Decisive Factors in Sustainable Stormwater Management

Decisive Factors in Sustainable Stormwater Management | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Decisive Factors in Sustainable Stormwater Management Zhengdong Sun, Johanna Deak Sjöman, Godecke-Tobias Blecken, Kateryna Utkina, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6965519/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Sustainable stormwater management (SSWM) is widely championed for urban sustainability, yet SSWM decisions remain predominantly driven by technical, environmental, and economic data. Growing evidence voices the roles of social dimensions, but insights into their values and benefits remain explorative and theoretical, limiting their uptake to real-world decision-making. Using mixed methods, we traced participant insights in two Swedish cities (1960–2024) through interviews, identifying 40 factors influencing past-and-present stormwater management transitions. These were synthesized into 9 key factors, which participants then ranked; external collaboration emerged as the most decisive for future SSWM. We find these key factors act as adaptive levers, not static barriers or drivers, with their influence shifting across space and time, offering a transferable framework for different urban contexts. Our findings challenge reductionist decision paradigms and strengthen the evidence base for holistic assessment. Future efforts should refine measurement approaches for these factors and explore their fuller integration into decisions, thereby enabling more robust SSWM outcomes. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Sustainability Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate-change impacts/Governance Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Decision making Scientific community and society/Water resources Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Since the late 19th century, stormwater management has shifted from combined sewers to largely separate drainage networks in many regions, yet it remains dominated by pipe-centered engineering solutions 1,2 . Amid rapid urbanization, climate change and rising concern over contamination, sustainable stormwater management (SSWM) is now widely endorsed. SSWM mimics natural hydrological cycles by embedding decentralized infrastructure—bioretention cells, infiltration systems, constructed wetlands and green roofs—into urban landscapes alongside conventional pipe networks 3 . These infrastructures reduce flooding, enhance ecosystems, improve water quality, buffer drought, and promote urban well-being 4 . Worldwide, concepts such as Sponge City, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, Water-Sensitive Urban Design and Low-Impact Development, which employ blue-green infrastructure and other nature-based solutions (NbS), signal this shift toward sustainable practice 5 . By retaining and treating run-off, conserving biodiversity, cooling cities and providing recreation, SSWM enhances urban sustainabilty 6 and supports several Sustainable Development Goals 7 . Hereafter we use SSWM as an umbrella term for these concepts and strategies. Although stormwater engineering has made significant progress, SSWM is now tasked with delivering core stormwater functions and securing multifunctional co-benefits, while balancing diverse and often competing priorities among stakeholders ( e.g., flood risk reduction, ecosystem services, and land use) 8,9 . These demands increase the need for interdisciplinary evidence from both natural and social sciences, as data-driven insights are critical for resolving trade-offs and optimizing decisions 10 . Yet significant gaps persist in translating these complex expectations into effective governance, particularly within institutions where pipe-centered approaches, reinforced by vested interests, still dominate stormwater decision-making 11-14 .This often manifests as lock-in effects, where deep-rooted governance routines, sectoral silos, and short-term engineering priorities sideline societal complexities such as collaborative planning, or the needed adaption of multiple land ownerships and shared responsibilities 15-18 . The challenge is further compounded by hybrid SSWM systems that combine conventional pipes with landscape-integrated NbS ( e.g ., detention ponds), requiring coordinated institutional and governance frameworks for their upkeep 19-21 . While systems-thinking studies have explored SSWM governance 22 , integrating stakeholder-driven perspectives into decision-making remain limited 18,23 , especially argued in assessment research 24-27 . Most evaluations still rely on literature reviews, theory-driven analyses detached from context, or secondary datasets rather than context-relevant data inputs and stakeholder insights. As a result, economic, technical and environmental factors dominate stormwater decision-making, while social factors—often lacking robust quantification methods or clear implications to SSWM system performance—are often treated as superficial add-ons rather than being grounded in real-world contexts, and governance concerns and stakeholder outreach remain underrepresented 28 . This gap is intensified by a tendency to frame factors, especially social ones, only as static barriers or drivers 29-32 , overlooking their potential to act as adaptive levers that shift with stakeholder dynamics (interests, priorities), SSWM phase (planning, implementation, maintenance, retrofitting) and temporal scale (short- versus long-term objectives) 15,33,34 . Based on these gaps, we ask: Which past and present factors have shaped stormwater management transitions? And which of these factors are most likely to be decisive for future SSWM? We address them through a participant-driven, retrospective analysis spanning from the 1960s onward in two Swedish cities. Examining past and present real-world transitions clarifies why certain factors persist and how they can be leveraged for future decision-making, as demonstrated by numerous studies 3,35-37 . We synthesized 40 factors into 9 key factors that extended beyond the conventional technical, economic and environmental dimensions to encompass complex social considerations. We then assessed these key factors by their prospective decisiveness, providing an empirical basis for cities seeking to build holistic decision frameworks for SSWM across policy, research and practice in diverse urban contexts. Research approach and framework Our study is part of a broader research initiative supported by FORMAS (Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development), conducted in collaboration with Luleå University of Technology and the Swedish cities of Malmö and Östersund. While the overall research models various stormwater management alternatives (hereafter systems) to optimize stormwater quality and quantity in selected urban catchment areas, this study focuses on a detailed examination of the factors, particularly the social dimensions, that shape transitions towards SSWM. Using a peer case study approach, we explore how contrasting municipal contexts shape the conditions for transitioning to SSWM, offering insights applicable to decentralized governance systems across the Nordic region and beyond. Moreover, we employ an exploratory sequential mixed methods 38 and incorporate the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) 39 as the analytical framework. The MLP delineates three levels of inquiry: 1) the landscape level, which represents broad events, values and norms that influence the following two levels; 2) the regime level, which represents established and stabilized practices; and 3) the niche level, which represents innovative practices that emerge through experimentation and pilot projects 40 (Methods). The research was conducted in three phases with eight steps (Fig. 1a; Methods). In Phase 1, we interviewed17 participants from Malmö and Östersund, representing diverse professional backgrounds and responsibilities spanning from 1960 to 2024 (Fig. 1b). In Phase 2, we developed an initial set of 40 decisive factors (hereafter ‘factors’) from the interviews and synthesized them into a concise set of 9 key decisive factors (hereafter ‘key factors’), thereby answering our first research question. In Phase 3, we examined the key factors through a prioritization assessment involving 10 participants who continued from Phase 1. This phase addressed our second research question by assessing the relative decisiveness of key factors for future SSWM. To facilitate a broad and inclusive dialogue across diverse infrastructures, technologies, configurations, and strategies for stormwater management, we deliberately adopted the open-ended term ‘SSWM systems’ to frame the assessment boundary and guide group discourse. A dedicated discussion session at the end of the workshop allowed participants to reflect on the assessment results and contribute additional contextual insights. Results 40 factors influencing the stormwater management transition Interview analysis based on the MLP framework revealed that, from the 1960s onward, stormwater management transition in Sweden has been influenced by 40 factors (Fig. 2 ). At the landscape level, interview data reflected a broad societal aspiration for sustainability and long-term quality of life. Equally, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation were seen as crucial for preserving habitats and delivering ecosystem services 41 . Moreover, Public awareness, preferences, beliefs, and trust emerged as motivating forces behind community support, while cultural and behavioral shifts—often catalyzed by radical events ( e.g. , flooding, droughts) and incremental pressures ( e.g. , urban densification, sea-level rise)—encouraged environmental stewardship and social acceptance of SSWM initiatives. At the regime level, the interview analysis revealed an interconnected configuration of institutional, organizational, political, economic, and technical arrangements governing past and present stormwater practices. These include inter-organizational coordination and communication, reflected in aspects such as effective interactions, networks, and polycentric approaches, along with the mechanisms for outsourcing and knowledge sharing that support collaborative internal processes. Internal governance structures, including decision-making processes, commitment and conflict management, worked in tandem with comprehensive legislative frameworks and policy feedback mechanisms to clarify roles, responsibilities, and compliance standards. The interview analysis also showed financial mechanisms that support training, operational maintenance, and strategic investment, influencing how innovations are integrated and scaled. Additionally, operational aspects such as systematic monitoring, forward-looking planning and risk management illustrated how persistent routines, technical standards and managerial practices have contributed to long-term system sustainability. These were complemented by considerations of recreational value, aesthetic enhancement, and community well-being, alongside practical functions of stormwater quantity control and quality treatment. Finally, the integration of decentralized NbS into existing pipe networks—together with built-in flexibility—was identified as essential for maintaining holistic, adaptive capacity under evolving urban and landscape pressures. At the niche level, interview findings identified various experimental undertakings linked to innovation and pilot projects. Additionally, pilot policy initiatives often functioned as small-scale tests for alternative governance models, while financing of technical investments allowed innovations to emerge without immediate market or regulatory constraints. The availability of both specialized and generalist municipal stormwater strategists was seen to support informed and adaptive decision-making. Further, active involvement of community groups and NGOs broadened the scope and legitimacy of these efforts. Finally, the application of advanced software, tools, and materials was recognized as essential for enhancing system performance and resilience. 9 key factors for SSWM decision-making Fig. 3 presents how the 40 factors identified from the interviews were synthesized into 9 key factors: Multifunctionality , External Collaboration , Financial Resources , Land Use , Long-Term Integration , Organizational Capacity , Policies, Rules, and Legislation , Societal Dynamics , and Technological Innovation and Adaptation (Methods; hereafter referred to in italics). Together, they capture the multifaceted complexity of the transition towards SSWM. The synthesis of 9 key factors served two purposes. First, it provided a structured, context specific set of decision-relevant criteria that can be applied in SSWM decision-making or integrated into related decision frameworks in the case cities. In this context, the 9 key factors serve as evaluative criteria, while the 40 underlying factors function as operational performance indicators. Second, this concise set enhanced the feasibility of the prioritization assessment and discussion conducted in Phase 3 (Fig. 1 a). Moreover, our synthesis of the 40 factors revealed that the transition toward SSWM is inherently complex, requiring a systemic approach and holistic mindset. Rather than treating individual factors in isolation or categorizing them merely as barriers or drivers, our findings highlight their context-specific interdependencies, providing a foundation for more adaptive and integrated approaches to future SSWM decision-making. The most decisive key factors The assessment and subsequent workshop discussion with participants yielded a group-level consensus on the prioritization of key factors influencing future SSWM (Fig. 4 ). In descending order, the most decisive factors from the assessment were External Collaboration , followed by Policies, Rules, Legislation , Land Use , and Organizational Capacity . Economic Resources , Long-Term Integration , and Multifunctionality were considered moderately decisive, while Social Dynamics and Technological Innovation and Adaptation were ranked as lowest. External Collaboration received the highest score (Fig. 4 ), reflecting participants' shared perception of its foundational role in addressing the complex, multidimensional challenges for future SSWM. Group discussions further attributed current collaboration stagnation to fragmented responsibilities, land-use prerogatives, inter-organizational misalignment and overlapping mandates across sectors—including environmental, parks, transport/street, urban planning, engineering services, water authorities/utilities, housing authorities/companies, and municipal sustainability offices. Moreover, views on outsourcing were mixed: while valued for specialized expertise and short-term efficiency it brings, it was also criticized for lacking the holistic, long-term perspective needed for integrated city planning and decision-making. As such, successful External Collaboration was seen to