Community Governance Performance of Nature-Based Solutions for Sustainable Urban Stormwater Management in Sub-Saharan Africa

Abstract

The expansion of cities in Sub-Saharan Africa has led to an increase in impervious surfaces, intensifying stormwater management challenges, especially in informal settlements situated in ecologically sensitive areas like wetlands. This urban growth has heightened flood risks and negatively impacted biodiversity, water quality, and socio-economic conditions, particularly during extreme weather events intensified by climate change. Nature-Based Solutions (NbSs), including Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs), offer sustainable strategies for managing stormwater and mitigating these adverse effects. However, the success of such solutions relies not only on their technical implementation but also on the social and institutional contexts within urban communities. Community-level governance is crucial in integrating NbSs into urban stormwater management frameworks. This research evaluates how community governance of NbSs, specifically SUDSs, can enhance stormwater management and flood resilience in Kampala, Uganda. Using an assessment framework grounded in the Policy Arrangement Approach (PAA)—which considers discourses, actors, resources, and rules of engagement—this study incorporates structural, social, and political factors that influence SUDS community governance performance. Concentrating on the Sembule zones within the Nalukolongo catchment area, this research investigates the impact of community governance dynamics on SUDS implementation. This study examines key aspects such as community engagement, resource management, and regulatory frameworks to assess the effectiveness of these initiatives, providing valuable insights for advancing nature-based urban stormwater management.

1. Introduction

Rapid urbanization in Sub-Saharan African cities frequently leads to inadequate infrastructure planning, increasing impervious surfaces, particularly in ecologically sensitive areas like wetlands [1,2,3]. This urban expansion exacerbates challenges in managing stormwater, heightening the risk of flooding, and impacting socio-economic factors, water quality, and biodiversity, especially during extreme weather events associated with climate change [4,5].

Acknowledging these challenges, sustainable urban planning is gaining traction, with a focus on integrating Nature-Based Solutions (NbSs) like Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs) into stormwater management systems. These systems leverage natural processes or mimic them through engineered structures, playing a pivotal role in improving stormwater management [6,7,8]. Increasingly, such strategies are recognized as essential for enhancing urban resilience against environmental pressures, particularly flooding, brought about by climate change.

However, beyond deployment, the effective functioning of SUDSs as NbSs to enhance flood resilience requires consideration beyond mere technical aspects. It underscores the critical role of social and institutional contexts in their implementation [7,9,10]. Factors such as social engagement, resource mobilization, local management structures, regulatory frameworks, and cultural attitudes significantly influence the adoption, maintenance, and integration of these solutions within local and broader urban planning frameworks. Consequently, community-level governance emerges as a critical determinant of the success and sustainability of NbSs like SUDSs.

Community governance is vital for ensuring the effective implementation, maintenance, and adaptation of SUDSs to local conditions [10,11]. Effective community governance fosters ownership, accountability, and stewardship among residents, while participatory methods, a characteristic of community governance, help integrate local knowledge and social perspectives into SUDS designs. This approach not only enhances resilience but also promotes sustainable flood management practices that empower local populations [7,12].

In Sub-Saharan Africa, studies have explored the intersection of governance structures, NbSs, and urban stormwater management, revealing both challenges and opportunities. Wilkinson et al. (2013) [13] highlight that fragmented and weak governance systems complicate the implementation of sustainable solutions. Douglas (2016) [14] notes that a lack of coordination across different governance scales—such as municipal plans, NGO projects, and community actions—hinders effective stormwater management. Lindell (2008) [14] suggests that the diversity of governance actors in Sub-Saharan cities allows for experimentation with new approaches like NbSs. Pelling and Leck (2018) [15] advocate for the development of multi-level governance systems where civil society and local governments collaborate to manage risks and build resilience. For SUDSs, Hamann and April (2013) [16] recommend sub-city-level implementation, while Mguni et al. (2016) [7] stress the importance of integrating SUDSs into local governance frameworks to demonstrate their effectiveness in informal settlements, which can help scale solutions to larger areas [11,17].

Despite these insights, there is a significant research gap in comprehensively assessing community governance performance specifically related to SUDSs. Addressing this gap is essential for identifying strengths and weaknesses and guiding improvements. Such an assessment aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by promoting governance strategies that foster collective action, ensure accountability, and balance various SDG objectives.

