Next Article in Journal
Tragedies, Fates, Furies and Fuels: Narratives of Individuals Bereaved by Suicide
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of COVID-19 Vaccine Perception, Hope, and Fear on the Travel Bubble Program
Previous Article in Special Issue
Flood Mitigation in Urban Areas through Deep Aquifer Recharge: The Case of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph19148713
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Discussion on the Application of Terminology for Urban Soil Sealing Mitigation Practices

by
María I. Rodríguez-Rojas
* and
Alejandro L. Grindlay Moreno
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Higher School of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8713; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19148713
Submission received: 14 June 2022 / Revised: 13 July 2022 / Accepted: 15 July 2022 / Published: 18 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Mitigation of Soil Sealing in Cities)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Soil sealing is one of the most serious environmental problems today regarding its impact on cities. This article presents an analysis of the different urban practices currently used to mitigate the effects of soil sealing in urban areas. The main typologies, characteristics, differences, similarities and objectives have been considered. The practices analyzed were SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems), LIDs (Low Impact Developments), BMPs (Best Management Practices), WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design), GI (Green Infrastructure), and NbS (Nature-based Solutions). To understand the impact of these terms, an analysis of their presence in the scientific literature over the last 10 years is carried out. The results indicate that the trend in the use of these terms is increasing, with the number of articles having doubled in the last 10 years. This indicates the importance that the problem of soil sealing has acquired in the world, and the relevant environmental benefits of addressing it.

1. Introduction

Historically the impermeabilization of urban soils was a public health measure; however, the environmental problems that have resulted as a consequence of this have meant that soil sealing has become a vital issue today. The rapid growth of urban areas and the need to facilitate road traffic has led to a process of urbanization based on waterproofing [1]. This has led to 67% of the 1000 km2 of land area that is urbanized per year in Europe [2] being non-permeable [3]. This phenomenon is causing enormous environmental problems in cities [4,5]; the “heat island” effect creating an increase in temperatures [6]; the saturation of wastewater treatment systems, causing the contamination of receiving waters [7,8]; and the overwhelming of the sewerage system, producing more frequent and intense flooding [9]. Sewage systems were not designed for this phenomenon, so these problems will intensify due to the effects of climate change, which predict increasingly intense rainfall [10,11].
In many cities numerous measures have been taken over the last 20 years to reduce the effects of soil sealing processes in urban areas [12,13] by mimicking hydrological conditions prior to urban development. These measures are inspired by natural processes [14,15,16], improved soil and water conservation practices, and the green economy [17,18,19]. They are mainly designed to store, infiltrate, and promote evapotranspiration as far as possible to reduce soil temperature and avoid saturation of sewage networks and thus flooding [20,21]. Therefore, these urban practices have significant environmental benefits contributing to the reduction of flooding and water pollution [7], increasing water resources [3], generating a pleasant environment, facilitating carbon sequestration, lowering temperatures in urban areas, and improving human health and well-being [22,23].
All these proven benefits have promoted in the incorporation of these measures in the environmental agendas of many cities around the world [15,16,24,25,26,27]. The integration of these practices into urban planning has modified the approach to land use and land cover, improving water supply, water quality control, soil protection, and hydrometeorological risk mitigation [25,28,29,30]. For example, less runoff is generated in urban areas and the annual water yield tends to be better than that of impermeable soils [31,32,33], which is associated with higher evapotranspiration and lower temperatures in urban areas [34].
These new practices are increasingly being applied in cities around the world under different terminologies. An example of the importance of the application of these practices is the study by Fletcher et al. [35], which analyzes the use of these terms up to 2012. The findings of their study show that those most commonly used at the end of the study period were LIDs, GI, BMPs, WSUD, and Source Control. Thus, these results have been taken as a starting point for the realization of our study, considering for terminology analysis those names that were most used in 2012. The term “Source Control” has been replaced by “Sustainable Drainage Systems”, since the latter has surpassed the former in importance in recent years, especially in Europe. On the other hand, the term “Nature-Based Solutions” has been added, which was not considered in Fletcher’s study because it is a more recently-used term. Thus, the terms that are analyzed in this article are LIDs, GI, BMPs, WSUD, SuDS, and NbS. Regarding the study period, the years from 2012 to 2021 were covered, in order to present new results in relation to the evolution of the use of these urban practices in the scientific literature over the last 10 years. The geographical scope of the study is international since, as will be explained below, international publications in the JCR database related to urban practices for soil sealing mitigation were analyzed.

2. Urban Practices to Mitigate Soil Sealing: Typologies, Characteristics and Objectives

The environmental consequences of soil sealing have led to the development of a multitude of measures to mitigate the effects of this phenomenon in urban areas in recent years [35]. This is illustrated by the publication “Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-naturing Cities” [14], which is one of the most important at a European and international level in relation to urban practices for soil sealing mitigation. This publication describes the basic principles of sustainable urban practices that help to reduce the effects of soil sealing. These practices, each with their own particularities, have been referred to using different terms, but of all of them their main objective is to mitigate the phenomenon of soil sealing. This group of terms is not static [35] as they constantly respond to the evolution of technologies and the incorporation of other fields to the practice of urban drainage and display differences (some subtle, others drastic) in scope and concept [36,37]. The terms are analyzed and their main characteristics and the scope of application of each of them are shown below.