require more than basic cooperation, including structured partnerships and sustained engagement through both formal and informal working groups and networks. Several engineering participants pointed to the role of the Swedish Water and Wastewater Association (Svenskt Vatten) as an example of effective coordination—facilitating resource pooling, knowledge exchange, and stakeholder alignment. These divergent perceptions reflect the dynamic nature of this key factor, functioning interchangeably as both barrier and driver depending on stakeholder priorities and specific contexts. Policy, Rules, Legislation that enable effective (policy) decision making and implementation in SSWM, ranked second. Group discussion outcome indicates the importance of clear regulatory mandates and standardized guidelines in enabling cross-sector partnerships and translating strategies into implementable outcomes. Participating coordinators and planners stressed the need for future policies to align with multifunctional urban landscape designs, especially NbS, to enhance their practical applicability and likelihood of implementation. Land Use ranked third, due to its vital role in determining feasible locations and implementation strategies for SSWM. There was a consensus that ownership—whether public or private—defines the decision-making authority and shapes the feasibility of implementing SSWM, particularly with NbS in contested or space-constrained urban areas. Organizational Capacity followed closely, non-engineering participants highlighted internal governance structures as either potential bottlenecks or facilitators of progress. Here, collaborative willingness and conflict-management capacity were seen as critical to cooperation, while internal knowledge sharing and commitment were recognized to support effective municipal decision-making. Although Financial Resources ranked lower, it was collectively acknowledged as essential for transforming visions into sustainable outcomes. Participating investigators and strategists stressed that many projects often stall after pilot phases due to insufficient or inconsistent funding, especially when reliant on short-term grants without provisions for continuous maintenance or evaluation. Stable financing was therefore seen as a prerequisite for amplifying the long-term impact of External Collaboration and Policy, Rules, Legislations by ensuring investments in SSWM remain viable over time. The less decisive key factors Long-Term Integration was ranked as comparatively less decisive. Nonetheless, the group dialogue revealed that the early inclusion of stormwater concerns in the planning process clarifies SSWM responsibilities and reduces long-term maintenance uncertainty. Both retrospective and prospective evaluations were seen to support iterative improvements, particularly for NbS. Multifunctionality also received a lower decisiveness score, however, insights from the discussion suggested its potential to generate public support and improve quality of life. As for small scale SSWM systems in, e.g. , residential neighborhoods, decisions often focused on amenities and recreation, with one participating environmental officer described to relocating stormwater outlets to enhance local swimming areas in Östersund—an example of the decisiveness and fluid character of this factor, and how even a modest design tweak can deliver immediate community recreational benefits. Societal Dynamics ranked second lowest, yet deliberations during the discussion highlighted its growing influence. Planners and coordinators noted that, as stormwater governance becomes increasingly decentralized, shifts in public attitudes and local involvement are expected to be critical in implementing SSWM. Public-health officer further added, while SSWM systems typically operate at the catchment scale, their social impacts generally occur at the neighborhood level. Technological Innovation and Adaptation received the lowest decisiveness ranking, which may seem counterintuitive in an era when smart technologies are extensively explored in both research and practice. However, the discussions revealed a consensus that these advances, including those targeting emerging contaminants 43 , 44 , cannot ensure SSWM outcomes in isolation. Instead, the need for a supportive institutional environment—coordinated policies, stable long-term funding, and robust collaborative mechanisms—was emphasized as essential for sustaining lasting outcomes. Participants from planning and environmental sectors further noted that engineers, while operating within their technical domains, often serve as de facto decision-makers 45 . The discussion outcome indicates the importance of embedding innovation within institutional learning, policy experimentation, and organizational commitment to enable context-sensitive implementation and to better reflect the interdependence of technological and other key factors in achieving long-term SSWM. Discussion Our study identified External Collaboration as the most decisive key factor for future SSWM, a result affirmed by participants and aligned with established research advocating collaborative governance frameworks such as partnering approaches 46 , polycentric governance 47 , and inter-organizational adaptive governance 48 , 49 . By properly addressing inter-institutional fragmentation and promoting coordinated efforts among diverse stakeholders, External Collaboration can notably facilitate inclusive decision-making, and this in turn enhances legitimacy, builds trust and transparency, and promotes shared decision outcomes 34 . These results suggest that External Collaboration should be considered as a principal criterion in SSWM decision-making frameworks. It can also serve as a benchmark for defining the decision context, helping to mediate among stakeholders embedded within fragmented institutional structures and vested interests 13 , thereby enhancing governance capacity and improving the effectiveness of SSWM decisions. Likewise, other key factors in this decisive continuum should be explicitly incorporated into decision frameworks. Rather than serving as supplementary to conventional criteria, they reflect the complex realities of SSWM governance and practice. Our findings also indicate that the decisiveness of the 9 key factors is inherently dynamic and interdependent. As the workshop discussion revealed, External Collaboration relies significantly on clear Policies, Rules, Legislation to translate collaborative commitments into actions. In this context, supportive policies can clarify responsibilities across municipal organizations, helping to legitimize innovative solutions and, in turn, facilitating cross-sector coordination. Without such policy foundations, however, even well-intentioned collaborations may risk remaining confined to short-term pilots, lacking the traction to scale or integrate into mainstream planning 50 . Similarly, strong Organizational Capacity can leverage Financial Resources , reinforcing both external and internal collaborations without duplicating responsibilities. Additional interlinkages became apparent in Land Use and Multifunctionality , where several participants noted that the success of SSWM systems on public or private land depends on stable governance and sustained funding. When ecosystem services or social values are clearly recognized in SSWM decision-making, municipalities are more likely to redirect funding to secure these benefits 51 . Societal dynamics can further reinforce these efforts by motivating decision-makers to adopt standardized approaches or revise land-use zoning to better accommodate multifunctional and socially valued systems. To sustain these transitions, engaging private landowners—when supported by clear regulatory frameworks and strategic budgeting—can demonstrate feasibility, foster public trust, and contribute to further scaling of SSWM across mixed-ownership urban contexts. Technological Innovation and Adaptation , while reflecting the critique of technocratic approaches that focus on technical metrics at the expense of broader social dimensions 11 , 52 , can serve as a powerful amplifier once the enabling conditions of policy clarity, financial stability, and stakeholder collaboration are in place. Therefore, in contrast to studies that have tended to simplify complex interactions by categorizing factors diametrically as static barriers or drivers 2 , 29 – 32 , our study reconceptualizes them as decisive factors that function as adaptive levers. Their impact shifts across space and time depending on stakeholder perceptions, stages of SSWM, institutional readiness, resource allocation, and socio-political alignment 53 . While our empirical material is limited to two Swedish peer cities, their contrasting sizes, climate zones and governance set-ups capture the main municipal archetypes in Sweden (Methods). They also broadly align with Nordic and wider Western governance arrangements, policy trajectories and sustainability priorities 19 , 22 , 54 , making our findings indicative, though not definitive, of broader regional and international patterns. Our exploration of these dynamic interdependencies offers an initial step toward long-term, holistic and multifunctionality research in SSWM. Future efforts should explore the extent to which these key factors are applicable across diverse geographic and institutional contexts, and this exploration would benefit from involving larger, more varied stakeholder groups ( e.g. , end-users) through iterative and deliberative approaches 55 . Moreover, it is important to note that although our analytical framework draws inspiration from transition theory (Fig. 2 ), the analysis in this study deliberately departs from examining conventional transition notions ( e.g. , lock-in effects) 56 . Instead, we focus on integrating contextual insights that participants recognize can shape adaptive governance and guide future SSWM decision-making. Unsurprisingly, the findings reinforced our proposition, demonstrating social factors— External Collaboration, Policies, Rules, Legislation , and Land Use —are particularly decisive in supporting decision-making processes that facilitate future SSWM transitions; whereas key factors initially considered less decisive tended to become critical when supported by robust institutional and collaborative framework, illustrating how these key factors interact and often condition one another’s impact. Yet, as SSWM grapples with fast-evolving technical and environmental agendas 52 , social considerations in SSWM remain narrowly framed around public health, recreation and aesthetics in decision-making. This risks compromising SSWM system function, performance and resilience 57 , partly due to difficulties in quantification, the absence of context-specific indicators, and their weak integration with technical, environmental and economic factors 28 , 58 . By presenting a portrait of 9 key factors that encompass the 40 underlying factors spanning economic, environmental, technical, and with broader array of social factors, our study makes a compelling case for their necessary integration into the decision-making process in SSWM. This complements the reductionist paradigms prevalent in SSWM assessments for decision and policy making, while strengthening them by outlining a pathway to balanced frameworks and tools that give greater clarity to social and other often-overlooked decisive factors, thereby encouraging future SSWM decisions in research, policy and practice to reflect the context-specific interplay of all key factors. Methods The research employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach 38 and was conducted in three phases: 1) semi-structured interviews of professionals being active in stormwater management from the late 1960s to the present, (2) identification of decisive factors and synthesizing them into key factors, and (3) prioritization of the key factors. Detailed phases and steps are summarized in Fig. 1 a. Case study and participant selection Historically, Sweden’s early shift from conventional, pipe-based stormwater management to decentralized, sustainable solutions was initiated in the 1960s 2 , 59 and provides a critical contextual backdrop for this study. In the selected cities Malmö and Östersund (Fig. 1 a), stormwater management practices mirror broader national trends. In Östersund, where the Great Lake Storsjön serves as both the drinking water source and recipient, water quality has traditionally been the primary concern. By contrast, in Malmö, water quantity remains the predominant issue—with the city advancing flood protection and climate adaptation measures in response to extensive flooding in 2014. Moreover, these cities present contrasting organizational frameworks: in Malmö, stormwater management responsibilities are divided between municipal planning and the regional water and waste organization (VA-Syd), while in Östersund, governance is centralized within the city council. Leveraging these contrasting urban settings and governance structures allows for an examination of how context-specific factors shape the evolution of SSWM strategies, highlighting the value of synthesizing evidence from diverse contexts to generate robust and transferable insights 60 . Prior to the interviews, key actors in stormwater management from the 1960s to 2024 from Malmö and Östersund were identified using a combination of reputational and positional approaches to ensure relevant respondents 61 , 62 . A total of 17 participants from Malmö and Östersund were involved and included a wide range of professionals from different sectors, e.g. , engineering and technical services, roads and planning, agriculture, environmental health, and wastewater and sewage management departments. Their roles varied from technical investigators to senior organizational leaders, thereby providing a comprehensive perspective on stormwater management over time. Data collection Semi-structured interviews lasting approximately 1 hour, were conducted online between February and April 2024. This method was chosen for its flexibility in allowing detailed discussions while adapting to emergent themes 63 , relevant to SSWM practices. The semi-structured interview guide was heuristically designed by the MLP framework (Fig. 2 ) from the transition theory 39 . Unlike transformation research which concerns global change and transformative adaptation, such as resilience 64 , transition theory is especially used to denote fundamental social, technological, institutional and economic change from one dynamic equilibrium to another 16 . This concept emerged in the early 2000s in the field of innovation studies and has been tested and refined through several dozen historical cases 37 , 65 . It is defined as a set of processes that can lead to a fundamental shift in socio-technical systems, incorporating changes in user habits, norms, and behavior, institutional structures, etc. , along with technological dimensions. The objective of transition theory is to conceptualize and