To address the identified research gap, this manuscript pursues two interrelated objectives. The first is to assess the performance of community governance in the implementation and maintenance of SUDSs as NbSs for urban stormwater management in Sub-Saharan African cities, with Kampala serving as a representative case study. To accomplish this, the second objective involves testing and evaluating the effectiveness of an assessment framework developed by Muwafu, Rolfer, Scheffran, and Manez Costa (2024) [18] for measuring the community governance performance of SUDSs.

To understand the conditions for successful SUDS implementation and address the research objectives, the community governance landscape was evaluated across several dimensions: social structure, engagement processes, local resource management strategies, regulatory frameworks, and cultural attitudes.

2. Study Area

The assessment was conducted in Nalukolongo, a catchment area within Kampala City, Uganda. This location exemplifies the urban flooding challenges faced by this rapidly growing East African city. Such challenges are typical of many urbanizing Sub-Saharan cities, which often grapple with infrastructure and environmental issues [19].

As part of the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA), Kampala has a population of approximately 3.6 million as of 2021 and an annual growth rate of 5.6%, making it one of Africa’s fastest-growing cities [20]. This rapid urbanization has led to significant issues, including inadequate infrastructure, environmental degradation, and complex land ownership. Kampala’s rapid development has increased impermeable surfaces and reduced water infiltration, leading to higher runoff volumes [21].

Unclear wetland boundaries and outdated drainage systems such as those depicted in Figure 1 further complicate stormwater management, resulting in frequent flash floods that threaten vulnerable communities, cause economic losses, damage assets, and disrupt business operations in areas like Nalukolongo [22].

Residents in these flood-prone areas often resort to makeshift strategies, such as raising ground around dwellings and constructing protective barriers, due to limited financial resources for flood mitigation. These challenges highlight systemic discrepancies in resource allocation, perpetuating inequality and marginalizing urban poor populations [21]. In response, the Greater Kampala Integrated Flood Resilience Partnership—a coalition initiated in 2021, including stakeholders from the public sector (Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala Capital City Authority), international organizations (GIZ), local NGOs (ACTogether Uganda, Kampala, Uganda), and civil society (community groups, local leaders)—has initiated sustainable urban drainage projects in Nalukolongo [23].

The partnership focuses on implementing nature-based blue–green infrastructure solutions to improve stormwater management and enhance flood resilience. Key initiatives involve restoring vegetation along drainage channels, installing rainwater harvesting systems, replanting slopes, and fostering behavioral change by training local leaders and “flood champions” to advocate for effective stormwater management.

These NbSs and community engagement efforts offer cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternatives for stormwater management and subsequent flood mitigation, providing multiple co-benefits to the community. This study’s assessment aimed to evaluate the community governance of these sustainable urban drainage projects in Nalukolongo. It examined how local social dynamics influence behavioral change and stakeholder empowerment in flood mitigation strategies, assessing the performance of community-led management approaches. It also focused on how inclusive and collaborative methods in planning, investing, and managing these NbSs impact their long-term viability and contribution to community resilience.

Through this evaluation, this study aimed to provide insights into the successes and challenges of community-governed Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in Nalukolongo. These findings are crucial for understanding how such approaches can be optimized and potentially scaled up to address similar challenges in other rapidly urbanizing regions, underscoring the importance of integrated, community-driven approaches to urban development and climate resilience.

3. Materials and Methods

In this study, community governance is conceptualized as an intricate combination of rules, processes, and structures within a locality that facilitate self-organization, deliberation, decision-making, and the pursuit of preferred objectives and outcomes. This governance paradigm encompasses both formalized and informal mechanisms through which community stakeholders engage in decision-making processes, resource allocation, and the resolution of collective issues [24]. Community governance typically operates within broader institutional and policy-making contexts, navigating the dual challenges of contesting established processes or integrating into existing systems to achieve sustainable outcomes [25,26,27].

The assessment approach employed in this study adopts and applies an innovative and comprehensive framework developed by Muwafu et al. [18]. This framework adapts the Policy Arrangement Approach, a meso-level theory from environmental policy studies, to the unique socio-ecological dynamics of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs) as NbSs. Customization is achieved by incorporating criteria that address the ecological, social, and governance aspects of NbSs, such as ecosystem services and adaptive management practices.

The adapted framework synthesizes concepts from complementary theories, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions shaping SUDS governance and implementation as NbSs in decentralized, community-driven urban stormwater management contexts. Its strength lies in systematically addressing the multifaceted objectives that underpin successful community-led implementation of SUDS initiatives. The framework delineates 20 determinants across four interrelated dimensions: discourses, actors, resources, and rules of engagement, integrating structural, social, and political factors that characterize the complex landscape of community governance in the context of SUDSs [18].