2.1. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)

A term often used in the scientific literature is “Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)”. Originally, the term SuDS described the British approach to sustainable urban drainage systems. During the 1990s, these systems developed specially in Scotland and Wales, with a strong regulatory push from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency for implementation in new developments. Today, this term is mainly used in Europe, and it refers to a set of water management practices that aim to align modern drainage systems with natural water processes and are part of a broader green infrastructure strategy [38]. SuDS make urban drainage systems more compatible with components of the natural water cycle, such as storm overflows, soil percolation, and biofiltration, mitigating the effect that human development has had or may have on the natural water cycle, particularly surface runoff and water pollution trends [39].
These systems can be conventional infrastructure to reduce urban runoff (storm tanks), or vegetated areas also used to protect the principles and functions of natural ecosystems and provide a wide variety of benefits to people and wildlife [40]. SuDS are a complement to conventional sewer system infrastructure to minimize the hydrological impacts of urbanization and increase resilience to climate change in urban areas [41]. These measures are intended to limit extreme precipitation events [40] and are known to provide many environmental benefits [42], including the mitigation of climate change impact [43,44,45,46], along with ecological and social benefits and other potential long-term economically quantifiable benefits [47,48,49]. Types of SuDS include green roofs, permeable surfaces, wetlands, detention and infiltration basins, and filter drains, among others [50]. In general, these systems are used to support the transition to more sustainable and resilient environments [51,52] and their implementation is gradually progressing [53,54].

2.2. Low Impact Developments (LIDs)

Another widely used term is “Low Impact Developments (LIDs)”. LIDs were first conceptualized in the early 1990s by the Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources in the United States [55,56]. However, the term was first used by Burrill and Nolfi [57] in their study on reducing stormwater management costs. A manual on LID was then developed by Prince George’s County to increase its adaptability worldwide [58]. Nowadays this term is most commonly used in North America, Asia, and New Zealand and it is very similar to SuDS in origin, although has been used to characterize smaller-scale stormwater treatment devices. They are based on the regulation of stormwater at the source, through the use of control systems distributed at a micro-scale, such as the use of depression storage [55,59,60]. Today, optimal LID design is key in stormwater management, where the overall goal is to achieve a specific objective with limited available resources. The optimization objective can take many forms, such as reducing runoff volume, peak flow, combined sewer overflow volume, pollutant load, first flush volume, or minimizing cost. The optimal design of LIDs, such as the selection of appropriate LID, spatial layout, and size, can be obtained by considering an individual LID or a range of LIDs, under different storm scenarios or probabilistic rainfall events [55].

2.3. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

In North America and Canada, the most used term is “Best Management Practices (BMPs)”. Historically, the term has referred to auxiliary pollution controls in the fields of industrial wastewater control and municipal wastewater control [61], while in stormwater management (both urban and rural) and wetland management, BMPs can also refer to a primary control or treatment technique [62]. In fact, the US Environmental Protection Agency requires BMPs to satisfy wastewater permit applications with the advent of national pollution discharge elimination systems [35]. This term was coined in the 1990s as a way to describe acceptable practices that could be applied to protect water quality and promote soil conservation. They are methods that have been determined to be the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing nonpoint source pollution to help achieve water quality objectives [61]. BMPs include both pollution prevention and mitigation measures [62]. Conservation buffers, including grassed watercourses, wetlands, and riparian areas, act as an additional protective barrier by capturing potential pollutants before they pass into surface waters [63,64]. Stormwater management in developed urban areas also uses BMPs to remove pollutants from runoff. BMPs include retention ponds, alum treatment systems, constructed wetlands, sand filters, baffle boxes, inlet devices, vegetated swales, buffer strips, and infiltration/exfiltration trenches. Storm drain signage programs are an educational BMP tool to remind people of the illegality of dumping trash, oil, pesticides, and other toxic substances into urban runoff drainage systems [65,66].

2.4. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

In Australia, the most commonly used term is “Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)” [67]. This phrase began to be used in the 1990s in Australia, with the first known reference to it being in 1992, although it did not come into widespread use until the beginning of the 21st century. In fact, Australia defined WSUD concepts in the 2004 National Water Initiative (NWI) as “Innovation and capacity building to create water-sensitive Australian cities” [68,69]. To apply this model in Australian cities, the Australian Government established a Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRCWSC) in 2012 [69]. WSUD is a spatial planning and engineering design approach that integrates the urban water cycle, including stormwater, groundwater, and wastewater management and water supply, into urban design to minimize environmental degradation and enhance aesthetic and recreational appeal [70]. WSUD is described by Lloyd et al. [71] as an approach to urban planning and design that integrates with the urban water cycle aiming to minimize the hydrological impact of the urban development on its surroundings. It is practiced through both structural (green infrastructure systems, e.g., vegetated gardens, wetlands) and non-structural measures (i.e., policies aimed at improving water use efficiency) [72,73,74]. WSUD is associated with the consideration of multiple objectives that have traditionally been addressed separately: water security, public health, flood protection, waterway health, amenity, economic vitality, equity, and long-term sustainability [75,76,77,78,79,80]. Lloyd et al. [81] outline two fundamental aspects of WSUD: best management practices and best planning practices. While the former refers to structural and non-structural measures, the latter refers to the urban planning aspects of implementing distributed green systems. The WSUD concept integrates different stages of the urban water cycle into the urban design, such as water supply, stormwater, groundwater, and wastewater management [82]. This urban water model generates multiple benefits, including water supply, water quality, amenity, biodiversity, and urban heat mitigation [83].

