Urban water metabolism information for planning water sensitive city-regions

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Urban water metabolism information for planning water sensitive cityregions

T

Silvia Serrao-Neumanna,b,d, , Marguerite A. Renoufc,d, Edward Morganc,d, Steven J. Kenwayc,d, Darryl Low Choyc,d ⁎

a

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, 4111, Australia c School of Chemical Engineering, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia d Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Monash University, Victoria, 3800, Australia b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Resource efficiency Water resource management Urban and regional planning Australia

Climate change and growing populations will stretch water resources in many city-regions globally, and urbanisation will continue to degrade water quality and upset natural hydrological flows. These pressures call for alternative urban water management approaches with improved connection with land use planning. Evaluating the water metabolism of urban areas gives a holistic picture of how water flows through and is transformed by urban settlements, to inform land use planning for sustainably managing urban water. Previous research has conceptualised how metabolism science may inform urban land use planning. In this work, we build on to identify how urban water metabolism evaluations can inform urban planning practice. We ask, ‘how can urban water metabolism evaluations support urban and water planning towards water sensitive city-regions?’ Focusing on three Australian capital city-regions, we empirically identify the knowledge needs of practitioners and compare this against the knowledge known to be generated from past urban water metabolism evaluations. This was done within a framework of urban water resource management objectives for water sensitive cities - that is, protection of water resources and hydrological flows, recognition of the diverse functions of water, and resource efficiency and supply internalisation. Based on the findings, the paper discusses five key strategic initiatives for planning for water sensitive city-regions: resource efficiency and hydrological performance benchmarks and targets for urban developments, tailoring programmes for resource efficiency, making case for regional bluegreen space networks for improved hydrological performance, small and large-scale infrastructure innovation, and social and institutional innovation in urban water management.

1. Introduction Many city-regions are facing challenges related to water resource quantity and quality (McDonald et al., 2014). These challenges are likely to intensify due to future social and environmental change such as increased urban populations and climate change (Jiménez Cisneros et al., 2014; OECD, 2015). The challenges are further compounded by business-as-usual approaches to land use planning and urban water management, including reliance on undiversified supply systems that are not conducive to innovation (Marlow et al., 2013; Rijke et al., 2013), limited utilisation of alternative and recycled sources of water (Kenway et al., 2011), and fragmented urban water governance (Brown

et al., 2009; Gain et al., 2013). There is increased recognition worldwide that business-as-usual approaches to urban water management will not address social and environmental change, including climate change and population growth (Brown et al., 2011; Wong and Brown, 2009). In particular, there are calls for sustainable approaches that consider the different services and functions performed by water in both the natural and anthropogenic water cycles, and at different spatial scales (e.g., urban, peri-urban and rural scales) (Brown et al., 2011; Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Sustainable approaches are predicated on strengthening environmental protection and water security, and improving connection between water and land use planning (Brown et al., 2011; Pahl-Wostl, 2008).

Corresponding author at: School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Serrao-Neumann), [email protected] (M.A. Renouf), [email protected] (E. Morgan), [email protected] (S.J. Kenway), [email protected] (D. Low Choy). ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104144 Received 21 February 2019; Received in revised form 8 July 2019; Accepted 31 July 2019 0264-8377/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

They also emphasise the importance of considering the system boundary in terms of the multiple functions performed by water over longer timeframes, including environmental, social, economic and cultural functions (Brown et al., 2011). The concept of ‘water sensitive cities’ is one such approach to sustainable water resource management (Dean et al., 2016b). The concept is based on the three pillars of cities as supply catchments, cities providing ecosystem services, and cities with water sensitive communities (Wong and Brown, 2009). It also focuses on promoting liveability, resilience and sustainability, in relation to both institutions and infrastructure (Ferguson et al., 2013a, 2013b; Wong et al., 2013). However, there are recognised limitations in the capacity of institutions to deliver the paradigm shift required to achieve the outcomes sought for water sensitive cities (Rijke et al., 2013), in terms of insufficient skills and knowledge, through to policy implementation failure and institutional entrapment (Brown et al., 2011). This paper relates to the knowledge needs of practitioners for planning water sensitive city-regions, and how urban water metabolism (UWM) evaluation may be able to service these knowledge needs. Practitioners in this paper refer to professionals engaged in urban and regional planning, environmental planning, and urban water planning and management. The paper is predicated on the assumptions that the city-region is an appropriate context for considering knowledge needs of practitioners. City-regions are larger in scale than individual cities, often composed of multiple metropolitan areas and regional centres, potentially multiple hydrological catchments, and including not only urban areas but also surrounding peri-urban and rural areas. Land use planning at the cityregion scale can directly contribute to achieving water sensitive cityregions because it significantly influences the design and functioning of urban areas. This is supported by its role in managing urban sprawl and dwelling densities, implementing green open spaces, enabling diversified water supply infrastructure, and determining spatial layout of urban development relative to water-related infrastructure (Cesanek and Wordlaw, 2015). Furthermore, urban areas depend and impact on the water resources of a larger city-region, often beyond traditional administrative boundaries (Neto, 2016). Planning for water sensitive city-regions requires a whole-of-government approach, in which strategic urban water management and land use planning are fully integrated (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2017). However, there is usually mismatch between administrative boundaries governing land use planning and the hydrological catchment boundaries governing water resource management (Renouf et al., 2018). This means that urban water management has often been left out of both river basin and catchment governance and land use planning (van den Brandeler et al., 2019). As a result, the paper suggests the ‘city-region’ to be the appropriate scale at which urban water resources should be managed (Plummer et al., 2011; Vietz et al., 2016), because it can capture and integrate both the administrative and hydrological catchment boundaries. It is also the spatial scale at which strategic urban planning often occurs, especially for fast growing capital city-regions (Low Choy and Minnery, 1994). It will be difficult to achieve water sensitive city-regions if planning policies are not informed by a holistic and quantified picture of how water is managed and transformed in city-regions, and the interventions needed to achieve water sensitive outcomes. Methods are emerging for providing such a holistic picture, in particular UWM evaluation. This method quantifies the water mass balance of urban areas to generate quantitative indicators of UWM (Kenway et al., 2011; Marteleira et al., 2014; Renouf et al., 2018). We hypothesise that the knowledge and indicators generated by UWM evaluations can inform land use and water resource planning by addressing the knowledge needs of practitioners. Urban metabolism is a metaphor for conceptualising resource flows through urban systems, as analogous with ecosystems (Decker et al., 2000; Fischer-Kowalski, 1998; Newman, 1999; Pincetl et al., 2012; Wolman, 1965), with an inferred intent of emulating the higher

