water

Review
Optimization of Green Infrastructure Practices in
Industrial Areas for Runoff Management: A Review
on Issues, Challenges and Opportunities
Varuni M. Jayasooriya 1, * , Anne W.M. Ng 2 , Shobha Muthukumaran 2 and Chris B.J. Perera 2
1 Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Sri
Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda 10250, Sri Lanka
2 College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Melbourne 14428, Australia;
[email protected] (A.W.M.N.); [email protected] (S.M.);
[email protected] (C.B.J.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 22 December 2019; Accepted: 31 March 2020; Published: 3 April 2020


Abstract: In urbanized lands, industrial areas are generally located close to residential and commercial
areas due to ease of access for material and human resources. These industrial areas annually discharge
large volumes of contaminated stormwater to receiving waters. Green Infrastructure (GI) practices,
which were initially introduced as a land conservation strategy to enhance green space in urban areas,
can provide benefits in source control of runoff generated in industrial areas with higher percentage
of impermeable surfaces. Even though industrial areas across the world are currently looking at the
applications of GI to reduce the impacts of excessive runoff and mitigate flash floods, several debates
exist in optimization of these practices for such areas. In the current practice, optimal selection
of GI practices for such areas are generally conducted based on expert judgement, and there are
no systematic methodologies currently available for this process. This paper presents a review
on various issues, challenges, and opportunities in the optimum applications of GI practices for
industrial areas. The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis conducted
in this review by focusing on the applications of GI practices for industrial areas, helped to identify
the existing research gaps for the optimization. Furthermore, the review showed the importance
of engaging the multi-disciplinary stakeholders in the GI optimization process for industrial areas.
In conclusion, the present review highlights the importance of introducing a systematic methodology
for the optimum applications of GI practices for industrial areas to manage stormwater.

Keywords: green infrastructure; runoff management; industrial areas; optimisation

1. Introduction
The rapid advancement of industrialization has become one of the major threats to the natural
environment over the years. Infrastructure development as a consequence of industrialization creates
enormous pressures on natural green space in urban areas. The reduction of pervious surfaces
associated with green space creates several adverse impacts on land surface characteristics, water cycle
and the atmosphere. The impact of land use changes in urban planning has become a focal point of
scientific interest since different land use types show different degrees of threats to the communities
and ecosystems [1,2]. Industrial land use is known as the areas which are used for manufacturing or
processing that can be zoned as light, medium or heavy industry [3]. According to the land surface
characteristics, industrial areas can be divided into three major land use types as brownfields (abandoned
or under-utilized industrial areas due to the presence of land contamination), existing industrial lands
(areas that consists of considerably larger paved landscapes), and mixed land use of brownfields and

Water 2020, 12, 1024; doi:10.3390/w12041024 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 1024 2 of 21

existing industrial lands [4]. Most of these industrial areas are located within urban areas, surrounded
by commercial and residential areas, due to easy access for human resources, transportation and
materials supply [5]. Therefore, these areas increase the tendency of human exposure to various
environmental impacts occurred by industrial activities.
Among the number of environmental problems present in industrial areas, water resource
contamination, heat stress, and air pollution are identified as key concerns which can create severe
long-term impacts for human and ecosystem health [6,7]. Industrial areas are identified as hot spots
that generate highly polluted stormwater runoff, mainly consists of sediments, nutrients, and heavy
metals due to the presence of large impervious areas [8].
During the past decade, Green Infrastructure (GI) has evolved as a successful measure in restoring
urban green space across many countries around the world [9]. Though these practices have been
earlier identified as a replacement for conventional stormwater management strategies, GI in broader
terms can be defined as an "interconnected network of green space that conserves natural systems and
provides assorted benefits to human populations” [10]. There are several different GI practices available
that can provide these benefits. Some of the examples for widely applied GI practices are green roofs,
trees, green walls, wetlands, bioretention, pervious pavements, infiltration trenches, retention ponds,
sedimentation basins and vegetated swales [11,12].
While investigating numerous benefits of GI, researchers have identified that, apart from the
application as a stormwater management strategy that manages both water quantity and quality within
the water cycle, GI practices can also provide other important ecosystem services. Ecosystem services
can be defined as “benefits of ecosystems to households, communities, and economies” [13]. Some of
these other ecosystem services that GI practices provide are energy savings, air quality improvement,
reducing greenhouse gases, reduction of urban heat island, improvement of community livability
which includes aesthetics, recreation, and improvement of habitats amongst others [14]. GI practices
play a significant role in the well-known Eco-Industrial Park (EIP) concept in industrial ecology.
EIP is an industrial area that is designed to encourage businesses to share infrastructure as a strategy
for enhancing production, minimizing costs, managing the environmental and social issues [15].
GI practices are widely used within the EIP planning to manage the issues related to stormwater,
wastewater, air pollution, and energy consumption. Furthermore, GI can improve the social and
community dimension of the industrial areas by providing measurements to enhance the community
livability within and its surroundings [16]. However, there are numerous debates exist in ways of
designing GI practices within industrial areas that can provide the optimum benefits to achieve the
goals of the EIP concept [17,18]. Since there is a pool of different GI practices available that can produce
several different combinations of interconnected networks of green space, it is a difficult task to assess
which individual GI or combinations are the most suitable practices for a particular area. According to
the definition of Ref. [19], it is always important to optimize the benefits that can be gained through
designing ecologically sustainable industrial areas as a collective benefit rather than the individual
benefits. Hence, innovative methodologies should be developed to identify ways of optimum selection
and planning of GI practices within industrial areas that can provide more globalized benefits when it
comes to runoff management and achieving other ecosystem benefits.
Even though the research on optimization of GI practices within the industrial areas is still in
its infancy stage, there are several examples of the applications of the EIP concept, particularly in
heavy industrial areas across the world. Some of the prominent international examples of EIPs are
Kalundborg (Denmark), Forth Valley (Scotland, UK), Kawasaki (Japan), Rotterdam (The Netherlands),
Map Ta Phut (Thailand), and North Texas (TX, USA) [20]. Majority of the development of these EIPs
were gradually evolved in brownfield areas [21].
The first EIP in Australia is recorded as the “steel river’ project which is located in Newcastle,
New South Wales. This project included several GI practices to landscape streets, provide recreational
and community livability benefits, and to manage the water resources within the site [22]. Some of
the other leading examples for the applications of GI practices in heavy industrial areas in Australia
Water 2020, 12, 1024 3 of 21

are Kiwinana (Western Australia), Gladstone (Queensland) and Geelong (Victoria) [21]. The selection
of different GI practices in these EIP is generally conducted through expert judgment and assessing
the numerous other factors such as availability of funds, land area, and other resources. There is
no systematic methodology currently available to identify the optimum GI practices for different
industrial areas.
The applications and the importance of GI practices to improve the environmental quality of
various land-use types are well discussed in the literature [23–25]. However, to date, the optimum
planning of GI practices has not yet been discussed comprehensively for land use types such as
industrial areas, which are complex and dynamic components in urban areas. Industrial areas are
environmentally degraded areas which also consist of brownfield lands that are known as abandoned
or underused sites that have tremendous opportunities for redevelopment by introducing urban green
space [26].
The optimum planning of GI practices in such areas in the past and even now has been largely
opportunistic, taking advantage of the funding opportunities, rather than looking at the reasons for
implementing them in these areas and their actual long-term benefits [27]. From the selection of
suitable GI practices to the sizing of these practices, various decisions should be made to achieve the
sustainability in an optimum way. The decision-makers often find it difficult to assess the nature of
these decisions due to multiple objectives associated with them [28]. Furthermore, each and every
problem that GI provides solutions may be unique to each other and depends on the site conditions
and objectives that have to be met through the implementation of them. Studies done by Ref. [29]
and Ref. [30], identified several environmental, social and economic criteria to be considered when
selecting optimum GI for runoff management and have presented decision matrices that provide
decision aid on selecting them. Due to the multifunctionality of GI, the ecological and social objectives
should be taken into consideration when optimum planning for GI [31]. Even though the primary
focus of GI has been shifted towards the runoff management, the decision-makers today are focused on
maintaining urban ecological networks through GI by maintaining a dynamic interplay of ecological
and social systems [32,33].The ever-increasing knowledge base on ecosystem services of GI supports
decision-makers on this process; however, holistic frameworks are required to link these ecosystem
services for the GI planning in order to gain maximum environmental, economic and social benefits
from their implementation [34,35].
One of the other significant problems in this process is the lack of the utilization of various tools
and methods that can be used to support the GI optimization decision making. This paper provides a
literature review of GI practices and their applications for stormwater management in industrial areas.
The application of GI practices in industrial areas to manage runoff is discussed by focusing on the
issues, challenges, and opportunities for their optimization. Multiple objectives associated with the
decision making of GI optimization for industrial areas are also discussed in this paper.