2.5. Green Infrastructure (GI)

“Green Infrastructure (GI)” is a general term used to refer to the provision and maintenance of natural and semi-natural green spaces within the built “gray” infrastructure [84]. This term emerged in the USA in the 1990s and it seems to have origins in both landscape architecture, where it has been promoted as a network of green spaces, and in landscape ecology [35]. Today, this expression is used in all countries, especially in America, Europe, and Asia. It includes green spaces located, for example, in urban squares, pocket parks, sports fields, and cemeteries [85]. The difficulty of integrating green spaces into urban areas, which are almost fully occupied, has led to the implementation of hybrid systems that integrate greenery into or on top of gray infrastructure, such as green walls and roofs, permeable paving and roadside channels or gutters, shorelines, designated green belts, and walking paths in larger urban areas [86]. The benefits of integrating these practices in urban areas are very important for people’s health [87,88], air quality regulation, local temperature regulation, pollution abatement, and leisure opportunities [89,90,91]. Numerous recent studies claim that green infrastructures are the most effective practices to promote cooling through shading, airflow orientation, precipitation interception, and evapotranspiration [92,93,94,95,96,97]. The combination of green infrastructure with blue infrastructure (water bodies) can cool the overlying and adjacent air through evaporation and convection [98,99,100,101]. As has recently been proven in China, PM2.5 pollution concentration decreases as environmental greenness increases, a phenomenon that was observed across different land cover types and cities [102].

2.6. Nature-Based Solutions (NbS)

The last term commonly used to refer to practices for the mitigation of the effects of soil sealing is “Nature-based Solutions (NbS)”. This phrase was introduced towards the end of the 2000s by the World Bank to highlight the importance of biodiversity conservation for climate change mitigation and adaptation [103]. The term is used in all countries, especially in Europe. It is the most recent term, having been defined (in 2015) by the European Commission as “living solutions inspired by, continuously supported by, and using nature, which are designed to address various societal challenges in a resource-efficient and adaptive manner and to simultaneously provide economic, social and environmental benefits” [103]. The definition of NbS has recently been revised (in 2020) in the framework of the European Cooperation Action on Science and Technology Circular City as “concepts that bring nature into cities and those that derive from nature. NbS address societal challenges and enable resource recovery, climate mitigation and adaptation, human well-being, ecosystem restoration and/or improvement of biodiversity status, within urban ecosystems” [104]. However, the academic literature usually evaluates this term as a single functional dimension, usually water management [105]. NbS will play an important role in the EU Green Deal Strategy [106] and in the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 [107], aiming to implement the farm-to-table strategy [108]. They are also used in circular economy strategies and in the sustainability challenges of cities in the use of resources, such as water, energy and food [109]. In this sense they are now considered as a “critical element in addressing Sustainable Development Goals 11”, which is related to “sustainable cities and communities” [110], such as climate change adaptation measures [111], considering the cooling and urban heat mitigation effects of even small pocket green spaces in high density urban areas [112], or the specific benefits of vegetated green roofs and city trees on stormwater management for urban resilience [113].
By way of summary, the following table shows the main characteristics of the typologies of urban practices most commonly used to mitigate soil sealing in urban and peri-urban areas.
As can be seen in Table 1, the terms SuDS and LIDs are very similar in their definition and objectives. Both are based on water management to reduce the impact of extreme precipitation and re-naturalize the water cycle in urban areas. They are used to mitigate soil sealing in recently developed areas [114] and comprise different techniques, such as deep aquifer recharge through deep injection wells [115], as has been previously indicated. However, it is also relevant to consider their long-term performance with regard the evolution of their efficiency and clogging, effect in order to manage and maintain them adequately [116].
On the other hand, BMPs focus more on protecting water quality and promoting soil conservation in urban and peri-urban areas by reducing pollution. As for the terms GI and NbS, the analysis shows that they are also very similar and are based on the integration of green spaces into the urban environment, to improve the environmental quality of the surroundings, although in some cases GI may be linked to more specific techniques while NbS may have a broader scope. The term WSUD is an urban planning model that integrates the urban water cycle into the design of cities, minimizing the hydrological impact of urban development, and improving resilience to climate change.
Some recent tools have been developed in the assessment of SuDS and GI measures by determining surface runoff rates and helping in the reduction of flood hazards in critical zones [117]. Finally, another challenge for these practices will be the social acceptance of recycled stormwater use for non-potable residential purposes, where altruism and social and cultural norms will have significantly positive impact [118].

3. The Evolution of the Terminology Used for Urban Practices to Mitigate Soil Sealing

In order to obtain more information on the prevalence of soil sealing mitigation practices in recent years, an analysis was carried out on the articles published in the last 10 years (2012–2021). For this purpose, the terms already described above that represent the systems that are being used to mitigate the effects of soil sealing in urban and peri-urban areas have been taken as a basis.
The methodology used was based on that presented in the study by Fletcher et al. [35]. Their study analyzes the articles quoted in Google Scholar from 1980 to 2012, with keywords related to urban drainage and the study variable was the number of citations of the selected publications. In our study, however, data were extracted from the JCR database as it is considered of greater scientific relevance. The study period was from 2012 to 2021, and all recent urban practices for the mitigation of soil sealing were taken as keywords to expand the scope of study with respect to Fletcher’s article and the total number of publications was taken as the analysis variable, as it was considered more representative of the current scientific reality.
As mentioned in the Introduction, the keywords considered were the most used in 2012, at the beginning of the study period. Thus, the analysis was carried out with the following keywords: SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems), LIDs (Low Impact Developments), BMPs (Best Management Practices), WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design), GI (Green Infrastructures), and NbS (Nature-based Solutions). The search was conducted on the “Science Direct” website, which provides access to a large bibliographic database of scientific publications, one of the most important in the world. It hosts more than 18 million pieces of content from more than 4000 academic journals and 30,000 e-books. Only peer-reviewed articles written in English were considered. The search has quantified the number of articles published in the last 10 years that used selected terminology in the title, abstract, or keywords. The results obtained from this analysis were as follows.
Table 2 and Figure 1 show that the number of scientific articles published on the topic of “soil sealing” over the last 10 years has increased almost linearly, with a greater increase observed from 2019 onward, indicating that interest in this topic is increasing. In fact, the number of articles has doubled in the study period, from less than 200,000 to more than 400,000. This demonstrates the importance of this topic in the scientific field. In total, more than 2.5 million articles have been published on this topic in the last 10 years, indicating the great appeal of this topic for journals.
Figure 1 shows that by far the most frequently used term in scientific publications is LIDs, 26.3% more than the second most used term, NbS. The third most common term is BMPs, used in 33.8% of the LID value and 42.7% of the NbS value. SuDS, WSUD, and GI are the least used terms, far behind the first three. SuDS is used in 4% of the LID value, WSUD in 3%, and GI in 8%.
These results indicate that the terms used in America (LIDs and BMPs) are the most prevalent in the scientific literature, possibly because the number of scientific journals and scientists is greater in the US than in other countries. NbS appears in second place, despite being the most recently defined term. This indicates the importance this term has been gaining in recent years and that it may approach the usage of the terms LIDs and BMPs in the coming years. In addition, NbS has clearly exceeded that of GI, which is very similar in definition and objective/environmental benefit. Finally, we can see that the usage of all the above terms shows an increasing trend, indicating that the problem of soil sealing is becoming more and more important around the world.