resource efficiencies of natural systems. As an evaluation approach, it quantifies resource flows into, out of and through urban areas, most commonly energy, materials, greenhouse gases, nutrients, etc. (Kennedy et al., 2015). This paper is specifically interested in waterrelated flows. Metabolism studies that have focused on water, which we refer to as UWM evaluations, have used an urban water mass balance method to quantify all natural and anthropogenic flows of water through a defined urban area, from which performance indicators can be generated (Kenway et al., 2011). From such quantification, it has been possible to highlight the underutilisation of rainwater, stormwater and wastewater as water supplies for cities (Kenway et al., 2011), assess how urbanisation influences natural hydrological flows (Haase, 2009), compare the water performance of different urban areas (Marteleira et al., 2014), and consider how different water servicing options influence the water metabolism performance of urban areas at local (Farooqui et al., 2016) or city-region scales (Renouf et al., 2018). UWM evaluation, based on water mass balance, is a core method for evaluating urban water performance (Renouf & Kenway, 2016). It has also been noted that the urban metabolism concept can inform integrated management of water supply, stormwater and wastewater systems, to reduce their environmental impacts whilst supporting social and economic benefits (Burn et al., 2012). Past research that has examined urban metabolism in the context of land use planning and urban water management has mostly discussed it conceptually (Chrysoulakis et al., 2015; Chrysoulakis et al., 2013). Kennedy et al. (2007, 2015) performed ‘top-down’ accounts of resource flows for the whole-of-city urban scale and propose it to be a framework for resource accounting and indicator development that can inform regional strategic planning by tracking resource flows and monitoring trajectories over time (Kennedy et al., 2011). Chrysoulakis et al. (2013) generated a ‘bottom-up’ computer simulation of resource flows at smaller urban scales, which they propose can feed into Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment. Similarly, Pinho et al. (2012) proposed a Metabolic Impact Assessment method to assess the metabolism impacts of individual development applications to feed into Environmental Impact Assessment. To the best of our knowledge, none of the past research has described how urban metabolism evaluations can inform land use planning and water management policy or decisions in practice, and there has been little on-ground demonstration of its use. There are some rare mentions of it being used conceptually in the master planning of urban developments (Chrysoulakis et al., 2013; Kennedy et al., 2011; Mollay et al., 2011; Rueda, 2007; Suzuki and Dastur, 2010), particularly for aspects such as energy, greenhouse gas emissions, material intensity, but less so for water (Bricker et al., 2017). The gap addressed by this paper is the lack of guidance about how the UWM evaluation can inform land use planning and water management processes in practice. It contributes to filling this gap by empirically investigating how the information provided by UWM evaluations can meet the knowledge needs of practitioners for planning water sensitive city-regions. Specifically, how can UWM evaluations support urban and water planning for water sensitive city-regions? This is important because it helps tailor the information generated by UWM evaluations to maximise their usability by practitioners, and hence is a step towards enabling science-informed strategic planning. The work was conducted in the context of Australian strategic planning systems, but the UWM knowledge needs would be applicable to other similar planning contexts. 2. Research design and approach This study applied multiple methods to analyse how the information provided by past UWM evaluations can inform water sensitive city-regions planning. The analysis was performed in context of a set of case study city-regions (Yin, 2003) (described in 2.1). The methods included the qualitative identification of the knowledge needs of practitioners 2

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

Fig. 1. Research design.

Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014; Office of Living Victoria, 2013; Rogers et al., 2015; SEQ Water, 2015) were validated by workshop participants, to provide context for semistructured interviews that followed. The interviews aimed to identify the knowledge and information needed to support planning for water sensitive city-regions. The interview questions (see Supplementary Material) were framed by our framework of UWM objectives (see 2.4). Data were collected through fifteen semi-structured interviews with seventeen practitioners. Interviewees were purposely selected (Zhang and Wildemuth, 2009) from workshop participants and comprised practitioners from government (state and local government) and non-government agencies with direct and indirect roles in urban water management, natural resource management and land use planning in each of the case study regions (see Table 2). Interviews lasted around one hour, were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. In-depth content analysis (Bowen and Bowen, 2008) was performed using NVivo software to identify what information and metrics interviewees thought UWM needs to generate to support planning for water sensitive city-regions. The key codes (Table 3) used for the content analysis were derived from the frameworks of UWM objectives (see 2.4).

through scenario planning workshops and interviews (described in 2.2), and a synthesis of the knowledge outputs from UWM evaluations from a review of past studies (described in 2.3). These were brought together and compared to understand how UWM evaluations can meet practitioner’s knowledge needs and inform land use and water planning (Fig. 1). Water metabolism knowledge was defined and categorised according to a framework of UWM objectives (described in 2.4). 2.1. Case study city-regions The paper focuses on the strategic planning areas defined by current regional plans of three Australian capital city-regions: South East Queensland (SEQ), Melbourne (MEL) and Perth (PER) Metropolitan regions (Queensland Government, 2016; Victorian Government, 2014; Western Australian Government, 2015) (see Fig. 2). Australian capital city-regions offer suitable case studies because they are highly urbanised, have rapidly growing urban populations, and are prone to recurrent climate extremes such as floods and droughts that are likely to be exacerbated by climate change (Reisinger et al., 2014). They are located within distinct climatic zones with different annual rainfall patterns and geological formations relevant to both surface and groundwater resources (Dowdy et al., 2015; Grose et al., 2015; Hope et al., 2015). The federation system in Australia means that water and land use planning in each of these regions are subject to different institutional arrangements set by the respective state governments, but with implications for local governments and water corporations (see Table 1). Thus, they provide a valid sample of Australian city-regions, representing a range of climatic, and land use and water governance conditions.

2.3. Identification of knowledge generated from UWM evaluations We then synthesised the findings from past UWM evaluations to understand the knowledge that can currently be generated. The following four studies carried out in Australia were selected for review because they studied locales within the case study city-regions to provide a consistent context to the identification of knowledge needs, and provide a sample of different urban scales and water management contexts. Furthermore, their methods were comprehensive in terms of the scope of urban water flows evaluated, in contrast to other studies whose methods may focus on anthropogenic flows or natural hydrological flows, but not both (Renouf and Kenway, 2017).

2.2. Identification of knowledge and information needs Two full-day scenario planning workshops were held in each case study region between May and September 2016. The workshops developed explorative scenarios (Börjeson et al., 2006) for each region to test a selection of existing plans, strategies and policies related to urban and regional planning and water resource management. During these workshops, existing vision statements for water sensitive city-regions in each case study area (Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2009;

1 City scale evaluation of the cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and Perth (1200 – 1800 km2) (Kenway et al., 2011); 2 City-region scale evaluations of South-East Queensland, Melbourne 3

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

Fig. 2. XXX.

and Perth greater metropolitan regions (up to 4000 km2) (Renouf et al., 2018); 3 Medium-scale greenfield urban development at Ripley Valley, outside Ipswich within South-East Queensland (30 km2) (Farooqui et al., 2016); and, 4 Catchment scale evaluation of urban infill development in the Brisbane suburb of Greenslopes (30 km2) (Meng and Kenway, 2018).

2.4. Framework of UWM objectives A framework of UWM objectives (Table 3) was developed to guide the identification and categorisation of knowledge needs and knowledge generation. It was adapted from a study by Renouf et al. (2017), which identified the key UWM objectives articulated in the visions and principles of urban water industry bodies and international development agencies (ADB, 2016; IWA, 2016; OECD, 2015; UK Water Partnership, 2015). We used those UWM objectives to frame the interview questions for identifying knowledge needs, and to review the knowledge generated from past UWM evaluation studies.

Each of these studies estimated the annual volumes of all water flowing into, through and out of the urban systems to compile a water mass balance, which is a comprehensive water account. The studies used this data to generate metrics representing a range of water metabolism features (including water efficiency, recycling rates, supply internalisation, stormwater runoff, infiltration and evapotranspiration relative to pre-development states). For each study, we identified and categorised the knowledge generated according to the framework of UWM objectives (see 2.4).

3. Results and discussion The results from comparing practitioner’s knowledge needs (from interviews) against knowledge generated by UWM evaluations (from the review of past studies) are reported in Table 4. Comparison shows how UWM evaluations can currently support urban and water planning

Table 1 Key planning provisions for selected case studies. Key planning provisions

SEQ Region

Melbourne Metropolitan Region

Perth Metropolitan Region

Urban and Regional Planning system – statutory and nonstatutory provisions

Provisions for land use planning and development control set by State government with following hierarchy: Planning Act 2016, State Planning Policy, Regional Plan, Local Planning Schemes (https://planning.dsdmip.qld. gov.au/planning/our-planningsystem/the-legislation).

Provisions for land use planning and development control are set by State government with following hierarchy: Planning and Development Act 2005, State Planning Strategy, State Planning Policies, Regional and sub-regional Strategies, Operational Policies (https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/ DepartmentofPlanningLandsHeritage/media/Images/ Planning_Framework.jpg).

Water resources – statutory provisions

Water Act 2000 sets water resource plan and resource operational plans (National Water Commission, 2013).

Provisions for land use planning and development control are set by State government with following hierarchy: Planning and Environment Act 1987 (VIC), Victorian Planning Provisions, Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Local Planning Schemes (https://www. planning.vic.gov.au/guide-home/ using-victorias-planning-system). Water Act 1989 oversees water resource regulation, including groundwater and surface water in waterways; Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 establishes regional catchment management authorities (McCallum, 2014).

