Community Response and Engagement During Extreme Water Events in Saskatchewan, Canada and Queensland, Australia

Abstract

Technology alone cannot address the challenges of how societies, communities, and individuals understand water accessibility, water management, and water consumption, particularly under extreme conditions like floods and droughts. At the community level, people are increasingly aware challenges related to responses to and impacts of extreme water events. This research begins with an assessment of social and political capacities of communities in two Commonwealth jurisdictions, Queensland, Australia and Saskatchewan, Canada, in response to major flooding events. The research further reviews how such capacities impact community engagement to address and mitigate risks associated with extreme water events and provides evidence of key gaps in skills, understanding, and agency for addressing impacts at the community level. Secondary data were collected using template analysis to elucidate challenges associated with education (formal and informal), social and political capacity, community ability to respond appropriately, and formal government responses to extreme water events in these two jurisdictions. The results indicate that enhanced community engagement alongside elements of an empowerment model can provide avenues for identifying and addressing community vulnerability to negative impacts of flood and drought.

Untitled

“…This implies that the vast majority of academic articles frame EFWE within the hydrological cycle ideology which commonly views EFWE as natural disturbances in perceived normal quantities of water, viewing them as natural disasters or crises. This perspective is consistent with research advocating that water is dominantly interpreted as a natural resource, separate and distinct from human systems (Linton, 2008(Linton, , 2010Linton & Budds, 2014;McMartin et al, 2018;Sammel et al, 2018;Schmidt, 2013Schmidt, , 2014Sivapalan et al, 2012;Takao, 2016;Tortajada & Biswas, 2018). Discussions of social aspects within Level 2 refer only to the impact or aftermath of EFWE to society, with little recognition of complex historical societal processes influencing EFWE.…”

“…In other words, the hydrosocial cycle perspective invites us to consider how over time, human processes influence our relationship with water, which in turn changes water's relationship with us through the simple expansion of water onto dry land, or the movement of water away from dry land. This perspective recognizes the limits of a hydrological cycle frame and asks societies to adopt an integrated perspective of water-human relationships so we can see the influence of human assumptions, values, understandings, and practices on how we frame our relationships with EFWE (Bakker, 2012;Bates et al, 2008;Gober & Wheater, 2014;Krause, 2014Krause, , 2016Krause & Strang, 2016;Sammel, 2016;Sammel et al, 2018;McMartin et al, 2018;Sivapalan et al, 2012). Lindon and Budds (2014) warn of privileging the hydrological cycle perspective:…”

“…A hydrosocial cycle understanding encourages EFWE to be understood as dynamic fluctuations in the quantity and flow of water, where water movement aligns with larger natural and socially constructed rhythms that have different temporal beats (Krause, 2013;Linton, 2008Linton, , 2014Linton & Budds, 2014;Tortajada & Biswas, 2018). This perspective recognizes the complex, long-term coevolution of human systems with freshwater systems, where humans have interacted with and changed the natural environment, thereby directly influencing EFWE, just as EFWE also influence social systems (Bates et al, 2008;McMartin et al, 2018;Sivapalan et al, 2012). It seeks to make sense of the interplay between natural and social systems, including economics and political priorities (Di Baldassarre et al, 2013;Schmidt, 2013).…”

“…From one standpoint, EFWE can be viewed as disturbing what is assumed to be the normalcy of natural systems upon which social systems have been built (Strang, 2004). From another, EFWE may be viewed as an inevitable part of the circulation of freshwater within living, fluctuating systems which are deeply interconnected and influenced by human existence and practices (Christian & Wong, 2017;Harvey & Stocker, 2015;Krause, 2014Krause, , 2016Krause & Strang, 2016;Likens et al, 2009;McMartin et al, 2018;Sivapalan et al, 2012;Tortajada & Biswas, 2018). This continuum highlights theoretical positions underpinning these standpoints, but to what degree are these standpoints represented in peerreviewed journal articles written about the 2011 Queensland or Saskatchewan EFWE?…”

Limitations of Water Resources Infrastructure for Reducing Community Vulnerabilities to Extremes and Uncertainty of Flood and Drought

“…Some results of a changing climate are expected to include more frequent spring flooding, shifts in growing season, and changes in the hydrological cycle with snowmelt beginning earlier in the growing season (Araneo and Villalba 2015; McMartin and Hernani Merino 2014). Such shifts in climate conditions affect both physical and social structures such that more proactive water management is required to ensure that the rural communities involved with the current research can access sufficient water to support and sustain agricultural production as well as community needs (McMartin et al 2017; McMartin and Hernani Merino 2014). …”