4. Conclusions

This article has analyzed the main urban practices currently used to mitigate the effects of soil sealing in urban and peri-urban areas and their environmental benefits. It has been demonstrated that different terms are used to designate these practices, each with their own particularities but also with many common aspects. The terms most commonly used in the literature are SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems), LIDs (Low Impact Developments), BMPs (Best Management Practices), WSUD (Water Sensitive Urban Design), GI (Green Infrastructures), and NbS (Nature-based Solutions). It has been found that confusion can occur, with different authors using different terms to mean the same thing or ascribing different meanings to a given term. For instance, the terms SuDS and LID are very similar in their definition and objectives. They are based on water management to reduce the impact of extreme rainfall events and re-naturalize the water cycle in urban areas. However, BMPs focus more on protecting water quality and promoting soil conservation in urban and peri-urban areas by reducing pollution. GI and NbS, are more general terms and are based on the integration of green spaces in the urban environment, to improve the environmental quality of the surroundings. On the other hand, WSUD is an urban term that integrates the urban water cycle into the design of cities to minimize the hydrological impact of urban development and improve resilience to climate change. All these systems also share similarities in their environmental benefits for urban areas. Furthermore, it can be said that the new approaches have become increasingly sustainable, being more polyvalent and thus reflecting not only technical advances but also the relationship with nature and the cultural and social context.
An analysis of the presence of urban practices for soil sealing mitigation in the scientific literature over the last 10 years has been carried out using a selection on papers from the JCR database. Only peer-reviewed articles written in English in the JCR database were considered, which was the main limitation of the work, since non-English terminology used in other fields was not considered.
The evolution of studied publications shows that there was a linear growth in the use of this terminology, with a tendency to be exponential in recent years, which demonstrates that these practices are becoming increasingly relevant in the scientific field. The most commonly used terms are LIDs, NbS, and BMPs. LIDs and BMPs are terms used in North America, indicating that the number of articles published is higher in this area, probably due to the greater number of journals and scientists. However, NbS, despite being the most recently defined term, is in second place, showing that it is the fastest emerging term and could become the most prevalent in the coming years. On the other hand, the number of scientific articles published has increased over the last 10 years, doubling in this period. It can be deduced from the large quantity of articles published (2.5 million) that this topic is of increasing relevance and interest for the scientific journals and their readers. Moreover, the increasing usage of all terms analyzed suggests that the problem of soil sealing is an ever more imperative global issue.
In relation to the different terminology, this article shows that the meaning of the terms is different depending on the country and the moment and depending on the interpretation and the different conditions of each area. This variety and evolution in the terminology analyzed, as well as its definitions and objectives, makes it more difficult to homogenize actions, so this review helps to promote the necessity for a common terminology across countries in relation to soil sealing mitigation measures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.I.R.-R.; methodology, M.I.R.-R.; validation, A.L.G.M.; formal analysis, A.L.G.M.; investigation, M.I.R.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I.R.-R.; writing—review and editing, A.L.G.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data-supporting reported results can be found in https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/, accessed on 17 January 2022.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their helpful questions and comments to improve the paper and the suggestions and revision of Charles and Rosie Knipe.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pistocchi, A.; Calzolari, C.; Malucelli, F.; Ungaro, F. Soil sealing and flood risks in the plains of Emilia-Romagna, Italy. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 4, 398–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. European Commission. Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. In Commission Staff Working Document; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/soil_sealing_guidelines_en.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2015).
  3. Fini, A.; Frangi, P.; Mori, J.; Donzelli, D.; Ferrini, F. Nature based solutions to mitigate soil sealing in urban areas: Results from a 4-year study comparing permeable, porous, and impermeable pavements. Environ. Res. 2017, 156, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Scalenghe, R.; Ajmone-Marsan, F. The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 90, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tóth, G.; Montanarella, L.; Rusco, E. (Eds.) Threats to Soil Quality in Europe; JRC publication 46574; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Rome, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnfield, A.J. Two decades of urban climate research: A review of turbulence, exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island. Int. J. Clim. 2003, 23, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Burns, M.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Walsh, C.J.; Ladson, A.R.; Hatt, B.E. Hydrologic short-comings of conventional urban stormwater management and opportunities for reform. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Burton, G.A.J.; Pitt, R. Stormwater Effects Handbook: A Toolbox for Watershed Managers, Scientists, and Engineers; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  9. Shuster, W.D.; Bonta, J.; Thurston, H.; Warnemuende, E.; Smith, D.R. Impacts of impervious surface on watershed hydrology: A review. Urban Water J. 2005, 2, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Semadeni-Davies, A.; Hernebring, C.; Svensson, G.; Gustafsson, L.-G. The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: Combined sewer system. J. Hydrol. 2008, 350, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhou, Q. A Review of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Considering the Climate Change and Urbanization Impacts. Water 2014, 6, 976–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Palla, A.; Gnecco, I. Hydrologic modeling of Low Impact Development systems at the urban catchment scale. J. Hydrol. 