Elsevier

Environmental Science & Policy

Volume 89, November 2018, Pages 153-162
Environmental Science & Policy

Building effective Planning Support Systems for green urban water infrastructure—Practitioners’ perceptions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.011Get rights and content

Abstract

The multiple benefits of adopting distributed, green stormwater technologies in the local environment are increasingly recognised, particularly in relation to water quality, flood mitigation, amenity and aesthetics. To advance the integration of these systems into everyday decision-making practices, Planning Support Systems (PSS) are considered vital. Despite several PSS available to support planners and key decision-makers, their uptake remains constrained; a phenomenon known as the ‘implementation gap’. While scholars have hypothesised why the adoption of PSS is limited, there remains little empirical investigation regarding the reasons why. This paper tests the hypotheses underlying the implementation gap in relation to water sensitive urban design (WSUD) planning. Drawing on the tacit experience of 24 key urban water planning professionals in the front-runner city of Melbourne, Australia, in-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken to unpack the contemporary planning processes used and reveal characteristics leading to success and failure of PSS application. Data analysis revealed WSUD planning professionals regard the adoption of PSS as a significant step towards improving contemporary decision-making practices, which are regarded as opportunistic rather than strategic. PSS use was widespread, though the type, intensity and sophistication of use varied among interview participants. Confirming the hypotheses from planning literature, practitioners suggested PSS need to be user-friendly and align closely to planning practice. Additionally, however, it was found that it is crucial for PSS to meet industry conventions. Suggested improvements to current PSS included incorporating socio-economic factors alongside biophysical and planning factors, hence the role for GIS-based suitability analysis tools. Overall, this study provides current and future PSS-developers with critical insights regarding the type, function and characteristics of an ‘ideal’ PSS aimed at enhancing the usefulness and uptake of PSS, and thus improve planning that supports expediting green infrastructure implementation.

Introduction

Cities around the world are confronted with the negative impacts of increasing urbanisation and climate change. Impervious surfaces and changing weather patterns cause urban waterway degradation and increase flooding risks (Gill et al., 2007). Responding to this situation, Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Australia, and similar concepts such as Low Impact Development (LID) in the US, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in the UK and Sponge Cities in China, have gained attention over the past decades as an adaptation and mitigation strategy that increases the liveability and resilience of cities (Fletcher et al., 2014). At the core of this strategy are distributed ‘green’ drainage infrastructures, such as raingardens and constructed wetlands. The application of varied multi-functional green infrastructures is aimed at protecting water quality, mitigating flood risks and providing additional benefits, such as improved amenity values, micro-climate and ecological habitat (Wong and Brown, 2009). Globally, the number of WSUD systems being adopted is growing. To ensure that technologies perform to their full capacity and deliver the full suite of benefits, due attention to their context is required to achieve successful integration into the urban landscape (Kuller et al., 2017).

WSUD departs from large scale, centralised single-objective urban drainage systems that are predominantly hidden from the public eye. However, the multi-functionality of WSUD technologies widen the policy and decision-making contexts, for well-designed and well-situated WSUD assets can go beyond just urban drainage, to incorporate biodiversity targets, improved aesthetics and amenity and potential micro-climate benefits, among others (Fletcher et al., 2014; Sharma et al., 2016). With this in mind, strategic planning practices are required to incorporate all aspects of the urban context for WSUD integration: biophysical, socio-economic and urban form (Kuller et al., 2017). The multitude of relevant aspects and considerations make WSUD planning a complex task that calls for vertical (between different levels of government) and horizontal (among municipalities) alignment and integration of key policy and decision-making contexts. Indeed, Morison et al. (2010) highlight the importance of high levels of internal (between departments within an organisation) and external (between organisations) collaboration required to accomplish this integration (Morison et al., 2010). Currently, vertical misalignment of high-level policy is exacerbated by differences between municipalities in their levels of capacity and commitment to WSUD planning (Morison and Brown, 2011).

Effective planning for integrating WSUD technologies into the landscape requires an understanding of the varying functionalities associated with different WSUD approaches, a high-level of planning expertise and readily available data. Yet, current WSUD scholarship continues to highlight how the internal capacity of municipalities, where the majority of detailed WSUD planning is undertaken, is constrained by factors such as insufficient technical skills, high levels of staff turnover and lack of dedicated resources, among others (e.g. Brown et al., 2009a; Morison and Brown, 2011). To overcome these internal challenges, external expertise from engineering consultancies is typically sought. This has led to ad-hoc and opportunistic planning practices, which may result in long-term, sub-optimal outcomes (Kuller et al., 2018). Indeed, as Malekpour et al. (2015) highlight, reactive and incremental approaches to planning are ill-suited to guide a transition towards widespread adoption of WSUD approaches.

