Three paradigms to deal with urban water issues are compared. The analysis focuses on their definition and objectives, the role of different stakeholders, the issues they deal with, and the possible solutions suggested. The paradigms differ in scope (from the narrow focus of the sponge city paradigm to the broad goals of eco-city paradigm) and in terms of the governance structures used to coordinate different stakeholders. The smart and sponge paradigms mainly use existing government structures. In the eco-cities approach, the citizens want to be involved through newly created governance structures. Smart and eco-city initiatives emphasize the involvement of stakeholders, while in the sponge cities approach, the initiative is often taken by the local government. Finally, in terms of expected solutions, the paradigms want to create eco- or healthy cities or improve water management to create a more healthy urban environment. After identifying the issue, alternative water-related technologies are available, like generating energy from wastewater or separating grey and brown water. Cities require different governance structures, and managing information flows in an integrated way to solve water and other issues. The experience in Europe, China, and India may help other cities choose the right paradigm.

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) has attracted growing attention as a sustainable approach for mitigating pluvial flooding (also known as flash flooding), which is expected to increase in frequency and intensity under the impacts of climate change and urbanisation. However, spatial planning of WSUD is not an easy task, not only due to the complex urban environment, but also the fact that not all locations in the catchment are equally effective for flood mitigation. In this study, we developed a new WSUD spatial prioritisation framework that applies global sensitivity analysis (GSA) to identify priority subcatchments where WSUD implementation will be most effective for flood mitigation. For the first time, the complex impact of WSUD locations on catchment flood volume can be assessed, and the GSA in hydrological modelling is adopted for applications in WSUD spatial planning. The framework uses a spatial WSUD planning model, the Urban Biophysical Environments and Technologies Simulator (UrbanBEATS), to generate a grid-based spatial representation of catchment, and an urban drainage model, the U.S. EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), to simulate catchment flooding. The effective imperviousness of all subcatchments was varied simultaneously in the GSA to mimic the effect of WSUD implementation and future developments. Priority subcatchments were identified based on their influence on catchment flooding computed through the GSA. The method was tested for an urbanised catchment in Sydney, Australia. We found that high priority subcatchments were clustering in the upstream and midstream of the main drainage network, with a few distributed close to the catchment outlets. Rainfall frequency, subcatchment characteristics, and pipe network configuration were found to be important factors determining the influence of changes in different subcatchments on catchment flooding. The effectiveness of the framework in identifying influential subcatchments was validated by comparing the effect of removing 6% of the Sydney catchment\'s effective impervious area under four WSUD spatial distribution scenarios. Our results showed that WSUD implementation in high priority subcatchments consistently achieved the largest flood volume reduction (3.5-31.3% for 1% AEP to 50% AEP storms), followed by medium priority subcatchments (3.1-21.3%) and catchment-wide implementation (2.9-22.1%) under most design storms. Overall, we have demonstrated that the proposed method can be useful for maximising WSUD flood mitigation potential through identifying and targeting the most effective locations.

Decision Support Systems (DSS) for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a valuable aid for SUDS widespread adoption. These tools systematize the decision-making criteria and eliminate the bias inherent to expert judgment, abridging the technical aspect of SUDS for non-technical users and decision-makers. Through the collection and careful assessment of 120 papers on SUDS models and SUDS-DSS, this review shows how these tools are built, selected, and used to assist decision-makers questions. The manuscript classifies the DSS based on the question they assist in answering, the spatial scale used, the software selected, among other aspects. SUDS-DSS aspects that require more attention are identified, including environmental and social considerations, SUDS trains performance and criteria for selection, stochasticity of rainfall, and future scenarios impact. Suggestions for SUDS-DSS are finally offered to better equip decision-makers in facing emerging stormwater challenges in urban centers.