4

Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 oversees water allocation planning (Department of Water, 2011)

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

Table 2 Stakeholders involved in the scenario planning workshops and interviews. Stakeholder engagement process

Location

A) 2 workshops in each case study location (Jun-Sep 2016)

Brisbane Melbourne Perth

B) 15 interviews (Aug-Sep 2016)

Brisbane Melbourne Perth

Participants per stakeholder groups

W’shop W’shop W’shop W’shop W’shop W’shop

1 2 1 2 1 2

Local Government

State Government

Industry Peak Bodies

Non-government Organisations

Total

1 3 6 6 4 2 1 2 1

1 (P) 2 (NRM + P) 1 (NRM) 1 (NRM) 9 (NRM + W + P + O) 7(NRM + W + P + O) – 1 (NRM) 4 (W + P + O)

3 3 3 2 4 8 2 2 –

4 3 – – 1 2 1 – 1

9 11 10 9 18 19 4 5 6

(W*) (W + P) (W + P) (W + P) (NRM + O) (NRM) (W) (W + P) (NRM)

(W) (W) (W) (W) (W + O) (W + O) (W) (W)

(NRM + W + P) (NRM + W + P) (NRM) (NRM) (W) (NRM)

* W: water resource management and planning, including local government stormwater managers, state government water resource planners and managers, policy officers and water corporation managers; P: spatial and strategic planning, including development assessors and strategic planners; NRM: natural resource management, including executive directors, policy officers, community liaison officers; O: other sectors (e.g. land developers, elected members).

in relation to each of the four UWM objectives set out in Table 3. We found that existing methods for UWM evaluation can currently support the knowledge needs of planners in terms of understanding hydrological flows, quantifying water efficiency, and understanding the opportunities for water efficiency and supply internalisation. Further work is needed to support knowledge needs for managing environmental flows in waterways, understanding the sustainability of urban water extraction from the environment, accounting for nutrients mobilised in urban waters, accounting for the diverse functions of urban water, and deriving benchmarks and targets for urban water performance. Further details on the empirical findings from the interviews and the review of past studies that support these observations are contained in the Supplementary Material A. Scholars have argued that planning for water sensitive city-regions requires innovative, sustainable urban water management approaches (Brown et al., 2011; Wong and Brown, 2009). From the findings (see Table 2 and Supplementary Material A) we deduce that there are five ways in which the knowledge generated by UWM evaluations could inform the objectives of water sensitive city-regions. These are: (i) resource efficiency and hydrological performance benchmarks and targets for urban developments; (ii) tailoring programmes that promote resource efficiency (e.g., nutrient offset schemes); (iii) making a business

case for regional blue-green space networks for improved hydrological performance; (iv) small and large-scale infrastructure innovation; and, (v) social and institutional innovation in urban water management (e.g., integrated water resource management). 3.1. Resource efficiency and hydrological performance benchmarks and targets for urban developments Previous research that has used the urban metabolism concept noted its potential contribution to promoting resource efficient land use and water planning (Chrysoulakis et al., 2013; Newman, 1999; Pincetl et al., 2014). Findings from this research build on this by more clearly identifying the information that practitioners need for promoting resource efficiency and improved hydrological performance. Interviewees from the planning and natural resource management sectors in the three case study regions indicated that there is no formal process that they can draw on to benchmark the quality of residential and commercial developments in terms of resource efficiency (see Table 4 d3), and protection of natural hydrological flows, respectively (Table 4 a1). That is, one that assesses these objectives in terms of building design and density, outdoor landscaping and subsequent use of resources such as water, energy and nutrients. Hence, it is difficult for regulators to

Table 3 Framework of urban water metabolism (UWM) objectives for water sensitive city-regions (derived from Renouf et al., 2017). Categorisation of UWM objectives

Definition

Codes used in content analysis

Protection of water resources and hydrological flows

Sustainable management of water resources in the environment, with respect to their stocks, qualities and flows. This includes: (i) managing the volumes of water extracted from the environment for urban uses within local availability; (ii) reducing pollutants discharge to maintain waterway quality; and (iii) restoring natural hydrological flows altered by increased imperviousness to reduce stormwater runoff and increase infiltration and evapotranspiration. Recognising the diverse functions of water, including social functions (e.g., amenity, recreation, open spaces, urban heat island mitigation), environmental functions (e.g., environmental flows, waterway health, biodiversity, green infrastructure), economic functions (e.g., industrial, commercial, energy generation, agricultural, forestry, fisheries, livestock), and cultural functions (e.g., heritage).

Sustainable water extraction rates Healthy waterways (restoring hydrological flows and limiting pollution discharges)

Recognition of the diverse functions of water

Resource efficiency - Water efficiency - Water-related energy efficiency - Water-related nutrient efficiency - Supply internalisation

Overall water efficiency of an urban area in relation to water drawn from the environment per unit of functionality, as opposed to the water use efficiency of end users. Efficient management of other water-related resources, i.e. energy for moving and treating water, and the nutrients mobilised in water. Extended supplies and decreased reliance on water drawn from the environment through harvesting and utilization of water sources available within an urban area. This includes harvesting rainwater and stormwater, and recycling wastewater and greywater.

5

Environmental functions (green infrastructure, environmental flows) Social functions (liveability, landscape design, open/ green spaces, recreation, visual amenity, mitigation of urban heat island effect) Economic functions (food production, resource extraction) Cultural functions (indigenous values) Water efficiency (dwelling densities and design, water efficiency specifications and incentives) Water-related energy (and greenhouse gas) efficiency (energy demand, renewable energy) Water-related nutrient efficiency (utilisation of nitrogen and phosphorous contained in wastewater) Harvesting / recycling of internal water sources (rainwater, greywater, stormwater and wastewater)

UWM has been used to estimate the scale of natural hydrological flows (runoff, groundwater infiltration and evapotranspiration) for defined urban areas (1,2,3,4). Estimates have been reported as absolute flows (ML/yr), or relative to ‘pre-development’ reference flows (ratios) as indicators of how much flows have altered due to urbanisation. UWM has been used to predict how runoff volumes are influenced by simulating various scenarios (2,3,4). Scenarios have considered harvesting of rainwater and stormwater, and increasing surface perviousness. Other scenarios could also be evaluated. As runoff volumes can be a proxy for flows in urban waterways (Fletcher et al., 2014), they can help identify opportunities that best serve urban waterway management.

a1. Understanding hydrological flows

6 Knowledge generated by UWM evaluation (sources in parentheses) UWM studies have quantified the overall water efficiency of defined urban areas, in terms of the total volume of water supplied to the urban area from the environment divided by the total inhabitants (2,3). This efficiency indicator reflects not only the end user water demand efficiency, but also for the use of internally harvested and reused water. Representing the efficiency indicators per unit of function, rather than per inhabitant, has also been proposed (Renouf et al., 2017), but not yet demonstrated.

d1. Water efficiency of urban areas, at a regional scale

UWM studies have disaggregated water use into some broad functions, as much as the available data allows (primary uses in households, commercial, industrial) (1,2,3). It will be important to further disaggregate demand and use into more specific functions, such as recreational, amenity, environmental, cultural functions, which is yet to be demonstrated. Indicators that can represent the effective allocation of water to functions have been proposed (Renouf et al., 2017), but not yet demonstrated.

c1. Understanding the diverse functions of water c2. How to meet the demand for the diverse functions of water, such as green space and recreational functions

Knowledge needs of practitioners (see Supplementary Material A)

Knowledge generated by UWM evaluation (sources in parentheses)

Knowledge needs of practitioners (see Supplementary Material A)

b4. Information to support decisions about schemes aimed at managing waterway pollution (nutrient pricing and nutrient offsets) and investment decisions about wastewater infrastructure projects

b3. Pollutant discharge limits for planning and benchmarking of water quality

By estimating how much nutrient loads to the environment have altered due to urbanisation, practitioners can consider regionally-relevant reduction targets. By predicting the extent to which different interventions can reduce nutrient loads to the environment, practitioners can understand the scale of intervention required, and screen those options or combination of options that could achieve it.