This multidimensional lens aligns with this study’s conceptualization of community governance dynamics, facilitating a comprehensive and holistic analysis of the socio-governance factors shaping SUDS implementation at the community level.

3.1. Characteristics of the Assessment Approach

This assessment utilizes a framework based on the Policy Arrangement Approach (PAA), incorporating discourses, actors, resources, and rules of engagement to provide a thorough evaluation of community governance in Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs). Its inclusiveness is evident through a diverse range of indicators that cover both social and institutional dimensions, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of community governance performance and its effectiveness in improving SUDS outcomes within the community.

3.2. The Foundation of the Assessment Framework

The “actors” dimension of the assessment framework maps the diverse array of stakeholders, from community members to urban professionals and civil society organizations, whose participation is crucial for fostering inclusive and sustained engagement. This directly aligns with this study’s objective of assessing the impact of social engagement on the success and maintenance of SUDS projects.

The “resources” dimension goes beyond technical considerations, integrating the varied knowledge, skills, and priorities across sectors and disciplines. This comprehensive assessment of financial, human, and technical resources within the community enables the identification of gaps and optimization strategies, addressing the objective of examining resource mobilization and allocation for SUDS implementation [18].

The “discourses” dimension delves into the narratives, attitudes, and sectoral viewpoints surrounding SUDSs and NbSs, capturing the cultural underpinnings that influence community engagement, stewardship, and the adoption of these NbSs. This dimension directly addresses this study’s objective of understanding cultural attitudes towards stormwater water management and their impact on community participation.

Finally, the “rules of engagement” dimension evaluates the formal and informal norms, regulations, and boundary management mechanisms that govern stakeholder interactions and policy implementation related to SUDSs. This critical analysis of the regulatory and policy frameworks aligns with our objective of identifying enabling or constraining factors for the deployment of SUDS initiatives [18].

3.3. Inclusive Indicators

The assessment framework utilizes a comprehensive set of indicators whose valuation can be customized to suit the specific context of the study area. These indicators span across the four dimensions of the framework: discourses, actors, resources, and rules of engagement. The indicators serve a dual purpose: first, they facilitate the identification of critical issues within each dimension, and second, they enable the measurement of the performance and effectiveness of these dimensions in shaping the community governance of SUDS initiatives [18]. This approach aligns with the growing body of literature that emphasizes the value of indicator-based assessments in evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, and overall resilience of governance systems and institutions in the face of climate change adaptation challenges [28].

Close collaboration with stakeholders ensures the selection of contextually relevant indicators. This approach enhances the relevance and legitimacy of the holistic evaluation, enabling the assessment of sustainable and viable SUDS implementation strategies that are tailored to local contexts and priorities.

3.4. Implementation Phase

In the implementation phase, the assessment framework is rigorously applied to evaluate community governance performance in SUDSs. This phase involves a detailed stakeholder analysis and selection process to identify and engage key actors, thereby improving the relevance and accuracy of the findings. Additionally, a participatory approach to data and information collection is employed, actively involving community members and stakeholders to ensure comprehensive and representative input.

3.5. Application of the Framework

The application of the framework adhered to a structured process, as illustrated in Figure 2. It commenced with a stakeholder analysis approach to identify key stakeholders and relevant information sources, followed by comprehensive data collection through a participatory approach. Subsequently, an iterative data analysis process was employed to extract meaningful insights. This methodical approach ensured a thorough and nuanced understanding of community governance dynamics.

3.6. Participatory Approach to Data and Information Collection

Community governance of environmental issues is characterized by its emphasis on participation and relevance to the affected people. It recognizes that the collaboration and support of those impacted are crucial for the successful implementation of interventions [19]. Involving community members and local institutions in defining the issues and selecting solutions makes them more likely to comply with the resulting management program, as it aligns with their values, needs, and beliefs about how their society should function. This participatory approach helps community members see the program as a cohesive whole [29].

Guided by this understanding, the assessment process utilized a structured participatory methodology to collect data and information. This involved a thorough stakeholder analysis and the active engagement of community members, local organizations, and other stakeholders through workshops, interviews, and consultations. The participatory approach is academically justified, as it provides insights into local contexts and fosters collaboration between experts and local participants [29].