2015, 528, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Woods Ballard, B.; Wilson, S.; Udale-Clarke, H.; Illman, S.; Scott, T.; Ashley, R.; Kellagher, R. The SuDS Manual; CIRIA: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. European Commission. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities; Publications Office of the European Union; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018; ISBN 978-92-3-100264-9. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sonneveld, B.G.J.S.; Merbis, M.D.; Alfarra, A.; Unver, O.; Arnal, M.A. Nature-Based Solutions for agricultural water management and food security. In FAO Landand Water Discussion Paper 12; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: www.fao.org/publications (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  17. Eggermont, H.; Balian, E.; Azevedo, J.M.N.; Beumer, V.; Brodin, T.; Claudet, J.; Fady, B.; Grube, M.; Keune, H.; Lamarque, P.; et al. Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2015, 24, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nesshöver, C.; Assmuth, T.; Irvine, K.N. The science, policy and practice of naturebased solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 1215–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Hanson, H.I.; Wickenberg, B.; Olsson, J.A. Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept? Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ahiablame, L.M.; Engel, B.A.; Chaubey, I. Effectiveness of Low Impact Development Practices: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2012, 223, 4253–4273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bressy, A.; Gromaire, M.-C.; Lorgeoux, C.; Saad, M.; Leroy, F.; Chebbo, G. Efficiency of source control systems for reducing runoff pollutant loads: Feedback on experimental catchments within Paris conurbation. Water Res. 2014, 57, 234–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Charlesworth, S.M.; Perales-Momparler, S.; Lashford, C.; Warwick, F. The sustainable management of surface water at the building scale: Preliminary results of case studies in the UK and Spain. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. 2013, 62, 534–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Norton, B.A.; Coutts, A.M.; Harris, R.J.; Hunter, A.M.; Williams, N.S.G. Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Boelee, E.; Janse, J.; Le Gal, A.; Kok, M.; Alkemade, R.; Ligtvoet, W. Overcoming water challenges through nature-based solutions. Water Policy 2017, 19, 820–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Keesstra, S.; Nunes, J.; Novara, A.; Finger, D.; Avelar, D.; Kalantari, Z.; Cerdà, A. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 997–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Raymond, C.M.; Pam, B.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Kabisch, N.; de Bel, M.; Enzi, V.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Geneletti, D.; Cardinaletti, M.; et al. An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects. Report prepared by the EKLIPSE expert working group on nature-based solutions to promote climate resilience in urban areas. Horizon 2017, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Foley, J.A.; DeFries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Kalantari, Z.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Keesstra, S.; Destouni, G. Nature-based solutions for flood-drought risk mitigation in vulnerable urbanizing parts of East-Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 5, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sahani, J.; Kumar, P.; Debele, S.; Spyrou, C.; Loupis, M.; Aragão, L.; Porcù, F.; Shah, M.A.R.; Di Sabatino, S. Hydro-meteorological risk assessment methods and management by nature-based solutions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 696, 133936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Andréassian, V. Waters and forests: From historical controversy to scientific debate. J. Hydrol. 2004, 291, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Filoso, S.; Bezerra, M.O.; Weiss, K.C.B.; Palmer, M.A. Impacts of forest restoration on water yield: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Zhang, M.; Liu, N.; Harper, R.; Li, Q.; Liu, K.; Wei, X.; Ning, D.; Hou, Y.; Liu, S. A global review on hydrological responses to forest change across multiple spatial scales: Importance of scale, climate, forest type and hydrological regime. J. Hydrol. 2017, 546, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Zhang, L.; Dawes, W.R.; Walker, G.R. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 2001, 37, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fletcher, T.D.; Shuster, W.; Hunt, W.F.; Ashley, R.; Butler, D.; Arthur, S.; Trowsdale, S.; Barraud, S.; Semadeni-Davies, A.; Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L.; et al. SuDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more–the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J. 2015, 12, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rodríguez-Rojas, M.I.; Cuevas-Arrabal, M.M.; Moreno, B.; Martínez, G. Changing the urban drainage paradigm from a planning perspective. A methodological proposal. Bol. Asoc. Geogr. Esp. 2017, 75, 577–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Ferrans, P.; Torres, M.N.; Temprano, J.; Sánchez, J.P.R. Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) modeling supporting decision-making: A systematic quantitative review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. CIRIA. SuDS Manual. In Document Reference: CIRIA (C753); CIRIA: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoang, L. System interactions of stormwater management using sustainable urban drainage systems and green infrastructure. Urban Water J. 2016, 13, 739–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Tang, S.; Jiang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Hong, Y.; Chung, E.S.; Shamseldin, A.Y.; Wei, Y.; Wang, X. Robustness analysis of storm water quality modelling with LID infrastructures from natural event-based field monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 142007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zhu, Z.; Chen, Z.; Yu, G. An assessment of the hydrologic effectiveness of low impact development (LID) practices for managing runoff with different objectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 504–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Liao, Z.L.; He, Y.; Huang, F.; Wang, S.; Li, H.Z. Analysis on LID for highly urbanized areas’ waterlogging control: Demonstrated on the example of Caohejing in Shanghai. Water Sci. Technol. J. Int. Assoc. Water Pollut. Res. 2013, 68, 2559–2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Coutts, C.; Hahn, M. Green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9768–9798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Jones, S.; Somper, C. The role of green infrastructure in climate change adaptation in London. Geogr. J. 2014, 180, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ghodsi, S.H.; Zahmatkesh, Z.; Goharian, E.; Kerachian, R.; Zhu, Z. Optimal design of low impact development practices in response to climate change. J. Hydrol. 