By predicting the extent to which different interventions can reduce reliance on water extracted from the environment, including in drought conditions, practitioners can understand the scale of intervention required, and screen those options or a combination of options that could achieve it.

By estimating water extraction rates against sustainable extraction rates, practitioners can best manage urban growth and water efficiency needs for achieving water sustainability.

How it can inform land use planning

(continued on next page)

The indicator of overall water efficiency for an urban area can help practitioners understand and monitor the current urban water efficiency, including for future population growth, urbanisation trends and related infrastructure needs.

How it can inform land use planning

By recognising how much water is needed for the diverse functions of water, practitioners will be able to appropriately budget for fit-for-purpose water to be available for these functions, including in times of drought.

How it can inform land use planning

UWM studies have quantified the volume of water supply needed to support a defined urban area (2,3), and how much of that is extracted from the environment. The challenge is to represent this relative to regionallyrelevant sustainable extraction rates (Renouf et al., 2017), which is yet to be demonstrated. UWM studies have predicted how much water extraction from the environment can be reduced by simulating various scenarios. Scenarios have considered harvesting of rainwater and stormwater, wastewater recycling and demand management (2,3). As above, the challenge is to represent this relative to sustainable extraction rates, but also to predict it under drought conditions and under future population growth and climate change, which is yet to be demonstrated. The reviewed UWM studies have not considered pollutant loads, the most important of which are nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Nutrients have been considered in other metabolism studies (Villarroel Walker and Beck, 2012), but not specifically for urban water cycles. Accounting for nutrient in urban water flows is an important challenge for UWM. It requires estimating the nutrient loads mobilised in runoff and wastewater, the recovery of nutrients by interventions (runoff detention, wastewater treatment), and the loads that flow to the environment. Ideally, the latter to be represented relative to regionally-relevant ‘pre-development’ reference loads, as an indicator of how much the loads have altered.

b1. High level objectives and targets for sustainable water extraction and water allocation

b2. Opportunities for maintaining rates of water extraction from the environment within sustainable limits, including under changing climates

Knowledge generated by UWM evaluation (sources in parentheses)

By predicting the effect that different interventions have on runoff flows at a regional scale, practitioners can screen those options that warrant further investigation with more detailed hydrological modelling.

By estimating how much the natural hydrological flows have altered due to urbanisation, practitioners can consider regionally-relevant priorities and objectives for managing or restoring the flows.

How it can inform land use planning

Knowledge needs of practitioners (see Supplementary Material A)

a2. Opportunities for managing environmental flows in urban waterways

Knowledge generated by UWM evaluation (sources in parentheses)

Knowledge needs of practitioners (see Supplementary Material A)

Table 4 Comparison of practitioner’s knowledge needs against knowledge generated by UWM evaluation (Sources: 1. City scale evaluation (Kenway et al., 2011); 2. Medium-scale evaluation of greenfield urban development (Farooqui et al., 2016); 3. City-region scale evaluation (Renouf et al., 2018); 4. Catchment scale evaluation of urban infill (Meng and Kenway, 2018)). Protection of hydrological flows.

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

advocate for more sustainable urban developments, or for buyers, residents and renters to be able to compare available options in terms of resource efficiency and hydrological performance. This is a result of the lack of specific rules enshrined in local planning schemes, which in Australia reflect state government planning provisions, making it compulsory for developers to adopt designs that follow sustainability principles. Without these rules and regulations, the choice and implementation of sustainable designs occur at the discretion of developers as part of their risk avoidance, management practices (Shearer et al., 2016). Whilst there are a number of existing resource efficiency benchmarking related tools available to practitioners (Chrysoulakis et al., 2013; Fu et al., 2016; Kılkış, 2016), they don’t consider water-related performance and don’t have a holistic perspective based on the UWM concept (Behzadian and Kapelan, 2015; Fagan et al., 2010; Mini et al., 2014; Pediaditi et al., 2010). Additionally, the value of tools can be compounded by data availability and quality (Pincetl et al., 2014), and method used to generate assessment (e.g., selection of indicators, understanding of sustainability, measurement subjectiveness) (Pediaditi et al., 2010). The interviews with practitioners from all sectors identified an interest and demand for water-related assessment that informs policy implementation related to development control and land use planning, including for setting targets, and that can support regulation and enforcement of water performance (Table 4 b and d). To this end, UWM evaluations can fill gaps in knowledge and be complementary to, or used in combination with, other sustainability tools and methods. Specifically, our findings indicate that UWM evaluations can quantify the resource efficiency and hydrological performance of urban areas to inform how they may be improved. For example, harvesting and use of fit for purpose water supplies sourced from within the urban area to improve overall water efficiency (Farooqui et al., 2016; Pincetl et al., 2014), or decreasing imperviousness to restore hydrological flows toward more natural conditions (Renouf et al., 2018). A limitation of current UWM evaluations identified in our study however, is their inability to provide metrics for other more complex functions within the urban context, including functions conducive to maintaining and improving urban liveability such as recreation, urban heat island mitigation, visual amenity etc.

By quantifying the water-related energy, practitioners will be able to consider the important energy considerations when making decisions about water efficiency initiatives.

3.2. Tailoring programmes for resource efficiency While there have been several studies using urban metabolism to test the efficacy of policies in terms of resource efficiency, they have focused on energy and carbon emissions (Behzadian and Kapelan, 2015; Chrysoulakis et al., 2013; Pincentl et al., 2014), and its potential to inform programmes targeting improved sustainability and liveability outcomes is still being developed (Pincentl et al. 2014). Nonetheless, Pincentl et al. (2014) illustrated how UWM evaluations could guide water efficiency programmes by coupling analysis of the flows with pricing mechanisms to demonstrate that lower-income residents in Los Angeles have the highest water elasticity as a result of price sensitivity. A key conclusion of their study was that to ultimately reduce water use overall, programmes should primarily target reduction in water use of wealthier residents. Interviewees in this research confirmed the potential role of UWM evaluations in informing the programmes that incentivise water resource efficiency, especially to deal with land use planning and urban water management legacy issues and retrofitting of existing urban areas. In particular, interviewees from local government land use planning departments highlighted challenges to improve resource efficiency around particular sectors (e.g. industrial and commercial) that currently lack interests or incentives to do so (beyond simple pricing indicators) (Table 4 d4). UWM evaluations, when combined with economic and social data, could indicate opportunities for demonstrating where water sensitive interventions might have the most impact. For example, in an analysis of a greenfield master plan development

Protection of water resources. Recognition of the diverse functionality of water. Resource efficiency.

d6. Evidence to support policies concerning water-related energy use

Indicators of current versus potential supply internalisation can help practitioners understand how much alternative water sources are being utilised or underutilised, and the potential capacity for further use. d5. Potential scale of water supply available from alternative sources -(rainwater, stormwater, wastewater) (supply internalisation)

d4. User-group specific data for water use patterns to tailor targeted water use efficiency programs

Predictions of the potential water savings from demand and use of internally sourced water, can help practitioners understand the water efficiency that is possible within the sustainable limits of specific regions and associated urban areas. By understanding the current and potential efficiency for the whole urban area (see preceding items), practitioners can then derive the efficiency targets needed for local developments to achieve the desired efficiency. By disaggregating water demand / use data for different user groups, it will be possible to simulate how water efficiency programs targeted to particular user groups will influence the overall water efficiency of an urban area.

