Water crisis and institutional adaptive capacity: Lessons from the Australian Experience.

Managing large socio-technical urban water systems will be increasingly challenged under future extreme and uncertain climatic conditions. Reconfiguring these systems to meet this challenge by integrating supply sources and multiplying uses of water is well described from a technical perspective. Adjusting the institutions which frame the management of these systems, enabling adaptive governance of water resources, is not well operationalized. This study seeks to address this gap through an institutional analysis of the case of Perth, Australia, a city where extreme drought has driven the adoption of new management practices. The institutional dynamics underlying these changes were explored to gain insight into how adaptive capacity might be mobilised to implement Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM). The study found Perth’s institutional adaptive capacity, like other cities, is still largely limited. The new practices buffered water scarcity, but have not yet shifted the system toward a more adaptable configuration. The absence of certain rules within and between levels of the institutional setting which enable flexibility appear to leave conditions for ongoing adaptation unmet. This analysis suggests that to address the widely acknowledged failure of mainstream implementation of IUWM, a deeper understanding of institutional dynamics that create systemic change is needed.

[1]  Bruce Mitchell,et al.  Integrated Water Resource Management, Institutional Arrangements, and Land-Use Planning , 2005 .

[2]  N. Engle Adaptive capacity and its assessment , 2011 .

[3]  Rebekah R. Brown,et al.  Delivering sustainable urban water management: a review of the hurdles we face. , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[4]  van den Margo Brink,et al.  The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society , 2010 .

[5]  Stephen Dovers,et al.  Environment and Sustainability Policy: Creation, Implementation, Evaluation , 2005 .

[6]  Tanya Heikkila,et al.  BUILDING THE AGENDA FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH IN WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1 , 2004 .

[7]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis , 2010, Environmental Conservation.

[8]  J. Grin,et al.  Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change , 2010 .

[9]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes , 2009 .

[10]  A. Biswas,et al.  Future Water Governance: Problems and Perspectives , 2010 .

[11]  Asit K. Biswas,et al.  Integrated Water Resources Management: Is It Working? , 2008 .

[12]  R R Brown,et al.  Urban water management in cities: historical, current and future regimes. , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems , 2004 .

[14]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[15]  E. Ostrom Understanding Institutional Diversity , 2005 .

[16]  W. Scott Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests , 2007 .