Planning Support Systems (PSS) may be well suited to aid urban planning practitioners (Klosterman, 1997) and may help to overcome the challenges associated with collaboration and alignment of goals and interests in the water sector (Crona and Parker, 2012; Gibson et al., 2017). A myriad of PSS is available to planning practitioners (Kuller et al., 2017), including several recent PSS focussed on supporting WSUD implementation, such as UrbanBEATS (Bach, 2014), SUDSLOC (Ellis and Viavattene, 2014) and more (refer to Fig. 1) (Brown et al., 2009b; eWater, 2011; Fronteira et al., 2014; Makropoulos et al., 2008; Montalto et al., 2013; Morales-Torres et al., 2016; Rossman, 2010; Sitzenfrei et al., 2013; van de Ven et al., 2016).

The application of PSS is widely promoted in academic scholarship (e.g. Geertman and Stillwell, 2012; Klosterman, 1997; te Brömmelstroet, 2013) based on the recognised value of PSS in dealing with the growing complexities of urban planning tasks (Geertman, 2016; Poch et al., 2004). Nevertheless, the reported level of PSS uptake among planning professionals remains low (e.g. Gibson et al., 2017; te Brömmelstroet, 2013; Uran and Janssen, 2003; Vonk et al., 2005). The causes of this ‘implementation gap’ have been widely hypothesised over the past two decades. Although still the subject of academic debate, there is a growing consensus the implementation gap is the result of: limited exposure to and experience with PSS, a lack of data availability and quality, low user friendliness, and the simplicity and limited usefulness of outputs (te Brömmelstroet, 2013; Vonk et al., 2005). Despite these insights, there remains a lack of empirical research focussing on practitioner perceptions regarding the causes of this WSUD planning the implementation gap (McIntosh et al., 2007).

Contemporary PSS scholars point to a lack of direct engagement between PSS developers and everyday planning practices and practitioners, as the core of the implementation gap (e.g. Crona and Parker, 2012; McIntosh et al., 2007; Pelzer et al., 2015; Rodela et al., 2017; te Brömmelstroet, 2013; Vonk et al., 2005). Indeed, the failure to directly engage with PSS end-users has led to a range of weaknesses in PSS design, which ultimately act as barriers to uptake, which are summarised in Table 1. Reflecting the temporal challenge in relation to advancing PSS uptake, Table 1 reveals how similar challenges to those identified by Lee (1973) almost half a century ago are still relevant. Lee’s (1973, p. 164), “seven sins of large scale models” p. 164: Lee (1973) closely mirror the contemporary barriers, including, among others: “hyper-comprehensiveness” (the drive to include too much detail in models), “hungriness” (the need for data inputs), “complicatedness” (high number of variables and relationships) and “mechanicalness” (deterministic, inflexible, inhumane thinking process of computers). Geertman (2016) concedes that many of these challenges are present today, though does acknowledge they vary depending on the domain of planning.

To advance WSUD implementation and avoid opportunistic implementation, this paper characterises practitioner’s perceptions regarding the underlying issues associated with PSS adoption within the Australian urban context of metropolitan Melbourne. Drawing on the tacit experiences of contemporary planning practitioners engaged in WSUD practices, this qualitative research seeks to: (i) identify the perceived strengths and weaknesses of current WSUD planning processes, (ii) assess the current level and scope of PSS uptake and how this could be improved into the future to expedite WSUD implementation and (iii) compare the barriers to PSS uptake from literature with those found for WSUD planning. For the first time, the implementation gap is empirically tested for WSUD planning. It is one of the few attempts, to date, to empirically test the hypotheses for the PSS implementation gap in urban planning in general. Many important causes hypothesised to underlie the implementation gap were confirmed by our findings, such as user friendliness and relevance to the planning process. However, some other issues were found that were not before described to play a role in PSS uptake, most notably whether a PSS is industry convention. This research is undertaken in the context of the development of a novel planning support tool and will inform its design. In addition, it is anticipated that this research will provide PSS developers with critical insights regarding success factors for PSS uptake, enabling them to develop more successful models and tools to further urban planning practices.