UWM studies have predicted how much water demand and water use can be reduced for defined urban areas, by simulating a range of scenarios. Scenarios have considered demand management, harvesting of rainwater and stormwater, and wastewater recycling (2,3). The reviewed UWM studies did not derive benchmarks or targets, but note that the quantified flows and efficiency indicators could be used to inform the development of targets (3). The reviewed UWM studies did not disaggregate water use data to the extent needed to tailor target specific end user groups. Further disaggregation of water demand / use for different user groups, as previously noted, has been proposed for UWM studies (Renouf et al., 2017), but not yet demonstrated. UWM studies have quantified the volumes of rainwater, runoff and wastewater that are currently harvested and reused for defined urban areas, to generate indicators of supply internalisation. This represents how much of urban water demand is being met by internally sourced water (1,2,3). They have also predicted the scale of supply internalization that may be possible and that may be required to noticeably improve water efficiency (2,3). UWM studies have quantified the water-related energy associated with producing, pumping, and treating water, and predicted the energy implications for internally harvested and reused water (2). d2. Potential water savings at the regional scale

d3. Benchmarks and targets for water efficiency for urban developments

How it can inform land use planning Knowledge generated by UWM evaluation (sources in parentheses) Knowledge needs of practitioners (see Supplementary Material A)

Table 4 (continued)

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

7

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

Farooqui et al. (2016) showed that harvesting and use of rainwater/ stormwater and the recycling of wastewater only improves the water efficiency of the urban area if the scale of implementation is maximized. Hence, to achieve greater resource efficiency, our research indicated that specific programmes could provide incentives to encourage use of alternative water sources. UWM evaluations can potentially provide broader assessment of resource efficiency beyond just water, but also water-related energy and nutrients, and so test alternative interventions across broader sustainability criteria (Behzadian and Kapelan, 2015; Chrysoulakis et al., 2013).

inform the extent to which the water budgeted or allocated to these functions is sufficient to maintain each function. 3.4. Small and large-scale infrastructure innovation Planning for small and large infrastructure in the context of environmental and social uncertainty and change is complex. In particular, it is imperative that urban design and urban water systems take into consideration resource efficiency in light of their increasing role in promoting urban resilience and liveability for uncertain futures (Skinner, 2017). It is also argued that locked-in centralised, large-scale and capital-intensive urban water management technologies comprise a key barrier to sustainably managing urban water (Marlow et al., 2013; Rouillard et al., 2016). With respect to infrastructure innovation, scholars point to the existing gap in technologies and associated supporting infrastructure for water supply diversification and internalisation (Brown et al., 2009). These comments alone suggest that planning for small and large-scale infrastructure requires a major shift from a supply and demand to a whole-of-water cycle approach, including the integration between water and land use planning and management taking into consideration the city-region scale (Neto, 2016). Findings from this research concurred with these comments as many interviewees (especially from water corporations) identified the need for innovation to occur for both small and large-scale infrastructure, to enable their city-regions to sustainably managing their water resources. With respect to small infrastructure, land use planners and stormwater managers highlighted the challenges and barriers to promote innovative urban design for improving resource efficiency (e.g. sustainability benchmarking) and multi-functionality of water (blue-green infrastructure) (Table 4 c and d), respectively. In parallel, interviewees from the water sector also confirmed the difficulty to implement flexible water systems that adopt a fit-for-purpose approach (i.e. use of nonpotable water for non-drinking purposes). One of the key contributions that UWM evaluations could bring to promote this innovation is their ability to assess supply diversification and internalisation at multiple scales (e.g. precinct, neighbourhood, city-region) - that is, the proportion of water demand that is met by internally harvested or recycled water which can be calculated by the urban water mass balance that accounts for all water supplies and all water demands.

3.3. Making case for regional blue-green space networks for improved hydrological performance Urbanisation increases impervious surfaces and reduces vegetation cover, therefore decreasing the capacity of the environment to absorb runoff from rainfall and increasing risks of flooding and damage to urban ecosystems (Wang et al., 2016; Whitford et al., 2001). It also contributes to declining water quality, decreases the capacity of natural filtration and exacerbates the urban heat island effect (Norton et al., 2015; Wong et al., 2013). As a result, there have been increased calls for the establishment of green and blue space networks at the city-region scale to restore and maintain hydrological and vegetation connectivity, thereby mitigating these effects (Benedict and McMahon, 2002; Demuzere et al., 2014; Norton et al., 2015; Sander and Zhao, 2015). While the literature confirms the role of green and blue spaces in mitigating the impacts of urbanisation on waterways and associated habitats, stakeholders from local government land use planning and stormwater management, and water corporations indicated that there remain significant barriers to improve the way in which these spaces are planned for and implemented (Table 4 c). Typically, planning and implementation of green and blue spaces is carried out separately by different government agencies and levels (e.g. local governments deal with stormwater management, state governments deal with water resource planning and allocation, water corporations deal with water supply and wastewater management). As a result, blue spaces (or blue infrastructure) (Salinas Rodriguez et al., 2014) such as water sensitive urban designs (WSUDs) are not considered a type of urban open space in land use planning. Nonetheless, there is significant research that confirms the role of WSUDs for increasing urban green spaces. Benefits include flood mitigation, water pollution control through nutrient stripping, reducing runoff, reducing waterway erosion and sediment accumulation; whilst also complementing other functions attributed to green spaces such as amenity, habitat provision, urban cooling and recreational opportunities (Donofrio et al., 2009; Leonard et al., 2014; Williams and Wise, 2006). UWM evaluations can inform the planning of blue-green spaces by quantifying hydrological performance indicators. They describe the extent to which stormwater runoff, evapotranspiration, and infiltration to groundwater have altered relative to pre-urbanised flows (Farooqui et al., 2016). Additionally, as space is contested in highly urbanised city-regions there is increasing need to implement multifunctional blue-green spaces (Ashley et al., 2011; Selman, 2009). Specifically, there is increasing attention paid to enhancing multifunctional blue-green spaces in metropolitan regions as a means to make urban regions more sustainable, equitable and liveable (Pincetl and Gearin, 2005). However, information regarding the extent to which and placement within regional catchments of blue-green spaces to achieve desired multi-functionality is still lacking (de Groot, 2006). Our research also indicated such limitation in UWM evaluations due to the lack of reliable indicators that can be used to account for diverse functions of water simultaneously, especially functions that carry subjectivity to their metrics such as recreational and cultural functions. However, UWM evaluations can

3.5. Social and institutional innovation in urban water management A key principle of sustainable water resource management is flexibility to enable diversification of water sources (rainwater, surface water, groundwater, wastewater, stormwater etc) and its suitability for different fit-for-purpose uses (drinking, outdoor use, environmental flows) (Brown et al., 2009). However, for diversification to be implemented significant social and institutional barriers need be overcome. On the social front, there remains substantial public unacceptance of using recycled water, especially attributed to concerns regarding public health risks but also due to the lack of institutional support for initiatives seeking a total water cycle management perspective (Brown et al., 2009; Dean et al., 2016a). It is argued that social innovation to support sustainable water resource management requires engaged citizens (Dean et al., 2016b). Literature has found that knowledge about water is one of the factors that triggers citizen engagement, albeit variations in the level of engagement and motivation to act may still occur (Dean et al., 2016c; Fielding and Roiko, 2014). On the institutional front, there has been substantial research into the flaws of traditional urban water management approaches with increased agreement on the need for innovation centred on water governance that is both collaborative and participatory (Braga, 2001; PahlWostl, 2008; Tan et al., 2012). While the limitations of siloed management and the need for integrated water management are well-

8

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

recognised, achieving this on-the-ground is challenging. In particular, existing governance and institutional arrangements support businessas-usual approaches (Bettini and Head, 2013), and transitioning to new arrangements will require time and harnessing of opportunities to innovate and experiment (Bettini and Head, 2016; Ferguson et al., 2013a; Rijke et al., 2013). There is also agreement that for technological innovation in urban water management to be adopted and implemented there needs to be supportive governance arrangements and political leadership (Rouillard et al., 2016). Our findings confirmed the need for both social and institutional innovation (see Supplementary Material A). Interviewees from the water and natural resource management sectors identified the need to change people’s behaviour on how they use water and the overall lack of understanding, or caring, about the water cycle and how their water usage impacts on others. They also pointed to challenges concerning evolving community expectations about accessing water resources in terms of both quality and quantity. Many also noted that governance arrangements remained siloed and expressed frustration that although they saw the need for linking land use planning and water management, their organisations only had responsibility for certain areas. They recognised the need for collaboration across sectors and institutional actors, but often found it hard to justify this within their business models. Those within water corporations, for example, found it necessary to constantly justify anything that wasn’t related directly to water supply and demand. UWM evaluations could help build arguments for extending responsibilities on sustainable water performance for all sectors of society because they recognise the different functions of water and their role in maintaining much sought urban liveability (Behzadian and Kapelan, 2015; Chrysoulakis et al., 2013). While this could also support greater institutional collaboration and breakdown traditional siloed roles, it is important to acknowledge that better understanding of the relationship between flows of resources, commodities and energy and their impact on social-ecological systems alone may not be sufficient as these relationships are ‘shaped and transformed by power, politics, and human practices’ (Cousins, 2017, p. 378). Barriers to the full implementation of information generated by UWM evaluations are therefore a reality and need be acknowledged considering how power interests driven by short-term electoral cycles plague the Australian planning system (and elsewhere), and discard evidence-based policy (Tangney and Howes, 2015). When water resources are at stake, public opinion and science literacy also play a significant role in supporting, or rejecting, sustainable alternatives (Dean et al., 2016c; Morgan & Grant-Smith, 2015). Additionally, our research indicated that UWM evaluations are still in their early stages of unpacking their full potential to provide an indicator of water use per unit of function.

efficiency and hydrological performance benchmarks and targets for urban developments; tailoring programmes for resource efficiency; making a case for regional blue-green space networks for improved hydrological performance; small and large-scale infrastructure innovation; and social and institutional innovation in urban water management. Our findings indicated that UWM evaluations could inform the abovementioned strategic initiatives in a number of ways, especially for setting benchmarks and targets and devising resource efficiency programmes. Notably, we highlighted how UWM evaluations could be used in combination with other assessment tools to provide much needed metrics that can support benchmarking and targets for urban developments with respect to resource efficiency and hydrological performance. Such metrics could also be useful for the design of incentive programmes targeting specific areas (neighbourhoods, commercial precincts etc.) within a city-region to maximise overall resource efficiency. For example, UWM evaluations can assist practitioners to understand the current and potential water efficiency for the whole urban area by quantifying flows and associated efficiency indicators. This in turn could enable practitioners to derive specific efficiency targets for local developments to achieve the desired water efficiency. Additionally, these evaluations could provide important evidence to support changes in water resource management policies to suit regional bio-physical characteristics. For example, the Perth region relies heavily on groundwater and is progressively considering diversification of its water supply. Stormwater harvesting and greywater use for urban cooling however, are not an option because the region’s rainfall is not reliable year around. Hence, wastewater recycling has received increase attention instead. Conversely, the Melbourne region has greater interest in both stormwater and greywater recycling because its climatic characteristics favour such strategies. Additionally, UWM evaluations have a significant capacity to inform infrastructure innovation and provision, especially considering their ability to assess supply diversification and internalisation at multiple spatial scales within the city-urban landscape. Outputs from UWM evaluations also offer important potential in communicating water sensitive city-regions objectives with society and decision makers, particularly regarding sustainable uses of water and energy resources and their importance to improved and continuous urban liveability. For example, UWM evaluations can indicate how much water demand and water use can be reduced for defined urban areas by simulating a range of scenarios related to demand management, rainwater and stormwater harvesting, and wastewater recycling. This information can assist practitioners to make decisions concerning water management to address future urban growth and associated requirements for small and large infrastructure funding and design. This information could also be used to encourage greater uptake of, and remove barriers to, more sustainable solutions by decision makers as opposed to business as usual approaches. While the regulatory frameworks of the three case study areas differ with respect to both land use and water resource planning, their respective uptake of innovative technologies has been consistently ad hoc. Because political interests driven by short term electoral cycles and response to public opinions continue to prevail above technical, scientific-based solutions in all three regions, practitioners tend to welcome any supporting evidence that can enable improved narratives towards innovation and sustainable alternatives. Our study also indicated that there are current limitations to UWM evaluations that require more research to further develop their full potential for planning water sensitive city-regions. In particular, there is a critical gap in knowledge regarding the understanding of how water resources can be quantified per unit of function to challenge businessas-usual approaches to decision making which mostly consider water supply and demand. This includes innovation towards the

4. Conclusions and new directions for planning water sensitivecity regions This paper investigated how UWM evaluations could support land use and water planning towards water sensitive city-regions. The paper was predicated on the assumption that UWM evaluations of city-regions can generate a holistic picture of and quantification for water flows through city-regions, thereby helping practitioners to develop the interventions that will be required to sustainably manage water resources at the city-region scale. Challenges related to urbanisation and climate change will continue to confront planning for water sensitive city-regions and opportunities for proactive action and innovation should not be missed. To this end, the paper compared knowledge needs identified by practitioners from three Australian capital city-regions (South East Queensland, Melbourne and Perth) and knowledge generated by past UWM evaluations to propose five strategic initiatives to support the achievement of water sensitive city-regions. These included resource

9

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al.

implementation and consolidation of blue-green space networks in a highly contested urban space. Under this new paradigm, water is valued holistically and its multiple functions recognised in water resource governance, water infrastructure planning and design, and land use planning, as well as by the communities that depend on it. This information is especially important for practitioners to assess urban and regional liveability outcomes under a social-ecological system perspective – that is, considering the whole water cycle to deliver sound environmental and water quality outcomes, and enhance ecosystem services that support social and economic needs.

