sustainability

Article
The Role of Constructed Wetlands as Green
Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban
Water Management
Alexandros I. Stefanakis
School of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, GR73100 Chania, Greece;
stefanakis.alexandros@gmail.com




Received: 14 November 2019; Accepted: 4 December 2019; Published: 6 December 2019


Abstract: Nowadays, it is better understood that the benefits of green infrastructure include a series
of ecosystem services, such as cooling, water storage and management, recreation and landscaping,
among others. Green technologies are still developing to provide sustainable solutions to the
problems that modern cities and peri-urban areas face at an ever-increasing rate and intensity.
Constructed wetlands technology is an established green multi-purpose option for water management
and wastewater treatment, with numerous effectively proven applications around the world and
multiple environmental and economic advantages. These systems can function as water treatment
plants, habitat creation sites, urban wildlife refuges, recreational or educational facilities, landscape
engineering and ecological art areas. The aim of this article is to highlight the synergies between this
green technology and urban areas in order to reconnect cities with nature, to promote circularity in
the urban context and to apply innovative wetland designs as landscape infrastructure and water
treatment solutions. This approach could be a step further in the effort to mitigate the current
degradation process of the urban landscape. Following the concept of green infrastructure, the article
presents and suggests ways to integrate wetland technology in the urban environment, namely:
(i) stormwater and urban runoff management (storage and treatment of water during storm events)
to provide protection from flood incidents, especially considering climate change, (ii) innovative
low-impact infrastructure and design solutions for urban wastewater treatment, and (iii) wetland
technology for habitat creation and ecosystem services provision.

Keywords: green infrastructure; constructed wetlands; circular economy; sustainability; nature-based

solutions; ecosystem services; water management; wastewater treatment; urban areas; urban runoff

1. Green Infrastructure and Urbanization

Green infrastructure (GI) is a modern approach to deal with issues that mainly arise in the urban
environment. It is viewed as an alternative to traditional infrastructure that is mostly based on concrete
(often called as grey infrastructure). The term of GI initially referred to open green areas in the urban
environment, usually connected to each other to provide various services and/or to create a new
ecosystem [1]. Typical applications of GI are urban runoff and stormwater management, reducing
the effects of urban heat islands, improving air quality, etc. However, over the last years the content
of that term has been further expanded to include other approaches, e.g., provision of ecosystem
services, creation of new wildlife habitats, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, among others [2].
In other words, GI nowadays represents a wide set of solutions aimed at increasing the resilience of
urban environments.
The moving force towards this direction is the increasing risks that modern cities face due to
the more and more frequent appearance and increasing extent of extreme events such as urban

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981; doi:10.3390/su11246981 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 2 of 19

floods or extended dry periods. Today, it is realized more than ever before that ecosystem services,
i.e., all services and goods that nature provides to humans, possess a tremendous value, which should
not be neglected [3]. Therefore, it is clear that, under this frame, GI is strongly related to sustainability.
The adoption of sustainable development dictates that environmental protection should have a
complementary character to economic development. Wise extraction and use of natural resources is a
prerequisite for both economic growth and limitation of the environmental degradation. Especially,
the sustainability approach integrates the concept of intergenerational solidarity, i.e., the current needs
should be met without compromising the ability to meet those of future generations. Therefore, GI
alternatives can better and more effectively contribute to this direction than grey infrastructure.
Across the globe, there are pressing issues due to rapid urbanization and continuous expansion of
modern cities. Local authorities and governments face increasing challenges related to urban runoff
and stormwater management. Current problems have to do with aging of existing infrastructure,
shifts in precipitation patterns with more frequent and intense storm events, watershed deforestation,
degradation of natural wetlands, extensive use of impervious surfaces (e.g., roadways, parking lots)
that all result in urban floods and pollution of water sources. As climate change is expected to further
enhance these phenomena, adoption of GI could make a more beneficial and targeted use of the
multiple ecosystems services in order to mitigate these impacts of climate change in urban areas [4].
In addition, as cities expand worldwide and become densely populated, there is a respectively growing
demand for improved sanitary and ecological conditions and a more intelligent way to exploit urban
space. Moreover, the increasing water demand in urban areas and freshwater withdrawal calls for
improved water efficiency.
This need is further arising from the gradual global transition to a circular economy that follows
the 5Rs rules, i.e., reduce water losses and enhance water efficiency, reuse water, recycle water resources
and wastewater, restore water of a specific quality to where it was taken from, and recover resources
out of wastewater. In the context of urban water management, strategies that are already implemented
include the reduction in water consumption, the further promotion of water reuse and recycle, and
the recovery of materials from wastewater streams. The ultimate goal of such initiatives is not only
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions related to water resources management compared to
conventional solutions, but also to enhance the resiliency of urban areas to the impacts of climate
change [5]. It becomes therefore apparent that GI is at the center of the new vision to achieve greater
circularity within urban systems.

2. Green Infrastructure for Urban Water Management

One of the main fields where GI can play an important role and bring a modern view is water
management, specifically stormwater management and wastewater treatment. Stormwater runoff
management is a major issue in modern cities. Often, stormwater contributes to combined sewer
overflow (CSO) in cities (especially in older cities in Europe and in the USA), where domestic/municipal
wastewater, urban runoff and stormwater are collected in the same pipe network that routes the
collected volume to an end-of-the-pipe centralized wastewater treatment plant [6,7]. The occurring
overflow volume can be higher than the capacity of the treatment plants, which means that the excess
CSO and/or wastewater volume is discharged into surface water bodies (i.e., streams, rivers, lakes or
sea) to avoid overloading of the existing treatment plants and thus results in flood incidents in urban
areas [8]. Another consequence is the further contamination of surface waters and the respective
damage of the receiving ecosystems, considering that during flood events water from the first flush
of roads and concrete surfaces, sewer washout and sanitary wastewater carry high loads of organics,
nutrients, suspended solids and microbiological contaminants [6,9,10]. This means that high volumes
of water with high pollutant loads occurring over a short period of time need to be effectively treated
in many different locations to reach the desired and/or legal effluent quality limits, e.g., the European
Union (EU) limits set by the Water Framework Directive [11]. Management of these water volumes is
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 3 of 19

also important to prevent damage to public infrastructure and private properties and to protect the
health status of the community and the ecosystems.
GI can also contribute to wastewater treatment in the urban and peri-urban environment.
The established solution today is the centralized approach, i.e., the implementation of large
end-of-the-pipe centralized treatment plants using conventional/mechanical treatment technologies.
However, these facilities are typically not viewed as an environmentally friendly solution since they are
heavy installations made of non-renewable materials (e.g., concrete, steel), consume large amounts of
energy and chemicals and have high operational and maintenance costs [12]. In the urban environment,
installing a conventional wastewater treatment plant usually downgrades the surrounding area in
terms of aesthetic appearance and market value. Hence, an alternative eco-friendly solution that would
combine effective treatment with added ecological values is preferable in this context.
It is clear that there is the necessity for new infrastructure that will meet the requirements for
water treatment and sanitation and, at the same time, create green spaces in the urban environment,
which could also partially compensate the lack of sufficient green areas. Nature-based solutions and,
specifically, the eco-friendly technology of CWs (constructed wetlands) appears as an ideal option
that can provide the desired added values to ecosystem services and promote water circularity in
the urban context [5]. This article presents the so-called wetland technology in brief and discusses
the opportunities to implement treatment wetland systems in the urban environment along with the
available technological advances, as well as the main benefits that this green technology offers.