Green Infrastructure (GI) Practices

Infrastructure systems are essential components in modern high-density cities. The Oxford
dictionary defines the term infrastructure as “the basic physical and organizational structures
and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society
or enterprise” [36,37]. These infrastructure systems that are often referred to as traditional “grey”
infrastructure consists of engineered networks of roads and services, which provide a range of services
for the communities in urban areas [10]. The ‘grey infrastructure’ systems generally provide a single
functionality for a community. However, with the constant pressure that has been forced by the
urbanization upon traditional infrastructure, people have explored alternative systems that can provide
multiple functions in cities within the same spatial area [38]. As a result of these efforts, the concept of
GI was introduced, which comprises various elements that are capable of effectively responding to the
environmental, economic, and social pressures that are forced upon the public by the urbanization.
Water 2020, 12, 1024 4 of 21

Various scholars have provided different definitions for the term GI. Some of the definitions which
are widely used in literature for GI are,

“Green Infrastructure is an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural

ecosystem values and functions and provides associated benefits to human populations.” [10]

“Green Infrastructure is the network of natural and semi-natural areas, features and green
spaces in rural and urban, and terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine areas, which together
enhance ecosystem health and resilience, contribute to biodiversity conservation and benefit
human populations through the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services.” [28]

“Green Infrastructure is an approach to water management that protects, restores, or mimics

the natural water cycle. Green infrastructure is effective, economical, and enhances
community safety and quality of life.” [39]

“Green Infrastructure is a design strategy for handling runoff that reduces runoff volume
and distribute the flows by using vegetation, soils and natural processes to manage water
and create healthier urban and suburban environments.” [40]

As evident from these different definitions, the more recent focus of GI practices has been shifted
towards its applications as a stormwater management strategy. However, in summary, the underlying
idea of all these definitions portrays that GI practices can provide multiple benefits that can contribute
in developing resilient cities. GI practices can be implemented within urban areas in different scales
from the local level through engineered structures to a broader level through landscaping [28]. The GI
practices which are implemented at the local level are known as structural GI. Some of the examples of
structural GI practices are wetlands, green roofs, rain gardens/bioretention systems, vegetated swales,
permeable pavements, infiltration trenches, retention ponds, sedimentation basins, and green walls.
At the broader level, GI practices are considered as non-structural components such as preservation
and restoration of natural landscapes (e.g., forests and floodplains) [39,41,42]. The primary focus of
the review presented in this paper will be on structural GI practices.
GI practices can be integrated into the existing features of the built environment such as streets,
buildings, parking lots and landscaped areas [43]. One of the critical features of GI practices compared to
traditional grey infrastructure is the cost-effectiveness during their operational period. Even though the
initial installation costs of GI can be potentially high in redevelopment and retrofit settings, from their
life cycle perspective, the long term operational and maintenance costs make them economically
feasible than the conventional infrastructure. A study conducted by United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) considering 17 projects which used local scale GI practices found that in
the majority of instances, GI provided a cheaper and more environmentally friendly performance in
managing stormwater compared to the conventional methods [43–45].
The costs and benefits of GI practices compared to grey infrastructure as a stormwater management
strategy have been well discussed in the literature for various development types (e.g., residential,
commercial, and industrial areas). Table 1 shows the cost savings associated with stormwater
management GI practices used in various commercial and industrial facilities in USA and Canada [46].
These case studies have used combinations of several different types of GI practices for different
facilities and have achieved a significant amount of cost savings. It is evident that even though
investing in GI practices can be initially expensive when compared to the traditional infrastructure,
they can be more favorable when looking at their long-term benefits [47,48].
Decision making in GI planning compared with grey infrastructure, involves multiple
objectives [29,30,38]. In the planning principles of GI, stakeholder engagement has been identified as
one of the important processes that are required to achieve the expected outcomes of implementing
the GI practices [31,49]. These stakeholders may include public entities or individuals who own or
manage the land in the areas which fall within the GI network and the people who invest in the future
Water 2020, 12, 1024 5 of 21

of the communities. The decisions for the initiation of GI practices can be immensely benefitted from
these stakeholders by the integration of their knowledge, experience, and resources [50,51]. There are
several tools available to evaluate the performance of GI practices (i.e., various ecosystem services)
and the potential cost savings which also support the planning of GI [45].

Table 1. Cost Savings through Installing Green Infrastructure (GI) as Stormwater Management
Strategies in commercial and Industrial Developments [46].

Location Description of GI Used Cost Savings through GI Reference

Parking Lot Retrofit One-half acre of impervious surface.
$10,500–$15,000 Ref. [52]
Largo, Maryland Stormwater directed to central bioretention.
Site redesigned to reduce impervious surfaces,
Old Farm Shopping
added bioretention, filter strips, and $36,230 Ref. [53]
Centre, Maryland
infiltration trenches.
Parking lot incorporated bio-swales into the
OMSI Parking Lot
design, and reduced piping and catch $78,000 Ref. [53]
Portland, Oregon
basin infrastructure.
Site incorporated bio swales into the design,
Light Industrial Parking
and reduced piping and catch $11,247 Ref. [54]
Lot, Portland, Oregon
basin infrastructure.
Reduced curb and gutter, reduced storm sewer
Point West Shopping and inlets, reduced grading, and used porous
$168,898 Ref. [55]
Center, Lexana, Kansas pavers, added bioretention cells, and
native plantings.
Constructed wetlands, grassy swales and open
Vancouver Island
channels, rather than piping to control
Technology Park
stormwater. Also used native plantings, $530,000 Ref. [56]
Redevelopment
shallow stormwater ponds within forested
British Columbia, Canada
areas, and permeable surfaces on parking lots.

2. Role of GI Practices for Stormwater Management in Industrial Areas

The industrial sector plays a major role in a country’s economy [57]. Several industrial areas are
located within urban areas surrounded by residential and commercial areas due to the easy acquisition
of materials and human resources. Contamination of surrounding water bodies from the runoff and
flash floods generated due to the presence of larger impermeable areas are identified as significant
issues related to water resources in the majority of these industrial areas [6,7,58]. In addition to these
issues, some of the other impacts associated with the industrial areas are high energy consumption,
GHG Emissions, threats to the natural ecosystems and habitats, and reduced community livability [59].
Lack of measures for the proper restoration of environmental quality within these areas can affect
workers, surrounding communities and the ecosystems in the long term. Strategically planned GI
practices have an enormous potential to meet the environmental demands forced by industrial areas
by providing a diverse range of ecosystem services and by mitigating various impacts that occurred by
the climate change [23,60,61].

