IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p2093-d1602162.html

Practitioner Perceptions of Mainstreaming Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS): A Mixed Methods Study Exploring Direct Versus Indirect Barriers

Author

Listed:
  • Hebba Haddad

    (School of Psychology, University of East London, Stratford Campus, Water Lane, London E15 4LZ, UK
    Sustainability Research Institute, University of East London, 4-6 University Way, Docklands, London E16 2RD, UK)

  • John Bryden

    (Thames 21, 78-83 Upper Thames Street, London EC4R 3TD, UK)

  • Stuart Connop

    (Sustainability Research Institute, University of East London, 4-6 University Way, Docklands, London E16 2RD, UK)

Abstract

Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) represent an opportunity to use stormwater management as a mechanism to deliver multiple co-benefits. They can play a key role in urban climate change adaptation, restoring nature, and increasing health and social wellbeing. Despite these benefits, their uptake is limited with many practitioners reporting barriers to implementation. To explore these barriers, and to define actions to unlock scaling, our mixed-methods study explored comparative perceptions of SuDS practitioners within the UK. Survey research ( n = 48) provided an overview of broad experiences across a range of SuDS practitioners. Main barriers described were access to funds, difficulty retrofitting, cost to maintain, and the ownership of SuDS. Main issues having the least available information to support SuDS scaling were conflicts with corporate identity, cost to maintain, and collaboration between various stakeholders. Follow-up interviews ( n = 6) explored experiences among a contrasting subset of survey respondents: those who experienced the highest number of perceived barriers and those who experienced the fewest barriers to SuDS implementation. From these interviews, key themes were identified that categorized the barriers for SuDS implementations: people-related elements; limiting practicalities; and informational factors. The findings were differentiated between indirect barriers (i.e., soft barriers, such as individual practitioner knowledge and capacity gaps linked to poor knowledge exchange) and direct barriers (i.e., hard barriers including specific gaps in SuDS data and knowledge experienced more universally). The importance of differentiating between knowledge-based (indirect) barriers that can be unlocked by improved information-transfer solutions and actual (direct) barriers that need further considered approaches and the generation of new knowledge to overcome is highlighted. Evidence-based policy recommendations for governmental and SuDS-based organisations are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Hebba Haddad & John Bryden & Stuart Connop, 2025. "Practitioner Perceptions of Mainstreaming Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS): A Mixed Methods Study Exploring Direct Versus Indirect Barriers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2093-:d:1602162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2093/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/2093/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luisa Sturiale & Alessandro Scuderi, 2018. "The Evaluation of Green Investments in Urban Areas: A Proposal of an eco-social-green Model of the City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Shahryar Ershad Sarabi & Qi Han & A. Georges L. Romme & Bauke de Vries & Laura Wendling, 2019. "Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen & Barquín, José & Burgess, Diane & Finney, Graham & Silió, Ana & Álvarez-Martínez, Jose Manuel & Bailly, Denis & Ballé-Béganton, Johanna, 2020. "Barrier identification framework for the implementation of blue and green infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Bridget Thodesen & Berit Time & Tore Kvande, 2022. "Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: Themes of Public Perception—A Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    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. Ryfisch, Simon & Seeger, Isabel & McDonald, Hugh & Lago, Manuel & Blicharska, Malgorzata, 2023. "Opportunities and limitations for Nature-Based Solutions in EU policies – Assessed with a focus on ponds and pondscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Yichao He & Anna Jorgensen & Qian Sun & Amy Corcoran & Maria Jesus Alfaro-Simmonds, 2022. "Negotiating Complexity: Challenges to Implementing Community-Led Nature-Based Solutions in England Pre- and Post-COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Benjamin Hueber & Amando Reber, 2025. "Small-Scale Hybrid Participation and Heat Mitigation Measures by Active Bottom Surface Cooling—Need for an Integrated Framework to Improve Well-Being," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-30, August.
    4. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Kornelia Przestrzelska & Katarzyna Wartalska & Weronika Rosińska & Jakub Jurasz & Bartosz Kaźmierczak, 2024. "Climate Resilient Cities: A Review of Blue-Green Solutions Worldwide," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 38(15), pages 5885-5910, December.
    6. Marino, Mina D. & Furuseth, Ingvild Skumlien & Enge, Caroline & Solli, Gunnhild Storbekkrønning & Barkved, Line J., 2025. "Nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation in urban areas: A Norwegian planning perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Claudia Shantal Moreno & Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta & Steven W. J. Canty & Jorge Herrera & Claudia Teutli & Aarón Israel Muñiz-Castillo & Melanie McField & Melina Soto & Cibele do Amaral & Steven Paton &, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Nature-Based Solutions for Hurricane Risk Reduction Policies in the Mexican Caribbean," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, September.
    8. Jiyoon Song & Jessica Hemingway & Chang Sug Park, 2024. "Perspective Swap from Central Europe to East Asia: How Relevant Is Urban Environmental Acupuncture in Small-Scale Green Space Development in the Context of the Republic of Korea?," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    10. Luisa Sturiale & Alessandro Scuderi & Giuseppe Timpanaro, 2022. "A Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach of “Tree” Meaning in the New Urban Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Maruf Ahmad & Jinfeng Du, 2026. "Unlocking Financial Potential for Urban Nature‐Based Solutions: A PRISMA‐Based Systematic Review," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 510-532, February.
    12. Maria Ignatieva & Fahimeh Mofrad, 2023. "Understanding Urban Green Spaces Typology’s Contribution to Comprehensive Green Infrastructure Planning: A Study of Canberra, the National Capital of Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-27, April.
    13. Rita Mendonça & Peter Roebeling & Teresa Fidélis & Miguel Saraiva, 2021. "Policy Instruments to Encourage the Adoption of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Landscapes," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    14. Mo Wang & Jiayu Zhao & Jin Su & Rana Muhammad Adnan Ikram & Manling Yang, 2025. "Navigating Flooding Challenges in Historical Urban Contexts: Integrating Nature-Based Solutions with Spatial Multi-Criteria Assessments in Quanzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, February.
    15. Mariusz Starzec & Józef Dziopak & Daniel Słyś, 2020. "An Analysis of Stormwater Management Variants in Urban Catchments," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Glauco Gallotti & Marco Antonio Santo & Ilektra Apostolidou & Jacopo Alessandri & Alberto Armigliato & Bidroha Basu & Sisay Debele & Alessio Domeneghetti & Alejandro Gonzalez-Ollauri & Prashant Kumar , 2021. "On the Management of Nature-Based Solutions in Open-Air Laboratories: New Insights and Future Perspectives," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, April.
    17. Elena Di Pirro & Peter Roebeling & Lorenzo Sallustio & Marco Marchetti & Bruno Lasserre, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions under Different Implementation Scenarios: A National Perspective for Italian Urban Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Gaby, B. Hansen & Christina, A. Breed, 2026. "Urban climate adaptation planning in Windhoek, Namibia: Gaps, challenges, and opportunities for Nature based Solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    19. Darja Istenič & Igor Bodík & Maret Merisaar & Magdalena Gajewska & Michal Šereš & Tjaša Griessler Bulc, 2023. "Challenges and Perspectives of Nature-Based Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in Rural Areas of Central and Eastern Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Beatriz Kauark-Fontes & César E. Ortiz-Guerrero & Livia Marchetti & Jaime Hernández-Garcia & Fabio Salbitano, 2023. "Towards Adaptive Governance of Urban Nature-Based Solutions in Europe and Latin America—A Qualitative Exploratory Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-23, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:2093-:d:1602162. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.