Section snippets

Research approach

To explore how PSS can improve WSUD planning, two overarching research questions were formulated: (1) How are the characteristics of current WSUD planning practices and their outcomes perceived by planning practitioners? (2) What is the current and potential role that PSS can play to improve WSUD planning and (3) how can we improve the suitability of PSS towards this strategic planning for WSUD? While the answers to questions 1 and 2 are captured in the interview data, the discussion posits key

Contemporary planning processes

Considerable experience with WSUD planning has been gained by planning practitioners in Melbourne over the past decade. Nevertheless, it is still regarded as a relatively novel concept. Important to note is the difference between planning for greenfield- (development of rural land) and infill (development of existing urban land) developments. While the former is relatively well structured and set in policy (e.g. clause 56.07 of the Victorian Planning Provisions, which sets the requirement for

Challenges to WSUD planning

Despite the proven benefits of, and ongoing commitment towards WSUD, the planning and implementation of WSUD still faces challenges. These challenges, as identified by our research participants, are not exclusive to the WSUD planning process. For example, need for collaboration to mobilise knowledge and increase the capacity of local planning actors is widely recognised (e.g. Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, 2002; Healey, 1998). Indeed, Brand and Gaffikin (2007) argue that as our world becomes

Conclusion

While urban planning practices greatly benefit from PSS, their uptake remains low. This phenomenon, known as the ‘implementation gap’, has emerged as a result of the lack of engagement from the developers of such tools with the planning practice. PSS development has become supply, rather than demand driven. Our research responds to this trend by deeply engaging with planning practice and the role of PSS through the analysis of planner’s experiences and assessment of the existence, potential

Acknowledgements

Our warm regards go to all research participants from municipalities, state government institutes, utilities and private consultants in Melbourne, who took the time to speak with us in interviews and send us their documents and information. This work was supported by the Australia-Indonesia Centre under the project code RCC-BrownMON: Urban Water Cluster and fund code SRP16 52057764.

Mr. Martijn Kuller, MSc: Mr. Kuller’s is a PhD candidate at the department of Civil Engineering of Monash University, Melbourne. His research focuses on supporting urban planning through the development of advanced spatial analysis methodologies that integrate the biophysical, as well as socio-economic and environmental contexts. His research is applied to urban design, particularly decentralised urban water infrastructure. Mr. Kuller has an interdisciplinary background with a BSc degree in

References (63)

  • M. Poch et al.

    Designing and building real environmental decision support systems

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2004)
  • R. Rodela et al.

    The social side of spatial decision support systems: investigating knowledge integration and learning

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2017)
  • A.K. Sharma et al.

    Water sensitive urban design: an investigation of current systems, implementation drivers, community perceptions and potential to supplement urban water services

    Water

    (2016)
  • R. Sitzenfrei et al.

    Assessing the impact of transitions from centralised to decentralised water solutions on existing infrastructures—integrated city-scale analysis with VIBe

    Water Res.

    (2013)
  • H.M. Smith et al.

    The role of map-based environmental information in supporting integration between river basin planning and spatial planning

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2013)
  • M. te Brömmelstroet et al.

    Developing land use and transport PSS: meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners

    Transp. Policy

    (2008)
  • O. Uran et al.

    Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands

    Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.

    (2003)
  • F.H.M. van de Ven et al.

    Adaptation Planning Support Toolbox: measurable performance information based tools for co-creation of resilient, ecosystem-based urban plans with urban designers, decision-makers and stakeholders

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2016)
  • L. Albrechts

    Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined

    Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des.

    (2004)
  • P. Allmendinger et al.

    Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory

    (2002)
  • P.M. Bach

    UrbanBEATS: A Virtual Urban Water System Tool for Exploring Strategic Planning Scenarios

    (2014)
  • T. Boyer et al.

    Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies

    Wetlands

    (2004)
  • R. Brand et al.

    Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world

    Plan. Theory

    (2007)
  • R. Brown et al.

    Practitioner perceptions of social and institutional barriers to advancing a diverse water source approach in Australia

    Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.

    (2009)
  • R.R. Brown et al.

    Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future regimes

    Water Sci. Technol.

    (2009)
  • City of Melbourne

    Draft Municipal Integrated Water Management Plan: Melbourne

    (2017)
  • City of Whittlesea

    City of Whittlesea Stormwater Management Plan: 2012–2017

    (2012)
  • J.W. Creswell

    Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches

    (2012)
  • B.I. Crona et al.

    Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2012)
  • CSIRO

    Water sensitive urban design

  • DELWP

    Integrated Water Management Framework for Victoria

    (2016)
  • Cited by (31)

    • Planning support systems for strategic implementation of nature-based solutions in the global south: Current role and future potential in Indonesia

      2022, Cities
      Citation Excerpt :

      Contrasting the outcomes with research from Australia revealed many commonalities both regarding issues with planning of sustainable urban water management as well as the use of PSS to assist this process, while some important differences also exist (Kuller et al., 2018b). Firstly, for issues regarding planning (see Table 2: Kuller et al., 2018b) most important similarities were the perceived need and identified limitations in the collaboration of all relevant stakeholders. Both in Australia and Indonesia, the level of strategic collaboration varied, and its presence was regarded essential for successful planning of NBS.

    • The nature-based solutions planning support system: A playground for site and solution prioritization

      2022, Sustainable Cities and Society
      Citation Excerpt :

      Several planning support systems concerning NBS development have been proposed (Voskamp, de Luca, Polo-Ballinas, Hulsman & Brolsma, 2021). However, they have rarely been picked up by practitioners, mainly due to their complexity, low user-friendliness, and the extensive training and time needed to generate relevant outputs (Kuller et al., 2018). For example, the SUSTAIN model developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helps to find the optimal location for stormwater solutions, focusing on stormwater management functionalities (Lee et al., 2012), but is a relatively complex tool that requires a trained expert to operate.

    • Blue green infrastructure, from niche to mainstream: Challenges and opportunities for planning in Stockholm

      2021, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      Studies that have focused on the processes for ST-regime change, including planning and system design, implementation, monitoring and maintenance, evaluation and refinement, have describe these as long-term, interactive, deliberate, democratic, and reflexive, features that allow them to deal with complexity and uncertainty (Kemp et al., 2007; Loorbach, 2010; Voß and Bornemann, 2011; Voß et al., 2009). According to this philosophy, a STS change requires new collaborative governance arrangements for sharing and building the knowledge capacity that facilitates integrated problem analyses and solutions for optimal outcomes (Brown, 2005; Karvonen, 2011; Kuller et al., 2018; van de Meen et al., 2011). This secures a better overall understanding, manages actor relationships and power dynamics, and enhances knowledge generation, experimentation and learning (Foxon et al., 2009; Lawhon and Murphy, 2012; Voß et al., 2009).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Mr. Martijn Kuller, MSc: Mr. Kuller’s is a PhD candidate at the department of Civil Engineering of Monash University, Melbourne. His research focuses on supporting urban planning through the development of advanced spatial analysis methodologies that integrate the biophysical, as well as socio-economic and environmental contexts. His research is applied to urban design, particularly decentralised urban water infrastructure. Mr. Kuller has an interdisciplinary background with a BSc degree in Environmental Economics and an MSc degree in Urban Environmental Management (thesis in rainwater harvesting at Amsterdam Airport with consultancy firm Royal HaskoningDHV in Amsterdam) from Wageningen University. His recent working experience include the Australian state government agency Zero Waste SA in Adelaide.

    Associate prof. Megan Farrelly: I am a social scientist (and geographer) interested in understanding how experimentation and innovation can support institutional levers to promote transformational change in the functionality and liveability of urban environments. I am currently examining the influence of experimentation in multiple sectors (i.e. water, green infrastructure) with regard to its role in bringing about long-term policy and practice change. I also contribute towards the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities.

    Professor Ana Deletic: Professor Ana Deletic is Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) at the University of New South Wales, Sydney (UNSW). Until mid-2017 Ana was Associate Dean of Research Engineering Faculty and the Founding Director of Monash Infrastructure research institute at Monash University. Ana leads a large research group that is working on multi-disciplinary urban water issue focusing on stormwater management and socio-technical modelling. Earlier she led the development of a number of green nature based water treatment systems which are now widely adopted in Australia and abroad. Ana is a Fellow of Engineers Australia and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), and Editor of Water Research. In 2012, the Victorian State Government awarded Ana the Victoria Prize for Science and Innovation (Physical Sciences) for her lifelong achievements in stormwater research.

    Dr. Peter Bach: Peter M. Bach is a research fellow at Monash University, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science & Technology (Eawag) and ETH Zurich. He completed his PhD at Monash University in 2014 and has since been active in the fields of integrated modelling and smarter planning of cities and their urban water infrastructure. He focuses on improving collaborative planning of sustainable water infrastructure, in particular, decentralised systems to support urban growth, liveability and resilience to climate change. He is also chair of the International Water Association Working Group on Modelling Integrated Urban Water Systems.

    View full text