explain how incremental and radical changes can occur in the way societal functions are fulfilled. Here, the MLP provides a co-evolutionary lens for understanding how technological innovations, institutional changes, and social dynamics interact in processes of change toward sustainability 17 , 56 , 66 . Therefore, MLP was particularly well-suited in the semi-structure interview step of our study, as it enabled a rigorous retrospective analysis of the past-and-present processes that drove the transition from conventional stormwater management to SSWM in Sweden—with its roots in the 1960s 59 . In particular, it allowed us to systematically explore what and how established stormwater management practices have been challenged by external pressures, to identify the emergence of innovations ( e.g. , NbS undertakings and pilot projects), and to assess the extent to which these initiatives have influenced the established regimes. The interviews—processing only non-sensitive personal data about participants’ professional roles—were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with written informed consent, in accordance with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Data-Protection Manual. The SLU Legal Affairs & Data-Protection Office confirmed that no external ethical review was required. The complete semi-structured interview guide is provided in Supplementary Note 2. Data analysis We implemented a two-stage thematic analysis guided by the MLP framework and informed by Braun and Clarke 67 . In the first stage (Fig. 1 a: Step 5), we examined the data from the semi-structured interviews using open coding to extract recurring themes. This process yielded 40 factors that captured the diverse dimensions of stormwater management transitions. Guided by the principles of axial coding, we then grouped these recurring themes, where factors share a common conceptual thread, into coherent correspondence with the MLP (Fig. 2 ). The second stage involved selective coding to further refine and synthesize the factors (Fig. 1 a: Step 6) into 9 key factors that capture the core dynamics driving the transition to SSWM (Fig. 3 ). This continuous process included iterative comparisons with existing literature on stormwater governance, management and sustainability assessment, which ensured that the identified 40 factors and synthesized 9 key factors were empirically grounded and theoretically robust. Overall, these methodological steps for analysis were employed to ensure that the derived factors, stemming directly from participant’s input, accurately captured the complexities of SSWM transitions without imposing artificial distinctions. Workshop and prioritization assessment A three-hour online workshop, conducted in November 2024, followed the synthesis of key factors to determine which practitioners in Malmö and Östersund considered most decisive for achieving future SSWM. The workshop consisted of four sections: 1) a re-introduction to the study, 2) a brief review of the interviews and presentation of the 9 key factors identified as relevant to SSWM, and 3) a quantitative prioritization of the 9 key factors by the participants using the Best-Worst Method (BWM), 4) a facilitated group discussion to elaborate on additional insights and contextual interpretations of the prioritization results. The BWM was chosen for its analytical precision and the operational advantage to evaluate the decisiveness of the key factor 68 . It requires fewer pairwise comparisons, which significantly mitigates the cognitive load on participants 69 , and this feature is especially important in complex evaluations, particularly in online workshop settings, where overly elaborate decision-making procedures and intricate decision-support tools can impose undue cognitive strain on participants. The workshop process generally followed the BWM method outlined by Rezaei 68 . First, participants identified the best and worst factor, termed ‘most decisive factor’ and ‘least decisive factor’ for SSWM implementation. Subsequently, the preferences of the ‘most decisive factor’ over all others were prioritized using a scale from 1 to 9. Similarly, the preference of each factor over the ‘least decisive factor’ was rated using an online BWM Excel sheet developed by Rezaei 69 . The last step was to calculate the optimal weights that would best satisfy the established preferences, as well as the consistent ratio (Fig. 4 ). For this, the average scores from all participants were integrated into the calculation, ensuring that the collective judgment was reflected in the results. The workshop concluded with a facilitated discussion that allowed participants to expand on additional insights and contexts (Fig. 1 a: Step 8), where five researchers from Luleå University of Technology joined as steering contributors, offering academic perspectives to enrich the dialogue and to support the consensus discussion. To maintain objectivity, these researchers did not participate in the prioritization exercise (Fig. 1 a: Step 7), thereby maintaining the inclusiveness of the assessment process while preserving the practitioner-centered integrity. Declarations Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant numbers 2021-00116 and 2021-02393). We thank Mikael Brocki and Jack Richold from Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for their assistance with the workshop assessment. We are also grateful to Maria Viklander, Ico Broekhuizen, and Utsav Adhikari from Luleå University of Technology for their valuable contributions to the facilitated workshop group discussion. Author contributions Z.S., J.D.S. and T.B.R. conceived and designed the study. Z.S. and J.D.S. conducted the semi structured interviews, and Z.S., J.D.S. and T.B.R. facilitated the prioritization workshop. Z.S. collected and analyzed the data and prepared the visualizations. Z.S., J.D.S. and T.B.R. drafted the manuscript. G.T.B. and K.U. provided substantive revisions. G.T.B. and T.B.R. secured funding. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Materials & Correspondence Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Zhengdong Sun ( [email protected] ). Tables Supplementary Notes 1 and 2 with tables are provided as separate Excel files due to their length. Each file includes a descriptive title and explanatory notes. An additional Excel file is provided as Supplementary Data and contains workshop assessment data used in Phase 3 of the study. References Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L. Integrated urban stormwater management: Evolution and multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research 38 , 72-83 (2021). Cettner, A., Ashley, R., Viklander, M. & Nilsson, K. Stormwater management and urban planning: Lessons from 40 years of innovation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56 , 786-801 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1080/09640568.2012.706216 Goulden, S., Portman, M. E., Carmon, N. & Alon-Mozes, T. From conventional drainage to sustainable stormwater management: Beyond the technical challenges. Journal of Environmental Management 219 , 37-45 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.066 Fletcher, T. D., Andrieu, H. & Hamel, P. Understanding, management and modelling of urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: A state of the art. Advances in water resources 51 , 261-279 (2013). Fletcher, T. D. et al. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal 12 , 525-542 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314 Sowińska-Świerkosz, B. & García, J. What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification. Nature-Based Solutions 2 , 100009 (2022). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009 Assembly, U. G. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (2015). Mitchell, B. Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environment and planning A 37 , 1335-1352 (2005). Edelenbos, J. & Van Meerkerk, I. Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 12 , 25-29 (2015). Barbosa, A. E., Fernandes, J. N. & David, L. M. Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management. Water research 46 , 6787-6798 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.029 Finewood, M. H., Matsler, A. M. & Zivkovich, J. Green infrastructure and the hidden politics of urban stormwater governance in a postindustrial city. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 , 909-925 (2019). Qiao, X.-J., Kristoffersson, A. & Randrup, T. B. Challenges to implementing urban sustainable stormwater management from a governance perspective: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 196 , 943-952 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.049 Pascual, U. et al. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620 , 813-823 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9 Farrelly, M. & Brown, R. Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change 21 , 721-732 (2011). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.007 Meadowcroft, J. What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences 42 , 323-340 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z Markard, J., Raven, R. & Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research policy 41 , 955-967 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013 Köhler, J. et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental innovation and societal transitions 31 , 1-32 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 Pahl-Wostl, C. An evolutionary perspective on water governance: From understanding to transformation. Water Resources Management 31 , 2917-2932 (2017). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1727-1 Sunding, A., Randrup, T. B., Nordh, H., Sang, Å. O. & Nilsson, K. Descriptions of the relationship between human health and green infrastructure in six Nordic comprehensive plans. Cities 146 , 104746 (2024). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.cities.2023.104746 Muller, B. et al. in The Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Cities and Landscapes in the Pacific Rim 307-320 (Routledge, 2022). Randrup, T. B. et al. in Transforming biocities: designing urban spaces inspired by nature 85-107 (Springer, 2023). Qiao, X.-J., Liu, L., Kristoffersson, A. & Randrup, T. B. Governance factors of sustainable stormwater management: A study of case cities in China and Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management 248 , 109249 (2019). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.07.020 Gerlak, A. K. et al. Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making. World Development 170 , 106336 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106336 Hugé, J., Waas, T., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N. & Block, T. A discourse-analytical perspective on sustainability assessment: interpreting sustainable development in practice. Sustainability science 8 , 187-198 (2013). Gibson, R., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J. & Whitelaw, G. Sustainability assessment—criteria and processes. Earthscan. London, UK (2005). van Lierop, M. et al. The why, how, and what of indicator-based monitoring of nature-based solutions: Perspectives from EU and LAC city practitioners. Ambio , 1-14 (2025). Pope, J., Bond, A., Huge, J. & Morrison-Saunders, A. Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 62 , 205-215 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002 Sun, Z., Deak Sjöman, J., Blecken, G.-T. & Randrup, T. B. Decision support tools of sustainability assessment for urban stormwater management – A review of their roles in governance and management. Journal of Cleaner Production 447 , 141646 (2024). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141646 Wihlborg, M., Sörensen, J. & Olsson, J. A. Assessment of barriers and drivers for implementation of blue-green solutions in Swedish municipalities. Journal of environmental management 233 , 706-718 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.018 Knapik, E., Brandimarte, L. & Usher, M. Maintenance in sustainable stormwater management: issues, barriers and challenges. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 1-27 (2024). Heidari, B., Randle, S., Minchillo, D. & Jaber, F. H. Green stormwater infrastructure: A critical review of the barriers and solutions to widespread implementation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 10 , e1625 (2023). Qi, J. & Barclay, N. Addressing the social barriers to green stormwater infrastructure in residential areas from a socio-ecological perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 313 , 114987 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114987 Dechezleprêtre, A. & Sato, M. The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Review of environmental economics and policy (2017). van Oudenhoven, A. P. E. et al. Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making. Ecological Indicators 95 , 417-426 (2018). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020 Fazey, I. et al. Past and future adaptation pathways. Clim. Dev. 8 , 26-44 (2016). Randrup, T. B., Svännel, J., Sunding, A., Jansson, M. & Sang, Å. O. Urban open space management in the Nordic countries. Identification of current challenges based on managers' perceptions. Cities 115 , 103225 (2021). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103225 Geels, F. W. The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840–1930): The dynamics of regime transformation. Research Policy 35 , 1069-1082 (2006). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.06.001 Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . (Sage publications, 2017). Geels, F. W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research policy 31 , 1257-1274 (2002). Geels, F. W. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research policy 33 , 897-920 (2004). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015 Millennium ecosystem assessment, M. Ecosystems and human well-being . Vol. 5 (Island press Washington, DC, 2005). Garcia, C. A. et al. The Global Forest Transition as a Human Affair. One Earth 2 , 417-428 (2020). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.002 Kali, S. E., Österlund, H., Viklander, M. & Blecken, G.-T. Stormwater discharges affect PFAS occurrence, concentrations, and spatial distribution in water and bottom sediment of urban streams. Water Research 271 , 122973 (2025). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.122973 Tian, Z. et al. A ubiquitous tire rubber–derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon. Science 371 , 185-189 (2021). https://doi.org:doi:10.1126/science.abd6951 Björkman, L. & Harris, A. Engineering cities: Mediating materialities, infrastructural imaginaries and shifting regimes of urban expertise. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 42 , 244-262 (2018). Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A. & Becker, A. B. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual review of public health 19 , 173-202 (1998). Ostrom, E. in Global justice , 423-430 (Routledge, 2017). Newig, J. & Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: participatory, multi‐level – and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance 19 , 197-214 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1002/eet.509 Hurlbert, M. & Gupta, J. The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science & Policy 50 , 100-113 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011 Van Winden, W. & Van den Buuse, D. Smart city pilot projects: Exploring the dimensions and conditions of scaling up. Journal of Urban Technology 24 , 51-72 (2017). Hansen, R. & Pauleit, S. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Ambio 43 , 516-529 (2014). Grigg, N. S. Stormwater Management: An Integrated Approach to Support Healthy, Livable, and Ecological Cities. Urban Science 8 , 89 (2024). https://doi.org:10.3390/urbansci8030089 Ansell, C. & Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of public administration research and theory 18 , 543-571 (2008). https://doi.org:10.1093/jopart/mum032 Brown, R. R. & Farrelly, M. Challenges ahead: social and institutional factors influencing sustainable urban stormwater management in Australia. Water Sci. Technol. 59 , 653-660 (2009). Hendriks, C. M. Deliberative governance in the context of power. Policy and Society 28 , 173-184 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004 Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36 , 399-417 (2007). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 Beryani, A. et al. Survey of the operational status of twenty-six urban stormwater biofilter facilities in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management 297 , 113375 (2021). Walker, H. et al. Understanding the role qualitative methods can play in next generation impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 112 , 107780 (2025). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107780 Stahre, P. Blue-green fingerprints in the city of Malmö, Sweden: Malmö's way towards a sustainable urban drainage . (Va syd, 2008). Yin, R. K. Case study research and applications: Design and methods . (Sage publications, 2017). French, R. M. Effectiveness of the various techniques employed in the study of community power. The Journal of Politics 31 , 818-820 (1969). https://doi.org:10.2307/2128502 Knoke, D. Networks of elite structure and decision making. Sociological methods & research 22 , 23-45 (1993). https://doi.org:10.1177/0049124193022001002 Döringer, S. ‘The problem-centred expert interview’. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. International journal of social research methodology 24 , 265-278 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1080/13645579.2020.1766777 O’Brien, K. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in human geography 36 , 667-676 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1177/0309132511425767 Brown, R. R., Farrelly, M. A. & Loorbach, D. A. Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne's stormwater management. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 23 , 701-718 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013 Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N. & Avelino, F. Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual review of environment and resources 42 , 599-626 (2017). Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3 , 77-101 (2006). https://doi.org:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53 , 49-57 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009 Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64 , 126-130 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001 Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files SupplementaryNote1.xlsx Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) Analysis of decisive Factors Influencing past and present Stormwater Management. SupplementaryNote2.xlsx Semi-Structured Interview Guide Based on the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP). WorkshopAssessmentData.xlsx Workshop Assessment Data Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6965519","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":476941335,"identity":"bb58a2d9-1a5b-40e9-a9a2-070faefaf9ed","order_by":0,"name":"Zhengdong Sun","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0404-5752","institution":"Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhengdong","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""},{"id":476941336,"identity":"717dbc84-eed0-4bcf-ab9e-e8c84e9e7f1f","order_by":1,"name":"Johanna Deak Sjöman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Johanna","middleName":"Deak","lastName":"Sjöman","suffix":""},{"id":476941337,"identity":"98176e5e-8045-40f8-a17c-dda00839ff26","order_by":2,"name":"Godecke-Tobias Blecken","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Luleå University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Godecke-Tobias","middleName":"","lastName":"Blecken","suffix":""},{"id":476941338,"identity":"7958e25f-98f1-4a94-8b59-9f221a717b30","order_by":3,"name":"Kateryna Utkina","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Luleå University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kateryna","middleName":"","lastName":"Utkina","suffix":""},{"id":476941339,"identity":"1b340b82-0fe5-43e3-85da-85143328d111","order_by":4,"name":"Thomas Randrup","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thomas","middleName":"","lastName":"Randrup","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-24 12:00:41","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6965519/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6965519/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":85620400,"identity":"e9cb3c2b-9dc8-4ff2-ba29-8691a01d0f1f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-29 15:19:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":834671,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch approach for decisive factor development, refinement, and prioritization. a\u003c/strong\u003e, Overview of the research phases conducted between 2023 and 2024, outlining the primary methods and approaches applied in each step. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, Map of Sweden indicating the two peer case study cities, the pie charts with color-coded slices illustrate the composition of participants by roles (e.g., urban planner, engineer, and strategist), whose collective experience spans from the 1960s to 2024. The 2 small charts on the left correspond to the interview phase (Fig.1a: Step 4), while the larger chart on the right represents the workshop phase (Fig.1a: Step 7). Of the 17 initial interview participants from the two cities, 10 jointly continued to the subsequent prioritization assessment workshop and group discussion.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/fb5e998a85b081ae1df2a0eb.png"},{"id":85619924,"identity":"287cedf2-5e0a-4200-97a3-9ff303180440","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-29 15:03:43","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1226026,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e40 factors influencing stormwater management transitions\u003c/strong\u003e. The diagram illustrates the MLP framework (Inspired by Garcia, et al. \u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e), with its three levels—landscape, regime, and niche—briefly described on the left (Methods). On the right, the 40 factors developed through semi-structured interviews are shown and color-coded by MLP level. Full details and descriptions of the factors are provided in Supplementary Note 1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/481d54c4778f3963e07e50a4.png"},{"id":85619926,"identity":"1d8c1d2d-b4ad-48e2-ab95-35966d8ab8c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-29 15:03:43","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":428064,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThematic synthesis of identified Factors into key factors\u003c/strong\u003e. This figure shows the synthesis of the 40 factors (left) identified from interviews by MLP (right) into 9 key factors with descriptions (middle; order not indicative of priority). Lines between the factors highlight the interconnectedness of each factor within the broader key factors, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach when interpreting the past and present stormwater management transitions.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/4a160c090e1ea93c17287525.jpeg"},{"id":85619937,"identity":"01386680-9ef7-4920-8ca7-91c9a9d904c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-29 15:03:43","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17340,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelative decisiveness of key factors influencing future SSWM\u003c/strong\u003e. Bars represent mean decisiveness scores determined by participants during the assessment workshop using the Best-Worst Method. \u0026nbsp;Error bars indicating the standard deviation, average consistent ratio (ξ) =0,16 \u0026nbsp;(Methods).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/43bd305310831c0aa904cfbb.png"},{"id":86424629,"identity":"a7d94f58-5402-442a-a069-c014e17eaaf8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-10 13:14:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3357330,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/da7846d3-f3a8-4f47-ae01-f509b6d91910.pdf"},{"id":85619920,"identity":"e0748371-e670-461a-ab0c-26c1587e5d72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-29 15:03:43","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18924,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) Analysis of decisive Factors Influencing past and present Stormwater Management.","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryNote1.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/5c65a98c5f1536b50a88441f.xlsx"},{"id":85619921,"identity":"3b1bab2b-5790-4351-bc61-53c1156a2edc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-29 15:03:43","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":16933,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Semi-Structured Interview Guide Based on the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP).","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryNote2.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/e6ee6237090db53f50e0a6f9.xlsx"},{"id":85619929,"identity":"aa1e8aa2-a84a-4962-b7a4-64d821798514","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-29 15:03:43","extension":"xlsx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1737788,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"Workshop Assessment Data","description":"","filename":"WorkshopAssessmentData.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6965519/v1/04ca48326dc511eb3a2b10b2.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"Decisive Factors in Sustainable Stormwater Management","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSince the late 19th century, stormwater management has shifted from combined sewers to largely separate drainage networks in many regions, yet it remains dominated by pipe-centered engineering solutions\u003csup\u003e1,2\u003c/sup\u003e. Amid rapid urbanization, climate change and rising concern over contamination, sustainable stormwater management (SSWM) is now widely endorsed. SSWM mimics natural hydrological cycles by embedding decentralized infrastructure\u0026mdash;bioretention cells, infiltration systems, constructed wetlands and green roofs\u0026mdash;into urban landscapes alongside conventional pipe networks\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e. These infrastructures reduce flooding, enhance ecosystems, improve water quality, buffer drought, and promote urban well-being\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e. Worldwide, concepts such as Sponge City, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, Water-Sensitive Urban Design and Low-Impact Development, which employ blue-green infrastructure and other nature-based solutions (NbS), signal this shift toward sustainable practice\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e. By retaining and treating run-off, conserving biodiversity, cooling cities and providing recreation, SSWM enhances urban sustainabilty\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e and supports several Sustainable Development Goals\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e. Hereafter we use SSWM as an umbrella term for these concepts and strategies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough stormwater engineering has made significant progress, SSWM is now tasked with delivering core stormwater functions and securing multifunctional co-benefits, while balancing diverse and often competing priorities among stakeholders (\u003cem\u003ee.g.,\u003c/em\u003e flood risk reduction, ecosystem services, and land use)\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;8,9\u003c/sup\u003e. These demands increase the need for interdisciplinary evidence from both natural and social sciences, as data-driven insights are critical for resolving trade-offs and optimizing decisions\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e. Yet significant gaps persist in translating these complex expectations into effective governance, particularly within institutions where pipe-centered approaches, reinforced by vested interests, still dominate stormwater decision-making \u003csup\u003e11-14\u003c/sup\u003e.This often manifests as lock-in effects, where deep-rooted governance routines, sectoral silos, and short-term engineering priorities sideline societal complexities such as collaborative planning, or the needed adaption of multiple land ownerships and shared responsibilities\u003csup\u003e15-18\u003c/sup\u003e. The challenge is further compounded by hybrid SSWM systems that combine conventional pipes with landscape-integrated NbS (\u003cem\u003ee.g\u003c/em\u003e., detention ponds), requiring coordinated institutional and governance frameworks for their upkeep\u003csup\u003e19-21\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile systems-thinking studies have explored SSWM governance\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e, integrating stakeholder-driven perspectives into decision-making remain limited\u003csup\u003e18,23\u003c/sup\u003e, especially argued in assessment research\u003csup\u003e24-27\u003c/sup\u003e. Most evaluations still rely on literature reviews, theory-driven analyses detached from context, or secondary datasets rather than context-relevant data inputs and stakeholder insights. As a result, economic, technical and environmental factors dominate stormwater decision-making, while social factors\u0026mdash;often lacking robust quantification methods or clear implications to SSWM system performance\u0026mdash;are often treated as superficial add-ons rather than being grounded in real-world contexts, and governance concerns and stakeholder outreach remain