Key aspects of the participatory approach included involving a wide array of stakeholders to ensure equitable representation, collaboration, and transparency. This approach offered several benefits, such as enhanced community support, contextual insights, and the promotion of empowerment and respect for all community members during the assessment process.

3.7. Stakeholder Analysis and Selection

To facilitate the participatory approach, a thorough stakeholder analysis was conducted to identify key groups, individuals, and organizations involved in or affected by the implementation of SUDS projects in Nalukolongo. This process aimed to enhance the accuracy of assessing community governance approaches by including relevant stakeholders [30].

The stakeholder analysis process involves systematic and transparent criteria to comprehensively identify and engage crucial stakeholders. These criteria included direct relevance to SUDS projects, gender inclusion, influence and power, beneficiary status, geographical proximity, diverse perspectives, legitimacy, willingness to engage, and avoiding biases. This approach aligns with best practices in stakeholder analysis for environmental management [31].

Ultimately, 24 stakeholders were identified from diverse backgrounds as illustrated in

Table 1. Overview of stakeholder groups, number per group, and selection rationale.

Stakeholder Group	Number	Attributes/Roles
Community Leaders	3	Have deep local knowledge and influence
Educators	4	Provide insights on how flooding impacts schools and education
Civil Society Professionals	3	Have technical expertise in local urban flood planning and environmental management
Government Agencies	2	Formal sector representatives involved in flood management and policymaking
Representatives from Community Formal and Informal Sectors	12	Included established community business owners, small-scale community traders, and community organizations

, representing a broad cross-section of the community affected by or involved in SUDS projects in Nalukolongo. This diverse group included 3 community leaders, 4 educators, 3 civil society professionals, 2 government agency representatives, and 12 representatives from community formal and informal sectors. The research design intentionally incorporated a higher proportion of local community members to comprehensively capture indigenous knowledge and perspectives, crucial for evaluating the multifaceted dimensions of SUDS governance under community governance [18]. By including stakeholders from both formal and informal sectors, the analysis aimed to bridge potential gaps between official planning processes and on-the-ground realities [30].

This varied composition ensured a wide range of perspectives and experiences were captured, from grassroots community concerns to technical and policy considerations. While this stakeholder analysis approach was comprehensive, it is important to acknowledge potential limitations, such as the possibility of overlooking hidden or marginalized stakeholders. Future iterations of this assessment could explore innovative methods for identifying and engaging these harder-to-reach groups.

The identified stakeholders attended a three-hour workshop conducted in Nalukolongo. During the workshop, participants completed questionnaires, with translation assistance provided by ACTogether Uganda staff for community members with limited English proficiency, ensuring linguistic inclusivity and data integrity.

To develop the questionnaire, selected indicators were transformed into a list of questions guiding data collection for each indicator. These questions were assigned units of measure and characterized as binary, ordinal, or cardinal. The performance of these indicators was defined by the capacities of different individuals to engage with various elements or processes involved in the management of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs) in the community and their impacts on stormwater management. In adherence to ethical research practices and data protection standards, participants received informed consent forms and were given the option to remain anonymous in their responses.

3.8. Data Assessment and Analysis

The data analysis for community governance of NbSs (SUDSs) for urban stormwater management in Nalukolongo involved a systematic assessment of the qualitative interview data using predefined criteria and scores as illustrated in

Table 2. Assessed determinants per dimension, evaluated indicators, and applied metrics [18].

