Institutional change to support regime transformation: Lessons from Australia's water sector

Abstract

Institutional change is fundamental to regime transformation, and a necessary part of moving toward integrated water management. However, insight into the role of institutional change processes in such transitions is currently limited. A more nuanced understanding of institutional frameworks is necessary, both to advance understanding of institutional change in the context of transitions toward improved water management and to inform strategies for guiding such processes. To this end, we examine two contemporary cases of transformative change in Australia's urban water sector, exploring the evolution of institutional change in each city. This paper offers insights into regime transformation, providing guidance on types of institutional structures and the ways structure‐change initiatives can be sequenced to support a transition. The results reveal the importance of regulation in embedding regime change and suggest that engagement with structural frameworks should begin early in transition processes to ensure the timely introduction of supporting regulation. Our findings also highlight the inextricable link between culture‐based and structure‐based change initiatives, and the importance of using a diverse range of institutional change mechanisms in a mutually reinforcing way to provide a strong foundation for change. These findings provide a foundation for further scholarly examination of institutional change mechanisms, while also serving to inform the strategic activities of transition‐oriented organizations and actors.

Institutional drivers of environmental management accounting adoption in public sector water organisations

“…Since the 1990s, a series of governance, management, and related institutional arrangements have interacted with the implementation of various aspects of environmentally sustainable development in the Australian water industry (McKay, 2006). The evolution of practice change and 'sustainability transition' in this sector (Brodnik et al, 2017;Werbeloff et al, 2017) shows a strong focus on dialogue with the community (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014), which makes an examination of this setting especially interesting.…”

Towards a New Paradigm of Urban Water Infrastructure: Identifying Goals and Strategies to Support Multi-Benefit Municipal Wastewater Treatment

“…Despite strong interest in multi-benefit wastewater infrastructure for nutrient control, substantial impediments to their implementation exist in the San Francisco Bay Area. While previous literature has focused on socio-institutional barriers [22,[103][104][105][106], we also found several technical barriers.…”

“…Yet this traditional approach in which pollution problems identified by regulators are solved by retrofitting existing treatment systems may not be sufficient for transitioning urban water systems to a more sustainable state [20,21]. Instead institutional shifts that embed regulatory and political support for multi-benefit infrastructure early in planning processes may be more effective [22]. Furthermore, cooperative regional approaches to water management are often less expensive and more efficient [23] such as when preparing for uncertain future conditions [24].…”