underrepresented\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e. This gap is intensified by a tendency to frame factors, especially social ones, only as static barriers or drivers\u003csup\u003e29-32\u003c/sup\u003e, overlooking their potential to act as adaptive levers that shift with stakeholder dynamics (interests, priorities), SSWM phase (planning, implementation, maintenance, retrofitting) and temporal scale (short- versus long-term objectives) \u003csup\u003e15,33,34\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on these gaps, we ask: Which past and present factors have shaped stormwater management transitions? And which of these factors are most likely to be decisive for future SSWM? We address them through a participant-driven, retrospective analysis spanning from the 1960s onward in two Swedish cities. Examining past and present real-world transitions clarifies why certain factors persist and how they can be leveraged for future decision-making, as demonstrated by numerous studies\u003csup\u003e3,35-37\u003c/sup\u003e. We synthesized 40 factors into 9 key factors that extended beyond the conventional technical, economic and environmental dimensions to encompass complex social considerations. We then assessed these key factors by their prospective decisiveness, providing an empirical basis for cities seeking to build holistic decision frameworks for SSWM across policy, research and practice in diverse urban contexts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research approach and framework ","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur study is part of a broader research initiative supported by FORMAS (Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development), conducted in collaboration with Lule\u0026aring; University of Technology and the Swedish cities of Malm\u0026ouml; and \u0026Ouml;stersund. While the overall research models various stormwater management alternatives (hereafter systems) to optimize stormwater quality and quantity in selected urban catchment areas, this study focuses on a detailed examination of the factors, particularly the social dimensions, that shape transitions towards SSWM. Using a peer case study approach, we explore how contrasting municipal contexts shape the conditions for transitioning to SSWM, offering insights applicable to decentralized governance systems across the Nordic region and beyond. Moreover, we employ an exploratory sequential mixed methods \u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e and incorporate the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) \u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e as the analytical framework. The MLP delineates three levels of inquiry: 1) the landscape level, which represents broad events, values and norms that influence the following two levels; 2) the regime level, which represents established and stabilized practices; and 3) the niche level, which represents innovative practices that emerge through experimentation and pilot projects\u003csup\u003e40\u003c/sup\u003e (Methods).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was conducted in three phases with eight steps (Fig. 1a; Methods). In Phase 1, we interviewed17 participants from Malm\u0026ouml; and \u0026Ouml;stersund, representing diverse professional backgrounds and responsibilities spanning from 1960 to 2024 (Fig. 1b). In Phase 2, we developed an initial set of 40 decisive factors (hereafter \u0026lsquo;factors\u0026rsquo;) from the interviews and synthesized them into a concise set of 9 key decisive factors (hereafter \u0026lsquo;key factors\u0026rsquo;), thereby answering our first research question. In Phase 3, we examined the key factors through a prioritization assessment involving 10 participants who continued from Phase 1. This phase addressed our second research question by assessing the relative decisiveness of key factors for future SSWM. To facilitate a broad and inclusive dialogue across diverse infrastructures, technologies, configurations, and strategies for stormwater management, we deliberately adopted the open-ended term \u0026lsquo;SSWM systems\u0026rsquo; to frame the assessment boundary and guide group discourse. A dedicated discussion session at the end of the workshop allowed participants to reflect on the assessment results and contribute additional contextual insights.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e40 factors influencing the stormwater management transition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview analysis based on the MLP framework revealed that, from the 1960s onward, stormwater management transition in Sweden has been influenced by 40 factors (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). At the landscape level, interview data reflected a broad societal aspiration for sustainability and long-term quality of life. Equally, biodiversity and ecosystem conservation were seen as crucial for preserving habitats and delivering ecosystem services\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, Public awareness, preferences, beliefs, and trust emerged as motivating forces behind community support, while cultural and behavioral shifts\u0026mdash;often catalyzed by radical events (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e, flooding, droughts) and incremental pressures (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e, urban densification, sea-level rise)\u0026mdash;encouraged environmental stewardship and social acceptance of SSWM initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the regime level, the interview analysis revealed an interconnected configuration of institutional, organizational, political, economic, and technical arrangements governing past and present stormwater practices. These include inter-organizational coordination and communication, reflected in aspects such as effective interactions, networks, and polycentric approaches, along with the mechanisms for outsourcing and knowledge sharing that support collaborative internal processes. Internal governance structures, including decision-making processes, commitment and conflict management, worked in tandem with comprehensive legislative frameworks and policy feedback mechanisms to clarify roles, responsibilities, and compliance standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interview analysis also showed financial mechanisms that support training, operational maintenance, and strategic investment, influencing how innovations are integrated and scaled. Additionally, operational aspects such as systematic monitoring, forward-looking planning and risk management illustrated how persistent routines, technical standards and managerial practices have contributed to long-term system sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese were complemented by considerations of recreational value, aesthetic enhancement, and community well-being, alongside practical functions of stormwater quantity control and quality treatment. Finally, the integration of decentralized NbS into existing pipe networks\u0026mdash;together with built-in flexibility\u0026mdash;was identified as essential for maintaining holistic, adaptive capacity under evolving urban and landscape pressures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the niche level, interview findings identified various experimental undertakings linked to innovation and pilot projects. Additionally, pilot policy initiatives often functioned as small-scale tests for alternative governance models, while financing of technical investments allowed innovations to emerge without immediate market or regulatory constraints. The availability of both specialized and generalist municipal stormwater strategists was seen to support informed and adaptive decision-making. Further, active involvement of community groups and NGOs broadened the scope and legitimacy of these efforts. Finally, the application of advanced software, tools, and materials was recognized as essential for enhancing system performance and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e9 key factors for SSWM decision-making\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFig. 3 presents how the 40 factors identified from the interviews were synthesized into 9 key factors: \u003cem\u003eMultifunctionality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eFinancial Resources\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLand Use\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLong-Term Integration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Capacity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePolicies, Rules, and Legislation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSocietal Dynamics\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eTechnological Innovation and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e (Methods; hereafter referred to in italics). Together, they capture the multifaceted complexity of the transition towards SSWM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe synthesis of 9 key factors served two purposes. First, it provided a structured, context specific set of decision-relevant criteria that can be applied in SSWM decision-making or integrated into related decision frameworks in the case cities. In this context, the 9 key factors serve as evaluative criteria, while the 40 underlying factors function as operational performance indicators. Second, this concise set enhanced the feasibility of the prioritization assessment and discussion conducted in Phase 3 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, our synthesis of the 40 factors revealed that the transition toward SSWM is inherently complex, requiring a systemic approach and holistic mindset. Rather than treating individual factors in isolation or categorizing them merely as barriers or drivers, our findings highlight their context-specific interdependencies, providing a foundation for more adaptive and integrated approaches to future SSWM decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe most decisive key factors\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe assessment and subsequent workshop discussion with participants yielded a group-level consensus on the prioritization of key factors influencing future SSWM (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). In descending order, the most decisive factors from the assessment were \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e, followed by \u003cem\u003ePolicies, Rules, Legislation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLand Use\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Capacity\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eEconomic Resources\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLong-Term Integration\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eMultifunctionality\u003c/em\u003e were considered moderately decisive, while \u003cem\u003eSocial Dynamics\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eTechnological Innovation and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e were ranked as lowest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e received the highest score (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e), reflecting participants' shared perception of its foundational role in addressing the complex, multidimensional challenges for future SSWM. Group discussions further attributed current collaboration stagnation to fragmented responsibilities, land-use prerogatives, inter-organizational misalignment and overlapping mandates across sectors\u0026mdash;including environmental, parks, transport/street, urban planning, engineering services, water authorities/utilities, housing authorities/companies, and municipal sustainability offices. Moreover, views on outsourcing were mixed: while valued for specialized expertise and short-term efficiency it brings, it was also criticized for lacking the holistic, long-term perspective needed for integrated city planning and decision-making. As such, successful \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e was seen to require more than basic cooperation, including structured partnerships and sustained engagement through both formal and informal working groups and networks. Several engineering participants pointed to the role of the Swedish Water and Wastewater Association (Svenskt Vatten) as an example of effective coordination\u0026mdash;facilitating resource pooling, knowledge exchange, and stakeholder alignment. These divergent perceptions reflect the dynamic nature of this key factor, functioning interchangeably as both barrier and driver depending on stakeholder priorities and specific contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ePolicy, Rules, Legislation\u003c/em\u003e that enable effective (policy) decision making and implementation in SSWM, ranked second. Group discussion outcome indicates the importance of clear regulatory mandates and standardized guidelines in enabling cross-sector partnerships and translating strategies into implementable outcomes. Participating coordinators and planners stressed the need for future policies to align with multifunctional urban landscape designs, especially NbS, to enhance their practical applicability and likelihood of implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLand Use\u003c/em\u003e ranked third, due to its vital role in determining feasible locations and implementation strategies for SSWM. There was a consensus that ownership\u0026mdash;whether public or private\u0026mdash;defines the decision-making authority and shapes the feasibility of implementing SSWM, particularly with NbS in contested or space-constrained urban areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Capacity\u003c/em\u003e followed closely, non-engineering participants highlighted internal governance structures as either potential bottlenecks or facilitators of progress. Here, collaborative willingness and conflict-management capacity were seen as critical to cooperation, while internal knowledge sharing and commitment were recognized to support effective municipal decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough \u003cem\u003eFinancial Resources\u003c/em\u003e ranked lower, it was collectively acknowledged as essential for transforming visions into sustainable outcomes. Participating investigators and strategists stressed that many projects often stall after pilot phases due to insufficient or inconsistent funding, especially when reliant on short-term grants without provisions for continuous maintenance or evaluation. Stable financing was therefore seen as a prerequisite for amplifying the long-term impact of \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ePolicy, Rules, Legislations\u003c/em\u003e by ensuring investments in SSWM remain viable over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe less decisive key factors\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLong-Term Integration\u003c/em\u003e was ranked as comparatively less