Chrysoulakis, N., Lopes, M., San José, R., Grimmond, C.S.B., Jones, M.B., Magliulo, V., Cartalis, C., 2013. Sustainable urban metabolism as a link between bio-physical sciences and urban planning: the BRIDGE project. Landsc. Urban Plan. 112 (0), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.005. Cousins, J.J., 2017. Volume control: stormwater and the politics of urban metabolism. Geoforum 85, 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.09.020. de Groot, R., 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75 (3–4), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016. Dean, A.J., Fielding, K.S., Lindsay, J., Newton, F.J., Ross, H., 2016a. How social capital influences community support for alternative water sources. Sustain. Cities Soc. 27, 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.06.016. Dean, A.J., Fielding, K.S., Newton, F.J., 2016b. Community knowledge about water: who has better knowledge and is this associated with water-related behaviors and support for water-related policies? PLoS One 11 (7), e0159063. Dean, A.J., Lindsay, J., Fielding, K.S., Smith, L.D.G., 2016c. Fostering water sensitive citizenship – community profiles of engagement in water-related issues. Environ. Sci. Policy 55 (Part 1), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.016. Decker, E.H., Elliott, S., Smith, F.A., Blake, D.R., Rowland, F.S., 2000. Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25 (1), 685–740. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.685. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Faehnle, M., 2014. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manage. 146, 107–115. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025. Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2009. South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. Queensland Government, Department of Infrastructure and Planning. Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014. Plan Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy. Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, Melbourne: The State of Victoria. Department of Water, 2011. Water Allocation Planning in Western Australia. Department of Water, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. Donofrio, J., Kuhn, Y., McWalter, K., Winsor, M., 2009. Water-sensitive urban design: an emerging model in sustainable design and comprehensive water-cycle management. Environ. Pract. 11 (3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046609990263. Dowdy, A., Abbs, D., Bhend, J., Chiew, F., Church, J., Ekström, M., Whetton, P., 2015. East Coast cluster summary, climate change in Australia projections for Australia’s natural Resource management regions. In: Ekström, M. (Ed.), Cluster Brochures. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology., Australia. Fagan, J.E., Reuter, M.A., Langford, K.J., 2010. Dynamic performance metrics to assess sustainability and cost effectiveness of integrated urban water systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (10), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12. 002. Farooqui, T.A., Renouf, M.A., Kenway, S.J., 2016. A metabolism perspective on alternative urban water servicing options using water mass balance. Water Res. 106, 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.10.014. Ferguson, B.C., Brown, R.R., Frantzeskaki, N., de Haan, F.J., Deletic, A., 2013a. The enabling institutional context for integrated water management: lessons from Melbourne. Water Res. 47 (20), 7300–7314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013. 09.045. Ferguson, B.C., Frantzeskaki, N., Brown, R.R., 2013b. A strategic program for transitioning to a Water Sensitive City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 117 (0), 32–45. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.016. Fielding, K.S., Roiko, A.H., 2014. Providing information promotes greater public support for potable recycled water. Water Res. 61, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres. 2014.05.002. Fischer-Kowalski, M., 1998. Society’s metabolism: the intellectual history of material flow analysis, Part I, I 860- I 970. J. Ind. Ecol. 2 (1), 61–78. Fletcher, T.D., Vietz, G., Walsh, C.J., 2014. Protection of stream ecosystems from urban stormwater runoff: the multiple benefits of an ecohydrological approach. Prog. Phys. Geogr.: Earth Environ. 38 (5), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0309133314537671. Fu, X., Wang, X., Schock, C., Stuckert, T., 2016. Ecological wisdom as benchmark in planning and design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 155, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2016.06.012. Gain, A., Rouillard, J., Benson, D., 2013. Can integrated water resources management increase adaptive capacity to climate change adaptation? A critical review. J. Water Resour. Prot. 5, 11–20 doi:doi:10.4236/jwarp.2013.54A003. Grose, M., Abbs, D., Bhend, J., Chiew, F., Church, J., Ekström, M., Whetton, P., 2015. Southern slopes cluster report, climate change in Australia projections for Australia’s natural Resource management regions. In: Ekström, M., Whetton, P., Gerbing, C., Grose, M., Webb, L., Risbey, J. (Eds.), Cluster Reports. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology., Australia. Haase, D., 2009. Effects of urbanisation on the water balance – a long-term trajectory. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29 (4), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009. 01.002. Hope, P., Abbs, D., Bhend, J., Chiew, F., Church, J., Ekström, M., Whetton, P., 2015. Southern and South-Western flatlands cluster report, climate change in Australia projections for Australia’s natural Resource management regions. In: Ekström, M., Whetton, P., Gerbing, C., Grose, M., Webb, L., Risbey, J. (Eds.), Cluster Reports. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology., Australia. IWA, 2016. The IWA Principles for Water Wise Cities. Retrieved:. http://www.iwanetwork.org/projects/water-wise-cities/. Jiménez Cisneros, B.E., Oki, T., Arnell, N., Benito, G., Cogley, J.G., Döll, P., Mwakalila,

Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRC WSC Project B1.2 – “Catchment-scale landscape planning for water sensitive cities in an age of climate change”), which is funded by the Australian Government and industry partners. Silvia Serrao-Neumann, Marguerite Renouf and Edward Morgan were funded by the CRCWSC. Steven Kenway was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) through a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA DE100101322). The authors would like to thank stakeholders from the South East Queensland, Melbourne Metropolitan and Perth Metropolitan regions for their participation in the two series of workshops and interviews. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019. 104144. References ADB, 2016. Asian Water Development Outlook 2016. Retrieved from:. Strengthening Water Security in Asia and the Pacific. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/ publication/189411/awdo-2016.pdf. Ashley, R., Nowell, R., Gersonius, B., Walker, L., 2011. Surface Water Management and Urban Green Infrastructure: a Review of Current Knowledge. Allen House, The Listons. Behzadian, K., Kapelan, Z., 2015. Advantages of integrated and sustainability based assessment for metabolism based strategic planning of urban water systems. Sci. Total Environ. 527–528, 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.097. Benedict, M.A., McMahon, E.T., 2002. Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew. Resour. J. 20 (3), 12–17. Bettini, Y., Head, B.W., 2013. Specifying the Urban Water Governance Challenge. Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities., Melbourne. Bettini, Y., Head, B.W., 2016. Governance Structures and Strategies to Support Innovation and Adaptability. Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities., Melbourne. Bricker, S.H., Banks, V.J., Galik, G., Tapete, D., Jones, R., 2017. Accounting for groundwater in future city visions. Land Use Policy 69, 618–630. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.018. Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38 (7), 723–739. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.futures.2005.12.002. Bowen, C.C., Bowen, W.M., 2008. In: Yang, K., Miller, G.J. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 689–704. Braga, B.P.F., 2001. Integrated urban water resources management: a challenge into the 21st century. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 17 (4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07900620120094127. Brown, R., Ashley, R., Farrelly, M., 2011. Political and professional agency entrapment: an agenda for urban water research. Water Resour. Manage. 25 (15), 4037–4050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9886-y. Brown, R., Farrelly, M., Keath, N., 2009. Practitioner perceptions of social and institutional barriers to advancing a diverse water source approach in Australia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 25 (1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620802586090. Burn, S., Maheepala, S., Sharma, A., 2012. Utilising integrated urban water management to assess the viability of decentralised water solutions. Water Sci. Technol. 66 (1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.071. Cesanek, B., Wordlaw, L., 2015. Recommendations and report of APA’s water task force. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. Chrysoulakis, N., de Castro, E.A., Moors, E.J., 2015. Understanding Urban Metabolism: A Tool for Urban Planning. Routledge, Oxon, New York.

10

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al. S.S., 2014. Freshwater resources. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 229–269. Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., Engel-Yan, J., 2007. The changing metabolism of cities. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (2), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1162/jie.2007.1107. Kennedy, C., Pincetl, S., Bunje, P., 2011. The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban planning and design. Environ. Pollut. 159 (8–9), 1965–1973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.022. Kennedy, C.A., Stewart, I., Facchini, A., Cersosimo, I., Mele, R., Chen, B., Sahin, A.D., 2015. Energy and material flows of megacities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (19), 5985–5990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504315112. Kenway, S., Gregory, A., McMahon, J., 2011. Urban water mass balance analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 15 (5), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00357.x. Kılkış, Ş., 2016. Sustainable development of energy, water and environment systems index for Southeast European cities. J. Clean. Prod. 130, 222–234. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.121. Leonard, R., Walton, A., Koth, B., Green, M., Spinks, A., Myers, B., Pezzaniti, D., 2014. Community Acceptance of Water Sensitive Urban Design: Six Case Studies. Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No.14/3, Adelaide SA. Low Choy, D., Minnery, J., 1994. Planning the outward growth of australian capital cities: brisbane. Urban Policy Res. 12 (3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08111149408551632. Marlow, D.R., Moglia, M., Cook, S., Beale, D.J., 2013. Towards sustainable urban water management: a critical reassessment. Water Res. 47 (20), 7150–7161. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.07.046. Marteleira, R., Pinto, G., Niza, S., 2014. Regional water flows – assessing opportunities for sustainable management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 82 (0), 63–74. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.016. McCallum, T., 2014. Better Regulatory Frameworks for Water Sensitive Cities: Comceptualising Urban Water Regulation - the Melbourne System. Retrieved from. Centre for Regulatory Studies, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia. McDonald, R.I., Weber, K., Padowski, J., Flörke, M., Schneider, C., Green, P.A., Montgomery, M., 2014. Water on an urban planet: urbanization and the reach of urban water infrastructure. Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A 27 (0), 96–105. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.022. Meng, X., Kenway, S., 2018. Analysing water sensitive urban design options. Using water mass balance to analyse hydrological performance of water sensitive urban design options in infill development. Water E-J. 3 (4) doi.org/10.21139/wej.2018.037. Mini, C., Hogue, T.S., Pincetl, S., 2014. Estimation of residential outdoor water use in Los Angeles, California. Landsc. Urban Plan. 127, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2014.04.007. Mollay, U., Schremmer, C., Pinho, P., Stead, D., Schmidt, P., Davoudi, S., Megginson, C., Gaube, V., Heinz, M., Steinberger, J., Pichler, P.P., Weisz, H., 2011. Planning Resource-efficiency Cities. Synthesis Report for the Sustainable Urban Metabolism for Europe (SUME) Project. European Communities’ Seventh Framework Programme, Vienna. Morgan, E.A., Grant-Smith, D.C.C., 2015. Tales of science and defiance: the case for colearning and collaboration in bridging the science/emotion divide in water recycling debates. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 58 (10), 1770–1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09640568.2014.954691. National Water Commission, 2013. Urban Water futures. Discussion Paper. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Neto, S., 2016. Water governance in an urban age. Util. Policy 43 (Part A), 32–41. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.05.004. Newman, P.W.G., 1999. Sustainability and cities: extending the metabolism model. Landsc. Urban Plan. 44 (4), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99) 00009-2. Norton, B.A., Coutts, A.M., Livesley, S.J., Harris, R.J., Hunter, A.M., Williams, N.S.G., 2015. Planning for cooler cities: a framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 134 (0), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.018. OECD, 2015. OECD Principles on Water Governance. Retrieved from:. http://www. oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/OECD-Principles-on-Water-Governance-brochure.pdf. Office of Living Victoria, 2013. Melbourne’s Water Future: Consultation Draft. State Government of Victoria, Melbourne. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2008. Requirements for adaptive Water management. In: Pahl-Wostl, C., Kabat, P., Möltgen, J. (Eds.), Adaptive and Integrated Water Management: Coping With Complexity and Uncertainty. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 1–22. Pediaditi, K., Doick, K.J., Moffat, A.J., 2010. Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield, regeneration to greenspace initiatives: a meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97 (1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2010.04.007. Pincetl, S., Bunje, P., Holmes, T., 2012. An expanded urban metabolism method: toward a systems approach for assessing urban energy processes and causes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107 (3), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.006. Pincetl, S., Chester, M., Circella, G., Fraser, A., Mini, C., Murphy, S., Sivaraman, D., 2014. Enabling future sustainability transitions. J. Ind. Ecol. 18 (6), 871–882. https://doi. org/10.1111/jiec.12144.