DIMENSION	Determinant	Evaluated Indicator	Metric
ACTORS	Community leadership and allocation of responsibility.	○ Precise definitions of objectives and goals.	Yes/No
	Community innovation.	○ The extent to which local knowledge and resources are applied.	Low/Moderate/High
	Technical skills and competencies.	○ Level of community understanding regarding the technical dimensions of stormwater management.	1 to 5
	Private stakeholder involvement.	○ Private sector financial contribution to SUDS initiatives.	Low/Moderate/High
	Academia involvement.	○ Availability of SUDS community training programs and events led by academic institutions.	Yes/No
		○ Level of involvement and collaboration between academic experts, institutions, and local community organizations on SUDS projects.	1 to 5
RESOURCES	Community priorities for funding from both public and private sources.	○ Criteria used for evaluating and prioritizing community SUDS projects, such as impact, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness.	Low/Moderate/High (fair)
	Community financial incentives.	○ Amount of funding allocated to SUDS programs.	Low/Moderate/High
	Priorities for land use and development by both public and private entities.	○ Level of collaboration between public and private entities in land use planning and SUDS implementation.	1 to 5
	Human resources.	○ Availability of SUDS-related training and education programs for community members.	Yes/No
	Knowledge of SUDSs.	○ Level of community awareness and understanding of the benefits of SUDSs.	1 to 5
DISCOURSES	Management strategies and planning processes.	○ The scale of allocation of resources to support SUDS implementation and management.	1 to 5
	Environment regeneration and protection.	○ Community knowledge of SUDSs’ environmental benefits for regeneration and protection.	Low/Moderate/High
	Knowledge of NbS ecosystem services.	○ Community knowledge of SUDS ecosystem services.	Low/Moderate/High
	Community participation.	○ Community ownership, engagement, and management of SUDS infrastructure and projects.	Low/Moderate/High
	Communication and information dissemination.	○ Effectiveness of feedback mechanisms in assessing stakeholder perception of SUDSs.	Low/Moderate/High
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT	Regulatory frameworks and legislative support	○ Existence and comprehensiveness of SUDS-related laws and policies at the national and local levels.	Yes/No
	Cultural norms, values, and local languages.	○ Respect cultural values related to water/land use in SUDS decisions.	Yes/No
	Quality and reliability of community politics and power dynamics.	○ Level of transparency and accountability in community decision-making processes.	1 to 5
	Equitable treatment of all partners.	○ Level of equitable distribution of SUDS benefits/costs for all stakeholders.	1 to 5
	Gender roles and considerations.	○ Level of women’s participation/representation and gender-specific needs in SUDSs.	1 to 5
		○ Level of stakeholders’ awareness of gender issues in SUDS governance.	1 to 5
		○ The scale of implementation of policies/mechanisms for gender equality in SUDS governance.	1 to 5

. Summaries for each indicator, determinant, and dimension were linked to these scores, facilitating the categorization of results. To present the data clearly and accessibly, a color-coded system was employed, with different colors indicating varying levels of performance based on the established performance criteria. This approach enabled a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of governance performance in Nalukolongo, effectively capturing and communicating both common themes and unique insights from the qualitative data.

4. Results

The assessment results aim to identify significant commonalities and divergences in the indicators and determinants that constitute the dimensions of community governance, drawing insights from diverse questionnaire responses. This analysis enhances understanding of community governance dynamics in the context of SUDSs (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for urban stormwater management in Nalukolongo, Kampala. By pinpointing these patterns, the assessment also underscores the framework’s applicability and utility in enhancing the nuanced understanding of community governance practices in SUDS design and management for stormwater management.

Additionally, the assessment addresses key objectives such as evaluating the impact of social engagement on the success and maintenance of SUDS projects, analyzing the mobilization and allocation of financial, human, and technical resources for SUDS implementation at the community level, assessing regulatory and policy frameworks that either facilitate or hinder SUDSs effectiveness and understanding cultural attitudes toward water management and NbSs. These insights are crucial for informing strategies and interventions aimed at enhancing governance practices and effectively meeting specific community needs.

The color-coded representation of the assessment results in

Table 3. Heat map representation of the evaluated state of affairs in the specific case study.

Evaluated Indicator	Performance
	Low	Moderate	High
Precise definitions of objectives and goals	8		16
The extent to which local knowledge and resources are applied	2		22
Level of community understanding of technical dimensions of stormwater management	1	20	3
Private sector financial contribution to SUDS initiatives	14	9	1
Availability of SUDS community training programs and events	11		13
Level of involvement and collaboration between academic experts, institutions, and local organizations on SUDS projects	14	3	7
Criteria for evaluating and prioritizing community SUDS projects	16	2	6
Amount of funding allocated to SUDS programs	14	3	7
Level of collaboration between public and private entities in land use planning and SUDS implementation	10	2	12
Availability of SUDS-related training and education programs for community members	8		16
Level of community awareness and understanding of SUDS benefits	5	3	16
Scale of resource allocation to support SUDS implementation and management	12	4	8
Community knowledge of SUDSs’ environmental benefits for regeneration and protection	16	4	4
Community knowledge of SUDS ecosystem services	16	3	5
Community ownership, engagement, and management of SUDS infrastructure and projects	4	17	3
Effectiveness of feedback mechanisms in assessing stakeholder perception of SUDSs	9	8	7
Existence and comprehensiveness of SUDS-related laws and policies	14		10
Respect for cultural values related to water/land use in SUDS decisions	7	3	14
Level of transparency and accountability in community decision-making processes	12	6	6
Level of equitable distribution of SUDS benefits/costs for all stakeholders	12	1	11
Level of women’s participation/representation and gender-specific needs in SUDSs	2	6	16
Level of stakeholders’ awareness of gender issues in SUDS governance	1	6	17
Scale of implementation of policies/mechanisms for gender equality in SUDS governance	1	5	16

and Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 below illustrates the evaluated state of affairs in the specific case study area. It highlights the prevailing responses for each indicator, providing insights into their influence on the overall performance of the assessment. This approach offers a clear depiction of how the indicators relate to the four key dimensions of the governance assessment framework, helping to identify the factors that impact the area’s community governance performance. Additionally, acknowledging the interconnected nature of these dimensions within the community governance of SUDSs underscores that changes in one dimension can invariably impact other dimensions [18]. To unravel potential interdependencies and synergies, the combined performance of determinants across various dimensions of the framework is analyzed and also presented in Figure 7.

The assessment of resource allocation within the governance framework for SUDSs in the community of Nalukolongo, as shown in Figure 3, reveals a complex mix of strengths and weaknesses, as indicated by the number of respondents. Stakeholder knowledge regarding the benefits of SUDSs emerges as a significant strength, with 16 respondents rating it as “high”, 3 as “moderate”, and only 5 as “low”. This reflects the effectiveness of local training initiatives in building awareness. Similarly, human resource capacity shows a positive outlook, with 16 respondents rating it “high” and 8 rating it “low”, indicating the presence of skilled personnel, although training programs could still be further prioritized.

Community priorities for integrating SUDSs into land use and development planning reveal a polarized distribution, with 12 respondents rating this determinant “high” and 10 rating it “low”. This suggests inconsistent approaches among both public and private entities.

However, the most significant weaknesses lie in the financial aspects. Sixteen respondents rated the provision of funding from both public and private sources as “low”, with only six giving it a “high” rating, reflecting a clear lack of financial support. Similarly, financial incentives for SUDSs adoption were rated “low” by 14 respondents, “moderate” by 3, and “high” by 7, indicating inadequate provision of incentives.

In summary, while knowledge of SUDSs and human resources are strengths, the findings highlight a critical need for improved financial support, both in terms of incentives and equitable, impact-based funding allocation, to ensure the effective implementation and maintenance of SUDSs within the community.

The evaluation of the “rules of engagement” dimension within the community governance of SUDSs in Nalukolongo, as shown in Figure 4, reveals a mix of strengths and weaknesses, as indicated by the respondents. Gender roles and considerations stand out as a strength, with 16 respondents rating this determinant as “high”, 6 as “moderate”, and only 2 as “low”. Cultural norms, values, and local languages also receive a high level of prioritization, with 14 respondents rating this determinant “high”, 3 as “moderate”, and 7 as “low”, suggesting strong cultural sensitivity within the community. However, the equitable treatment of partners presents more polarized outcomes. While 11 respondents rated it as “high”, 12 rated it as “low”, and only 1 as “moderate”, indicating potential barriers to fair collaboration. Similarly, community politics and power dynamics demonstrate mixed results, with 12 respondents rating it as “low”, 6 as “moderate”, and 6 as “high”, pointing to issues in the quality and reliability of governance structures.

Regulatory frameworks and legislative support emerge as the most significant weakness, with 14 respondents rating this determinant as “low” and 10 as “high”. This highlights the urgent need for a more robust legal and regulatory foundation to effectively support SUDS initiatives. In summary, while gender considerations and cultural norms are generally well addressed, challenges remain in ensuring equitable treatment, reliable governance, and a stronger regulatory framework to facilitate SUDS implementation.

The “actors” dimension in the community governance of SUDSs in Nalukolongo highlights strong community leadership and innovation, as reflected by the number of respondents. As shown in Figure 5, community leadership, particularly in defining SUDS objectives and allocating responsibility, shows a high level of involvement, with 16 respondents rating it as “high” and 8 as “low”. Community innovation is rated even more positively, with 22 respondents indicating “high” and only 2 marking it as “low”, underscoring the community’s strength in this area.