2.1. GI practices for the Mitigation and Adaptation of Floods

At present, many leading cities across the world are looking at the opportunities to introduce GI
practices in order to maintain resilient cities in terms of mitigating and adapting to rising impacts of
climate change [41,62,63]. In an urban area, floods can be occurred due to two major reasons which are
(1) the floods occur due to the problems in drainage systems when the system is disturbed or(2) the
general flash floods which are typically occurred within an urban area. The land-use types such as
industrial areas can be subjected to these two types of floods during storm events mainly due to the
presence of higher percentage of impermeable areas and well as due to low urban green space [64].
Such urban floods can occur due to endogenic factors of the drainage basin that includes the aging
Water 2020, 12, 1024 6 of 21

infrastructure which has reached their capacity and therefore is unable to meet the demands of the
runoff and changes of the river hydrology and the encroachment of impermeable surfaces [65–67].
GI practices, which are also introduced as Blue- Green Infrastructure (BGI) due to its capabilities
in managing hydrological functions are currently incorporated as an integral component in urban
planning across many cities around the world [68–70]. One of the leading examples could be given by
taking Portland, Oregon as a case study. Portland is been identified as a city with one of the most mature
and comprehensive GI programs in the country [71,72]. Oregon state government has invested 9 million
US dollars for the GI investment and has made a saving of 224 million US dollars with the cost for
combined sewer overflows including the operation and maintenance costs [73]. Another example could
be drawn from the ABC waters program introduced by Singapore the government has introduced GI
features such as rain gardens, bioretention swales, and wetlands to mitigate the impacts of urbanizations
and flash flooding [74,75]. These practices implemented under the ABC waters program followed
guidelines in order to achieve better surface water drainage, flood control, stormwater quality, and
public health control. The assessment of the outcomes of this project has proven that there was a drastic
change in the flood-prone areas of Singapore, from 629 ha (in 1989) to 56 ha (in 2011) [73]. Table 2
shows a summary of similar recent studies done by different regions across the world through the
applications of GI practices.
As can be seen from Table 2, the majority of these studies are the applications of GI for the pluvial
flood management in residential land use areas. In urban areas, the abandoned or underutilized
industrial areas which are known as ‘brownfields’ are considered as major liabilities to a county’s
economy [76–78]. Sustainable brownfield redevelopment techniques are intended to achieve cleaner
water, substantial energy savings, restoration of the ecosystems and increased diverse economic service
and increased production efficiencies of these areas [79,80]. It is evident that GI practices can not
only provide means of reducing the environmental threat posed to the neighborhood communities by
these areas but also provide numerous economic benefits for the industries or individual businesses.
However, there is yet limited information available on applications of GI practices in such areas due to
the general lack of systematic knowledge on the optimal applications of these practices, shortage of
awareness and the perspectives on the potential of integrating these strategies in such land areas [81].
The potential benefits of GI practices for such brownfields can only be understood if they are accepted
as the vital land areas that can support applications of urban GI practices [61].
Water 2020, 12, 1024 7 of 21

Table 2. Studies on flood mitigation effectiveness of GI practices [82].

Precipitation Peak
Study Location GI Considered Results
Intensity/Duration/Frequency
Expanding green space, concave green space, GI projects is limited, BGI integrated throughout the
Ref. [83] Urban community in Beijing, China retention ponds, porous pavement 2.8 mm/min(peak)/24 h/10 years community was highly effective in preventing flooding from
and combinations precipitation events with 10-year recurrence interval
Effectiveness of GI was dependent on the percent coverage
Ref. [84] Guang-Ming New District, Shenzhen China Swales, porous pavement and green roofs 4.3 mm/min (peak)/1–4 h/100 years and storage capacity. Porous pavement was most effective at
the study site since it provided the greatest area of coverage
Porous pavement reduced induction area by 50%–75% in high
Rainwater harvesting cisterns, porous
Ref. [85] Hexi watershed, Nanjing, China Not specified/20 min/5 years hazard areas. Rainwater harvesting was able to provide
pavement and combinations
limited additional mitigation benefits
BGI dispersed throughout the landscape at high levels of
Ref. [86] Hypothetical, based on Cook County, IL, USA Detention basins 0.25 mm/min (peak)/24 h/100 years
coverage (>20%) effectively mitigated flooding
Bio retention, porous pavement, infiltration
For the scenarios modeled, GI was effective for lower intensity
Ref. [87] Residential area of Guangzhou, China trench, rain barrel, vegetative swale, rain Not specified/2 hour/10 years
storms (2 years), but less effective for the 10-year storm
garden and green roofs
Infiltration trench and basin, detention
ponds, vegetated filter strip and swale, sand 94.7 mm/ho/1 h/5 years × 1.5 to GI deployment throughout the watershed can be optimized to
Ref. [88] Xingshi Village, Taiwan
filter, constructed wetlands, green roof, rain account for climate change mitigate pluvial flooding
barrel porous pavement, and bioretention
Water 2020, 12, 1024 8 of 21

2.2. GI practices for Improving the Runoff Quality

In urban areas, stormwater can be generated from residential, commercial and industrial areas
which are contributors for non-point source pollution. Among these different source categories,
runoff generated from industrial areas has been identified with elevated levels of excess nutrients,
sediments, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and other substances [89,90]. Furthermore, industrial runoff is
the predominant contributor of Zinc (Zn) and Copper (Cu) loadings in receiving waters, and together
with the commercial land, has the highest pollutant loading production of all stormwater sources [91].
Industrial activities such as material handling and storage, and equipment cleaning and
maintenance, can interact with rainfall and build up the pollutants that can degrade the water
quality of natural waterways [92]. Stormwater discharges from small to medium enterprises (SME)
are largely unregulated and are not receiving treatment before entering the rivers or coastal waters.
In Australia, 75% of the industrial areas are comprised of SME’s which largely accounts for industrial
stormwater pollution. According to a study done by City of Kingston, stormwater from approximately
4500 businesses drain into the Port Philip Bay, Australia [93].
Even though stormwater contamination has been identified as non-point source pollution for
the majority of land-use types, industrial areas can also contribute to the point source discharges.
The point source pollution in industrial areas can be attached to a single activity that has one clear
source. Some of the examples are accidental discharges or deliberate disposal [93–95]. However,
stormwater contamination through point sources is considered as not very difficult problem to mitigate
in industrial areas since the source is identifiable whereas non- point source pollution is difficult to
control due to their diffuse nature. Furthermore, past studies have highlighted that there exists a lack
of guidelines to regulate the non-point stormwater pollution in industrial areas considering its harmful
impacts compared to runoff of other land-use types [96,97].
The Milwaukee 30th Street Industrial Corridor restoration with GI could be taken as one of the
examples in restoring GI in an industrial land area to mitigate impacts from runoff. This area has been
highly utilized by manufacturing activities until the industry started declining in 1980s [98]. After the
decline of the manufacturing industry, many industries along the 30th Street Industrial Corridor
were downsized, and the area has remained with significant environmental issues such as severe
flooding and environmental contamination that are affected for the surrounding communities [45,99].
To alleviate stormwater contamination and the flooding of this area, GI practices which promote
detention and constructed wetlands are proposed that provide storage and delay of water entering
into the sewer system [100]. With the area-wide development plan, sections of the corridor are
planned to be developed into linear parks by promoting more urban green space. This has been
intended to provide recreational opportunities and amenities for the area that could be beneficial
for the residents of the adjacent residential area. Furthermore, these land areas were designed to
connect with waterways through strategically planned bio swales, wetlands and infiltration-based
GI practices [45,99]. A master plan for the restoration of Genetta Park in Montgomery Alabama,
was initiated in 2010, to transform an unattractive industrial land into an attractive environmental
amenity by implementing GI practices [80,101] The park area covered around 4-acre land area with
Genetta stream traveling across the area. The land use of the area has been creating negative impacts for
the Genetta stream by creating floods downstream, impaired water quality, reduced stream biodiversity
and reduced groundwater recharge [80,101].
The need for environmentally sustainable strategies which support the efficient use of resources in
industrial areas is becoming increasingly evident [47,102,103]. GI practices form an essential element in
increasing the resilience of industrial businesses in the long term. Furthermore, GI practices demonstrate
several financial advantages when compared to the traditional grey infrastructure due to their potential
for reducing initial capital expenditure, ongoing operation and maintenance expenses. Moreover,
strategically planned GI practices can also be used to recapitalize aging assets. Another important
factor associated with GI practices is that since they leverage existing natural resources. As an example,
the interconnected green space network provided by GI can support in the regeneration of urban forest
Water 2020, 12, 1024 9 of 21

with less energy and resources. The additional ecosystem services provided by this interconnected
green space network such as energy conservation and cooling effects, can support for the industries in
reducing costs for their energy consumption and support to reduce associated costs in longer term.
In addition, GI practices offer numerous opportunities to enhance the communication within industries
to effectively manage socio-political risks through the innovative collaboration of stakeholders [104].
Apart from the various benefits discussed, the implementation of GI practices within industrial
areas has been also identified with the potential to treat wastewater discharged from the industrial
plants by using them as source control treatment measures [105]. GI practices also provide opportunities
to reduce the high potable water demands in industrial areas by promoting the reuse of water for
activities such as cooling, cleaning the equipment, and product processing [106].

