Floods in Odense

Sustainable: Plusses: It slows the water flow. Creates green space for vegetation (absorbing CO2) feeding animal and plant life and adding to bio diversity. It looks nice:-) and allows for recreation usage. Minuses: It takes up more space. It looks green and wild to some this may not be pleasing.

Convetional. I have no knowledge of the benefits of either of the two systems, but imagine that the conentional drainage system smell less, and people would have a tendency to dump garbage in the sustainable one.

Sutainable drainage - off course because of how it looks ...

I would prefer the sustainable drainage, because if the other one becomes too filled up, the water will come up from people's toilets.

Both are necessary.

Sustainable systems add values to the urban environment. Conventional systems only serve water goals.

Sustainable drainage system, it can solve the problem whith extream rain events in a better way.

Sustainable system. The water can be used actively in generation more green and blue spots around in the towns - and can often be implemented a lot cheaper than the conventional drainage systems.

I think there should be a combination of both for floods. I think its good that water can penetrate the earth to become drinking water one day instead of "loosing" it to the conventional drains where there are mixed together with excrements and need to be treated as waste water, however I would think there could be an increased risk for buildings to collaps if the ground very close by is soaked like a tub. So I would reckon the sustainable drainage to be a good idea in the nature away from buildings and the conventioanl drainage would be more suited closed to buildings.

Sustainable. Because it is less expensive an give more in other qualites to the urban area