3. The Technology of Constructed Wetlands

Wetland systems are able to transform and/or remove various pollutants (organics, nutrients, trace
elements, etc.) through a series of physical, biological, and chemical processes, and therefore improve
water quality [12]. The wide range of economic and ecological benefits of wetlands stimulated the
interest to exploit their natural water purification capacity for different applications, particularly for
wastewater treatment. Human-made wetland ecosystems exploit these purifying functions of natural
wetlands, which have been used for the disposal and treatment of secondary and tertiary wastewater
effluents for many years in the past [13].
Nowadays, natural wetlands are rarely used for the polishing of light-contaminated effluents in
some areas, but generally their use for wastewater treatment purposes is mostly avoided around the
world, since this could cause irreversible damage to ecosystems. The basic concept of CW systems is to
replicate the various naturally occurring processes under controlled conditions for a beneficial purpose,
e.g., treatment of wastewater. This means that CWs are designed in such a way as to mimic and enhance
the functions of natural wetlands. Although CWs offer in general the same values and functions with
natural wetlands, they provide a wider range of ecosystem services; it has been shown that CWs
possess a higher value in terms of flood and stormwater control, water quality improvement and
biodiversity restoration [5,12,14–17]. Their main design characteristics make them more easily adopted
and integrated into the built environment by urban planners, engineers, and landscape architects.
CWs represent a very interesting and effective development in the field of ecological engineering.
According to their function and purpose, they can be classified in three main application areas [12]:

(a) Constructed wetlands for habitat creation: these systems aim at providing a new wildlife habitat.
The main goal is to exploit the ecological benefits of CWs and not only their function as a treatment
facility [18]. The main characteristics of CWs (i.e., presence of water and vegetation) make them
suitable for the creation of a new ecological habitat or for the restoration of a degraded ecosystem,
by attracting wildlife species, especially birds, and establishing a green area. These systems can
also be utilized as a source of food and fiber, and as public recreation and education sites [18,19].
Several such facilities have been constructed in North America [14], such as the CWs in the
Greater Vancouver region [20].
(b) Constructed wetlands for flood control: these systems receive the runoff during flood events [21]. Their
implementation increases stormwater storage capacity and infiltration volumes, while reducing
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 4 of 19

the volume of water reaching the sewer system and eventually the treatment plants. Within
the urban hydrologic cycle, these CWs may significantly contribute to the integrated urban
water management and also provide the ability to recycle the stored water volume [19,22]. Such
examples can already be found in many countries, e.g., the Ouagadougou Park of Grenoble in
France [23] and a network of urban wetlands built in Beijing, China [24,25].
(c) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: these are engineered systems designed to receive
and purify wastewater from various sources, exploiting the naturally occurring treatment
processes [12]. This is the most widely used application of CWs internationally. A flagship facility
in this category is the constructed wetland in Nimr, Oman, the largest industrial CW system
treating the industrial effluent from oil exploration activities [26].

From a technical point of view, CWs can be further classified based on the vegetation type and the
water flow path through the system [12,27], as shown in Figure 1. Based on the flow path, two main
types can be distinguished: (a) free water surface constructed wetlands (FWS CWs), and (b) subsurface
flow constructed wetlands (SF CWs). The design of FWS systems includes a water column of 10–50 cm
above a substrate layer (usually soil). Subsurface flow CWs are typically gravel beds and can be of
vertical flow (VF) or horizontal flow (HF). According to the vegetation type, further classification
includes emergent macrophytes wetlands and submerged macrophytes wetlands. The most common
systems are those with rooted emergent macrophytes [12]. When more than one CW type is combined
in one facility, this is called a hybrid wetland system. Furthermore, floating treatment wetlands (FTWs)
are artificial wetland systems that mimic the water treatment processes occurring in natural floating
wetland islands and consist in a floating structure planted with emergent macrophytes [28].

Figure 1. Classification of the various types of constructed wetlands.

The two key characteristics of CWs are the plant species and the substrate media. The most
widely used emergent plant species are common reeds (Phragmites australis), cattails (Typha latifolia),
and Scirpus spp.; these species are found in most regions around the world [12]. However, other locally
available species may also be used, for example bamboo in tropical regions [29,30]. The main principle
is that the selected species should be native, i.e., already adapted to the local climate and also tolerant
against the pollutant loads. Indigenous species are always preferred in CWs and not exotic ones, to
avoid potential risks such as invasion of the exotic species and/or diseases [12]. The role of plants in
CWs in water treatment is mostly indirect; they promote and support the development and growth of
the microbial community along their roots, through the transfer and release of oxygen in microsites
along the roots [12,31,32].
The selection of the substrate media is also a critical parameter in CW systems. Selection of
the proper gravel grain size is crucial to prevent any clogging issues due to inappropriate porosity
and/or high hydraulic loads. Substrates have also the capacity of removing some constituents from
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 5 of 19

water through various processes (e.g., ion exchange, adsorption, precipitation). Plants are established
in the substrate layer, which also provides filtration effects and together with the plants supports
the various transformation/removal processes [12,27]. Media used in CW systems include natural
materials (e.g., minerals, rocks and soils), synthetic materials (e.g., synthetic zeolites, activated carbon)
and industrial by-products (e.g., slags, blast furnace) [12,33].