2.3. Treatment Efficiencies and Costs Associated with GI

GI practices incorporate various pollutant removal mechanisms such as e sedimentation, plant
uptake, filtration, biofiltration, biodegradation and sorption [107]. Based on these treatment removal
mechanisms GI demonstrates various treatment efficiencies that differ based on the case study it has
been applied. Table 3 shows a summary of the treatment removal efficiencies of some of the popular
GI applied for the pollutant removal from urban runoff. It is evident from these data that most of the
GI supports in reducing TSS and Total Zn for a higher percentage. However, rain gardens have shown
a tendency to export nutrients to the runoff which can be attributed to the characteristics of the filter
bed and [108] suggest that the composition of filter media and hydrologic design of the system are the
primary factors that can affect nutrient removal.

Table 3. Summary of pollutant removal efficiencies from various GI practices [109].

Detention Retention Bioretention Media Filter Vegetated

Constituents
(Dry) Pond (Wet) Pond (Rain Garden) (Sand Filter) Swale/Buffer/Strip
TSS 66 to 80 54 to 94 63–91 81 to 90 46 to 92
TN 10 to 26 51 9 to 32 30
NO3-N 8 to 22 77 −128 to −559 −67 to −142 27
TKN 15 to 27 27 −31 to 18 36 to 53 31
TP 16 to 29 5 −494 to 76 39 to 44 −106
Ortho-P −22 to 25 −266 −269 to −99 11 to 24 −218
Diss. P −358 to −196
Tot. sol. P −350 to −317
Tot. Cu −29 to 58 89 −73 to −12 50 to 66 63 to 76
Tot. Pb 72 98 −30 to 98 85 to 87 68 to 92
Tot. Zn 65 to73 91 80 to 92 77 to 94
Diss. Cu 26 to 39 57 7 to 40
Diss. Pb 29 76 31 to 40
Diss. Zn 16 to 33 41 61 to 94
Particulate Cu 49
Particulate Pb 57
Particulate Zn 74

The optimal sizing of a certain GI for stormwater management depends on the volume of the
runoff generated, quality of runoff and the availability of space for the construction. A study done
by [110], has proposed a methodology to optimally size GI treatment trains by considering their costs
and treatment efficiency considering Total Suspended Solids, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorous
target pollutant reduction. It should be noted that each GI measure will incur their own costs including
construction, operation, and maintenance costs that highly depend on the required treatment efficiency
for an application.
Water 2020, 12, 1024 10 of 21

3. Optimization of Green Infrastructure Practices for Industrial Areas: Issues, Challenges

and Opportunities
It has been evident that during the past few years, GI practices have gradually become a vital
component in sustainable urban planning. In the context of designing sustainable cities, applications of
GI practices for several residential, commercial and industrial developments are well discussed in the
literature [23,25,111]. However, the implementation of GI practices in the majority of these studies was
conducted only based on trial and error or expert judgement without giving comprehensive attention
to the land use type.
The uniqueness of different industrial land use types exhibits various types of environmental
externalities and should be treated cautiously during the implementation of GI practices [61]. As an
example, an industrial land use such as a brownfield area, the contaminated soils are generally capped
with an impermeable surface. Therefore, it is recommended for the runoff to be directed away from
those soils. Alternatively, contaminated soils can be excavated and treated separately with methods
appropriate to the type of contamination, then replaced, if desired. However, even in such instances,
the GI practices which promote infiltration may still not suitable. Thus, these land surface variations
create the need for more careful selection and optimization of the best option for industrial areas from
several different GI practices available, when compared with the other land use types.
Optimization of GI practices in industrial areas incorporates several challenges when compared
to residential, commercial or open spaced areas, mainly due to the presence of land contamination.
The presence of various industrial activities and considerably larger impermeable surfaces in industrial
areas can lead to diffuse stormwater pollution and the selected GI practices for such areas should
have the ability to limit these pollutants entering the receiving water bodies [112]. Some of the
other challenges include the lack of financial resources for undertaking soil remediation for the GI
implementation, risk of dealing with contamination (e.g. groundwater pollution), legal restrictions,
and lack of tools and methodologies to identify optimum GI practices which are suitable for industrial
areas [23,113].
There are several limitations in the application of GI practices for industrial land-uses, especially for
the brownfield lands, due to the extent of the land contamination present. Several precautions may
need to be taken before the implementation of GI for such land areas. The developers must be cautious
if the brownfield lands are located in proximity to high groundwater tables or freshwater wells as
the GI practices which promotes infiltration are not appropriate for such areas [80]. Guidelines were
provided in Ref. [114] for the successful implementation of GI implementation on brownfield sites by
maintaining a minimal environmental risk. Some of these guidelines include limitations of application
of GI that promotes infiltration and increase the use of practices that reduces the runoff quantity
through collection such as cisterns, green roofs or green walls, distinguishing the group of contaminants
to minimize risks, application of impermeable liners of filter blankets coupled with traditional GI and
keeping the clean stormwater away from the contaminated soils to reduce the further contamination.
As can be seen from these guidelines, even though the application for GI for industrial areas or
brownfield lands may be viable in improving the environmental quality, there might be a high cost,
and technical expertise could associate that can hinder their implementation.
A study conducted by Ref. [115] analyzed the runoff quality of 20 industrial sites from North
Carolina has found that runoff found in industrial areas has comparatively high concentrations
of Zinc and Copper for almost all the sites despite their industrial activities. According to this
study industrial runoff has reported high concentrations of heavy metals, volatile and semi-volatile
organics apart from the conventional pollutants found in street runoff which are biochemical oxygen
demand, BODs; chemical oxygen demand, COD; and oil and grease), nutrients (ammonia nitrogen,
NH3; nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, N03 + N02; total Kjeldahl nitrogen, TKN; total phosphorus, TP;
and dissolved phosphorus), and solids (dissolved and suspended, TSS). Therefore, according to these
results, it is evident that when selecting GI for industrial areas, it is important to select optimum
practices that facilitate the treatment of these focused pollutants in runoff. Table 4 shows the various
Water 2020, 12, 1024 11 of 21

treatment mechanisms of GI practices that treat different types of pollutants according to their unique
treatment mechanisms.

Table 4. GI Treatment Measures in GI Treatment Trains [116].

Treatment Pollutants Typical Treatment Measures

Gross polluant traps, Sédimentation basins,
Primary Treatment Gross pollutants and coarse sediments
Vegetated swales
Vegetated swales, Infiltration trenches, Permeable
Secondary Treatment Fine sediments and attached pollutants
pavement, Bioretention
Bioretention, Bio- infiltration systems, Wetlands,
Tertiary Treatment Nutrients and dissolved heavy metals
Retention ponds

As can be seen from the Table 4, the treatment measures that support infiltration such as
bioretention, bio-infiltration systems and wetlands are recommended for the removal of heavy metals
from urban runoff. Based on the Ref. [114] guidelines it is recommended to minimize the GI that
support infiltration of runoff to the groundwater table especially for brownfield areas as the soils are
contaminated in brownfield sites and runoff cannot be routed to such soils However, using measures
with hinders the infiltration such as using impermeable liners as asphalt, are recommended where
GI can be used as a secondary application to filter runoff from that impermeable area. It could be
adding additional complexity to place more impervious surface down, but it could make previously
un-useable land marketable and treat runoff from that property.
Furthermore, one of the major drawbacks of GI practices compared to grey infrastructure is the
large land area required to achieve the intended environmental or socio-economic outcome. Hence the
achievement of optimum results through GI implementation should be accomplished within existing
land area constraints [117]. This creates a challenge in identifying the optimum GI practices for an
industrial area to meet the environmental demand forced by the land use type. The other barriers in
optimum application of GI practices in industrial areas are, lack of facilities for long term monitoring
and evaluation, insufficient supporting and ongoing maintenance funds, failure of highlighting and
addressing the real issues of the sites through GI practices, and ultimately a lack of success with
project’s objectives and the site sustainability [118].
Table 5 shows the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT),
in applications of GI practices within industrial areas for runoff management [104]. According
to this SWOT analysis, the implementation of GI practices in industrial areas incorporates a unique
set of issues including the additional financial resources, knowledge and expertise required for the
optimal designing of GI for runoff management in areas such as brownfields, the time required for
the maturation and provision of required functionality, the large physical footprint required for their
construction, the lack of proper industry design standards and the challenges in obtaining the permits
or regulatory approvals. Another layer of complexity is added to the problem due to the perspectives
of the industrial landowners on GI practices as a sustainable solution. There can be issues raised due
to their lack of interest in negotiating for the land areas for GI construction.
Water 2020, 12, 1024 12 of 21

Table 5. SWOT analysis on applications of GI practices for industrial areas.