However, the level of technical skills and competencies among stakeholders presents a mixed picture. Twenty respondents rated it as “moderate”, while only three rated it as “high” and one as “low”, signaling a need for enhanced technical expertise. Private stakeholder involvement is notably lacking, with 14 respondents rating it as “low”, 9 as “moderate”, and just 1 as “high”. Similarly, academic involvement also shows room for improvement, with 14 respondents rating it as “low”, 3 as “moderate”, and 7 as “high”. Overall, while community leadership and innovation excel, there is a clear need to improve technical skills, private sector engagement, and academic involvement for more comprehensive SUDS implementation.

The assessment of the “discourses” dimension reveals a wide range of performance and engagement outcomes, as indicated by the data on respondents. The analysis, as shown in Figure 6 below, indicates that management strategies and planning processes exhibit varied performance, with 12 respondents rating this determinant as “low”, 4 as “moderate”, and 8 as “high”. This highlights significant opportunities for improvement in this area.

In terms of environmental regeneration and protection, the results are more concerning. Sixteen respondents rated this aspect as “low”, while only four rated it “moderate” and four as “high”, underscoring critical deficiencies and a need for greater focus and investment in these efforts. Similarly, knowledge of Nature-Based Solutions (NbSs) ecosystem services was rated as “low” by 16 respondents, with only 3 rating it “moderate” and 5 “high”, highlighting a pressing need for improved education and awareness within the community.

Community participation, while rated “low” by 4 respondents, was assessed as “moderate” by 17 respondents, with only 3 giving it a “high” rating. This suggests a baseline of engagement but also emphasizes the potential for increased active involvement. Communication and information dissemination followed a similar pattern, with 9 respondents rating this determinant as “low”, 8 as “moderate”, and 7 as “high”, pointing to varied effectiveness and an opportunity for improvement in information sharing.

In conclusion, the findings stress the necessity of enhancing environmental protection measures, improving understanding of ecosystem services provided by NbSs, and refining management strategies. While community participation and communication efforts are at a moderate level, the data indicate substantial potential for boosting active involvement and optimizing the effectiveness of information dissemination strategies.

Combination of All the Dimensions

The combined performance across all the determinants within each dimension reveals varying performances as shown in Figure 7 below. Overall, the rules of engagement and resources dimensions show the most positive performance, albeit with significant negative aspects as well. The actors dimension demonstrates a more balanced perception, while the discourses dimension indicates an area of concern with its predominantly negative performance. This assessment suggests that while there are strengths in the regulatory framework and resource allocation for SUDSs, there is a critical need to improve communication and public engagement strategies. The balanced performance in the actors dimension might provide a foundation for addressing these challenges.

Figure 7. Combined performance within and across dimensions.

Figure 7. Combined performance within and across dimensions.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to address a notable research gap by providing a comprehensive evaluation of community governance performance in the implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs) as Nature-Based Solutions (NbSs) for urban stormwater management, with a focus on Kampala as a representative case study for Sub-Saharan cities. This study’s findings underscore the significance of adopting effective governance frameworks to tackle the multifaceted challenges of rapid urbanization and climate change, issues that are prevalent across many urban centers in Sub-Saharan Africa.

5.1. Understanding Community Governance for SUDSs

This study’s analysis reveals a complex landscape of strengths and weaknesses within the community governance structures supporting SUDS initiatives in Nalukolongo. A notable strength is the high level of stakeholder knowledge regarding the benefits of SUDSs, attributable to effective local training programs. This finding supports existing literature that emphasizes the role of community education in fostering support for environmental initiatives [32]. However, challenges persist, particularly in human resource capacity and financial support. While there is a broad understanding of SUDS benefits, gaps in technical expertise, insufficient financial incentives, and equitable funding mechanisms remain significant barriers to the successful implementation and maintenance of SUDSs at the community level. These issues reflect broader challenges observed in Sub-Saharan cities, where limited resources often undermine the effectiveness of environmental solutions [33].

5.2. Social Engagement and Community Leadership

This study’s examination of social engagement within SUDS projects reveals moderate community participation. Although community members are involved in SUDS initiatives, the effectiveness of management strategies and planning processes is inconsistent, indicating a need for more effective management frameworks and enhanced environmental protection efforts. This finding echoes the observations of Cilliers (2018) [34] and Lindell (2008) [14] who emphasize that improved management strategies are crucial for the success of environmental projects. Furthermore, while community leadership in Nalukolongo is generally strong, there is a marked absence of engagement from the private sector and academic institutions. This gap suggests that greater involvement from these sectors could provide additional support and innovation for SUDS initiatives, a challenge common in urban environmental management [28].