3.1. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

One of the first uses of CWs is the treatment of point-source wastewater. Today, this technology
is established as a sustainable treatment method [5,12,29]. Recent developments in this field proved
that wetland technology possesses a high treatment capacity, as indicated, for example, by its various
industrial applications [34].
The main issues with the dominant conventional–mechanical treatment systems are their large
energy demand and the related high construction and operation costs. Conventional treatment plants
have usually an industrial, unattractive appearance, and thus are placed away from residential areas.
Their equipment includes large mechanical parts (e.g., aeration units, pumps, etc.) and extensive use of
non-renewable materials (e.g., concrete and steel). Especially in low-income regions, the construction
of a centralized mechanical facility is often economically infeasible due to lack of funds and technical
expertise to manage and operate them. Installing such facilities is usually avoided in urban and/or
peri-urban areas, which means that centralized facilities come along with an extensive wastewater
collection and transfer pipe network [12]. This fact has negative impacts, both environmental and
economic. Because of the many mechanical parts, damages and failures happen frequently. At the
same time, their operation results in daily production of by-products, such as sludge, which requires
further handling and management and significantly increases the total operational costs [12]. In total,
the investment costs and the costs for the continuous and effective operation are usually high, including
the need for specialized staff.
The realization of the negative aspects related to conventional systems gradually increased the focus
given on sustainable technologies capable of providing alternative solutions to effective wastewater
treatment at or near the source. The use of decentralized technologies as green infrastructure systems,
coupled with the rising environmental concerns globally and the desire for green solutions, follows the
principle of sustainable development, considering that the same activity (i.e., wastewater treatment)
can be achieved in a cost-effective, environmentally friendly and energy-efficient way. The fundamental
difference of natural treatment systems such as CWs, compared to conventional–mechanical treatment
methods, is that they follow this decentralized approach, i.e., they are designed to collect, treat and
enable the reuse the wastewater onsite, i.e., close to the source.
Especially in urban areas, the decentralized approach of wastewater management becomes more
attractive. This approach can be a solution for blocks of buildings, neighborhoods, commercial facilities,
industrial facilities, isolated communities, till remote areas, small islands etc., even for maritime
applications such as sea vessels and offshore platforms. For example, in the USA, more than half of the
25 million decentralized systems are located in suburban areas, while one-third of all new housing and
commercial developments use decentralized systems [35]. Decentralized systems also offer flexibility
in their design and a modular approach is possible to provide simple and cost-effective expansion to
meet the required demands and sizes. In the urban context, wetland technology applications used to
be rare, mainly due to space limitations. Wetland technology has not yet reached a deep integration
into the urban environment, although there has been a rapid development over the last two decades.
However, the research developments and the advanced designs of the last 10–15 years gradually close
this gap between land availability and area demand, and related costs (Figure 2).
The implementation of a green technology for wastewater management is also called “ecological
sanitation” (i.e., ecosan in short), referring to a new philosophy of dealing with wastewater. The goal is
the recovery of nutrients from human feces, urine and greywater and the beneficial reuse for irrigation,
e.g., in agriculture or of urban green areas, in order to minimize water pollution and ensure the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 6 of 19

optimum and economical reuse of water. Thus, the approach of decentralized wastewater management
is directly related not only with the provision of an alternative, green and cost-effective treatment
solution, but also with the onsite extraction and exploitation of beneficial elements present in the
treated effluents.

Figure 2. Qualitative comparison of constructed wetlands and mechanical treatment systems in terms
of energy, operation and maintenance demands and area requirements.

However, the main argument here is not whether decentralized systems such as CWs can fully
replace centralized facilities—something that will probably never happen. The wider use, though,
of decentralized systems can contribute to a better management option of the generated volumes and
minimize the required numbers and size of centralized facilities, thus reducing their negative footprint,
while enhancing the positive environmental footprint of wastewater management through the use
of nature-based technologies. The use of CWs particularly in suburban areas is today possible and
feasible. In these areas, land is usually cheaper, the population density is smaller and the building
volumes are not as massive and dense as in the central urban areas. These are parameters that allow
for the easier implementation of CW systems. The technical developments and improvements in CW
design make it also easier to adopt such treatment solutions, even in areas with relatively limited
available space.
One of the most widely applied designs today is the vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW) [12].
The increase in VFCW applications is a result of the fact that horizontal subsurface flow (HSF) CWs
have a lower oxygen transfer capacity to fulfil the demands for secondary treatment, hence their
oxidation and nitrification capacity is limited [36,37]. On the other hand, VFCW systems can transfer
higher oxygen amount to the wetland body due to their feeding regime, i.e., intermittently loading and
instantaneously flooding the whole bed surface, promoting this way the gravitational drainage through
the media layers [38]. This means that the VFCWs have a smaller area demand (up to 2 m2 /person
equivalent (PE)) compared to HSF systems (typically 5–10 m2 /PE), which also implies lower investment
costs [12].
Furthermore, the VFCW design gives the option to apply raw wastewater without any
pre-treatment (e.g., settling tanks) [12,39]; this design eliminates the need for separate sludge
management and handling (and, thus, the related costs), since organic solids are accumulated
in the bed, dewatered and stabilized through aerobic processes mediated by the plants. In the
long-term operation, the accumulated sludge is converted to biosolids, forming a 50–80 cm deep layer
of a stabilized and well-composted sludge material. This layer is then removed, without damaging the
gravel media and the plant roots, and the digested sludge is reused in agriculture as fertilizer [40],
while plants naturally regenerate and a new sludge loading cycle of 5–8 years starts. A notable example
of this wetland design is the Orhei wastewater treatment plant in Moldova that serves a population of
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 7 of 19

20,000 inhabitants (Figure 3). This facility treats the municipal wastewater from the Orhei town in a
two-staged VFCW system that receives up to 2,700 m3 /day, figures that make this facility the largest
such CW design in the world [41]. It should also be mentioned that the treated effluent from that
facility is reused in the urban areas for irrigation.

Figure 3. Vertical flow constructed wetland at Orhei’s wastewater treatment plant in Moldova, treating
municipal wastewater from 20,000 inhabitants [41]. (Courtesy: Iridra Srl—www.iridra.com).

The most decisive step towards the use of CWs in urban areas comes with the development of
intensified-aerated systems, mainly over the last 5–10 years. To further improve the oxygen availability
in the wetland bed, artificial aeration is applied (Figure 1). This concept is based on the use of
a small blower to provide compressed air through aeration lines placed at the bottom of the bed.
Wastewater aeration is a common practice in other treatment technologies, but new in gravel beds
such as CWs. The energy demand in this case is lower, typically 10–15% of the energy need for a
conventional technology [42,43]. The main advantage of this modification is that the combined vertical
downward water drainage and the upflow movement of air bubbles results in well mixing of air
with wastewater in the bed, thus, in enhanced aerobic pollutant removal processes and, therefore,
in increased performance [43]. The increased treatment capacity of this design enabled its use not only
for domestic-municipal wastewater [43–45], but also for many industrial effluents [34,46]. Aerated
VFCWs have been found to be up to 10 times more efficient in nitrogen removal through nitrification
compared to passive CW systems. This means that the area demand is also significantly lower (e.g.,
0.5 m2 per PE; [47,48]), making these CWs a somehow compact system, while the low amount of
energy required for the air blowers can be covered by renewable energy sources, e.g., solar or wind
energy [44,49].
Considering that the typical area demand of conventional treatment technologies (e.g., activated
sludge) lies within the range of 0.2–0.5 m2 /PE [50–52], it becomes obvious that the aerated wetland
systems significantly close the gap on area demand with conventional technologies, thus, enhancing
the potential of using this wetland design in suburban and even urban areas. One of the first such
facilities is the aerated VFCW at Petersfield, Hampshire, UK (Figure 4). In this facility, the aerated
wetland was used to upgrade an existing sewage treatment works that serves 20,000 inhabitants and
consists of sedimentation tanks and trickling filters, in order to improve the effluent quality [45].
The aerated VFCW (1200 m2 ) receives 1250 m3 /day, which represents about 1/4 of the total inflow.
The wetland effluent is then blended with the secondary effluent. It is noteworthy that, although there
is no disinfection step, the final effluent complies with the legal standards for environmental discharge.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 8 of 19

Figure 4. Aerated constructed wetland at Petersfield sewage treatment works, Hampshire, UK [45].