SWOT Analysis of GI Applications for Runoff Management for Industrial Areas

Strengths (S) Weaknesses (W) Opportunities (O) Threats (T)
Requires low initial expenses and Often requires a large physical footprint to Offers opportunities for innovative non-technical risk
Can be susceptible to seasonal weather
operating expenses (only monitoring, provide the expected runoff management by active local stakeholder participation in
changes and extreme weather conditions
feedback and control). management outcomes. the design and operation of the GI solution
Is less sensitive to increases in the cost of
raw materials, cost of power, power Requires time for proper site investigation Offers opportunities to partner with local landowners in Can be subjected to unforeseen stresses
interruption, etc. when compared with and performance maturation the use of land areas over its lifetime
grey infrastructure for runoff management.
Apart from the runoff management benefit, provides
nature’s inherent with resource-efficiency and
Appreciates over time as it grows more May require time (years) to mature and to Can pose challenges to obtain permits or
multi-functionality (water purification, urban cooling,
interconnected with the local environment. provide the required functionality regulatory approvals.
air quality improvement, flood protection etc.) which
can be highly beneficial for industrial areas.
Water 2020, 12, 1024 13 of 21

The weaknesses, opportunities and challenges identified in the Table 5 could be further classified
into five categories as discussed in Ref. [119]. From a broader point of view, these categories can be
identified as challenges related to design standards, financing, regulatory pathways, socio-economy,
and innovation. There is a need for implementing design guidelines for the planning of GI that are
tailor-made for specific cities and regions that addresses their own environmental risks and threats [120].
In the regulatory point of view integration of regulations that fully supports the multi-dimensional
functions of GI still remains a key challenge in many urban areas across the world [121].
Moreover, there are particularly many different types of stakeholders involved in managing GI
projects in industrial areas [122,123]. These stakeholders also play a significant role in identifying
potential stresses forced upon the area and how the GI practices can be optimally utilized to overcome
them. Although the multiple benefits of GI are well documented, public engagement could be
challenging for industry owners who may have limited leisure time to participate in greening efforts
especially when GI is located on their private lands [124]. In summary, there exists a wide range
of opportunities for GI practices to provide resilience in industrial and business operations when
they are optimally designed. However, the knowledge base on their optimal applications should
be further enhanced to assess the ways of overcoming the potential challenges and barriers of
their implementation.

4. Multiple Objectives in GI Decision Making for Industrial Areas

The rise of GI strategies has started in 1990’s when the sustainability was becoming a national
and international goal in the world. Thus, the growing interest of GI practices during this period was
mainly concentrated around the objective of land conservation in urban areas in order to transform
them into more sustainable cities [10]. However, the pressures forced upon land through urbanization
and industrialization have provided the opportunity to look at the multifunctionality of GI practices
not only as a land conservation strategy, but also as a means of providing wide range of ecosystem
services. The ability of GI practices to provide several functions and ecosystem services within the
same spatial area has been then identified with multiple objectives of different perspectives such as
environmental, social and economic point of view [125]. In the current context, a major focus is given
for the ecosystem services provided by GI practices in the decision making of GI planning process [31].
The are several objectives associated in decision making when selecting optimum GI practices
for a site from the pool of different alternatives available [126]. The process in selecting potential GI
practices for a site is further governed by the site-specific planning, environmental, institutional and
regulatory constraints [127]. One of the major challenges faced by the decision maker during the GI
selection process is to select the most cost effective and sustainable strategy for the site, which also
provides benefits in terms of other multiple objectives considered [128]. Hence, it is always important
to maintain the balance between environmental and economic goals of GI implementation while
achieving the optimal implication among the multiple objectives [129]. Especially for industrial areas,
these objectives can be further complex due to the higher environmental demands, impacts enforced by
different GI practices on industry or business operations and the perspectives of variety of stakeholders
associated in the project [103,104,112,130].

Stakeholder Participation in GI Decision Making

When optimizing GI practices for a particular area by considering their multiple objectives,
several studies have highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement due to the diverse nature
of the problem [126,131]. These stakeholders may be engineers, planners and environmentalists who
can directly or indirectly have an impact on the GI selection [132]. An engineer who represents a local
government agency can have a higher preference for minimizing the costs of the GI strategy while a
planner will prefer on improving the amenity of the area. Furthermore, an environmentalist may have
an entirely different priority such as reducing the environmental impacts occurred by uncontrolled
Water 2020, 12, 1024 14 of 21

stormwater. Thus, to provide a reasonable balance between these conflicting objectives of different
stakeholders, it is important to incorporate their preferences in the decision-making process [133,134]
GI planning requires knowledge from different disciplines such as landscape ecology,
urban/regional planning, landscape architecture and engineering which rely on the partnership
between different local authorities and stakeholders for its successful implementation. The preferences
of these different stakeholders are elicited in the planning process to support the knowledge transfer
and ensure environmental justice [31].
Several studies have highlighted the importance of stakeholder participation in GI planning
for urban areas by considering their ecosystem services as multiple objectives that support decision
making [30,125,126,130,131,135,136]. However, none of these studies have extensively studied the
importance of stakeholder participation to identify the objectives or criteria relevant to the GI
planning in industrial areas. The industrial areas are complex land use types which can include
wide range of different GI practices with different impacts for water quality and quantity, air quality,
which are subjected to different constraints and entailing variable costs. Unfamiliarity or lack of
knowledge on stakeholders on the specific objectives for such areas could negatively influence the
decision-making process of optimum GI planning [137,138]. It had been argued that transferring
corporate and social responsibility (that includes environmental, economic and social performances)
into industry’s objectives is best undertaken through the stakeholder’s point of view [139]. Hence,
the strategies that promote sustainability for industrial areas such as GI practices should be given
careful attention in terms of identifying their particular objectives and the influences of stakeholders
for their optimum applications.

5. Summary and Conclusions

GI practices which were initially introduced as land conservation strategies, are currently becoming
increasingly popular due to their stormwater management aspects and the provision of several other
ecosystem services. In urbanized land uses, industrial areas are generally located close to residential
and commercial areas due to the ease of access for material and human resources. These industrial areas
can pose several threats to the environment and surrounding communities in the long term. GI practices
can be implemented in industrial areas to mitigate major environmental problems that occur in these
areas such as degradation of water resources through contaminated runoff and air pollution.
Several previous studies in the literature have highlighted the importance and the benefits that
can be achieved for industrial areas by implementing GI practices. There are several different GI
practices available which can provide different benefits for industrial areas with different associated
costs for their implementation. Regardless of the wide acknowledgement of the applications of GI
practices within industrial areas in the literature, there are no systematic methods available in the
current practice to identify optimum GI practices suitable for such areas. In the current practice,
the GI optimization for such land areas is performed through expert judgement and using simulation
models which is an ad-hoc process. The analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
(SWOT) conducted for the assessment of the applications of GI practices within industrial areas further
highlighted the lack of knowledge and research gaps in GI optimization for industrial areas.
Apart from the main objectives of implementing GI practices in industrial areas which is
enhancing the overall environmental quality, there are several other multiple objectives associated in
the optimization process. Another layer of complexity is added for the GI optimization process in
industrial areas due to the views of various stakeholders who influence the process of GI implementation
in such areas. When optimizing GI practices for an industrial area, all of these factors should be
considered to identify the optimum GI practices which will ensure maximum benefits with minimum
costs. The paper highlighted the importance of a systematic methodology to optimize GI practices for
industrial areas which also require the involvement of multi-disciplinary stakeholders.
Water 2020, 12, 1024 15 of 21

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.M.J. and A.W.M.N.; methodology, C.B.J.P., S.M.; writing—original
draft preparation, V.M.J.; writing—review and editing, V.M.J., A.W.M.N., S.M., C.B.J.P.; supervision, A.W.M.N.,
S.M., C.B.J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the research grant No. ASP/01/RE/SCI/2018/45, funded by University of Sri
Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Nijkamp, P. Critical Success Factors for Sal Remediation Policy: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Dutch Experiences;
FEWEB: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
2. Nijkamp, P.; Rodenburg, C.A.; Wagtendonk, A.J. Success factors for sustainable urban brownfield
development: A comparative case study approach to polluted sites. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 40, 235–252.
[CrossRef]
3. Maantay, J. Industrial zoning changes in New York City: A case study of “expulsive” zoning. Proj. 3 Mit J.
Plan. Plan. Environ. Justice 2002, 3, 68–108.
4. Lambert, A.; Boons, F.A. Eco-industrial parks: Stimulating sustainable development in mixed industrial
parks. Technovation 2002, 22, 471–484. [CrossRef]
5. The Brooklyn Evolution. Brooklyn Industrial Precinct Strategy; Brimbank City Council: Sunshine, Australia,
2012.
6. Alshuwaikhat, H.M. Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact assessment
failures in developing countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2005, 25, 307–317. [CrossRef]
7. Ghasemian, M.; Poursafa, P.; Amin, M.M.; Ziarati, M.; Ghoddousi, H.; Momeni, S.A.; Rezaei, A.H.
Environmental impact assessment of the industrial estate development plan with the geographical information
system and matrix methods. J. Environ. Public Health 2012, 2012, 407162. [CrossRef]
8. Woodard, F. Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2001.
9. Allen, W.L. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Advancing Green Infrastructure at All
Scales: From Landscape to Site. Environ. Pract. 2012, 14, 17–25. [CrossRef]
10. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure Linking Landscapes and Communities; Island Press: London,
UK, 2006.
11. Elliott, A.; Trowsdale, S. A review of models for low impact urban stormwater drainage. Environ. Model. Softw.
2007, 22, 394–405. [CrossRef]
12. Jayasooriya, V.; Ng, A. Development of a framework for the valuation of Eco-System Services of Green
Infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Adelaide,
Australia, 1–6 December 2013; pp. 3155–3161.
13. Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting
units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 616–626. [CrossRef]
14. CNT. The Value of Green Infrastrcuture: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits;
CNT: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010.
15. Dinep, C.; Schwab, K. Sustainable Site Design: Criteria, Process, and Case Studies for Integrating Site and Region
in Landscape Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
16. Côté, R.P.; Cohen-Rosenthal, E. Designing eco-industrial parks: A synthesis of some experiences.
J. Clean. Prod. 1998, 6, 181–188. [CrossRef]
17. Mitchell, L. Resource Manual on Infrastructure for Eco-Industrial Development; University of Southern California,
Center for Economic Development, School of Policy, Planning, and Development: Angeles, CA, USA, 2002.
18. Lowe, E. An eco-industrial park definition for the circular economy. Retrieved Oct. 2005, 24, 2011.
19. Lowe, E.A.; Moran, S.R.; Holmes, D.B.; Martin, S.A. Fieldbook for the Development of Eco-Industrial Parks; Final
Report; Indigo Development: London, UK, 1996.
20. Golev, A. Application of Industrial Ecology Principles for Enhanced Resource Efficiency in Heavy Industrial
Areas. Ph.D. Thesis, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2012.
21. Corder, G.D.; Golev, A.; Fyfe, J.; King, S. The status of industrial ecology in Australia: Barriers and enablers.
Resources 2014, 3, 340–361. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 1024 16 of 21

22. Yapa, N. Steel River Industrial and Business Park. 2004. Available online: http://www.jacksonteece.com/
projects/steel-river-industrial-and-business-park (accessed on 20 January 2016).
23. De Sousa, C.A. Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003,
62, 181–198. [CrossRef]
24. Carter, T.; Fowler, L. Establishing green roof infrastructure through environmental policy instruments.
Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 151–164. [CrossRef]
25. Schilling, J.; Logan, J. Greening the rust belt: A green infrastructure model for right sizing America’s
shrinking cities. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2008, 74, 451–466. [CrossRef]
26. Fleming, N. Green Shoots from Brownfield Roots; ECOS: Clayton South, Australia, 2012.
27. Young, C.; Jones, R.; Symons, J. Investing in Growth: Understanding the Value of Green Infrastructure: Climate
Change Working Paper; Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies: Melbourne, Australia, 2014.
28. Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Kaphengst, T.; Pieterse, M.; Rayment, M. Design, Implementation and Cost Elements of
Green Infrastructure Projects; Final report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; p. 138.
29. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Muthukumaran, S.; Ng, A.W.; Perera, B.J. Multi Criteria Decision Making in Selecting
Stormwater Management Green Infrastructure for Industrial areas Part 2: A Case Study with TOPSIS. Water
Resour. Manag. 2018, 32, 4297–4312. [CrossRef]
30. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Muthukumaran, S.; Ng, A.W.; Perera, B.J. Multi Criteria Decision Making in Selecting
Stormwater Management Green Infrastructure for Industrial Areas Part 1: Stakeholder Preference Elicitation.
Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 627–639. [CrossRef]
31. Hansen, R.; Pauleit, S. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for
multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio 2014, 43, 516–529. [CrossRef]
32. Kambites, C.; Owen, S. Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Plan. Pract. Res.
2006, 21, 483–496. [CrossRef]
33. Mell, I.C. Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers-Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2009; pp. 23–34.
34. Maragno, D.; Gaglio, M.; Robbi, M.; Appiotti, F.; Fano, E.A.; Gissi, E. Fine-scale analysis of urban flooding
reduction from green infrastructure: An ecosystem services approach for the management of water flows.
Ecol. Model. 2018, 386, 1–10. [CrossRef]
35. Haase, D.; Schwarz, N.; Strohbach, M.; kroll, F.; Seppelt, R. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem
services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany.
Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [CrossRef]
36. Wolf, K.L. 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.
37. Ely, M.; Pitman, S. Green Infrastructure: Life Support for Human Habitats; Prepared for the Green Infrastructure
Project, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide; Transactions of Royal Society of South Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 2012.
38. European Commission. Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe. 2013, p. 24. Available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructure_broc.pdf (accessed on 20
June 2019).
39. American Rivers. What is Green Infrastructure? 2010. Available online: http://www.americanrivers.org/
initiatives/pollution/green-infrastructure/what-is-green-infrastructure/ (accessed on 17 October 2015).
40. USEPA. Enhancing Sustainable Communities with Green Infrastructure; A guide to help communities better
manage stormwater while achieving other environmental, Public Health, Social, and Economic Benefits;
USEPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
41. Foster, J.; Lowe, A.; Winkelman, S. The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation. Cent. Clean
Air Policy Febr. 2011, 750, 1–52.
42. Ellis, J.B. Sustainable surface water management and green infrastructure in UK urban catchment planning.
J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 24–41. [CrossRef]
43. USEPA. Green Infrastructure Opportunities that Arise during Municipal Operations. 2015. Available online:
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/green_infrastructure_roadshow.pdf (accessed
on 13 September 2019).
44. USEPA. EPA. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low-Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices; USEPA:
Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
Water 2020, 12, 1024 17 of 21