Pincetl, S., Gearin, E., 2005. The reinvention of public green space. Urban Geogr. 26 (5), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.5.365. Pinho, P., Oliveira, V., Cruz, S.S., Barbosa, M., 2012. Metabolic Impact Assessment for urban planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 56 (2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09640568.2012.657953. Plummer, R., de Grosbois, D., de Loë, R., Velaniškis, J., 2011. Probing the integration of land use and watershed planning in a shifting governance regime. Water Resour. Res. 47 (9) n/a-n/a. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010213. doi:10.1029/2010WR010213. Queensland Government, 2016. ShapingSEQ. Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan. Department of Infrastructure and Local Government Planning. Reisinger, A., Kitching, R.L., Chiew, F., Hughes, L., Newton, P.C.D., Schuster, S.S., Whetton, P., 2014. Australasia. In: Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, E.S.B., Kissel, A.N.L., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1371–1438. Renouf, M.A., Kenway, S.J., 2017. Evaluation approaches for advancing urban water goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (4), 995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12456. Renouf, M.A., Serrao-Neumann, S., Kenway, S.J., Morgan, E.A., Low Choy, D., 2017. Urban water metabolism indicators derived from a water mass balance – bridging the gap between visions and performance assessment of urban water resource management. Water Res. 122, 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.060. Renouf, M.A., Kenway, S.J., Lam, K.L., Weber, T., Roux, E., Serrao-Neumann, S., Morgan, E., 2018. Understanding urban water performance at the city-region scale using an urban water metabolism evaluation framework. Water Res. 137, 395–406. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.01.070. Rijke, J., Farrelly, M., Brown, R., Zevenbergen, C., 2013. Configuring transformative governance to enhance resilient urban water systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 25, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.012. Rogers, B.C., Hammer, K., Werbeloff, L., Chesterfield, C., 2015. Shaping Perth As a Water Sensitive City: Outcomes and Perspectives From a Participatory Process to Develop a Vision and Strategic Transition Framework. Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities., Melbourne, Australia. Rouillard, J., Vidaurre, R., Brouwer, S., Damman, S., Ponce, A., Gerner, N., Termes, M., 2016. Governance regime factors conducive to innovation uptake in urban water management: experiences from Europe. Water 8 (10), 477. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w8100477. Rueda, S., 2007. Barcelona, a Compact and Complex Mediterranean City. A More Sustainable Vision for the Future. Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona, Barcelona. Salinas Rodriguez, C.N.A., Ashley, R., Gersonius, B., Rijke, J., Pathirana, A., Zevenbergen, C., 2014. Incorporation and application of resilience in the context of water-sensitive urban design: linking European and Australian perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 1 (2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1017. Sander, H.A., Zhao, C., 2015. Urban green and blue: who values what and where? Land Use Policy 42 (0), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.021. Selman, P., 2009. Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 5 (2), 45–52. SEQ Water, 2015. Water for Life. SEQwater, Brisbane. Serrao-Neumann, S., Renouf, M., Kenway, S.J., Low Choy, D., 2017. Connecting land-use and water planning: prospects for an urban water metabolism approach. Cities 60 (Part B), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.07.003. Shearer, H., Coiacetto, E., Dodson, J., Taygfeld, P., 2016. How the structure of the Australian housing development industry influences climate change adaptation. Hous. Stud. 31 (7), 809–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2016.1150430. Skinner, R.M., 2017. Water policy in a time of climate change: coping with complexity. Public Adm. Rev. 77 (1), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12669. Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., 2010. Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities As Economic Cities Synopsis. Retrieved from Virginia, US:. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1270074782769/Eco2Cities_ synopsis.pdf. Tan, P.-L., Bowmer, K.H., Baldwin, C., 2012. Continued challenges in the policy and legal framework for collaborative water planning. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 474, 84–91. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.021. Tangney, P., Howes, M., 2015. The politics of evidence-based policy: a comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK. Environ. Plann. C Gov. Policy 34 (6), 1115–1134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15602023. UK Water Partnership, 2015. Future Visions for Water and Cities, A Thought Piece. Retrieved from:. https://www.theukwaterpartnership.org/future-visions-for-waterand-cities-a-thought-piece/. van den Brandeler, F., Gupta, J., Hordijk, M., 2019. Megacities and rivers: scalar mismatches between urban water management and river basin management. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 573, 1067–1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.001. Victorian Government, 2014. Plan Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy. The State of Victoria. Vietz, G.J., Rutherfurd, I.D., Fletcher, T.D., Walsh, C.J., 2016. Thinking outside the channel: challenges and opportunities for protection and restoration of stream morphology in urbanizing catchments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 145, 34–44. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.004. Villarroel Walker, R., Beck, M.B., 2012. Understanding the metabolism of urban-rural ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst. 15 (4), 809–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-

11

Land Use Policy 88 (2019) 104144

S. Serrao-Neumann, et al. 0241-8. Wang, X., Palazzo, D., Carper, M., 2016. Ecological wisdom as an emerging field of scholarly inquiry in urban planning and design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 155, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.019. Western Australian Government, 2015. Perth-Peel@3million. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth. Whitford, V., Ennos, A.R., Handley, J.F., 2001. “City form and natural process”—indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 57 (2), 91–103. Williams, E.S., Wise, W.R., 2006. Hydrologic impacts of alternative approaches to storm water management and land development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 42 (2), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb03849.x.

Wolman, A., 1965. The metabolism of cities. Sci. Am. 213 (3), 179–190. Wong, T.H.F., Allen, R., Brown, R.R., Deletic, A., Gangadharan, L., Gernjak, W., Walsh, C.J., 2013. In: Wong, T.H.F. (Ed.), Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City: Blueprint 2013. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia. Wong, T.H.F., Brown, R.R., 2009. The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (3), 673–682. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.436. Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, third edition ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Zhang, Y., Wildemuth, B.M., 2009. Qualitative analysis of content. In: Wildemuth, B. (Ed.), Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Libraries Unlimited., Westport, CT, pp. 308–319.

12