Innovative ideas and applications are important for the successful integration of CWs in the urban
environment. A characteristic example is the use of an aerated CW on a swimming pool boat located
in the city center of Antwerp, Belgium [53]. A recycled ferry boat operating as a restaurant included an
on-board aerated wetland system (surface area 188 m2 ) designed to treat the wastewater generated
from approximately 140 persons equivalent, i.e., a peak load of 69 m3 /day of wastewater from the
visitor locker rooms, showers, toilets, two bars, and the restaurant kitchen, aiming at making the ship
and the business concept an environmentally friendly installation.
Furthermore, a compact CW unit called ReedBox has also been developed using the aerated
wetland design [54]. This unit is light in order to ease its transportation and site installation wherever
required. The design of the system uses an aerated CW that follows the concept of a plug-and-play
system (Figure 5). This mobile CW can serve a small population (up to 40 and 75 persons producing 7
and 15 m3 /day, respectively) in areas where public sewage network and/or a treatment plant is not
available, as well as in areas where space is limited and a minimum footprint is required (the unit’s
area demand is 0.4 m2 /PE), treating domestic wastewater of high strength and typical composition
(suspended solids, organic matter, nitrogen). It can provide a wastewater treatment solution for blocks
of flats, residential compounds, tourism facilities, hotels etc., as a compact system that can be easily
installed without the need for earthworks and permanent infrastructure. The containerized wetland is
filled with light substrate materials such as recycled HDPE, on top of which native wetland plants
are established [54]. The unit also integrates sludge accumulation and dewatering while purifying
wastewater using artificial aeration in a single unit. This design has the benefit of avoiding primary
treatment (e.g., a septic/sedimentation tank), since raw wastewater is applied on top of the bed and
separated, as it is the case of VFCWs treating raw wastewater (described above).
Another innovative approach is the use of wetlands to create green roofs. The concept consists of
the construction of roofs with a vegetated surface. Studies have shown that this practice can regulate
the temperature inside a building, reduce the urban heat-island effects, and act as carbon sink, while
providing a range of ecological services [55,56]. In addition, such roof wetland systems treating water
or even wastewater can be one possible solution to the lack of clean water in urban centers, since
these systems are capable of filtering rainwater, enabling this way its onsite reuse for non-potable
purposes [57]. This green roof development can easily be adapted to climate change and in accordance
with the strategy for green cities [58].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 9 of 19

Figure 5. The compact, mobile aerated constructed wetland unit “ReedBox” [54] (Courtesy: Bauer
Resources GmbH—https://www.bauer.de/bre).

Additionally, the cost parameter is apparently one of the most crucial factors for technology
and infrastructure selection. In general, the main advantage of CWs is the reduced operational costs
compared to conventional technologies [12,59–61]. There are even large-scale facilities where the
reported overall operational costs are 99% reduced compared to grey infrastructure solutions [26].
In the case of urban and peri-urban areas, land requirement would be the main issue. However, as it is
shown, the latest advances in wetland technology indicate that this obstacle is gradually overcome.
In addition, although conventional technologies have lower area demand, they are usually not installed
in urban areas for obvious reasons (e.g., odor, insects, noise, unattractive view, etc.). This means
that they come along with an extended sewer network system, which has a significant impact on
the required investment, though not directly related to the facility itself. Nevertheless, although
land is more expensive in urban and peri-urban areas, it is the life cycle costing that would reveal if
and at which level the land purchase cost affects the overall costing of a system. Various life cycle
studies report lower overall costs of CW solutions compared to conventional systems over the entire
operational life time [12,62,63]. For example, the operation of CWs, including materials use and energy
consumption, was found to be 83% lower compared to a centralized facility [64]. Life cycle costing
revealed that using a CW to upgrade an activated sludge plant is cost-effective for populations of
5000 and 50,000 and also provided an effluent quality for reuse for a tenth of the carbon footprint of a
membrane bioreactor plant [65]. As it is easily understood, it is practically difficult to present global
cost estimates for CWs. However, current experiences imply the cost-competitiveness of these systems,
which represent another strong point for further implementation in the urban environment.
Summarizing, the green technology of CW in urban and peri-urban areas can provide multiple
benefits and services, such as a new habitat for animals and plants, while treating wastewater,
improving water quality and reducing pollution [23,66]. Given that these systems are dominated by
dense clusters of reeds, they also provide a cooling effect to the surrounding areas particularly during
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 10 of 19

summer months and they also moderate strong winds. A recent study in a large industrial constructed
wetland facility in the Middle East revealed that the presence of the CWs reduced the temperature by
10 °C between the wetland body and its perimeter up to 1 km distance [67]. Furthermore, considering
their appearance, CWs also act as aesthetically pleasant urban green spaces, which contribute to the
well-being of the residents, and provide options for recreational activities. They also provide the
opportunity for local people to get involved in activities such as bird watching, which is not usual in
urban environments [68]. It is also reported that contact with green spaces, such as wetland systems
in the urban context, supports physical and psychological health [69,70]. In this frame, wetland
technology can be a key option to increase the resilience of modern cities to address existing stressors
on water and wastewater management.

3.2. Constructed Wetlands for Stormwater Management

Another sustainable application of CWs is stormwater management. In urban and suburban
areas, the water cycle is different compared to natural undisturbed land. The main difference is
the lower rate of infiltration (both shallow and deep) and the limited evapotranspiration due to the
extended coverage of land with building infrastructure, roads, pavements etc. and the (in some cities
extremely) limited green spaces. This results in significantly higher volumes of runoff occurring in
urban areas, which can be more than 50% higher compared to natural land [71,72]. For example, it has
been estimated that 1 acre of parking lot generates 16 times higher stormwater volume than 1 acre of
meadow [73]. Public and private urban infrastructure face today frequent damages due to uncontrolled
stormwater runoff. The modern approach of GI takes into consideration multiple issues such as water
quality improvement, resources protection, flow volume control and cost-effective long-term operation
and maintenance. Considering these, CWs can be viewed as an ecological solution to stormwater and
CSO management following the GI concept [8,17,74]. The use of CWs for stormwater management
provides a series of advantages such as:
n reduction in runoff volumes, peak flows and duration;
n protection of downstream water resources;
n reducing the risk of flooding;
n reducing the risks associated with combined sewer overflow (CSOs);
n water quality improvement;
n enhancement of groundwater recharge/discharge;
n increase of runoff infiltration;
n sediment stabilization;
n creation of wildlife habitat;
n options for recreation activities.
The main element of stormwater wetlands (as in all CWs) is the presence of plants, which play
a significant role in the processes taking place within the system, as also in the increased rate of
evapotranspiration. Urban stormwater contains a variety of pollutants at varying concentrations, thus,
the removal of these pollutants is a key target in the design of such systems. For example, runoff from
parking areas and commercial streets produces high levels of suspended solids, while residential streets
produce high concentrations of pathogens (e.g., E. coli) [75,76]. Other constituents such as phosphorus
and heavy metals (especially from highways) can also be present. Usually, the concentrations of these
pollutants are above the respective standards for environmental discharge. This means that if this
water reaches any surface water body, significant environmental pollution and degradation will occur.
In the case of CSO, the pollutant concentrations are also high (especially for carbon, nitrogen and
phosphorus), considering that this flow includes the first flush of roads [9], sewer washout, industrial
effluents and domestic wastewater [6].
The traditional approach to runoff and CSO management is to collect it through a sewer network
and route this water to underground storage tanks and publicly owned wastewater treatment plants
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 11 of 19

(wwtps). Conventional wwtps are usually designed to receive a predefined maximum flow; however,
it is common that the actual load that reaches the plant is higher, especially considering the uncertainties
due to climate change impact. The excess volume is often directly discharged into the receiving water
bodies without proper treatment or with no treatment at all (Figure 6). CWs treating stormwater or CSO
are mainly targeted to hold and retain peak flows, to reduce the suspended solids load by filtration and
to reduce the soluble and particulate pollutants through adsorption and biological degradation [77].