45. USEPA. Green Infrastructure: Land Revitalization Success Stories; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
46. MacMullan, E.; Reich, S. The Economics of Low-Impact Development: A Literature Review; ECONorthwest:
Eugene, OR, USA, 2007.
47. Dunec, J.L. Banking on Green: A Look at How Green Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Provide
Economic Benefits Community-Wide; JSTOR: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
48. USEPA. Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure
Programs; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
49. Davies, C.; Hansen, R.; Rall, E.; Pauleit, S.; Lafortezza, R.; de Bellis, Y.; Santos, A.; Tosics, I. Green Infrastructure
Planning and Implementation. The Status of European Green Space Planning and Implementation Based on an
Analysis of Selected European City Regions. 2015. Available online: https://greensurge.eu/working-packages/
wp5/files/D_5.1_Davies_et_al_2015_Green_Infrastructure_Planning_and_Implementation_v2.pdf (accessed
on 2 April 2020).
50. Roe, M.; Mell, I. Negotiating value and priorities: Evaluating the demands of green infrastructure
development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 650–673. [CrossRef]
51. Norton, B.A.; Coutts, A.M.; Livesley, S.J.; Harris, R.J.; Hunter, A.M.; Williams, N.S. Planning for cooler
cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 127–138. [CrossRef]
52. USEPA. Low-Impact Development Pays Off ; Nonpoint Source News-Notes. No. 75; USEPA: Washington, DC,
USA, 2005.
53. Zielinski, J. The Benefits of Better Site Design in Commercial Development: The Practice of Watershed Protection;
Center for Watershed Protection: Ellicott City, MD, USA, 2000; pp. 277–286.
54. Liptan, T.; Brown, C.K. A Cost Comparison of Conventional and Water Quality-Based Stormwater Designs; Bureau
of Environmental Services: Portland, OR, USA, 1996.
55. Beezhold, M.T.; Baker, D.W. Rain to Recreation: Making the Case for a Stormwater Capital Recovery Fee.
Proc. Water Environ. Fed. 2006, 2006, 3814–3825. [CrossRef]
56. Tilley, S. Natural Approaches to Stormwater Management: Low Impact Development in Puget Sound; Puget Sound
Action Team: Olympia, WA, USA, 2003.
57. Wu, H.; Chen, C. Urban “brownfields”: An Australian perspective. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual
Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 15–18 January 2012.
58. El-Behiry, M.G.; Shedid, A.; Abu-Khadra, A.O.; El-Huseiny, M. Integrated GIS and remote sensing for runoff
hazard analysis in Ain Sukhna Industrial Area, Egypt. Earth Sci. 2006, 17. [CrossRef]
59. Paull, E. The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Brownfields Redevelopment; Northeast Midwest: Washington,
DC, USA, 2008.
60. Dorsey, J.W. Brownfields and greenfields: The intersection of sustainable development and environmental
stewardship. Environ. Pract. 2003, 5, 69–76. [CrossRef]
61. Mathey, J.; Rößler, S.; Banse, J.; Lehmann, I.; Bräuer, A. Brownfields as an element of green infrastructure for
implementing ecosystem services into urban areas. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2015, 141, A4015001. [CrossRef]
62. Cheng, C. Social vulnerability, green infrastructure, urbanization and climate change-induced flooding:
A risk assessment for the Charles River watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Open Access Diss. 2013. [CrossRef]
63. Ghofrani, Z.; Sposito, V.; Faggian, R. Designing resilient regions by applying blue-green infrastructure
concepts. Wit Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 204, 493–505.
64. Lamond, J.; Booth, C.; Hammond, F.; Proverbs, D. Flood Hazards: Impacts and Responses for the Built Environment;
CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011.
65. Brown, R.E.; Willis, H.L. The economics of aging infrastructure. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2006, 4, 36–43.
[CrossRef]
66. Yang, M.; Qian, X.; Zhang, Y.; Sheng, J.; Shen, D.; Ge, Y. Spatial multicriteria decision analysis of flood risks
in aging-dam management in China: A framework and case study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011,
8, 1368–1387. [CrossRef]
67. Upadhyaya, J.K.; Biswas, N.; Tam, E. A review of infrastructure challenges: Assessing stormwater system
sustainability. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2014, 41, 483–492. [CrossRef]
68. Wagner, I.; Krauze, K.; Zalewski, M. Blue aspects of green infrastructure. Sustain. Dev. Appl. 2013, 4, 145–155.
Water 2020, 12, 1024 18 of 21

69. O’donnell, E.C.; Lamond, J.E.; Thorne, C.R. Recognising barriers to implementation of Blue-Green
Infrastructure: A Newcastle case study. Urban Water J. 2017, 14, 964–971. [CrossRef]
70. Thorne, C.R.; Lawson, E.; Ozawa, C.; Hamlin, S.; Smith, L.A. Overcoming uncertainty and barriers to adoption
of Blue-Green Infrastructure for urban flood risk management. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2018, 11, S960–S972.
[CrossRef]
71. Netusil, N.R.; Levin, Z.; Shandas, V.; Hart, T. Valuing green infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2014, 124, 14–21. [CrossRef]
72. Shandas, V. Neighborhood change and the role of environmental stewardship: A case study of green
infrastructure for stormwater in the City of Portland, Oregon, USA. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 16. [CrossRef]
73. Soz, S.A.; Kryspin-Watson, J.; Stanton-Geddes, Z. The Role of Green Infrastructure Solutions in Urban Flood Risk
Management; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
74. Lim, H.; Lu, X. Sustainable urban stormwater management in the tropics: An evaluation of Singapore’s ABC
Waters Program. J. Hydrol. 2016, 538, 842–862. [CrossRef]
75. Yau, W.; Radhakrishnan, M.; Liong, S.-Y.; Zevenbergen, C.; Pathirana, A. Effectiveness of ABC Waters Design
features for runoff quantity control in urban Singapore. Water 2017, 9, 577. [CrossRef]
76. Greenberg, M.; Lewis, M.J. Brownfields redevelopment, preferences and public involvement: A case study
of an ethnically mixed neighbourhood. Urban Stud. 2000, 37, 2501–2514. [CrossRef]
77. Davis, T.S. Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property; American Bar Association:
Chicago, IL, USA, 2002.
78. Hand, K.L.; Rebert, A. Brownfields to Green Spaces. 2006. Available online: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/
groups/public/documents/document/d_001041.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2019).
79. Lewis, G. Brown to Green: Sustainable Redevelopment of America’s Brownfield Sites; Northeast-Midwest Institute:
Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
80. Fenwick, R. Sustainable Water Management on Brownfields Sites. 2012. Available online: https://louisville.
edu/cepm/project-areas-1/sustainable-community-capacity-building/green-infrastructure-on-brownfields
(accessed on 23 May 2019).
81. De Sousa, C.A. Unearthing the benefits of brownfield to green space projects: An examination of project use
and quality of life impacts. Local Environ. 2006, 11, 577–600. [CrossRef]
82. Rosenzweig, B.R.; McPhillips, L.; Chang, H.; Cheng, C.; Welty, C.; Matsler, M.; Iwaniec, D.; Davidson, C.I.
Pluvial flood risk and opportunities for resilience. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2018, 5, e1302. [CrossRef]
83. Liu, W.; Chen, W.; Peng, C. Assessing the effectiveness of green infrastructures on urban flooding reduction:
A Community Scale Study. Ecol. Model. 2014, 291, 6–14. [CrossRef]
84. Qin, H.P.; Li, Z.X.; Fu, G. The effects of low impact development on urban flooding under different rainfall
characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 577–585. [CrossRef]
85. Hu, M.; Sayama, T.; Zhang, X.; Tanaka, K.; Takara, K.; Yang, H. Evaluation of low impact development
approach for mitigating flood inundation at a watershed scale in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 193, 430–438.
[CrossRef]
86. Zellner, M.; Massey, D.; Minor, E.; Gonzalez-Meler, M. Exploring the effects of green infrastructure placement
on neighborhood-level flooding via spatially explicit simulations. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2016,
59, 116–128. [CrossRef]
87. Zhu, Z.; Chen, X. Evaluating the effects of low impact development practices on urban flooding under
different rainfall intensities. Water 2017, 9, 548. [CrossRef]
88. Chen, P.-Y.; Tung, C.-P.; Li, Y.-H. Low impact development planning and adaptation decision-making under
climate change for a community against pluvial flooding. Water 2017, 9, 756. [CrossRef]
89. Duke, L.D.; Chung, Y.J. Industrial storm water pollution prevention: Effectiveness and limitations of source
controls in the transportation industry. Waste Manag. 1995, 15, 543–558. [CrossRef]
90. Duke, L.D.; Beswick, P.G. INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION
REGULATIONS: THE CASE OF TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1997,
33, 825–838. [CrossRef]
91. Horner, R.R. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues; North American
Lake Management Society: Madison, WI, USA, 1994.
92. USEPA. Industrial Overview. 2016. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-
industrial-activities#overview (accessed on 31 January 2016).
Water 2020, 12, 1024 19 of 21

93. City of Kingston. Coastal Catchments Initiative Industry Stormwater Project; City of Kingston: Ontario, ON,
Canada, 2005.
94. Novotny, V. Non point Pollution and Urban Stormwater Management; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1995;
Volume 9.
95. Zgheib, S.; Moilleron, R.; Chebbo, G. Priority pollutants in urban stormwater: Part 1–Case of separate storm
sewers. Water Res. 2012, 46, 6683–6692. [CrossRef]
96. Griffen, L.M. Reducing Pollutants in Industrial Stormwater Runoff: Improved Water Quality Protection
Using Prioritized Facility Regulation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA, 2005.
97. Al Bakri, D.; Rahman, S.; Bowling, L. Sources and management of urban stormwater pollution in rural
catchments, Australia. J. Hydrol. 2008, 356, 299–311. [CrossRef]
98. City of Milwaukee. Welcome to the 30th Street Industrial Corridor. 2014. Available online: http:
//city.milwaukee.gov/Projects/30thStreetIndustrialCorridor.htm#.VvIl4eJ95D8 (accessed on 5 August 2019).
99. USEPA. EPA Assessment Funding Final Report. 30th Street Industrial Corridor. Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. 2012. Available online: https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDCD/
30thStreet/documents/Final30thStreetReportRR928.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2019).
100. MMSD. 30th Street Industrial Corridor Greenway Corridor Report; MMSD Contract M03062P01/M03062P02;
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2015.
101. USEPA. Greening America’s Capitals. Greening the Selma to Montgomery Trail: Reconnecting and
Remembering. 2013. Available online: https://www.montgomeryal.gov/home/showdocument?id=1094
(accessed on 15 July 2019).
102. Vey, J.S. Restoring Prosperity: The State Role in Revitalizing America’s Older Industrial Cities; Brookings Institution
Metropolitan Policy Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
103. UNIDO. Unido Green Industry Initiative for Sustainable Industrial Development; United Nations Industrial
Development Organization: Vienna, Austria, 2011.
104. The Nature Conservancy. The Case for Green Infrastrcuture Joint Industry White Paper; The Nature Conservancy:
Arlington County, VA, USA, 2013.
105. Mcllvaine, R. Green Infrastructure for Industrial Water & Wastewater; Industrial water & wastes digest:
Lincolnshire, IL, USA, 2014.
106. Clements, J.; St Juliana, A.; Davis, P. The Green Edge: How Commercial Property Investment in Green Infrastructure
Creates Value; Natural Resources Defense Council: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
107. Gonzalez-Meler, M.A.; Cotner, L.; Massey, D.A.; Zellner, M.L.; Minor, E.S. The Environmental And Ecological
Benefits Of Green Infrastructure For Stormwater Runoff In Urban Areas. JSM Environ. Sci. Ecol. 2013, 1, 1007.
108. Schueler, T.R.; Holland, H.K. Practice of Watershed Protection; Center for Watershed Protection Publishers:
Ellicott City, MD, USA, 2000.
109. Jiang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Piza, H. A review of applicability and effectiveness of low impact development/green
infrastructure practices in arid/semi-arid United States. Environments 2015, 2, 221–249. [CrossRef]
110. Jayasooriya, V.; Ng, A.; Muthukumaran, S.; Perera, B. Optimal sizing of green infrastructure treatment trains
for stormwater management. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 5407–5420. [CrossRef]
111. Williamson, K.S. Growing with Green Infrastructure; Heritage Conservancy: Doylestown, PA, USA, 2003.
112. Todorovic, Z.; Reed, J.; Taylor, L. SUDS retrofit for surface water outfalls from industrial estates: Scotland
case study. In Proceedings of the 11th Internationla Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, 31
August–5 September 2018.
113. Atkinson, G.; Doick, K.; Burningham, K.; France, C. Brownfield regeneration to greenspace: Delivery of
project objectives for social and environmental gain. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 586–594. [CrossRef]
114. USEPA. Design Principles for Stormwater Management on Compacted, Contaminated Soils in Dense Urban
Areas. 2008. Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/swdp0408.pdf (accessed on 23
January 2020).
115. Line, D.E.; Wu, J.; Arnold, J.A.; Jennings, G.D.; Rubin, A.R. Water quality of first flush runoff from 20
industrial sites. Water Environ. Res. 1997, 69, 305–310. [CrossRef]
116. Jayasooriya, V.M. Optimization of green infrastructure practices for industrial areas (Doctoral
dissertation, Victoria University). 2016. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/02dd/
0119c759eb93fdba61074eadc34f2341b8c2.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2019).
Water 2020, 12, 1024 20 of 21

117. Kaini, P.; Artita, K.; Nicklow, J.W. Optimizing structural best management practices using SWAT and genetic
algorithm to improve water quality goals. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 1827–1845. [CrossRef]
118. Doick, K.; Sellers, G.; Castan-Broto, V.; Silverthorne, T. Understanding success in the context of brownfield
greening projects: The requirement for outcome evaluation in urban greenspace success assessment.
Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 163–178. [CrossRef]
119. Zuniga-Teran, A.A.; Staddon, C.; De Vito, L.; Gerlak, A.K.; Ward, S.; Schoeman, Y.; Hart, A.; Booth, G.
Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.
2020, 63, 710–732. [CrossRef]
120. Li, H.; Ding, L.; Ren, M.; Li, C.; Wang, H. Sponge city construction in China: A survey of the challenges and
opportunities. Water 2017, 9, 594. [CrossRef]
121. Kremer, P.; Hamstead, Z.; Haase, D.; Mcphearson, T.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Andersson, E.; Kabisch, N.;
Larondelle, N.; Rall, E.L.; Voigt, A. Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research. Ecol. Soc.
2016, 21, 29. [CrossRef]
122. Chiu, A.S.; Yong, G. On the industrial ecology potential in Asian developing countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2004,
12, 1037–1045. [CrossRef]
123. Baas, L.W.; Boons, F.A. An industrial ecology project in practice: Exploring the boundaries of decision-making
levels in regional industrial systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 1073–1085. [CrossRef]
124. Furlong, C.; Phelan, K.; Dodson, J. The role of water utilities in urban greening: A case study of Melbourne,
Australia. Util. Policy 2018, 53, 25–31. [CrossRef]
125. European Commission. The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure Science for Environment Policy; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
126. Jia, H.; Yao, H.; Tang, Y.; Shaw, L.Y.; Zhen, J.X.; Lu, Y. Development of a multi-criteria index ranking system
for urban runoff best management practices (BMPs) selection. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 7915–7933.
[CrossRef]
127. Ellis, J.B.; Deutsch, J.-C.; Mouchel, J.-M.; Scholes, L.; Revitt, M. Multicriteria decision approaches to support
sustainable drainage options for the treatment of highway and urban runoff. Sci. Total Environ. 2004,
334, 251–260. [CrossRef]
128. Lee, J.G.; Selvakumar, A.; Alvi, K.; Riverson, J.; Zhen, J.X.; Shoemaker, L.; Lai, F.-h. A watershed-scale
design optimization model for stormwater best management practices. Environ. Model. Softw. 2012, 37, 6–18.
[CrossRef]
129. Maringanti, C.; Chaubey, I.; Popp, J. Development of a multiobjective optimization tool for the selection and
placement of best management practices for nonpoint source pollution control. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45.
[CrossRef]
130. Chen, Y.; Hipel, K.W.; Kilgour, D.M.; Zhu, Y. A strategic classification support system for brownfield
redevelopment. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24, 647–654. [CrossRef]
131. Young, K.D.; Younos, T.; Dymond, R.L.; Kibler, D.F.; Lee, D.H. Application of the analytic hierarchy process
for selecting and modeling stormwater best management practices. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 2010,
146, 50–63. [CrossRef]
132. 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.
[CrossRef]
133. Tompkins, E.L.; Few, R.; Brown, K. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: Incorporating stakeholders
preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1580–1592. [CrossRef]
134. Kodikara, P.N.; Perera, B.; Kularathna, M. Stakeholder preference elicitation and modelling in multi-criteria
decision analysis–A case study on urban water supply. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 206, 209–220. [CrossRef]
135. Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, P.; Ji, Y.; Kong, S.; Li, Z.; Bai, Z. A land use regression model incorporating data on
industrial point source pollution. J. Environ. Sci. 2012, 24, 1251–1258. [CrossRef]
136. Sanon, S.; Hein, T.; Douven, W.; Winkler, P. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: The case of an urban
floodplain in Vienna, Austria. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 111, 159–172. [CrossRef]
137. Thomas, M.R. A GIS-based decision support system for brownfield redevelopment. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2002, 58, 7–23. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 1024 21 of 21

138. Viavattene, C.; Scholes, L.; Revitt, D.; Ellis, J. A GIS based decision support system for the implementation
of stormwater best management practices. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Urban
Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 31 August–5 September 2008.
139. Sharma, S.; Henriques, I. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products
industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 159–180. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).