IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v112y2022ics0264837721005445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to sustainable urban stormwater management in developing countries: The case of Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Vasconcelos, Anaí Floriano
  • Barbassa, Ademir Paceli
  • dos Santos, Maria Fernanda Nóbrega
  • Imani, Maryam Astaraie

Abstract

Urban stormwater management is one of the key challenges concerning sustainability in urban areas. Sustainable urban stormwater management (SUSM) has been increasingly adopted around the world and proved its effectiveness in enhancing sustainability and quality of life in cities. Nevertheless, these strategies are yet to be widely adopted in developing countries. This paper presents barriers to the widespread adoption of SUSM in Brazil, as a developing country case study with severe urban stormwater management problems. To achieve this objective, a thorough review of literature on the barriers has been conducted. An online survey has been designed and disseminated to different Brazilian participant stakeholder groups (i.e. public professionals, private professionals, teachers, and population) to identify the SUSM-related barriers in Brazil. The reviews recognized 31 potential barriers in literature which were categorized into six barrier types. Five of the evaluated barriers have been recognized by at least 80% of the respondents as the most important, namely: “Lack of design and maintenance standards”, “Lack of long-term planning”, “Lack of dissemination and knowledge”, “Lack of incentives”, and “Reluctance to change”. The barriers identified by this research are coherent with the SUSM adoption context in Brazil. These barriers are mainly related to knowledge about SUSM and similar to those diagnosed in previous studies in literature. Overcoming the common barriers is the prelude to effective SUSM solutions to increase urban stormwater sustainability in Brazil and in other developing countries. This paper also presents some initiatives adopted around the world to overcome these barriers, which could be used as reference to an effective public policy proposition.

Suggested Citation

  • Vasconcelos, Anaí Floriano & Barbassa, Ademir Paceli & dos Santos, Maria Fernanda Nóbrega & Imani, Maryam Astaraie, 2022. "Barriers to sustainable urban stormwater management in developing countries: The case of Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005445
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721005445
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105821?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chang, Ni-Bin & Lu, Jia-Wei & Chui, Ting Fong May & Hartshorn, Nicholas, 2018. "Global policy analysis of low impact development for stormwater management in urban regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 368-383.
    2. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    3. P Kanoko Maeda & Victoria Chanse & Amanda Rockler & Hubert Montas & Adel Shirmohammadi & Sacoby Wilson & Paul T Leisnham, 2018. "Linking stormwater Best Management Practices to social factors in two suburban watersheds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-23, August.
    4. Carsten Dierkes & Terry Lucke & Brigitte Helmreich, 2015. "General Technical Approvals for Decentralised Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)—The Current Situation in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-21, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Van Acker, Veronique & Ho, Loan & Stevens, Larissa & Mulley, Corinne, 2020. "Quantifying the effects of childhood and previous residential experiences on the use of public transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    3. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    4. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    5. Chen, Xuqi & Shen, Meng & Gao, Zhifeng, 2017. "Impact of Intra-respondent Variations in Attribute Attendance on Consumer Preference in Food Choice," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258509, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    7. Vladimir Krivtsov & Brian J. D’Arcy & Alejandro Escribano Sevilla & Scott Arthur & Chris Semple, 2021. "Mitigating Polluted Runoff from Industrial Estates by SUDS Retrofits: Case Studies of Problems and Solutions Co-Designed with a Participatory Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    8. Daniel Franco & Luca Luiselli, 2013. "A procedure to analyse the strategic outliers and the multiple motivations in a contingent valuation," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(3), pages 246-266, February.
    9. Mai-Thi Ta & Léa Tardieu & Harold Levrel, 2022. "Characterizing the Demand Side of Urban Greening to Inform Urban Planning – A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Paris Metropolitan Region," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 132(6), pages 907-949.
    10. Andrea Nóblega Carriquiry & David Sauri & Hug March, 2020. "Community Involvement in the Implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs): The Case of Bon Pastor, Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Kari Hyytiäinen & Lassi Ahlvik & Heini Ahtiainen & Janne Artell & Anni Huhtala & Kim Dahlbo, 2015. "Policy Goals for Improved Water Quality in the Baltic Sea: When do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(2), pages 217-241, June.
    12. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    13. Kumar, Harish & Singh, Manoj Kumar & Gupta, M.P. & Madaan, Jitendra, 2020. "Moving towards smart cities: Solutions that lead to the Smart City Transformation Framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Katja Lozar Manfreda & Charalampia Anastasiou & Knut Kalgraff Skjak & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2018. "Mode comparison study on willingness to buy and willingness to pay for organic foods: paper-and-pencil versus computerized questionnaire," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 587-603, September.
    15. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    16. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    17. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    18. Angell, Blake & Cullen, Patricia & Laba, Tracey & Lung, Tom & Shanahan, Marian & Sakashita, Chika & Eades, Sandra & Ivers, Rebecca & Jan, Stephen, 2018. "What is the value of a driver licence? A contingent valuation study of Australian adults," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 25-34.
    19. Funahashi, Hiroaki & Shibli, Simon & Sotiriadou, Popi & Mäkinen, Jarmo & Dijk, Bake & De Bosscher, Veerle, 2020. "Valuing elite sport success using the contingent valuation method: A transnational study," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 548-562.
    20. Daniel Mora-Melià & Carlos S. López-Aburto & Pablo Ballesteros-Pérez & Pedro Muñoz-Velasco, 2018. "Viability of Green Roofs as a Flood Mitigation Element in the Central Region of Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005445. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.