Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Relation to the Management of Storm Water and the Mitigation of Floods

  • Lynn CroweEmail author
  • Ian D. Rotherham
Part of the Applied Environmental Science and Engineering for a Sustainable Future book series (AESE)


Water, biodiversity, and human wellbeing are intimately connected, and in urban centres, this is especially so. This chapter addresses issues of the relationships between ecology in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the management of storm water and flood mitigation. The account firstly explains the development of key concepts and then considers contrasting case-study examples in the UK and in Australia. The impacts of storm water and flooding on biodiversity are considered in relation to the delivery of ecosystem services and potential future scenarios.


Biodiversity Ecosystem services Habitats Landscapes Nature Human health and wellbeing 


  1. Agnoletti M, Rotherham ID (2015) Landscape and biocultural diversity. Biodivers Conserv 24:3155–3165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arup (2014) Cities alive: rethinking green infrastructure. Accessed 9 Mar 2018
  3. Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2002) Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew Resour J 20(3):12–17Google Scholar
  4. Bird W (2004) Natural fit – can green space and biodiversity increase levels of physical activity? Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, SandyGoogle Scholar
  5. City of Portland Environmental Services (2010) Mt. Tabor Invasive Plant Control and Revegetation Project. Accessed 9 Mar 2018
  6. CIWEM (2001) Sustainability – development and flood risk. Proceedings of the CIWEM national conference 2001, CIWEM, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Coutts C (2016) Green infrastructure and public health. Taylor and Francis, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies HJ, Doick KJ, Hudson MD, Schreckenberg K (2017) Challenges for tree officers to enhance the provision of regulating ecosystem services from urban forests. Environ Res 156:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Defra (n.d.) Ecosystem services – living within environmental limits. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  10. Edwards AMC, Winn PSJ (2006) The Humber Estuary, Eastern England: strategic planning of flood defences and habitats. Mar Pollut Bull 53(1–4):165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Environment Agency (2005) Planning for the rising tides. The Humber flood risk management strategy. Consultation Document August 2005. Environment Agency, HullGoogle Scholar
  12. Environment Agency (2017) Working with natural processes to reduce flood risk. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
  13. EU Council (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23rd October 2000 – the European water framework directive. EU Council, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. Fainstein S, Campbell S (2003) Readings in planning theory. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  15. Firth CJ (1997) 900 years of the Don fishery: Domesday to the dawn of the new millennium. Environment Agency, LeedsGoogle Scholar
  16. Gomez-Baggethun E, Barton D (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffiths P, Simpson F, Rotherham ID (1996) Hydrology and water quality in the upper Don Catchment. Results of the research feasibility study and proposals for further research. Unpublished technical report. Sheffield Centre for Ecology and Environmental Management, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall JM, Handley JF, Ennos R (2012) The potential of tree planting to climate-proof high density residential areas in Manchester, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 104(3–4):410–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hewett C (2008) Making space for water is key to adapting to inconvenient truth. Energy, resource, environmental and sustainable management, January/February 2008, 6–8Google Scholar
  20. Hynes HBN (1963) The biology of polluted waters. Liverpool University Press, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  21. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (n.d.) Ecosystem approach. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  22. Mason CF (2001) Biology of freshwater pollution, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis report. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  24. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (n.d.) Overview of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  25. Monbiot G (2015) Do little, hide the evidence: the official neglect that caused these deadly floods. The Guardian, Tuesday 8 December 2015Google Scholar
  26. Moors for the Future Partnership (n.d..) Accessed Mar 2018)
  27. Moss BR (2010) Ecology of fresh waters: a view for the twenty-first century, 4th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Murray–Darling Basin Authority (2011) The living Murray story: one of Australia’s largest river restoration projects. MDBA publication number: 157/11, Murray–Darling Basin Authority, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  29. National Urban Forestry Unit (2010) Trees matter! bringing lasting benefits to people in towns. The Countryside Agency, the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund, and the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Natural England (2009) Green infrastructure guidance. NE176, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  31. Pitt Sir M (2007) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods. An independent review by Sir Michael Pitt. The Cabinet Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Pötz H, Bleuzé P (2012) Urban green-blue grids for sustainable and dynamic cities. Coop for Life, DelftGoogle Scholar
  33. Purseglove J (1988) Taming the flood. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Rotherham ID (ed) (2008) Flooding, water and the landscape. Wildtrack Publishing, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  35. Rotherham ID (2008a) Floods and water: a landscape-scale response. Pract Ecol Conser 7:128–137Google Scholar
  36. Rotherham ID (2008b) Landscape, water and history. Prac Ecol Conser 7:138–152Google Scholar
  37. Rotherham ID (2010) Yorkshire’s forgotten fenlands. Pen & Sword Books Limited, BarnsleyGoogle Scholar
  38. Rotherham ID (2011) Chapter 9: the river Don as linear urban wildscape. In: Jorgensen A (ed) Urban wildscapes. Routledge, London, pp 131–140Google Scholar
  39. Rotherham ID (2013) The lost fens: England’s greatest ecological disaster. The History Press, StroudGoogle Scholar
  40. Rotherham ID (2014) Eco-history: a short history of conservation and biodiversity. The White Horse Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Rotherham ID (2015a) Issues of water and flooding for trees, woods and forests. Arboric J – Int J Urban For 37(4):200–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rotherham ID (2015b) Bio-cultural heritage & biodiversity – emerging paradigms in conservation and planning. Biodivers Conserv 24:3405–3429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rotherham ID (2017a) Recombinant ecology – a hybrid future? Springer Briefs. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rotherham ID (2017b) Shadow woods: a search for lost landscapes. Wildtrack Publishing, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  45. Rotherham ID (2017c) The industrial transformation of South Yorkshire landscapes. In: Rotherham ID, Handley C (eds) The industrial legacy & landscapes of Sheffield and South Yorkshire. Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, pp 3–40Google Scholar
  46. Rotherham ID, Harrison K (2009) South Yorkshire fens past, present and future: ecology and economics as drivers for re-wilding and restoration? In: Hall M (ed) Greening history: the presence of the past in environmental restoration. Routledge Publishing, London, pp 143–153Google Scholar
  47. Rotherham ID, Harrison K (2012) Wilding by design as a future driver for a new nature in reconstructing South Yorkshire’s Fens. In: Rotherham ID, Handley C (eds) Wild by design and ploughing on regardless. Landscape archaeology and ecology special series. Papers from the Landscape Conservation Forum, (3). Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield, pp 54–72Google Scholar
  48. Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR (2007) The anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio 36(8):614–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (n.d.) Ecosystem services. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
  50. Thomas C (2013) The anthropocene could raise biological diversity. Nature 502:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas C et al (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ward-Thompson C, Aspinall P, Bell S (eds) (2010) Innovative approaches to researching landscape and health. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Watson R, Albon S (2011a) UK national ecosystem assessment: understanding nature’s value to society. Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Watson R, Albon S (2011b) UK national ecosystem assessment: understanding nature’s value to society. Synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson EO (ed) (1988) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of the Natural and Built EnvironmentSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations