  64. Evans, J.; Karvonen, A. 'Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!'-Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 413-430.
  65. Dorstewitz, P. Planning and experimental knowledge production: Zeche Zollverein as an urban laboratory. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 431-449.
  66. Boyd, E.; Ghosh, A. Innovations for enabling urban climate governance: Evidence from Mumbai. Environ. Plan. C 2013, 31, 926-945.
  67. Bulkeley, H. Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geogr. 2005, 24, 875-902.
  68. Hodson, M.; Marvin, S. Making low-carbon England and Wales. Town Ctry. Plan. 2011, 79, 388-392.
  69. Luque-Ayala, A.; Marvin, S. Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism? Urban Stud. 2015, 52, 2105-2116.
  70. Nill, J. Okologische innovationspolitik aus evolutorischer perspektive: Politikziel abstention, variation, oder gar selektion? (Ecological innovation policy from an evolutionary perspective: Abstinence, variation or even selection as policy objective?). In Institutioneller Wandel, Marktprozesse und Dynamische Wirtschaftspolitik: Perspektiven der Evolutorischen Okonomic. (Institutional Change, Market Processes and Dynamic Economic Policy: Evolutionary Economic Perspectives); Metropolis: Marburg, Germany, 2004; pp. 449-469.
  71. Latour, B. Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In Science Observed; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1983; pp. 141-170.
  72. Pennell, K.G.; Thompson, M.; Rice, J.W.; Senier, L.; Brown, P.; Suuberg, E. Bridging research and environmental regulatory processes: The role of knowledge brokers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11985-11992.
  73. Hildén, M. Time horizons in evaluating environmental policies. New Dir. Eval. 2009, 2009, 9-18.
  74. Brand, S. How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They're Built; Penguin: London, UK, 1994.
  75. Graham, S.; Thrift, N. Out of order: Understanding repair and maintenance. Theory Cult. Soc. 2007, 24, 1-25.
  76. Bengston, D.N.; Fletcher, J.O.; Nelson, K.C. Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 271-286.
  77. Pope, J.; Annandale, D.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 595-616. 100.
  78. Walsh, C.; Glendinning, S.; Castán-Broto, V.; Dewberry, E.; Powell, M. Are wildcard events on infrastructure systems opportunities for transformational change? Futures 2015, 67, 1-10. 101. City of Chicago: Office of the Mayor. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Strategy. Available online: https:// www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/progs/env/ChicagoGreenStormwaterInfrastructureStrategy. pdf (accessed on 31 October 2016). 102. City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. Green Infrastructure for Single Family Residences. 2012. Available online: http://www.atlantawatershed.org/default/?linkServID=32A08C06-9D55-4889-97FA CA852EBE559E&showMeta=2&ext=.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2016). 103. City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. Implementing Green Infrastructure: Atlanta's Post-Development Stormwater Ordinance. 2013. Available online: http://www.atlantawatershed. org/default/?linkServID=A49C0402-58B7-4594-B7A215B6F4BC48D3&showMeta=2&ext=.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2016). 104. City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management. Green Infrastructure Stormwater Management Practices for Small Commercial Development. 2014. Available online: http://www.atlantawatershed. org/default/?linkServID=6B82F82F-5178-46B9-804C065FD9D912CC&showMeta=2&ext=.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2016). 105. City of Austin Watershed Protection Department. Green Infrastructure Working Group. 2015. Available online: https://austintexas.gov/page/green-infrastructure-working-group (accessed on 24 October 2016). 106. City of Austin Watershed Protection Department. Grow Green Programs, 2016. Available online: http: //www.austintexas.gov/content/1653/Programs/2539 (accessed on 24 October 2016). 107. Chesapeake Conservancy. Green Infrastructure Report: Baltimore City. 2015. Available online: http: //www.chesapeakeconservancy.org/images/Green_Infrastructure_Report_Final_10.14.15.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2016). 108. Blue Water Baltimore. Benefits of Green Infrastructure. 2016. Available online: https://www.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chini, C., Canning, J., Schreiber, K., Peschel, J., & Stillwell, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Peschel, Joshua
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2017-01-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
105
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su9010105
OpenAlex
W2572763335
Cited by
112
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Design and Development
Keywords
green stormwater infrastructure, green infrastructure, urban experimentation, socio-technical systems, sustainability policy, knowledge brokers, community participation, urban sustainability

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