decisive. Nonetheless, the group dialogue revealed that the early inclusion of stormwater concerns in the planning process clarifies SSWM responsibilities and reduces long-term maintenance uncertainty. Both retrospective and prospective evaluations were seen to support iterative improvements, particularly for NbS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMultifunctionality\u003c/em\u003e also received a lower decisiveness score, however, insights from the discussion suggested its potential to generate public support and improve quality of life. As for small scale SSWM systems in, \u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e, residential neighborhoods, decisions often focused on amenities and recreation, with one participating environmental officer described to relocating stormwater outlets to enhance local swimming areas in \u0026Ouml;stersund\u0026mdash;an example of the decisiveness and fluid character of this factor, and how even a modest design tweak can deliver immediate community recreational benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSocietal Dynamics\u003c/em\u003e ranked second lowest, yet deliberations during the discussion highlighted its growing influence. Planners and coordinators noted that, as stormwater governance becomes increasingly decentralized, shifts in public attitudes and local involvement are expected to be critical in implementing SSWM. Public-health officer further added, while SSWM systems typically operate at the catchment scale, their social impacts generally occur at the neighborhood level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTechnological Innovation and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e received the lowest decisiveness ranking, which may seem counterintuitive in an era when smart technologies are extensively explored in both research and practice. However, the discussions revealed a consensus that these advances, including those targeting emerging contaminants\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, cannot ensure SSWM outcomes in isolation. Instead, the need for a supportive institutional environment\u0026mdash;coordinated policies, stable long-term funding, and robust collaborative mechanisms\u0026mdash;was emphasized as essential for sustaining lasting outcomes. Participants from planning and environmental sectors further noted that engineers, while operating within their technical domains, often serve as \u003cem\u003ede facto\u003c/em\u003e decision-makers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The discussion outcome indicates the importance of embedding innovation within institutional learning, policy experimentation, and organizational commitment to enable context-sensitive implementation and to better reflect the interdependence of technological and other key factors in achieving long-term SSWM.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur study identified \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e as the most decisive key factor for future SSWM, a result affirmed by participants and aligned with established research advocating collaborative governance frameworks such as partnering approaches \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, polycentric governance\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and inter-organizational adaptive governance \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. By properly addressing inter-institutional fragmentation and promoting coordinated efforts among diverse stakeholders, \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e can notably facilitate inclusive decision-making, and this in turn enhances legitimacy, builds trust and transparency, and promotes shared decision outcomes \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results suggest that \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e should be considered as a principal criterion in SSWM decision-making frameworks. It can also serve as a benchmark for defining the decision context, helping to mediate among stakeholders embedded within fragmented institutional structures and vested interests\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, thereby enhancing governance capacity and improving the effectiveness of SSWM decisions. Likewise, other key factors in this decisive continuum should be explicitly incorporated into decision frameworks. Rather than serving as supplementary to conventional criteria, they reflect the complex realities of SSWM governance and practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings also indicate that the decisiveness of the 9 key factors is inherently dynamic and interdependent. As the workshop discussion revealed, \u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e relies significantly on clear \u003cem\u003ePolicies, Rules, Legislation\u003c/em\u003e to translate collaborative commitments into actions. In this context, supportive policies can clarify responsibilities across municipal organizations, helping to legitimize innovative solutions and, in turn, facilitating cross-sector coordination. Without such policy foundations, however, even well-intentioned collaborations may risk remaining confined to short-term pilots, lacking the traction to scale or integrate into mainstream planning\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Similarly, strong \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Capacity\u003c/em\u003e can leverage \u003cem\u003eFinancial Resources\u003c/em\u003e, reinforcing both external and internal collaborations without duplicating responsibilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditional interlinkages became apparent in \u003cem\u003eLand Use\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eMultifunctionality\u003c/em\u003e, where several participants noted that the success of SSWM systems on public or private land depends on stable governance and sustained funding. When ecosystem services or social values are clearly recognized in SSWM decision-making, municipalities are more likely to redirect funding to secure these benefits \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. \u003cem\u003eSocietal dynamics\u003c/em\u003e can further reinforce these efforts by motivating decision-makers to adopt standardized approaches or revise land-use zoning to better accommodate multifunctional and socially valued systems. To sustain these transitions, engaging private landowners\u0026mdash;when supported by clear regulatory frameworks and strategic budgeting\u0026mdash;can demonstrate feasibility, foster public trust, and contribute to further scaling of SSWM across mixed-ownership urban contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTechnological Innovation and Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e, while reflecting the critique of technocratic approaches that focus on technical metrics at the expense of broader social dimensions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, can serve as a powerful amplifier once the enabling conditions of policy clarity, financial stability, and stakeholder collaboration are in place.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, in contrast to studies that have tended to simplify complex interactions by categorizing factors diametrically as static barriers or drivers \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30 CR31\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, our study reconceptualizes them as decisive factors that function as adaptive levers. Their impact shifts across space and time depending on stakeholder perceptions, stages of SSWM, institutional readiness, resource allocation, and socio-political alignment \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While our empirical material is limited to two Swedish peer cities, their contrasting sizes, climate zones and governance set-ups capture the main municipal archetypes in Sweden (Methods). They also broadly align with Nordic and wider Western governance arrangements, policy trajectories and sustainability priorities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, making our findings indicative, though not definitive, of broader regional and international patterns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur exploration of these dynamic interdependencies offers an initial step toward long-term, holistic and multifunctionality research in SSWM. Future efforts should explore the extent to which these key factors are applicable across diverse geographic and institutional contexts, and this exploration would benefit from involving larger, more varied stakeholder groups (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e, end-users) through iterative and deliberative approaches\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, it is important to note that although our analytical framework draws inspiration from transition theory (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), the analysis in this study deliberately departs from examining conventional transition notions (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e, lock-in effects) \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Instead, we focus on integrating contextual insights that participants recognize can shape adaptive governance and guide future SSWM decision-making. Unsurprisingly, the findings reinforced our proposition, demonstrating social factors\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eExternal Collaboration, Policies, Rules, Legislation\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eLand Use\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;are particularly decisive in supporting decision-making processes that facilitate future SSWM transitions; whereas key factors initially considered less decisive tended to become critical when supported by robust institutional and collaborative framework, illustrating how these key factors interact and often condition one another\u0026rsquo;s impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eYet, as SSWM grapples with fast-evolving technical and environmental agendas \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, social considerations in SSWM remain narrowly framed around public health, recreation and aesthetics in decision-making. This risks compromising SSWM system function, performance and resilience\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, partly due to difficulties in quantification, the absence of context-specific indicators, and their weak integration with technical, environmental and economic factors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. By presenting a portrait of 9 key factors that encompass the 40 underlying factors spanning economic, environmental, technical, and with broader array of social factors, our study makes a compelling case for their necessary integration into the decision-making process in SSWM. This complements the reductionist paradigms prevalent in SSWM assessments for decision and policy making, while strengthening them by outlining a pathway to balanced frameworks and tools that give greater clarity to social and other often-overlooked decisive factors, thereby encouraging future SSWM decisions in research, policy and practice to reflect the context-specific interplay of all key factors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and was conducted in three phases: 1) semi-structured interviews of professionals being active in stormwater management from the late 1960s to the present, (2) identification of decisive factors and synthesizing them into key factors, and (3) prioritization of the key factors. Detailed phases and steps are summarized in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCase study and participant selection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHistorically, Sweden\u0026rsquo;s early shift from conventional, pipe-based stormwater management to decentralized, sustainable solutions was initiated in the 1960s \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and provides a critical contextual backdrop for this study. In the selected cities Malm\u0026ouml; and \u0026Ouml;stersund (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea), stormwater management practices mirror broader national trends. In \u0026Ouml;stersund, where the Great Lake Storsj\u0026ouml;n serves as both the drinking water source and recipient, water quality has traditionally been the primary concern. By contrast, in Malm\u0026ouml;, water quantity remains the predominant issue\u0026mdash;with the city advancing flood protection and climate adaptation measures in response to extensive flooding in 2014.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, these cities present contrasting organizational frameworks: in Malm\u0026ouml;, stormwater management responsibilities are divided between municipal planning and the regional water and waste organization (VA-Syd), while in \u0026Ouml;stersund, governance is centralized within the city council. Leveraging these contrasting urban settings and governance structures allows for an examination of how context-specific factors shape the evolution of SSWM strategies, highlighting the value of synthesizing evidence from diverse contexts to generate robust and transferable insights \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior to the interviews, key actors in stormwater management from the 1960s to 2024 from Malm\u0026ouml; and \u0026Ouml;stersund were identified using a combination of reputational and positional approaches to ensure relevant respondents \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A total of 17 participants from Malm\u0026ouml; and \u0026Ouml;stersund were involved and included a wide range of professionals from different sectors, \u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e, engineering and technical services, roads and planning, agriculture, environmental health, and wastewater and sewage management departments. Their roles varied from technical investigators to senior organizational leaders, thereby providing a comprehensive perspective on stormwater management over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews lasting approximately 1 hour, were conducted online between February and April 2024. This method was chosen for its flexibility in allowing detailed discussions while adapting to emergent themes \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, relevant to SSWM practices. The semi-structured interview guide was heuristically designed by the MLP framework (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) from the transition theory \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Unlike transformation research which concerns global change and transformative adaptation, such as resilience \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, transition theory is especially used to denote fundamental social, technological, institutional and economic change from one dynamic equilibrium to another\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This concept emerged in the early 2000s in the field of innovation studies and has been tested and refined through several dozen historical cases\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It is defined as a set of processes that can lead to a fundamental shift in socio-technical systems, incorporating changes in user habits, norms, and behavior, institutional structures, \u003cem\u003eetc.