Figure 6. Schematic representation of stormwater/combined sewer overflow management with

conventional methods and constructed wetlands (modified from [17]).

The same processes that take place in CWs for wastewater treatment also occur in stormwater
wetlands [12]. Especially in CSO volumes, detected pollutant loads can exceed respective loads from
wwtp effluents. CWs designed for CSO and wastewater treatment can differ enough, considering
the differences of the inflow quality and the hydraulic load applied. Taking also into account the
diffuse spatial character of these flows, there should be many treatment facilities in different locations.
Under this context, CWs appear as a feasible solution, both economically and ecologically, given that
they serve the decentralized approach of water management [8].
Various designs have been developed for the treatment of CSO in different countries. VFCWs
are the most widely applied system, also known as “retention soil filter (RSFs)” in Germany. RSFs in
Germany are usually sand filters combined with stormwater tanks in series and their development
started in the 1990s [8]. National design guidelines have already been adopted [8] and today more than
17,000 sites exist in Germany [78]. One characteristic facility is the CW for CSO treatment in Bergheim
(Erft), Germany [79]. This system is a VFCW bed (Figure 7) that receives approximately 1000 m3 /hour
of CSO and covers an area of 2200 m2 , while the reported removal rates for solids and organic matter
are well documented.
The German guidelines have been adopted in France and Italy with some modifications. The French
approach does not include storage tanks and the overflow is directed to two alternately loading filter
beds [39]. The second bed is loaded during high flows, e.g., 5–6 times higher than the dry weather
flow. Moreover, the Italian design focuses on the treatment of the first flush; four filter beds are
operating in parallel to receive the first flush (which is highly polluted), and the exceeding volume (i.e.,
treated first flush and second flush) is by-passed and routed to a FWS CW [17]. Other configurations
have been applied in the USA [74]. In the UK, tertiary CWs have been occasionally used for CSO
treatment [80]. A combination of a VF, a HF and a FWS CW in series for CSO treatment has also been
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 12 of 19

tested in Spain [81]. Such practices have also been widely adopted in Australia; for example, several
treatment wetlands were built in the city of Orange, New South Wales to slow down the flow and treat
stormwater while providing a new urban habitat (Figure 8; [82]). It is characteristic that the treated
stormwater volume covers up to 29% of the city’s drinking water demand.

Figure 7. Constructed wetland in Bergheim (Erft), Germany for combined sewage overflow (adopted
from [79]).

Figure 8. The constructed wetland at the Somerset Park, Orange, New South Wales, Australia that
collects and treats stormwater [82].

Innovative solutions can also be designed for urban stormwater and runoff management. Such
practices include the replacement of concrete pavements with wetlands, the use of wetlands as green
roofs, the creation of rain gardens, etc. The ultimate goal is to increase the rate of rainwater that is
absorbed back into the soil, rather than creating flood flows, and hence make it work for the city
and not against it. A latest advance in wetland technology is the development of floating treatment
wetlands (FTWs; Figure 1). This design is increasingly applied for runoff treatment in urban rivers and
canals, as well as in stormwater retention ponds [83]. This system is also used to restore receiving water
through a variety of biological and physical processes and for nutrients removal. Their advantage is
that FTWs can be installed in most urban water bodies and ponds without a significant infrastructure
required, providing an efficient, sustainable and cost-effective water purification solution, while
creating terrestrial and aquatic habitats for wildlife and enhancing the ecological diversity [83,84].
A successful example of FTWs for stormwater management comes from the Bribie Island in Queensland,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 13 of 19

Australia [83]. The FTW system installed receives stormwater from the nearby residential catchment
with a very small treatment area to catchment ratio (0.14%).
Overall, the use of CWs for stormwater management is feasible and promising in urban and
peri-urban areas [65,85]. A notable example is the so-called China’s Sponge City Plan (Figure 9) that
promotes the use of soil and vegetation as part of the effective urban runoff control strategy, rainwater
harvest, water quality improvement and ecological restoration [25]. It is characteristic that the Shanghai
government set a target of creating 400,000 m2 of new green roofs.

Figure 9. An example of China’s Sponge City Plan: Qunli Stormwater Park. Haerbin City, Heilongjiang
Province, China designed to treat 500,000 m3 of stormwater; American Society of Landscape Architects
Award of Excellence 2012, Turenscape and Peking University [86].

Another characteristic example is the Staten Island Bluebelt Drainage Basins in New York City,
where wetland systems were placed within the watershed to temporarily store and treat more than
350,000 GPD of stormwater during storm events, covering an area of 14,000 acres and saving more than
$80 million in conventional sewer costs [87]. Furthermore, the so called Tres Rios Constructed Wetland
in Phoenix is one of the most known green infrastructure projects (Figure 10). This wetland was created
to further polish treated wastewater from a nearby large conventional treatment plant and urban
runoff. This system acted as a demonstration project and was gradually developed and expanded to
provide several services, such as flood control, habitat restoration, public outreach, water reuse and
availability, carbon footprint offset [87].
The potential for integrating wetland technology in urban areas should further be investigated
and smart ideas can be expanded and adapted, e.g., converting open areas such as roundabouts in
small wetland filters for runoff retention and treatment. In a larger context, the use of CWs for runoff
management provides not only control of flooding and water quality improvement, but within the
urban landscape, wetlands contribute to limited carbon emissions and enhanced carbon sequestration,
resulting in a reduced carbon footprint [16]. It should also be noted that the first research results in
full-scale CWs indicate that these systems have also the potential to improve urban water quality
in terms of micro-pollutants removal such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, antiseptics,
etc. [88]. These pollutants are a rising concern worldwide due to their potential negative impact to
public health and the ecosystems. The research of various treatment technologies is currently ongoing
to identify the ones with the highest performance, whereas CWs appear as one of the most effective
solutions [89].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 14 of 19

Figure 10. The Tres Rios Constructed Wetland in Phoenix, Arizona [87].