2020, 580, 124266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Roseboro, A.; Torres, M.N.; Zhu, Z.; Rabideau, A.J. The Impacts of Climate Change and Porous Pavements on Combined Sewer Overflows: A Case Study of the City of Buffalo, New York, USA. Front. Water 2021, 3, 224–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rodríguez-Rojas, M.I.; Huertas-Fernández, F.; Moreno, B.; Martínez, G.; Grindlay, A.L. A study of the application of permeable pavements as a sustainable technique for the mitigation of soil sealing in cities: A case study in the south of Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 205, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wolf, K. Ergonomics of the city: Green infrastructure and social benefits. In Engineering Green: Proceedings of the 11th National Urban Forest Conference; American Forests: Washington DC, USA, 2003; Volume 115. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hamann, F.; Blecken, G.T.; Ashley, R.M.; Viklander, M. Valuing the multiple benefits of blue-green infrastructure for a Swedish case study: Contrasting the economic as-asessment tools B£ST and TEEB. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. 2020, 6, 05020003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rodríguez-Rojas, M.I.; Cuevas, M.M.; Huertas, F.; Martínez, G.; Moreno, B. Indicators to evaluate water sensitive urban design in urban planning. WIT Trans. Ecol. Env. 2015, 168, 371–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Cettner, A.; Ashley, R.; Viklander, M.; Nilsson, K. Stormwater management and urban planning: Lessons from 40 years of innovation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 786–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lundy, L.; Wade, R. Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 653–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Newman, R.; Ashley, R.; Cettner, A.; Viklander, M. The Role of Context in Framing Discourses in the Transition from Piped to Sustainable Stormwater Systems; GRAIE: Lyon, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  54. Roy, A.H.; Wenger, S.J.; Fletcher, T.D.; Walsh, C.J.; Ladson, A.R.; Shuster, W.D.; Thurston, H.W.; Brown, R.R. Impediments and Solutions to Sustainable, Watershed-Scale Urban Stormwater Management: Lessons from Australia and the United States. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 344–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Islam, A.; Hassini, S.; El-Dakhakhni, W. A systematic bibliometric review of optimization and resilience within low impact development stormwater management practices. J. Hydrol. 2021, 599, 126457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, J.; Wu, X.; Zhang, J. Development Trend and Frontier of Stormwater Management (1980–2019): A Bibliometric Overview Based on CiteSpace. Water 2019, 11, 1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Burrill, G.; Nolfi, J.R. A Research Report on Developing a Community Level Natural Resource Inventory System; Center for Studies in Food Self-Sufficiency, Vermont Institute of Community Involvement: London, UK, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  58. Coffman, L.S. Low-Impact Development Design: A New Paradigm for Stormwater Management Mimicking and Restoring the Natural Hydrologic Regime an Alternative Stormwater Management Technology; Citeseer: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ashley, R.M.; Nowell, R.; Gersonius, B.; Walker, L. A Review of Current Knowledge: Surface Water Management and Urban Green Infrastructure. 2011. Available online: http://www.fwr.org/greeninf.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2015).
  60. Damodaram, C.; Zechman, E.M. Simulation-Optimization Approach to Design Low Impact Development for Managing Peak Flow Alterations in Urbanizing Watersheds. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2013, 139, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Urban Water Infrastructure Management Committee. A Guide for Best Management Practice (BMP) Selection in Urban Developed Areas; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  62. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPDES Best Management Practices Manual; Government Institutes, ABS Group, Inc.: Rockville, MD, USA, 1995.
  63. Logging and Forestry Best Management Practices. Division of Forestry, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 30 May 2001. Available online: http://www.state.in.us/dnr/forestry/bmp/logindex.htm (accessed on 15 June 2002).
  64. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. North Carolina State University Water Quality Group. 15 June 2002. Available online: http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/bmps_for_agnps.html (accessed on 17 June 2002).
  65. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Non-Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Measures—Source Categories. North Carolina State University Water Quality Group. 15 June 2002. Available online: http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/bmps.html (accessed on 17 June 2002).
  66. EPA. National Menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Stormwater. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  67. Kuller, M.; Bach, P.M.; Ramirez-Lovering, D.; Deletic, A. Framing water sensitive urban design as part of the urban form: A critical review of tools for best planning practice. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 96, 265–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Radcliffe, J.C. History of water sensitive urban design/low impact development adoption in Australia and internationally. In Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  69. COAG. Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative; Council of Australian Governments (COAG): London, UK, 2004.
  70. BMT WBM. Evaluating Options for Water Sensitive Urban Design—A National Guide: Prepared by the Joint Steering Committee for Water Sensitive Cities: In Delivering Clause 92(ii) of the National Water Initiative; Joint Steering Committee for Water Sensitive Cities (JSCWSC): Canberra, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lloyd, S.D.; Wong, T.H.F.; Chesterfield, C.J. Water Sensitive Urban Design: A Stormwater Management Perspective, Industry Report; Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology: Melbourn, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  72. Beecham, S. Water sensitive urban design: A technological assessment. J. Stormwater Ind. Assoc. 2003, 17, 5–13. [Google Scholar]
