Green infrastructure in water management: Stakeholder perceptions from South East Queensland, Australia

Green infrastructure (GI) originated in landscape architecture and landscape ecology and is widely used as an approach to sustainable water management. However, there is no commonly accepted definition of GI for water management in the literature. This research was undertaken in South East Queensland (SEQ), Australia, which has experienced a long-term cycle of floods and droughts. The research employed the Q-sort methodology supplemented with semi-structured interviews to understand perceptions of GI amongst various stakeholders. Twenty-seven research participants included design, planning, and engineering practitioners, government officers, scientists and community members familiar with GI. Our findings indicate these participants regard GI as a broad concept containing both natural and engineered semi-natural assets offering multiple benefits and functions, yet rarely recognised its economic benefits. Participants were divided on GI's effectiveness for drought management. We propose a new, consolidated definition of GI for stormwater management: “GI is a strategically planned network of high-quality natural and semi-natural assets that mimics natural processes, with multiple benefits and multifunctionality, such as enhancing stormwater management and providing environmental quality, with social and economic benefits”. We recommend that water management-related policies, strategies, plans, and design guidelines in SEQ and elsewhere, should include a consistent definition of GI for water management to assist professional and community understanding and inform decision-making about flood and drought. •Identified views about green infrastructure (GI) in water management using Q-sort.•Most participants viewed GI as a combination of natural and engineered green assets.•Most participants agreed that GI interventions at the catchment-scale are crucial.•Views on GI's effectiveness for drought management were strongly divided.•Economic benefits of GI were not considered significant by most participants.