\u003c/em\u003e, along with technological dimensions. The objective of transition theory is to conceptualize and explain how incremental and radical changes can occur in the way societal functions are fulfilled.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, the MLP provides a co-evolutionary lens for understanding how technological innovations, institutional changes, and social dynamics interact in processes of change toward sustainability\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, MLP was particularly well-suited in the semi-structure interview step of our study, as it enabled a rigorous retrospective analysis of the past-and-present processes that drove the transition from conventional stormwater management to SSWM in Sweden\u0026mdash;with its roots in the 1960s\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In particular, it allowed us to systematically explore what and how established stormwater management practices have been challenged by external pressures, to identify the emergence of innovations (\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e, NbS undertakings and pilot projects), and to assess the extent to which these initiatives have influenced the established regimes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interviews\u0026mdash;processing only non-sensitive personal data about participants\u0026rsquo; professional roles\u0026mdash;were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with written informed consent, in accordance with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Data-Protection Manual. The SLU Legal Affairs \u0026amp; Data-Protection Office confirmed that no external ethical review was required. The complete semi-structured interview guide is provided in Supplementary Note 2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe implemented a two-stage thematic analysis guided by the MLP framework and informed by Braun and Clarke \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In the first stage (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea: Step 5), we examined the data from the semi-structured interviews using open coding to extract recurring themes. This process yielded 40 factors that captured the diverse dimensions of stormwater management transitions. Guided by the principles of axial coding, we then grouped these recurring themes, where factors share a common conceptual thread, into coherent correspondence with the MLP (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second stage involved selective coding to further refine and synthesize the factors (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea: Step 6) into 9 key factors that capture the core dynamics driving the transition to SSWM (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This continuous process included iterative comparisons with existing literature on stormwater governance, management and sustainability assessment, which ensured that the identified 40 factors and synthesized 9 key factors were empirically grounded and theoretically robust. Overall, these methodological steps for analysis were employed to ensure that the derived factors, stemming directly from participant\u0026rsquo;s input, accurately captured the complexities of SSWM transitions without imposing artificial distinctions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWorkshop and prioritization assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA three-hour online workshop, conducted in November 2024, followed the synthesis of key factors to determine which practitioners in Malm\u0026ouml; and \u0026Ouml;stersund considered most decisive for achieving future SSWM. The workshop consisted of four sections: 1) a re-introduction to the study, 2) a brief review of the interviews and presentation of the 9 key factors identified as relevant to SSWM, and 3) a quantitative prioritization of the 9 key factors by the participants using the Best-Worst Method (BWM), 4) a facilitated group discussion to elaborate on additional insights and contextual interpretations of the prioritization results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe BWM was chosen for its analytical precision and the operational advantage to evaluate the decisiveness of the key factor \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It requires fewer pairwise comparisons, which significantly mitigates the cognitive load on participants \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and this feature is especially important in complex evaluations, particularly in online workshop settings, where overly elaborate decision-making procedures and intricate decision-support tools can impose undue cognitive strain on participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe workshop process generally followed the BWM method outlined by Rezaei \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. First, participants identified the best and worst factor, termed \u0026lsquo;most decisive factor\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;least decisive factor\u0026rsquo; for SSWM implementation. Subsequently, the preferences of the \u0026lsquo;most decisive factor\u0026rsquo; over all others were prioritized using a scale from 1 to 9. Similarly, the preference of each factor over the \u0026lsquo;least decisive factor\u0026rsquo; was rated using an online BWM Excel sheet developed by Rezaei \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The last step was to calculate the optimal weights that would best satisfy the established preferences, as well as the consistent ratio (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). For this, the average scores from all participants were integrated into the calculation, ensuring that the collective judgment was reflected in the results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe workshop concluded with a facilitated discussion that allowed participants to expand on additional insights and contexts (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea: Step 8), where five researchers from Lule\u0026aring; University of Technology joined as steering contributors, offering academic perspectives to enrich the dialogue and to support the consensus discussion. To maintain objectivity, these researchers did not participate in the prioritization exercise (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea: Step 7), thereby maintaining the inclusiveness of the assessment process while preserving the practitioner-centered integrity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant numbers 2021-00116 and 2021-02393). We thank Mikael Brocki and Jack Richold from Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for their assistance with the workshop assessment.\u0026nbsp;We are also grateful to Maria Viklander, Ico Broekhuizen, and Utsav Adhikari from Luleå University of Technology for their valuable contributions to the facilitated workshop group discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZ.S., J.D.S. and T.B.R. conceived and designed the study. Z.S. and J.D.S. conducted the semi structured interviews, and Z.S., J.D.S. and T.B.R. facilitated the prioritization workshop. Z.S. collected and analyzed the data and prepared the visualizations. Z.S., J.D.S. and T.B.R. drafted the manuscript. G.T.B. and K.U. provided substantive revisions. G.T.B. and T.B.R. secured funding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaterials \u0026amp; Correspondence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrespondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Zhengdong Sun ([email protected]).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003eTables\u003cp\u003eSupplementary Notes 1 and 2 with tables are provided as separate Excel files due to their length. Each file includes a descriptive title and explanatory notes. An additional Excel file is provided as Supplementary Data and contains workshop assessment data used in Phase 3 of the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBertrand-Krajewski, J.-L. Integrated urban stormwater management: Evolution and multidisciplinary perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hydro-Environment Research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e, 72-83 (2021). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCettner, A., Ashley, R., Viklander, M. \u0026amp; Nilsson, K. Stormwater management and urban planning: Lessons from 40 years of innovation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Planning and Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e56\u003c/strong\u003e, 786-801 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1080/09640568.2012.706216\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoulden, S., Portman, M. E., Carmon, N. \u0026amp; Alon-Mozes, T. From conventional drainage to sustainable stormwater management: Beyond the technical challenges. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e219\u003c/strong\u003e, 37-45 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.066\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFletcher, T. D., Andrieu, H. \u0026amp; Hamel, P. Understanding, management and modelling of urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: A state of the art. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in water resources\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e51\u003c/strong\u003e, 261-279 (2013). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFletcher, T. D.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more \u0026ndash; The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. \u003cem\u003eUrban Water Journal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 525-542 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSowińska-Świerkosz, B. \u0026amp; Garc\u0026iacute;a, J. What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification. \u003cem\u003eNature-Based Solutions\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e, 100009 (2022). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAssembly, U. G. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (2015). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitchell, B. Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and planning A\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 1335-1352 (2005). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdelenbos, J. \u0026amp; Van Meerkerk, I. Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 25-29 (2015). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbosa, A. E., Fernandes, J. N. \u0026amp; David, L. M. Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management. \u003cem\u003eWater research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e46\u003c/strong\u003e, 6787-6798 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.029\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinewood, M. H., Matsler, A. M. \u0026amp; Zivkovich, J. Green infrastructure and the hidden politics of urban stormwater governance in a postindustrial city. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the American Association of Geographers\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e109\u003c/strong\u003e, 909-925 (2019). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiao, X.-J., Kristoffersson, A. \u0026amp; Randrup, T. B. Challenges to implementing urban sustainable stormwater management from a governance perspective: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e196\u003c/strong\u003e, 943-952 (2018). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.049\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePascual, U.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e Diverse values of nature for sustainability. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e620\u003c/strong\u003e, 813-823 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarrelly, M. \u0026amp; Brown, R. Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a way forward? \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 721-732 (2011). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeadowcroft, J. What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 323-340 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarkard, J., Raven, R. \u0026amp; Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e41\u003c/strong\u003e, 955-967 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026ouml;hler, J.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental innovation and societal transitions\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 1-32 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePahl-Wostl, C. An evolutionary perspective on water governance: From understanding to transformation. \u003cem\u003eWater Resources Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 2917-2932 (2017). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1727-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSunding, A., Randrup, T. B., Nordh, H., Sang, \u0026Aring;. O. \u0026amp; Nilsson, K. Descriptions of the relationship between human health and green infrastructure in six Nordic comprehensive plans. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e146\u003c/strong\u003e, 104746 (2024). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.cities.2023.104746\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuller, B.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e in \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Cities and Landscapes in the Pacific Rim\u003c/em\u003e 307-320 (Routledge, 2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRandrup, T. B.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e in \u003cem\u003eTransforming biocities: designing urban spaces inspired by nature\u003c/em\u003e 85-107 (Springer, 2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQiao, X.-J., Liu, L., Kristoffersson, A. \u0026amp; Randrup, T. B. Governance factors of sustainable stormwater management: A study of case cities in China and Sweden. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e248\u003c/strong\u003e, 109249 (2019). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.07.020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGerlak, A. K.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making. \u003cem\u003eWorld Development\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e170\u003c/strong\u003e, 106336 (2023). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106336\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHug\u0026eacute;, J., Waas, T., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N. \u0026amp; Block, T. A discourse-analytical perspective on sustainability assessment: interpreting sustainable development in practice. \u003cem\u003eSustainability science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 187-198 (2013). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson, R., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J. \u0026amp; Whitelaw, G. Sustainability assessment\u0026mdash;criteria and processes. Earthscan. \u003cem\u003eLondon, UK\u003c/em\u003e (2005). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Lierop, M.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e The why, how, and what of indicator-based monitoring of nature-based solutions: Perspectives from EU and LAC city practitioners. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e, 1-14 (2025). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePope, J., Bond, A., Huge, J. \u0026amp; Morrison-Saunders, A. Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Impact Assess. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e62\u003c/strong\u003e, 205-215 (2017). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun, Z., Deak Sj\u0026ouml;man, J., Blecken, G.-T. \u0026amp; Randrup, T. B. Decision support tools of sustainability assessment for urban stormwater management \u0026ndash; A review of their roles in governance and management. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e447\u003c/strong\u003e, 141646 (2024). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141646\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWihlborg, M., S\u0026ouml;rensen, J. \u0026amp; Olsson, J. A. Assessment of barriers and drivers for implementation of blue-green solutions in Swedish municipalities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of environmental management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e233\u003c/strong\u003e, 706-718 (2019). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnapik, E., Brandimarte, L. \u0026amp; Usher, M. Maintenance in sustainable stormwater management: issues, barriers and challenges. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Planning and Management\u003c/em\u003e, 1-27 (2024). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeidari, B., Randle, S., Minchillo, D. \u0026amp; Jaber, F. H. Green stormwater infrastructure: A critical review of the barriers and solutions to widespread implementation. \u003cem\u003eWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, e1625 (2023). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQi, J. \u0026amp; Barclay, N. Addressing the social barriers to green stormwater infrastructure in residential areas from a socio-ecological perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e313\u003c/strong\u003e, 114987 (2022). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114987\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDechezlepr\u0026ecirc;tre, A. \u0026amp; Sato, M. The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. \u003cem\u003eReview of environmental economics and policy\u003c/em\u003e (2017). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Oudenhoven, A. P. E.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making. \u003cem\u003eEcological Indicators\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e95\u003c/strong\u003e, 417-426 (2018). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFazey, I.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e Past and future adaptation pathways. \u003cem\u003eClim. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 26-44 (2016). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRandrup, T. B., Sv\u0026auml;nnel, J., Sunding, A., Jansson, M. \u0026amp; Sang, \u0026Aring;. O. Urban open space management in the Nordic countries. Identification of current challenges based on managers\u0026apos; perceptions. \u003cem\u003eCities\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e115\u003c/strong\u003e, 103225 (2021). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103225\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeels, F. W. The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840\u0026ndash;1930): The dynamics of regime transformation. \u003cem\u003eResearch Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e35\u003c/strong\u003e, 1069-1082 (2006). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.06.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W. \u0026amp; Creswell, J. D. \u003cem\u003eResearch design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches\u003c/em\u003e. (Sage publications, 2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeels, F. W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 1257-1274 (2002). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeels, F. W. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. \u003cem\u003eResearch policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 897-920 (2004). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMillennium ecosystem assessment, M. \u003cem\u003eEcosystems and human well-being\u003c/em\u003e. Vol. 5 (Island press Washington, DC, 2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarcia, C. A.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e The Global Forest Transition as a Human Affair. \u003cem\u003eOne Earth\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e, 417-428 (2020). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKali, S. E., \u0026Ouml;sterlund, H., Viklander, M. \u0026amp; Blecken, G.-T. Stormwater discharges affect PFAS occurrence, concentrations, and spatial distribution in water and bottom sediment of urban streams. \u003cem\u003eWater Research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e271\u003c/strong\u003e, 122973 (2025). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.122973\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTian, Z.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e A ubiquitous tire rubber\u0026ndash;derived chemical induces acute mortality in coho salmon. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e371\u003c/strong\u003e, 185-189 (2021). https://doi.org:doi:10.1126/science.abd6951\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBj\u0026ouml;rkman, L. \u0026amp; Harris, A. Engineering cities: Mediating materialities, infrastructural imaginaries and shifting regimes of urban expertise. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 244-262 (2018). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsrael, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A. \u0026amp; Becker, A. B. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. \u003cem\u003eAnnual review of public health\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 173-202 (1998). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOstrom, E. in \u003cem\u003eGlobal justice\u003c/em\u003e , 423-430 (Routledge, 2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewig, J. \u0026amp; Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: participatory, multi‐level \u0026ndash; and effective? \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Policy and Governance\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 197-214 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1002/eet.509\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHurlbert, M. \u0026amp; Gupta, J. The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e50\u003c/strong\u003e, 100-113 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Winden, W. \u0026amp; Van den Buuse, D. Smart city pilot projects: Exploring the dimensions and conditions of scaling up. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Urban Technology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 51-72 (2017). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHansen, R. \u0026amp; Pauleit, S. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e, 516-529 (2014). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrigg, N. S. Stormwater Management: An Integrated Approach to Support Healthy, Livable, and Ecological Cities. \u003cem\u003eUrban Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 89 (2024). https://doi.org:10.3390/urbansci8030089\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnsell, C. \u0026amp; Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of public administration research and theory\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e, 543-571 (2008). https://doi.org:10.1093/jopart/mum032\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, R. R. \u0026amp; Farrelly, M. Challenges ahead: social and institutional factors influencing sustainable urban stormwater management in Australia. \u003cem\u003eWater Sci. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e, 653-660 (2009). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHendriks, C. M. Deliberative governance in the context of power. \u003cem\u003ePolicy and Society\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e, 173-184 (2009). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.08.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeels, F. W. \u0026amp; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. \u003cem\u003eResearch Policy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e36\u003c/strong\u003e, 399-417 (2007). https://doi.org:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeryani, A.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e Survey of the operational status of twenty-six urban stormwater biofilter facilities in Sweden. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e297\u003c/strong\u003e, 113375 (2021). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalker, H.\u003cem\u003e et al.\u003c/em\u003e Understanding the role qualitative methods can play in next generation impact assessment. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Impact Assess. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e112\u003c/strong\u003e, 107780 (2025). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107780\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStahre, P. \u003cem\u003eBlue-green fingerprints in the city of Malm\u0026ouml;, Sweden: Malm\u0026ouml;\u0026apos;s way towards a sustainable urban drainage\u003c/em\u003e. (Va syd, 2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin, R. K. \u003cem\u003eCase study research and applications: Design and methods\u003c/em\u003e. (Sage publications, 2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrench, R. M. Effectiveness of the various techniques employed in the study of community power. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Politics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 818-820 (1969). https://doi.org:10.2307/2128502\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnoke, D. Networks of elite structure and decision making. \u003cem\u003eSociological methods \u0026amp; research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e, 23-45 (1993). https://doi.org:10.1177/0049124193022001002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026ouml;ringer, S. \u0026lsquo;The problem-centred expert interview\u0026rsquo;. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of social research methodology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 265-278 (2021). https://doi.org:10.1080/13645579.2020.1766777\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Brien, K. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. \u003cem\u003eProgress in human geography\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e36\u003c/strong\u003e, 667-676 (2012). https://doi.org:10.1177/0309132511425767\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, R. R., Farrelly, M. A. \u0026amp; Loorbach, D. A. Actors working the institutions in sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne\u0026apos;s stormwater management. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e, 701-718 (2013). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N. \u0026amp; Avelino, F. Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. \u003cem\u003eAnnual review of environment and resources\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 599-626 (2017). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V. \u0026amp; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative research in psychology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, 77-101 (2006). https://doi.org:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. \u003cem\u003eOmega\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e53\u003c/strong\u003e, 49-57 (2015). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. \u003cem\u003eOmega\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e64\u003c/strong\u003e, 126-130 (2016). https://doi.org:10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6965519/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6965519/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Sustainable stormwater management (SSWM) is widely championed for urban sustainability, yet SSWM decisions remain predominantly driven by technical, environmental, and economic data. Growing evidence voices the roles of social dimensions, but insights into their values and benefits remain explorative and theoretical, limiting their uptake to real-world decision-making. Using mixed methods, we traced participant insights in two Swedish cities (1960–2024) through interviews, identifying 40 factors influencing past-and-present stormwater management transitions. These were synthesized into 9 key factors, which participants then ranked; external collaboration emerged as the most decisive for future SSWM. We find these key factors act as adaptive levers, not static barriers or drivers, with their influence shifting across space and time, offering a transferable framework for different urban contexts. Our findings challenge reductionist decision paradigms and strengthen the evidence base for holistic assessment. Future efforts should refine measurement approaches for these factors and explore their fuller integration into decisions, thereby enabling more robust SSWM outcomes.","manuscriptTitle":"Decisive Factors in Sustainable Stormwater Management","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-29 15:03:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6965519/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f2762ee7-f79a-4c7a-a1ae-b4c53df83cb4","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":50646957,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Sustainability"},{"id":50646958,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate-change impacts/Governance"},{"id":50646959,"name":"Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Decision making"},{"id":50646960,"name":"Scientific community and society/Water resources"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-10T13:06:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-29 15:03:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6965519","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6965519","identity":"rs-6965519","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}