4. Conclusions
Rapid global urbanization is one of the biggest transformations observed in human history.
Challenges like this that modern cities face, along with increasing resource consumption and demand,
land use, and air and water pollution, indicate the necessity to find and implement new ways to promote
sustainability and circularity and make modern cities more resilient to all kinds of stressors. Green
infrastructure can increase the green coverage in the urban environment and create new ecosystems
within the cities, while dealing with major urban issues such as urban water management, to limit the
risks associated with urban heat islands, flooding and water–air quality. The technology of constructed
wetlands can play a significant role in this transition as a sustainable method for water treatment
and management. Until recently, CWs were mainly implemented in rural, remote areas and small
communities to provide domestic wastewater treatment services.
However, the latest technological advances managed to significantly close the gap with
conventional—mechanical technologies in terms of land requirement. This gives now the option to
integrate engineered wetlands in urban and peri-urban areas for wastewater treatment and urban
runoff control and management, following the decentralized approach.
Climate change, environmental health, and resource scarcity are the main drivers for planning
and design; therefore, CWs as multi-purpose landscape infrastructure can contribute to the mitigation
of the present complex environmental challenges. Densely populated areas are usually served by
centralized wastewater treatment plants and extensive sewer networks. At the same time, the built
environment alters the hydrologic cycle, resulting in high volumes of stormwater and related flooding
risks. Especially the suburban areas, where the impervious coverage is lower, possess a higher
potential for the integration of CWs to treat stormwater and enhanced ecosystem services within
the hydrologic network. CWs can provide an alternative and cost-effective solution to wastewater
treatment of single households, blocks of houses, residential neighborhoods/complexes, commercial
areas, small industries, etc. The design flexibility that wetland technology provides allows for even
more innovative approaches for wetland integration in the urban environment, e.g., on river boats,
compact/mobile units, top of buildings, in roundabouts, roofs etc.
The distribution of several CWs throughout a green infrastructure network allows the usage
of treated effluents to create new habitats, for irrigation, and open space uses. The economic value
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 15 of 19

of the ecosystem services provided by CWs justifies their installation to realize the wide range of
provisioning, regulating, and cultural benefits. When connected to urban ecological corridors, CWs
support the creation of large-scale multifunctional landscapes, altering this way the characteristics of the
urbanized development. Particularly the CWs built for wastewater treatment or stormwater/rainwater
management promote biodiversity and habitat creation, establish new corridors for wildlife and
become part of the urban recreational network. Their integration in the urban environment supports a
healthier ecological balance of the existing water streams by providing water purification services,
while protecting downstream urban areas from flooding. The provision of additional green space with
aesthetic values is also a way for people to feel connected with nature and enhance psychological
wellbeing. Summarizing, the multiple benefits of CWs provide several opportunities to further include
these green systems in current and future urban planning.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mell, I.C. Green infrastructure: Concepts and planning. FORUM Electron. J. 2008, 8, 69–80.
2. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES):
Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003.
2013. Available online: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_
29012013.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2019).
3. Potschin, M.B.; Haines-Young, R.H. Ecosystem services Exploring a geographical perspective.
Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35, 575–594. [CrossRef]
4. Lennon, M. Green infrastructure and planning policy: A critical assessment. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 957–980.
[CrossRef]
5. Masi, F.; Rizzo, A.; Regelsberger, M. The role of constructed wetlands in a new circular economy, resource
oriented, and ecosystem services paradigm. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 216, 275–284. [CrossRef]
6. Barco, J.; Papiri, S.; Stenstrom, M.K. First flush in a combined sewer system. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 827–833.
[CrossRef]
7. Barbosa, A.E.; Fernandes, J.N.; David, L.M. Key issues for sustainable urban stormwater management.
Water Res. 2012, 46, 6787–6798. [CrossRef]
8. Meyer, D.; Molle, P.; Esser, D.; Troesch, S.; Masi, F.; Dittmer, U. Constructed wetlands for combined sewer
overflow treatment-comparison of German, French and Italian approaches. Water 2013, 5, 1–12. [CrossRef]
9. Bach, P.M.; McCarthy, D.T.; Deletic, A. Redefining the stormwater first flush phenomenon. Water Res. 2010,
44, 2487–2498. [CrossRef]
10. Gasperi, J.; Gromairea, M.; Kafia, M.; Moillerona, R.; Chebboa, G. Contributions of wastewater, runoff and
sewer deposit erosion to wet weather pollutant loads in combined sewer systems. Water Res. 2010, 44,
5875–5886. [CrossRef]
11. EC (European Commission). Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy; Official Journal of
the European Community: Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
12. Stefanakis, A.I.; Akratos, C.S.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Vertical Flow Constructed Wet-Lands: Eco-Engineering Systems
for Wastewater and Sludge Treatment, 1st ed.; Elsevier Science: Waltham, MA, USA, 2014.
13. Mander, Ü.; Jenssen, P. Natural Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Cold Climates; Advances in Ecological
Sciences; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2002.
14. Knight, R.L.; Clarke, R.A.; Bastian, R.K. Surface flow (SF) treatment wetlands as a habitat for wildlife and
humans. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 27–37. [CrossRef]
15. Ghermandi, A.; Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.; Brander, L.; De Groot, H.L.F.; Nunes, P.A.L.D. Values of natural and
human-made wetlands: A meta-analysis. Water Resour Res. 2010, 46, 1–12. [CrossRef]
16. Moore, T.L.C.; Hunt, W.F. Predicting the carbon footprint of urban stormwater infrastructure. Ecol. Eng.
2013, 58, 44–51. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 16 of 19

17. Masi, F.; Rizzo, A.; Bresciani, R.; Conte, G. Constructed wetlands for combined sewer overflow treatment:
Ecosystem services at Gorla Maggiore, Italy. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 98, 427–438. [CrossRef]
18. Knight, R.L. Wildlife habitat and public use benefits of treatment wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 35,
35–43. [CrossRef]
19. Sundaravadivel, M.; Vigneswaran, S. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Crit. Rev. Enviorn.
Sci. Technol. 2001, 31, 351–409. [CrossRef]
20. Li, W. A Case Study of Constructed Wetlands Application to Restore Habitats and Treat
Wastewater. Master Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2018.
Available online: http://mlws.landfood.ubc.ca/2018/10/02/a-case-study-of-constructed-wetlands-application-
to-restore-habitats-and-treat-wastewater (accessed on 29 November 2019).
21. Tsihrintzis, V.A.; Hamid, R. Modelling and management of urban stormwater runoff quality: A review. Water
Resour. Manag. 1997, 11, 137–164.
22. Shutes, B.; Revitt, M.; Scholes, L. Constructed Wetlands for Flood Prevention and Water Reuse. In
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Venice,
Italy, 3–6 October 2010.
23. Dou, T.; Troesch, S.; Petitjean, A.; Gabor, P.T.; Esser, D. Wastewater and rainwater management in urban
areas: A role for Constructed Wetlands. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017, 37, 535–541. [CrossRef]
24. Jia, H.; Ma, H.; Wei, M. Urban wetland planning: A case study in the Beijing central region. Ecol. Complex.
2011, 8, 213–221. [CrossRef]
25. Jia, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhen, X.; Clar, M.; Wu, S.L. China’s sponge city construction: A discussion on technical
approaches. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2017, 11. [CrossRef]
26. Stefanakis, A.I.; Prigent, S.; Breuer, R. Integrated produced water management in a desert oilfield using
wetland technology and innovative reuse practices. In Constructed Wetlands for Industrial Wastewater Treatment;
Stefanakis, A.I., Ed.; Ohn Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2018; pp. 25–42.
27. Vymazal, J. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 380,
48–65. [CrossRef]
28. Schwammberger, P.; Walker, C.; Lucke, T. Using Floating Wetland Treatment systems to reduce stormwater
pollution from urban developments. Int. J. GEOMATE 2017, 12, 45–50. [CrossRef]
29. Masi, F. Water reuse and resources recovery: The role of constructed wetlands in the Ecosan approach.
Desalination 2009, 247, 28–35. [CrossRef]
30. Yu, R.; Wu, Q.; Lu, X. Constructed Wetland in a Compact Rural Domestic Wastewater Treatment System for
Nutrient Removal. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2012, 29, 751–757. [CrossRef]
31. Stefanakis, A.I.; Seeger, E.; Dorer, C.; Sinke, A.; Thullner, M. Performance of pilot-scale horizontal subsurface
flow constructed wetlands treating groundwater contaminated with phenols and petroleum derivatives.
Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 514–526. [CrossRef]
32. Ramírez, S.; Torrealba, G.; Lameda-Cuicas, E.; Molina-Quintero, L.; Stefanakis, A.I.; Pire-Sierra, M.C.
Investigation of pilot-scale Constructed Wetlands treating simulated pre-treated tannery wastewater under
tropical climate. Chemosphere 2019, 234, 496–504. [CrossRef]
33. Vohla, C.; Kõiv, M.; Bavor, H.J.; Chazarenc, F.; Mander, Ü. Filter materials for phosphorus removal from
wastewater in treatment wetlands—A review. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 70–89. [CrossRef]
34. Stefanakis, A.I. Constructed Wetlands for Industrial Wastewater Treatment, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.:
Chichester, UK, 2018.
35. Hoffmann, S.J. Planet Water: Investing in the World’s Most Valuable Resource, 1st ed.; John Wiley and Sons:
Waltham, NJ, USA, 2009.
36. Cooper, P. A review of the design and performance of vertical-flow and hybrid reed bed treatment systems.
Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40, 1–9. [CrossRef]
37. Stefanakis, A.I.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Effect of outlet water level raising and effluent recirculation on removal
efficiency of pilot-scale horizontal subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands. Desalination 2009, 248, 961–976.
[CrossRef]
38. Stefanakis, A.I.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Effects of loading, resting period, temperature, porous media, vegetation
and aeration on performance of pilot-scale vertical flow constructed wetlands. Chem. Eng. 2012, 181, 416–430.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 17 of 19

39. Molle, P.; Lienard, A.; Boutin, C.; Merlin, G.; Iwema, A. How to treat raw sewage with constructed wetlands:
An overview of the French systems. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51, 11–21. [CrossRef]
40. Stefanakis, A.I.; Komilis, D.P.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Stability and maturity of thickened wastewater sludge treated
in pilot-scale sludge treatment wetlands. Water Res. 2011, 45, 6441–6452. [CrossRef]
41. Masi, F.; Bresciani, R.; Martinuzzi, N.; Cigarini, G.; Rizzo, A. Constructed Wetland at Orhei’s wastewater
treatment plant, Moldova. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76.1, 134–146. [CrossRef]
42. Boog, J.; Nivala, J.; Aubron, T.; Wallace, S.; Sullivan, C.; Van Afferden, M.; Mueller, R.A. Treatment Wetland
aeration without electricity? Lessons learned from the first experiment using a wind-driven air pump. Water
2016, 8, 502. [CrossRef]
43. Langergraber, G.; Dotro, G.; Nivala, J.; Rizzo, A.; Stein, O.R. Wetland Technology; Practical Information on the
Design and Application of Treatment Wetlands ; Scientific and Technical Report No. 27; IWA Publishing:
London, UK, 2009.
44. Nivala, J.; Headley, T.; Wallace, S.; Bernhard, K.; Brix, H.; Van Afferden, M.; Mueller, R.A. Comparative
analysis of constructed wetlands: The design and construction of the ecotechnology research facility in
Langenreichenbach, Germany. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 527–543. [CrossRef]
45. Stefanakis, A.I.; Bardiau, M.; Silva, D.; Taylor, H. Presence of bacteria and bacteriophages in full-scale
trickling filters and an aerated constructed wetland. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 1135–1145. [CrossRef]
46. Wallace, S.; Liner, M. Design and performance of the wetland treatment system at Buffalo Niagara International
Airport. In Newsletter of the Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control; International
Water Association: London, UK, 2011; Volume 38, pp. 36–42.
47. Stefanakis, A.I.; Prigent, S. A Novel Two-Stage Constructed Wetland with Integrated Sludge Management
and Artificial Aeration to Meet Strict Effluent Quality Standards. In Proceedings of the 16th IWA International
Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Valencia, Spain, 30 September–4 October 2018.
48. Stefanakis, A.I. A two-stage Constructed Wetland design with artificial aeration and sludge mineralization
for municipal wastewater treatment. In Phytoremediation/Bioremediation and Environmental Sustainability,
Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology Series, 1st ed.; Prasad, R., Ed.; Springer Nature: New York, NY,
USA, 2019.
49. Tao, M.; He, F.; Xu, D.; Li, M.; Wu, Z. How artificial aeration improved sewage treatment of an integrated
vertical-flow constructed wetland. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 183–191.
50. Chambers, B. Batch operated activated sludge plant for production of high effluent quality at small works.
Water Sci. Technol. 1993, 28, 251–258. [CrossRef]
51. Von Sperling, M. Comparison among the most frequently used systems for wastewater treatment in
developing countries. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 33, 59–72. [CrossRef]
52. Metcalf & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th ed.; McGraw Hill: New York,
NY, USA, 2014.
53. Van Oirschot, D.; Wallace, S.; Van Deun, R. Wastewater treatment in a compact intensified wetland system
at the Badboot: A floating swimming pool in Belgium. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 12870–12878.
[CrossRef]
54. Stefanakis, A.I. Reedbox: An Innovative Compact, Mobile Constructed Wetland Unit for Wastewater
Treatment. In Proceedings of the Oman Water & Wastewater Conference 2019, Oman Convention &
Exhibition Centre, Muscat, Oman, 22–23 April 2019.
55. Oberndorfer, E.; Lundholm, J.; Bass, B.; Coffman, R.R.; Doshi, H.; Dunnett, N.; Gaffin, S.; Koehler, M.;
Liu, K.K.Y.; Rowe, B. Green Roofs as Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Structures, Functions, and Services.
Bioscience 2007, 57, 823–833. [CrossRef]
56. Song, U.; Kim, E.; Bang, J.H.; Son, D.J.; Waldman, B.; Lee, E.J. Wetlands are an effective green roof system.
Build. Environ. 2013, 66, 141–147. [CrossRef]
57. Naked, A.H.; Vazquez, E.G.; Alves, L.A.; Peçanha, L. Proposal for implementation of green roof project using
the wetland technique. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2019. [CrossRef]
58. Vo, T.D.H.; Bui, X.T.; Lin, C.; Nguyen, V.T.; Hoang, T.K.D.; Nguyen, H.H.; Nguyen, P.D.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.
A mini-review on shallow-bed constructed wetlands: A promising innovative green roof. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sci. Health 2019, 12, 38–47. [CrossRef]
59. UN. Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A General Review; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
60. Kadlec, R.H.; Wallace, S.D. Treatment Wetlands, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 18 of 19

61. Gunes, K.; Tuncsiper, B.; Masi, F.; Ayaz, S.; Leszczynska, D.; Hecan, B.F.; Ahmad, H. Construction and
maintenance cost analyzing of constructed wetland systems. Water Pract. Technol. 2011, 6. [CrossRef]
62. Manino, I.; Franco, D.; Piccioni, E.; Favero, L.; Mattiuzzo, E.; Zanetto, G. A Cost-effectiveness analysis
of seminatural wetlands and activated sludge wastewater-treatment systems. Environ. Manag. 2008, 41,
118–129. [CrossRef]
63. Georges, K.; Thornton, A.; Sadler, R. Transforming Wastewater Treatment to Reduce Carbon Emissions: Resource
Efficiency Programme, Evidence Directorate; Report SC070010/R2; Environmental Agency: Bristol, UK, 2009.
64. Luederitz, V.; Eckert, E.; Lange-Weber, M.; Lange, A.; Gersberg, M.R. Nutrient removal efficiency and
resource economics of vertical flow and horizontal flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2001, 18, 157–171.
[CrossRef]
65. Besancon, A.; Le Corre, K.S.; Dotro, G.; Jefferson, B. Assessment of activated sludge, membrane bioreactors
and vertical flow wetlands for upgrading sewage treatment works. Environ. Technol. 2016. [CrossRef]
66. Elzein, Z.; Abdou, A.; Abd, E.I. Constructed Wetlands as a sustainable wastewater treatment method in
communities. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 34, 605–617. [CrossRef]
67. Stefanakis, A.I.; Charalampopoulos, I.; Psomiadis, E.; Prigent, S. The Thermal Regime of a Large Constructed
Wetland in the Desert Environment. In Proceedings of the 16th IWA International Conference on Wetland
Systems for Water Pollution Control, Valencia, Spain, 30 September–4 October 2018.
68. Boyer, T.; Polasky, S. Valuing urban wetlands: A review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 2004, 24,
744–755. [CrossRef]
69. Dallimer, M.; Irvine, K.N.; Skinner, A.M.J.; Davies, Z.G.; Rouquette, J.R.; Maltby, L.L.; Warren, P.H.;
Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between
self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 2012, 62, 47–55. [CrossRef]
70. Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What are the benefits of interacting with Nature? Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2003, 10, 913–935. [CrossRef]
71. McGrane, S.J. Impacts of urbanisation on hydrological and water quality dynamics, and urban water
management: A review. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2016, 61, 2295–2311. [CrossRef]
72. Zölch, T.; Henze, L.; Keilholz, P.; Pauleit, S. Regulating urban surface runoff through nature-based solutions
—An assessment at the micro-scale. Environ. Res. 2017, 157, 135–144. [CrossRef]
73. Schueler, T.R. Performance of grassed swales along east coast highways. Watershed Prot. Tech. 1994, 1,
122–123.
74. Tao, W.; Bays, J.S.; Meyer, D.; Smardon, R.C.; Levy, Z.F. Constructed Wetlands for Treatment of Combined
Sewer Overflow in the US: A Review of Design Challenges and Application Status. Water 2014, 6, 3362–3385.
[CrossRef]
75. Kadlec, R.H. The Houghton Lake wetland treatment project. Wastewater treatment at the Houghton Lake
Wetland: Hydrology and Water Quality. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 1287–1311. [CrossRef]
76. Peters, D.P.C.; Groffman, P.M.; Nadelhoffer, K.J.; Grimm, N.B.; Collins, S.L.; Michener, W.K.; Huston, M.A.
Living in an Increasingly Connected World: A Framework for Continental-scale Environmental Science.
Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 229–237. [CrossRef]
77. Dittmer, U.; Meyer, D.; Langergraber, G. Simulation of a subsurface vertical flow constructed wetland for
CSO treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51, 225–232. [CrossRef]
78. DWA. Empfehlungen für Planung, Konstruktion und Betrieb von Retentionsboden-Filteranlagen zur Weitergehenden
Regenwasserbehandlung im Misch- und Trennverfahren (Recommendations for Planning, Construction and Operation
of Retention Soil Filters for Rainwater Treatment in Mixed and Separated Sewer Systems); Deutsche Vereinigung
für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall e.V. (DWA): Hennef, Germany, 2005.
79. Tondera, K. Case study 1—CSO Treatment Wetland (Germany). In Wetland Technology, Practical Information
on the Design and Application of Treatment Wetlands, 1st ed.; Langergraber, G., Dotro, G., Nivala, J., Rizzo, A.,
Stein, O.R., Eds.; Scientific and Technical Report No. 27; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2009; p. 129.
80. Green, M.B.; Martin, J.R.; Griffin, P. Treatment of combined sewer overflows at small wastewater treatment
works by constructed reed beds. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40, 357–364. [CrossRef]
81. Ávila, C.; Salas, J.J.; Martín, I.; Aragón, C.; García, J. Integrated treatment of combined sewer wastewater and
stormwater in a hybrid constructed wetland system in southern Spain and its further reuse. Ecol. Eng. 2013,
50, 13–20. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 6981 19 of 19

82. CRCWSC. Orange Stormwater to Potable: Building Urban Water Supply Diversity; Cooperative Research Centre
for Water Sensitive Cities: Clayton, Australia, 2018; Available online: www.watersensitivecities.org.au
(accessed on 1 December 2019).
83. Walker, C.; Tondera, K.; Lucke, T. Stormwater treatment evaluation of a Constructed Floating Wetland after
two years operation in an urban catchment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1687. [CrossRef]
84. Xu, B.; Wang, X.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.; Zhao, Y.; Cao, W. Improving urban stormwater runoff quality by nutrient
removal through Floating Treatment Wetlands and vegetation harvest. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7000. [CrossRef]
85. Salminen, O.; Ahponen, H.; Valkama, P.; Vessman, T.; Rantakokko, K.; Vaahtera, E.; Taylor, A.; Vasander, H.;
Nikinmaa, E. Benefits of Green Infrastructure—Socio-Economic Importance of Constructed Urban Wetlands
(Nummela, Finland). In Socio-Economic Importance of Ecosystem Services in the Nordic Countries—Synthesis in
the Context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB); Kettunen, M., Vihervaara, P., Kinnunen, S.,
D’Amato, D., Badura, T., Argimon, N., Brink, P.T., Eds.; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark,
2012; pp. 247–254.
86. American Society of Landscape Architects. Green Infrastructure: Constructed Wetlands. Available online:
https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=43537 (accessed on 29 October 2019).
87. Economides, C. Green Infrastructure: Sustainable Solutions in 11 Cities across the United States; Columbia
University Water Centre: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
88. Gorito, A.M.; Ribeiro, A.R.; Almeida, C.M.R.; Silva, A.M.T. A review on the application of constructed
wetlands for the removal of priority substances and contaminants of emerging concern listed in recently
launched EU legislation. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 227, 428–443. [CrossRef]
89. Ávila, C.; Bayona, J.M.; Martin, I.; Salas, J.J.; Garcia, J. Emerging organic contaminant removal in a full-scale
hybrid constructed wetland system for wastewater treatment and reuse. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 80, 108–116.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).