5.3. Regulatory Frameworks and Cultural Attitudes

The assessment of regulatory frameworks for SUDSs reveals that existing legal and legislative support is weak, indicating a significant area for improvement. A more robust regulatory and legal framework is essential for the effective deployment of SUDSs, as highlighted by Mulligan et al. (2020) [11], who argue that strong regulatory support is crucial for the success of urban environmental solutions. Additionally, while cultural attitudes towards water management and NbSs are generally positive, there are challenges related to community politics and a lack of awareness about NbSs ecosystem services. These findings align with previous studies that discuss and emphasize the role of cultural norms and political dynamics in shaping environmental management outcomes.

5.4. Ensuring Credibility: Approach and Methodology

The credibility of this study’s findings was a primary concern, given the complex nature of community governance and the intricate interplay of structures, rules, processes, and cultural norms. To ensure the credibility of this research, several rigorous methodologies were employed. This study selected inclusive and representative indicators to ensure that the framework’s dimensions accurately reflected the diverse aspects of community governance. A thorough stakeholder analysis was conducted to identify and incorporate a wide range of perspectives, which is essential for capturing the complexities of community governance [31]. Additionally, a participatory approach was adopted to engage community members throughout the assessment process, fostering trust and ensuring that the findings were both reliable and relevant to stakeholders. This approach is consistent with best practices in environmental management research.

5.5. Applicability of the Assessment Framework

The application of the assessment framework grounded in the Policy Arrangement Approach and encompassing the dimensions of actors, resources, rules, and discourses proved to be a comprehensive and effective tool for evaluating community governance of SUDSs. The framework’s thorough and adaptable nature allowed for a detailed description of the local implementation landscape and provided a foundation for ongoing evaluations of community governance effectiveness. This supports the framework’s potential for broader application in other urban contexts.

5.6. Recommendations for Future Research and Practice

Based on this study’s findings, several recommendations emerge for both practice and future research. Practitioners should focus on enhancing financial mechanisms and creating more equitable funding structures for SUDS initiatives. Strengthening regulatory frameworks and addressing community politics are essential for creating a supportive environment for SUDS implementation. Additionally, increasing private sector and academic engagement could provide necessary technical support and innovation for SUDS projects. Future research should explore these dimensions further and refine the assessment framework for application in diverse urban environments.

6. Conclusions

In this study, we applied a novel approach to assess the community governance performance of Nature-Based Solutions (NbSs), specifically Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs), within the context of enhancing urban stormwater management in Sub-Saharan cities. This approach aims to increase flood resilience and address the challenges posed by urbanization and climate change. It is designed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of SUDSs community governance and serves as a framework to pinpoint leverage points, ensuring the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of these solutions.

The combination of stakeholder analysis and a participatory approach with the assessment framework has proven useful for examining community governance across social, environmental, and institutional dimensions that influence the success of SUDSs as NbSs. This integrated approach provides valuable insights into the factors affecting SUDSs’ effectiveness and sustainability, helping to identify key governance challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Our results suggest a range of opportunities that could potentially enhance community governance performance for SUDSs as NbSs. These opportunities include the following: (a) enhancing financial support through incentives and equitable, impact-based funding to ensure effective implementation and maintenance; (b) establishing a more robust legal and regulatory framework with legislative backing; (c) improving technical skills, engaging the private sector, and involving academia for more comprehensive implementation; (d) enhancing environmental protection measures, deepening understanding of ecosystem services provided by NBS, and refining management strategies; and (e) boosting active community involvement and optimizing information dissemination strategies.

In addition to identifying these intervention opportunities, it is crucial to maintain well-functioning governance processes for SUDSs to ensure effective stormwater management. Evaluating these systems at the community level helps address the complexity and interdependence of governance processes, which are rarely linear. Since sustainable practices are central to this discussion, these opportunities are relevant not only to the case study in Nalukolongo, Kampala, Uganda, but also to other Sub-Saharan cities with similar characteristics.

We propose developing the assessment collaboratively with stakeholders to encourage reflection on their roles within the broader system and to foster ownership of the outcomes. This research opens the door for a deeper exploration of the social and institutional aspects of SUDSs and how addressing sustainable urban stormwater management can promote sustainable socio-environmental networks and behavior change and uphold essential components of environmental management, such as public participation.