Political and Professional Agency Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Water Research

Abstract

The many societal benefits provided by traditional, centralised urban water servicing models are being re-examined following recent extreme weather events, climate uncertainty and other variable socio-technical trends. Total water cycle management offers a more flexible and resilient approach to urban water management, however, transformative change in the sector is difficult. A growing number of scholars have identified that the urban water sector is locked-in to the current large-scale, centralised infrastructure model and suggest the sector is unable to accommodate new technologies and management approaches beyond niche projects. Based on extensive socio-institutional research and example cases from Australian and United Kingdom experiences managing urban water under pressures such as modern environmentalism, prolonged water scarcity and sewerage overflows, this paper provides a commentary on common factors exhibited in both countries related to technological path dependency. Three key factors promoting this pathway: political risk, professional agency fear and a lack of a hybrid governance approach are discussed and a future scholarly research agenda is presented.

An Overview of Hybrid Water Supply Systems in the Context of Urban Water Management: Challenges and Opportunities

“…In general, centralized water services have ensured adequate water supply, sanitation and drainage services to its inhabitants in cities [13,14]. However, demographic changes including the ageing population, socio-economic factors, climate change, biodiversity, energy use, water supply and consumption, as well as ageing water and wastewater infrastructures has put increasing pressure on these urban water systems [1,15].…”

Taming global flood disasters. Lessons learned from Dutch experience

“…Historically, flood events have often prompted 'knee-jerk' responses from politicians and others. Such approaches are unlikely to deliver innovation and effective adaptation (Brown et al 2011); the most likely outcome is reliance on conventional ('we know it works') solutions that are understood by incumbent regimes, yet it is doubtful that these 'technologically locked-in' responses will provide the best solutions in the face of change (Newman et al 2011).…”

Water Governance in a Climate Change World: Appraising Systemic and Adaptive Effectiveness

“…Past water governance has been characterised by commitments to stationarity (Brown et al, Godden and Kung 2011). Adherence to stationarity, and its enactment in the practices of water resources management, has reified (made into 'things'-see Wenger 1998) many human-invented social technologies in ways that constrain innovation and change and may create path dependencies around existing patterns of water governance (Brown et al;Harris 2011). This situation is clearly no longer tenable.…”

“…Australia has needed to urgently respond to widespread climate change impacts, particularly in urban water supply, and in river governance and management for irrigated agriculture (Tisdell 2009). Of course, Australia is not the only relevant context, as exemplified by European experiences Mysiak et al 2010), South Africa (Pollard and du Toit 2011), Canada (Bakker 2007); the USA (Sabatier et al 2005) and the Mekong Region (Molle et al 2009). Given the breadth of comparative studies around water governance, there is a strong impetus to share the learning around evolving forms of water governance and to assess new modes from the perspective of systemic and adaptive effectiveness.…”

“…The significant barriers that exist to adaptation initiatives in urban water governance is a problem identified by Brown et al (2011). Concurrently though, they highlight the transformative potential that a reassessment of centralised urban water services can provide.…”