  73. Butler, D.; Memon, F.A. Water demand management. Water Intell. Online 2006, 5, 9781780402550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Taylor, A.; Wong, T.H.F. Non-Structural Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices: An Overview of Their Use, Value, Cost and Evaluation, Technical Report; CRC for Catchment Hydrology: Melbourn, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ashley, R.; Booker, N.; Smith, H. Sustainable Water Services: A Procedural Guide, 1st ed.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fryd, O.; Dam, T.; Jensen, M.B. A planning framework for sustainable urban drainage systems. Water Policy 2012, 14, 865–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Martin, C.; Ruperd, Y.; Legret, M. Urban stormwater drainage management: The development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 181, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wong, T.H.F.; Allen, R.; Brown, R.R.; Deletic, A.; Gangadharan, L.; Gernjak, W.; Jakob, C.; Johnstone, P.; Reeder, M.; Tapper, N.; et al. Blueprint 2013 Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City; Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities: Melbourn, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wong, T.H.F.; Brown, R.R. The water sensitive city: Principles for practice. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Woods-Ballard, B.; Kellagher, R.; Martin, P.; Jefferies, C.; Bray, R.; Shaffer, P. The SUDS Manual, 1st ed.; Ciria: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  81. Lloyd, S.D.; Wong, T.H.F.; Porter, B. The planning and construction of an urban stormwater management scheme. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 45, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Brown, R.R.; Farrelly, M.A. Delivering sustainable urban water management: A review of the hurdles we face. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 839–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Iftekhar, M.S.; Pannell, D.J. Developing an integrated investment decision-support framework for water-sensitive urban design projects. J. Hydrol. 2022, 607, 127532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Evans, D.L.; Falagán, N.; Hardman, C.A.; Kourmpetli, S.; Liu, L.; Mead, B.R.; Davies, J.A.C. Ecosystem service delivery by urban agriculture and green infrastructure–a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 54, 101405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mell, I.C. Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability. Eng. Sustainab. 2009, 162, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. EEA. Green Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion: The Concept of Green Infrastructure and Its Integration into Policies Using Monitoring Systems; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [CrossRef]
  87. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.P. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. 2018. Available online: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2022).
  88. Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.; Base, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; et al. Assessing nature’s contribution to people. Science 2018, 359, 270–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Haase, D.; Larondelle, N.; Andersson, E.; Artmann, M.; Borgström, S.; Breuste, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gren, Å.; Hamstead, Z.; Hansen, R.; et al. A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. Ambio 2014, 43, 413–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Keeler, B.L.; Hamel, P.; McPhearson, T.; Hamann, M.H.; Donahue, M.L.; Prado, K.A.M.; Arkema, K.K.; Bratman, G.N.; Brauman, K.A.; Finlay, J.C.; et al. Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Veerkamp, C.J.; Schipper, A.M.; Hedlund, K.; Lazarova, T.; Nordin, A.; Hanson, H.I. A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 52, 101367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liu, Z.; Brown, R.D.; Zheng, S.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, L. An in-depth analysis of the effect of trees on human energy fluxes. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 50, 126646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Morakinyo, T.E.; Dahanayake, K.; Ng, E.; Chow, C.L. Temperature and cooling demand reduction by green-roof types in different climates and urban densities: A co-simulation parametric study. Energy Build. 2017, 145, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Altunkasa, C.; Uslu, C. Use of outdoor microclimate simulation maps for a planting design to improve thermal comfort. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 57, 102137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gatto, E.; Buccolieri, R.; Aarrevaara, E.; Ippolito, F.; Emmanuel, R.; Perronace, L.; Santiago, J.L. Impact of Urban Vegetation on Outdoor Thermal Comfort: Comparison between a Mediterranean City (Lecce, Italy) and a Northern European City (Lahti, Finland). Forests 2020, 11, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Karimi, A.; Sanaieian, H.; Farhadi, H.; Norouzian-Maleki, S. Evaluation of the thermal indices and thermal comfort improvement by different vegetation species and materials in a medium-sized urban park. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 1670–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Morakinyo, T.E.; Kong, L.; Lau, K.K.-L.; Yuan, C.; Ng, E. A study on the impact of shadow-cast and tree species on in-canyon and neighborhood’s thermal comfort. Build. Environ. 2017, 115, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Jacobs, C.; Klok, L.; Bruse, M.; Cortesão, J.; Lenzholzer, S.; Kluck, J. Are urban water bodies really cooling? Urban Clim. 2020, 32, 100607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Albdour, M.S.; Baranyai, B. Water body effect on microclimate in summertime: A case study from PÉCS. Pollack Period. 2019, 14, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Manteghi, G.; Shukri, S.M.; Lamit, H. Street geometry and river width as design factors to improve thermal comfort in Melaka City. J. Adv. Res. Fluid Mech. Therm. Sci. 2019, 58, 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  101. Rahul, A.; Mukherjee, M.; Sood, A. Impact of ganga canal on thermal comfort in the city of Roorkee, India. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2020, 64, 1933–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Guo, G.; Liu, L.; Duan, Y. Evaluating the Association of Regional and City-Level Environmental Greenness and Land Over Patterns with PM2.5 Pollution: Evidence from the Shanxi Province, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 875619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. European Commission. Nature-Based Solutions & Re-naturing Cities. Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re- Naturing Cities’. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation–Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  104. Langergraber, G.; Pucher, B.; Simperler, L.; Kisser, J.; Katsou, E.; Buehler, D.; Mateo, M.C.G.; Atanasova, N. Implementing nature-based solutions for creating a resourceful circular city. Blue-Green Syst. 2020, 2, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Carvalho, P.N.; Finger, D.C.; Masi, F.; Cipolletta, G.; Oral, H.V.; Tóth, A.; Regelsberger, M.; Exposito, A. Nature-based solutions addressing the water-energy-food nexus: Review of theoretical concepts and urban case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 338, 130652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions the European Green Deal COM/2019/640 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  107. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives COM/2020/380 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  108. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System COM/2020/381 Final COM/2020/381; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  109. Finger, D.C.; Saevarsdottir, G.; Svavarsson, H.G.; Björnsdóttir, B.; Arason, S.; Böhme, L. Improved Value Generation from Residual Resources in Iceland: The First Step Towards a Circular Economy. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1, 525–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. O’Hara, S. Editorial: Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 904134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Cilliers, E.J.; Timmermans, W.; Rohr, H.; Goosen, H. Scaling Up of Nature-Based Solutions to Guide Climate Adaptation Planning: Evidence from Two Case Studies. Front. Sustain. Cities 2022, 4, 624046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wu, C.; Li, J.; Wang, C.; Song, C.; Haase, D.; Breuste, J.; Finka, M. Estimating the Cooling Effect of Pocket Green Space in High Density Urban Areas in Shanghai, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 657969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Snep, R.P.; Voeten, J.G.; Mol, G.; Van Hattum, T. Nature Based Solutions for Urban Resilience: A Distinction Between No-Tech, Low-Tech and High-tech Solutions. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 599060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Navarro-Leblond, M.; Meléndez-Pastor, I.; Navarro-Pedreño, J.; Lucas, I.G. Soil Sealing and Hydrological Changes during the Development of the University Campus of Elche (Spain). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Vanegas-Espinosa, L.I.; Vargas-Del-Río, D.; Ochoa-Covarrubias, G.; Grindlay, A.L. Flood Mitigation in Urban Areas through Deep Aquifer Recharge: The Case of the Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Rodríguez-Rojas, M.I.; Huertas-Fernández, F.; Moreno, B.; Martínez, G. Middle-Term Evolution of Efficiency in Permeable Pavements: A Real Case Study in a Mediterranean Climate. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Manchado, C.; Roldán-Valcarce, A.; Jato-Espino, D.; Andrés-Doménech, I. ArcDrain: A GIS Add-In for Automated Determination of Surface Runoff in Urban Catchments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Guo, S.; Wu, Z.; Wen, L. Urban Residents’ Acceptance Intention to Use Recycled Stormwater—An Examination of Values, Altruism, Social and Cultural Norms, and Perceived Health Risks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 08713 g001 550
Figure 1. Evolution of scientific articles published on the topic of “soil sealing” according to the keywords analyzed.
Figure 1. Evolution of scientific articles published on the topic of “soil sealing” according to the keywords analyzed.
Ijerph 19 08713 g001
Table
Table 1. Urban practices to mitigate soil sealing; terms, definitions, and objectives [13,15,16,35,38,41,43,44,61,66,67,68,104].
Table 1. Urban practices to mitigate soil sealing; terms, definitions, and objectives [13,15,16,35,38,41,43,44,61,66,67,68,104].
TermAreas Where It Is Most UsedDefinitionObjectives/Environmental Benefits
SuDSEuropeWater management practices to align conventional drainage systems with natural water processesAbsorb extreme rainfall and minimize the hydrological impacts of urbanization
LIDsAmerica, New Zealand and AsiaStormwater management and control measures that are more sustainable than conventional approachesReduce runoff volume, peak flow, pollutant load, and first flush volume while minimizing cost
BMPsAmerica and CanadaPractices to protect water quality and promote soil conservationPrevent or reduce nonpoint source pollution to help achieve water quality objectives
WSUDAustraliaUrban planning practices to integrate the urban water cycle in cities and minimize the hydrological impact of urban developmentIntegrate the urban water cycle (water supply, stormwater, groundwater, and wastewater) into urban design
GIAmerica, Europe and AsiaProvision and maintenance of natural and semi-natural green spaces within built “gray” infrastructureImprove air quality regulation, regulate local temperature, decrease pollution, and create recreational opportunities
NbSEuropeSolutions inspired and supported by nature which are cost-effective, to provide environmental, social and economic benefits.Promote more ecological diversity and nature into cities and landscapes through locally adapted, resource-efficient, and systemic interventions.
Table
Table 2. Number of scientific articles published on the topic of “soil sealing” according to the keywords analyzed.
Table 2. Number of scientific articles published on the topic of “soil sealing” according to the keywords analyzed.
Number of Articles Published
Keyword2012201320142015201620172018201920202021Total
SuDS287331503492369639814505475454305964745145,296
LIDs67,11576,15383,80393,720102,224110,700122,330134,430156,372192,2121,139,059
BMPs26,69729,12531,83034,59536,37037,88640,72443,11047,96756,676384,980
WSUD180823162487269230323465389143285070639535,484
GI382346215578654877958921996511,41013,63818,08990,388
NbS59,89368,14971,77380,23583,87090,67396,054103,824114,592132,700901,763
Total162,209183,514198,963221,486237,272256,150277,718302,532343,603413,5232,596,970
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodríguez-Rojas, M.I.; Grindlay Moreno, A.L. A Discussion on the Application of Terminology for Urban Soil Sealing Mitigation Practices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8713. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19148713

AMA Style

Rodríguez-Rojas MI, Grindlay Moreno AL. A Discussion on the Application of Terminology for Urban Soil Sealing Mitigation Practices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8713. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19148713

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodríguez-Rojas, María I., and Alejandro L. Grindlay Moreno. 2022. "A Discussion on the Application of Terminology for Urban Soil Sealing Mitigation Practices" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8713. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19148713

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop