w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Towards sustainable urban water management: A

critical reassessment

David R. Marlow*, Magnus Moglia, Stephen Cook, David J. Beale

CSIRO Land and Water, Graham Road, Highett, VIC 3190, Australia

article info abstract

Article history: Within the literature, concerns have been raised that centralised urban water systems are
Received 22 November 2012 maladapted to challenges associated with climate change, population growth and other
Received in revised form socio-economic and environmental strains. This paper provides a critical assessment of
6 June 2013 the discourse that surrounds emerging approaches to urban water management and
Accepted 21 July 2013 infrastructure provision. As such, ‘sustainable urban water management’ (SUWM) concepts
Available online 20 October 2013 are scrutinized to highlight the limitations and strengths in the current lines of argument
and point towards unaddressed complexities in the transformational agendas advocated
Keywords: by SUWM proponents. Taking an explicit infrastructure view, it is shown that the specific
Sustainable urban water manage- context of the urban water sector means that changes to infrastructure systems occur as
ment an incremental hybridisation process. This process is driven by a range of factors including
Systems transitions lock-in effects of legacy solutions, normative values and vested interests of agents, cost
Infrastructure management and performance certainty and perceptions of risk. Different views of these factors help
explain why transformational agendas have not achieved the change SUWM proponents
call for and point to the need for a critical reassessment of the system effects and eco-
nomics of alternative service provision models.
Crown Copyright ª 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Werbeloff and Brown, 2011a,b). Local pressures vary consid-

Management of water is a critical factor in urban sustain-
ability (Schaffer and Vollmer, 2010). In most modern cities,
water services are delivered via networks of buried pipes that
connect customers to treatment works and, ultimately, to
sources of water and sinks for wastewater. This infrastructure
represents a significant capital investment and future gener-
ations will inherit the outcomes of society’s ongoing invest-
ment decisions (Burn et al., 2012; Marlow et al., 2010a; Wong
and Brown, 2009). The sector is facing increasing pressures
associated with climate change, changes in population and
demographics, a volatile global economy, increasing energy
prices, heightened environmental awareness and more com-
plex regulatory and social circumstances (Marlow et al., 2010b;
erably, but the reality is that water service providers (WSPs)
must operate within constrained budgets, while being ex-
pected to deliver quality service at a low price. In such cir-
cumstances, it is particularly important to address the
growing uncertainty with respect to operational, environ-
mental, social and economic constraints (Blackmore and
Plant, 2008; Pearson et al., 2009). Moreover, there is an
increasing clash between the demand for and limits to re-
sources that result in ecological, economic and cultural
‘strains’ (Vlachos and Braga, 2001). From an urban water
perspective, these strains have led various authors to suggest
that the current model of service provision is no longer
appropriate (Pahl-Wostl, 2002; Ashley et al., 2003; Milly et al.,
2008; Pearson et al., 2010; Brown et al., 2011).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 92526614.

E-mail addresses: david.marlow@csiro.au, david.beale@csiro.au (D.R. Marlow).
0043-1354/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright ª 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.07.046
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1 7151

The aspiration for change has been labelled in a variety of
ways, but in this article is referred to as ‘sustainable urban water
management’ or SUWM (Makropoulos et al., 2008; Brown and
Farrelly, 2009; Novotny, 2009; Werbeloff and Brown, 2011a).
SUWM concepts have been discussed and developed over a
number of decades (Hengeveld and De Vocht, 1982; Button
and Pearce, 1989; Choguill, 1993; Niemczynowicz, 1999;
Hellström et al., 2000; Keath and Brown, 2009). However,
while there has been some adoption of alternative ap-
proaches, the predominant model of service provision re-
mains unchanged. Given the significant volume of papers
advocating change, this article provides a critical review of
SUWM concepts and seeks to illustrate why transformational
agendas have not realised the mainstream adoption of SUWM
approaches that proponents assert is needed.
As the aim of this article is to provide a critical review of the
SUWM paradigm rather than the literature itself, the presen-
tation of arguments departs somewhat from the standard
model of a review paper. The concept of SUWM is first
considered via a comparison to current models of service
provision. The purported benefits of SUWM and the impedi-
ments that must be overcome to achieve these are then out-
lined. Conceptual models of investment and option selection
are then used to further investigate factors that are central to
the debate over SUWM.
2. Sustainable urban water management
The authors have previously delivered a body of research
related to infrastructure asset management, integrated urban
water management, decentralised solutions and sustainabil-
ity within the urban water sector. A question that arose from
this work is why SUWM concepts are so strongly supported in
the academic literature, but still remain a niche innovation
from the perspective of broader infrastructure provision. A
critical review of the SUWM paradigm was thus undertaken.
To this end, we identified relevant literature by searching
academic databases using key words related to SUWM con-
cepts. Additional literature relevant to the authors’ previous
experience and research was also considered.
2.1. A brief historical perspective
The traditional model of urban water service provision
evolved through a number of phases, as explored by such
authors as Tarr et al. (1984), Geels (2005), Gandy (2004, 2006)
and Brown et al. (2009b). For the purposes of this paper, we
have synthesised these phases in Table 1. According to the
literature, the development of the associated socio-technical
regime involved a co-evolution between science, technology,
culture, industry structure, policy institutions and the market
(Geels, 2005). SUWM concepts can be considered the next
step in this co-evolution and reflect growing concerns over
community wellbeing (rather than just public health),
ecological health and sustainable development, all of which
can be collectively labelled as ‘green’ issues (Bartone et al.,
1994). Green issues and related policy developments reflect
a growing awareness that the natural environment is
vulnerable to human activity at multiple spatial and tempo-
ral scales (Fiorino, 2001). Arguments for SUWM are essen-
tially an articulation of this awareness, expressed in terms of
the urban water cycle. In practical terms, however, the space
to consider SUWM arises primarily where the urban water
sector is delivering secure, reliable and safe water services. In
contrast, urban centres in developing countries are still
grappling with what has been dubbed the ‘brown agenda’
(Allen et al., 2002), which relates to the impact of urban
pollution on public health. From an urban water perspective,
the immediate challenges in such countries remain the lack
of access to safe water, sanitation and adequate drainage
systems (Gandy, 2004).
2.2. The meaning of ‘SUWM’
As an aspiration, SUWM reflects a generalised goal to manage
the urban water cycle to produce more benefits than tradi-
tional approaches have delivered. While its meaning is not
precisely definable, it is possible to characterise the concept
through a comparison with a more traditional model of urban
water management. The current dominant model relies on
large-scale, centrally managed infrastructure systems that are
designed to deliver cheap and reliable services (Brown et al.,

Table 1 e Stepwise development of urban water systems.

Existing infrastructure Service focus Driver for change Solution

Unstructured system, with Basic services Population growth and associated issues, especially pollution Piped water
some storm sewers in and inadequacy of local water supply
large cities
Water pipes Secure supply of Excessive demand placed on waste disposal system, leading to Sewers (combined and
wholesome water contamination of urban areas with stagnant water and faecal separate)
matter. The perception of disease being related to noxious
smells was also a key driver.
Water pipes and sewers Public health and Contamination of surface waters with sewage and impact on Water Treatment Works
(combined and separate) drainage (in larger health of downstream communities. (WTWs) and protected
cities) catchments
Water pipes, sewers and Waterway pollution Degradation of urban water ways, nuisance issues and loss of Sewage Treatment Works
WTWs amenity value. (STWs) and separation of
sewers
Water pipes, sewers and Flood protection Extension of paved urban areas required extensive drainage Extensive storm sewers
WTWs, STWs and drainage systems
7152 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
2009a,b). Centralised provision and management of this
infrastructure has been necessary because the systems are
very costly and operations are complex and resource
intensive.
Potable water, wastewater and drainage services are
generally delivered via a network of buried pipes. These pipes
typically represent 50e75% of a WSP’s combined operating
and capital costs (Thomas and McLeod, 1992; Speers, 2009). In
theory at least, reducing the reliance on such networks has
the potential to either realise a significant reduction in
expenditure or to ensure that expenditure is focused on
treating water, sewage and stormwater to suitable levels.
Decentralisation is thus a key theme in the SUWM literature.
Proponents for SUWM also note that water-carriage sewerage
systems are wasteful resulting in significant loss of useful
resources (nutrients, energy and water). Similarly, stormwater
management purely for flood protection implies a useful
resource (i.e., the conveyed water) is wasted. Furthermore, the
discharge of stormwater to waterways leads to the distur-
bance of ecosystems. Proponents also note that only a rela-
tively small percentage of potable water supplied to
customers is actually used for potable purposes. This implies
there are significant opportunities for reducing the cost of
treating and transporting potable water.
When commentating on alternatives, proponents of
SUWM assert that a more integrated approach to water
supply, sewerage and stormwater management has the po-
tential to deliver the most appropriate use of water from all
stages of the urban water cycle and therefore enhance social,
ecological and economic sustainability at various scales
(Ashley et al., 2003; Milly et al., 2008; Wong and Brown, 2008;
Brown et al., 2011). It has also been suggested that the resil-
ience of urban water systems will be improved through
diversification away from a centralised model (Speers and
Mitchell, 2000; Wong and Brown, 2008). SUWM thus differs
from traditional models in its core aims, the type of infra-
structure and how the urban water cycle is managed.
3. Benefits of SUWM and implications to
infrastructure
The perceived shortcomings of existing approaches to man-
agement of urban water have led various commentators to
argue for a transition to a more sustainable approach
(Niemczynowicz, 1999; Newman, 2001; Pahl-wostl, 2007;
Brown et al., 2011; Urich et al., 2011; Binney, 2012). This has in
turn led to the development of a range of concepts that un-
derpin the overarching SUWM paradigm, including Integrated
Urban Water Management (Coombes and Kuczera, 2002;
Mitchell, 2006; Maheepala et al., 2010; Burn et al., 2012), Total
Water Cycle Management (Chanan and Woods, 2006; Najia and
Lustig, 2006; Grant et al., 2010) and Water Sensitive Urban
Design (Wong, 2006; Yu et al., 2012). Despite the different terms
used to describe SUWM, proponents tend to note three central
benefits in comparison to traditional urban water manage-
ment: (1) a more ‘natural’ water cycle; (2) enhanced water se-
curity through local source diversification and (3) resource
efficiency. The adoption of decentralised infrastructure solu-
tions is seen as a means of achieving these goals.
3.1. A more ‘natural’ water cycle
Within the SUWM paradigm, the objectives for managing
stormwater have broadened from mitigation of flood risk to
encompass pollution control, ecological regeneration and
enhancement of urban amenity and recreational value
(Thomas et al., 1997). This involves implementing a range of
decentralised solutions and the disconnection of waterways
from impervious surfaces to ensure flow regimes are closer to
‘natural’ ones in terms of quality, quantity and frequency of
flow, while still ameliorating flood risk (Mitchell, 2006; Walsh
et al., 2005; Fletcher et al., 2007; Sharma et al., 2008b, 2009;
Wong and Brown, 2008; Rozos and Makropoulos, 2012). The
degree to which degraded urban waterways can be restored
varies and the term ‘naturalization’ is sometimes used as an
alternative to restoration. By definition, urban areas have been
significantly altered from their pre-development state, so the
goal of naturalization is to establish dynamically stable wa-
terways capable of supporting healthy ecosystems (Rhoads
et al., 1999).
3.2. Enhanced water security through local source
diversification
Within urban areas, there are many demands that can be met
through water of non-potable quality, including landscape
irrigation, industrial applications, groundwater recharge,
recreational applications and surface water augmentation
(Gikas and Tchobanoglous, 2009). Proponents for SUWM argue
that developing alternative water sources within the urban
catchment will allow these demands to be satisfied through
the supply of water of a quality that is ‘fit for purpose’
(Newman, 2009). Alternative sources include rainwater har-
vesting, stormwater harvesting, water recycling and sewer
mining (Thomas et al., 1997; Speers and Mitchell, 2000;
Newman, 2001; Brown et al., 2008; Wong and Brown, 2008).
Diversification using these alternative local water sources
reduces the demand placed on water abstracted from water-
ways, groundwater or dams and thus improves water security
(PMSEIC, 2007; Wong and Brown, 2008). Reducing the amount
of water extracted from waterways also has the potential to
contribute to the maintenance of environmental flows. Hence,
water security has become a common theme in the SUWM
literature (Novotny, 2009; Werbeloff and Brown, 2011b; Lloyd
et al., 2012).
3.3. Resource efficiency
Another potential benefit of SUWM is that it promotes effi-
cient use of resources in line with broader interpretations of
‘sustainability’. It can be argued that resource efficiency is a
goal of any effective water business, as it implies minimising
the use of water, energy, process chemicals and other re-
sources to reduce costs. Water conservation initiatives
involving customers also provide benefits in terms of
improved water security and resource efficiency (Howe et al.,
2005; Inman and Jeffrey, 2006; Daigger, 2009; Gato-Trinidad
et al., 2011). Proponents of SUWM assert that further
resource efficiencies can be achieved by adopting an inte-
grated approach to the urban water cycle (Thomas and
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
McLeod, 1992; Wong, 2006; Gikas and Tchobanoglous, 2009;
Speers, 2009). Expanding beyond these efficiencies, the
concept of resource recovery is advocated to minimise the
ecological footprint of the urban water sector (Burn et al.,
2012). This involves reclaiming useful components of waste
streams, including energy, nutrients and water.
3.4. Decentralised solutions
The term ‘decentralised’ is often applied to solutions that are
complementary to the existing centralised system (Gikas and
Tchobanoglous, 2009). Such solutions can be matched to the
local context in terms of water sources and demands, as well
as environment and social factors (Cook et al., 2009; Gikas and
Tchobanoglous, 2009; Sharma et al., 2010). Stated reasons for
adopting decentralised solutions include a desire to promote
innovation and technology, striving for more efficient use of
resources, improving landscape amenity, contributing to
community well-being and protecting the natural environ-
ment (Kennedy et al., 2007; Biggs et al., 2009; Tjandraatmadja
et al., 2009; Daniels and Porter, 2011; Hall, 2012). Decentralised
solutions may also help defer augmentation of existing
infrastructure. For example, traditional water and wastewater
pipe network design is driven to a large extent by the need to
cater for peak demands. Mitigation of these peaks through use
of decentralised solutions, including provision of local
capacitance, can allow deferral of investment and produce
substantial reductions in capital costs (Speers and Mitchell,
2000).
4. Impediments to change
Despite the claimed benefits of SUWM, transformational
agendas have not achieved the level of change called for by its
proponents. For example, Wong and Brown (2008) state that
adoption of SUWM solutions remains too slow and that in-
vestment in conventional approaches perpetuates a signifi-
cant delay in the widespread uptake of alternatives. Brown
et al. (2009a,b) similarly questioned the dominant govern-
ment responses to extended drought in Australia, which
largely involved the expansion of centralised systems,
including large investments in desalination. Keath and Brown
(2009) noted that the reaction to extreme drought events also
led to investment in traditional solutions, suggesting that this
response over-rode emerging values associated with SUWM.
Farrelly and Brown (2011) stated that governments continue to
promote large scale technological solutions, rather than sup-
porting emerging and existing sustainable technologies and
practices.
Part of the challenge in changing the model of service
provision is that investment cycles for infrastructure often
occur over timescales that are too short (e.g. five years) to
allow effective adaptation to longer term pressures (de Graaf
and van Der Brugge, 2010). Another challenge is that the
widespread adoption of a specific technological solution leads
to both institutional and technological ‘lock-in’ effects (Foxon
et al., 2002). Arthur (1994) identified four factors that
generate such effects: (1) economies of scale, (2) learning ef-
fects that improve products or reduce their cost, (3) adaptive
7153
expectations (agents become increasingly confident about
quality and performance of the current technology) and (4)
network economies (agents adopting the same technologies
as others). Lock-in effects can create a barrier to the adoption
of more sustainable technologies (Foxon et al., 2002). Pro-
ponents of SUWM argue that since legacy infrastructure is
long lived and expensive it locks out innovative alternatives.
Brown et al. (2011) have in fact referred to this as ‘entrapment’,
which would imply that traditional models of service provi-
sion are demonstrably inferior. There are, however, a number
of conceptual weaknesses associated with the arguments for
SUWM and these provide alternative insights into why
transformational agendas remain unfulfilled. We illustrate
these by couching them in terms of four key issues: (1) diffi-
culties in predicting the system effects of innovative solu-
tions, (2) practical challenges in managing innovations in
technologies and service provision strategies, (3) financial
considerations and (4) the effect of bias and advocacy on the
promotion of technologies and management paradigms.
4.1. Predicting system effects of innovations
The performance of an urban water system is multi-faceted
and difficult to predict from a system perspective. While this
can be said of traditional systems, innovative solutions are, by
definition, introduced into new contexts, which implies there
will be a lack of institutional capacity to manage uncertainties
and risk. Changes to any part the system can have both up-
stream and downstream impacts that affect costs, perfor-
mance and future opportunities (Speers and Mitchell, 2000).
This leads to dynamic changes across multiple temporal and
spatial scales that are often not intuitive even to experts.
Lack of knowledge or uncertainty may also mean that an
attempt to achieve one SUWM objective undermines the
achievement of another. For example, in some cases the en-
ergy intensity required to pump a unit of water from a local
water source like rain tanks compares unfavourably to the
energy associated with centralised water pumping
(Tjandraatmadja et al., 2012). Similarly, Rygaard et al. (2011)
noted that while options such as recycled water, desalina-
tion and rainwater collection can improve water security,
their introduction raises several challenges; e.g. energy re-
quirements vary by more than a factor of ten amongst the
alternative techniques and wastewater reclamation can lead
to the appearance of trace contaminants in potable water.
The effectiveness of SUWM options also depend on a
number of highly context specific factors (Naylor et al., 2012;
Rozos and Makropoulos, 2012). For example, Moglia et al.
(2012b) considered the operation and maintenance re-
quirements for rainwater tanks, and concluded that they
depend on underlying socio-psychological factors and over-
arching governance arrangements. The contribution of alter-
native solutions to SUWM objectives can also be over
estimated. For instance, rainwater tanks in South East
Queensland (Australia) were installed on the basis that they
would reduce demand for mains water through substitution
(Walton and Holmes, 2011). Mandatory building provisions
specified a 70 kL/year annual reduction in mains water de-
mand per new dwelling, but less than 70% of this target was
achieved (Beal et al., 2012).
7154 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
Historical perspectives of the water sector have shown that
innovations that appeared to promise only benefits produced
significant secondary costs (Tarr et al., 1984). Similarly, SUWM
solutions have sometimes resulted in unintended and unde-
sirable consequences (Kennedy et al., 2007). For example, in
one stormwater harvesting scheme in Melbourne, Australia,
thousands of birds were attracted to the constructed wetlands
causing issues such as droppings, odour and especially noise
(Melbourne Water (MW), 2012). Reduced water consumption
can also have impacts on the sedimentation and degradation
processes in sewer systems and may impact wastewater
treatment efficiencies (Parkinson et al., 2005; Marleni et al.,
2012). Kennedy et al. (2007) described unintended conse-
quences of SUWM solutions in two urban regeneration pro-
jects that involved inconvenience, distress and health and
safety risks of end-users.
Overall, these issues highlight the need for rigorous
assessment of alternative service options against multiple
criteria (Lundin and Morrison, 2002; Zarghami, 2005; Willetts
et al., 2007; Ashley et al., 2008; Zarghami et al., 2008; Sharma
et al., 2008a, 2009; Moglia et al., 2012a). However, even when
applying suitable decision support methods, a considerable
amount of uncertainty remains because innovative technolo-
gies and solutions are less tried and tested (Moglia et al., 2012a).
While such issues are expected as part of a necessary learning
process (Moglia et al., 2010; 2011a; Farrelly and Brown, 2011; Bos
and Brown, 2012), broader experimentation in new technolo-
gies still needs to be undertaken in a way that does not signif-
icantly impact customers (Rittell and Webber, 1973). As less
evidence is available for novel solutions, the responsible
approach is to proceed on the basis of experimentation, pilot
studies and trials that allow an empirical foundation for
change to be developed (Farrelly and Brown, 2011).
4.2. Practical challenges in the management of
innovative solutions
As well as difficulties in predicting the performance and system
effects of innovations, there are also adoption issues to address,
including increased management complexity, diffuse re-
sponsibilities, uncertain performance and community resis-
tance to change. More specifically, innovative solutions often
have requirements that are not necessarily clear from the
outset, and institutional capacity therefore tends to develop
over time (Bos and Brown, 2012; Moglia et al., 2012b; Naylor
et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2012). For example, Backhaus et al. (2012)
indicated that stormwater harvesting needs to be supported
by research and knowledge gathering, industry wide commu-
nication of existing knowledge and collaboration between
various types of practitioners. Depending on the governance
arrangements, the staffing, management difficulties and skill
requirements vary considerably (Naylor et al., 2012).
Changes to the potable water system can also meet sig-
nificant resistance from the public (Hurlimann and Dolnicar,
2010). A number of researchers have highlighted the com-
plexities involved with obtaining community acceptance of
alternative water solutions (Hurlimann and McKay, 2004;
Marks and Zadaroznyj, 2005; Marks, 2006; Dolnicar and
Hurlimann, 2009; Nancarrow et al., 2009; Hurlimann and
Dolnicar, 2010). Various factors contribute to this, including
risk perception, trust in the WSP, perceptions of fairness,
perceived outcomes and personal values (Mankad and
Tapsuwan, 2010; Nancarrow et al., 2010; Mankad, 2012).
There are also concerns relating to end-user involvement in
management of systems (Söderberg and Åberg, 2002; Gardiner
et al., 2008). Post-implementation surveys have indicated the
importance of on-going engagement with end-users of
decentralised water systems, due to the possibility of unin-
tended consequences, even when they are not directly
involved with their management (Dahan and Nisan, 2007;
Hochmuth et al., 2012; Kennedy et al., 2007; Moglia et al.,
2011b).
4.3. Financial implications
WSP revenues are to some extent often linked to the volume
of potable water used by customers, so widespread imple-
mentation of alternative water sources and/or water conser-
vation measures could lead to reduced revenues (Mitchell
et al., 2007). Properties connected to centralised infrastruc-
ture also pay standing charges to cover the capital cost of the
infrastructure. This is a significant component of customer
bills, so decreasing the reliance on centralised water provision
would therefore not necessarily be reflected in a significant
cost saving to the community, which reduces incentives for
uptake of SUWM options. This is particularly problematic if
traditional water systems remain the “systems of last resort”
(i.e. are needed to supply water services when SUWM options
fail, there is prolonged drought or a need to supply water for
fire fighting, etc.) such that there are no reductions in system
sizing. Consideration of externalities has the potential for
capturing the additional benefits of SUWM options (Hatton
MacDonald, 2004; Listowski et al., 2013; Tjandraatmadja
et al., 2005). The challenge is to value externalities in a way
that is rigorous and reflects community values, and then to set
appropriate tariffs to achieve the best outcome for the com-
munity whilst maintaining the financial viability and sus-
tainability of WSPs (Mitchell et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2007).
4.4. Institutional and personal bias
When businesses, authorities, universities and related orga-
nizations build up knowledge and experience with any
particular solution, it is inevitable that they will develop bia-
ses, intentionally or otherwise, towards their own commercial
or institutional interests (Rygaard et al., 2011). Such biases can
interfere with the judgment of proponents for any technology,
who may over-estimate the benefits of their preferred solu-
tions and under-estimate potential problems in comparison
to alternatives. While such biases are observed in those who
promote centralised solutions, these issues are particularly
important for SUWM due to the values held by proponents, as
described in the remainder of this article.
5. Conceptual models of change within the
water sector
Factors that influence the rate of progress towards SUWM can
be illustrated further by considering how innovations are
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1 7155

Fig. 1 e A Systems Perspective of Water Sector Investments. The flow of urban water investment accumulates over time as a
capital stock of constructed and natural infrastructure assets that contribute to the delivery of urban water services. The
level of investment is influenced by a ‘hard’ metric-driven feedback loop, which along with consideration of endogenous
and exogenous pressures informs the need for future investment. There is, however, also a ‘soft’ opinion-driven feedback
loop that reflects the perception of broader outcomes delivered by the sector. Perceptions are influenced by complex issues
related to vested interests and values.

taken up within the water sector. Relevant conceptual models
have been previously discussed in terms of a multi-layer
perspective (MLP) model (Geels, 2005a; Van Der Brugge et al.,
2005; Geels and Kemp, 2007). The MLP model is concerned
with what can be referred to as ‘system transitions’, which are
specifically defined as far-reaching changes in both the tech-
nical and social/cultural dimensions of a system (Van Der
Brugge et al., 2005). According to Elzen and Wieczorek (2005),
this co-evolutionary aspect distinguishes a ‘transition’ from
incremental technical improvements where there is relatively
little alteration of the societal embedding of the technologies.
As illustrated throughout this article, the literature on SUWM
implies there is a need for radical co-evolutionary change in
the approach to urban water management and infrastructure
provision, and Brown et al. (2009b) explicitly considered
SUWM in terms of this type of transition.
From an infrastructure perspective and considering the
urban water sector of developed countries as a whole, it seems
unlikely that a broad transition to an alternative model of
service provision will be economically or practicably feasible
because many of the decisions made in the past are now, in
practice, irreversible. For example, buried pipe assets have life
spans of many decades, even centuries, and deteriorate in
response to many factors. As such, similar assets can come to
the end of their life at very different times (WERF, 2009; Burn
et al., 2010). This allows rehabilitation of these assets to be
distributed over time, which reduces peaks in investment and
capital works. However, this also means that infrastructure is
subject to incremental replacement such that existing
systems are renewed in a piecemeal way. This has the cu-
mulative effect of perpetuating the same type of centralised
infrastructure systems into the future. As a result, the ca-
pacity to operate, maintain and renew such systems must also
be retained irrespective of greater use of SUWM solutions,
which has flow-on implications to the funding and skills
needed to support urban water systems into the future. At a
local scheme level, innovations in infrastructure provision
and management do occur, but in relation to the majority
system these are ‘add-ons’. From an infrastructure perspec-
tive, rather than a radical transition, the process of change is
thus better conceptualised as one of a gradual change,
wherein there is an introduction of innovative solutions into a
stable system based on legacy technologies. We term this
gradual evolution ‘system hybridization’.
Opportunities for system hybridisation arise whenever an
investment is made, but in practice SUWM innovations are
often considered when existing infrastructure has insufficient
capacity or would need to be extended, and the cost of doing
this would be prohibitive (Balslev Nielsen and Elle, 2000). This
can occur when there is development at the urban fringe, such
that existing networks would need to be extended, or when
growth within an urban area means infrastructure capacity
needs to be augmented, but this is expensive or technically
difficult. Factors that influence the hybridisation process can
be illustrated with reference to two coupled conceptual
models developed as part of this review. The first helps to
elucidate why proponents of SUWM consider that progress
towards change is not rapid enough, whereas the second
7156 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
indicates factors that influence innovation uptake, which are
linked to the impediments discussed above and in combina-
tion drive system hybridisation.
5.1. Investment and capital accumulation
Fig. 1 illustrates how the flow of investment (ref. 1 in Fig. 1)
into an urban water system accumulates as a capital stock of
constructed and natural assets (ref. 2) that has the capacity to
deliver services to both the community and the environment.
The condition of the asset stock is reduced over time due to
asset deterioration (ref. 3), which is counterbalanced by capi-
tal maintenance (i.e. investment to replace assets at the end of
their life). Investment is also required to cater for exogenous
influences such as climate change and population growth (ref.
4). As shown, the asset stock provides a flow of services (ref. 5)
that in turn contribute to broader triple bottom line (TBL)
outcomes (ref. 6) such as public health, community wellbeing,
environmental health and economic production in other
sectors, etc. Notionally at least, all these stocks and flows can
be considered to have economic value, and could thus be
expressed in monetary terms, as implied in Fig. 1.
The level of investment is subject to a range of constraints
and efficiencies. Shortfalls can be managed to a certain extent
through improved management and maintenance practices,
but ultimately the infrastructure places bounds on the level of
service that can be delivered consistently. For the purposes of
this discussion, there are two feedback loops that influence
the flow of investment and thus the maintenance and
augmentation of the asset stock and its capacity to provide
service. Firstly, from an infrastructure asset management
perspective, systems are managed in light of service and
performance targets. Hence, a ‘hard’ or metric-driven feed-
back loop exists wherein measures of asset condition, per-
formance and service inform the need for future investment
(ref. 7). Secondly, the system is subject to a ‘soft’ or opinion-
driven feedback loop that reflects the perceptions of various
stakeholder groups (customers, regulators, suppliers, politi-
cians, academics, etc.) with respect to the contribution the
water sector makes to broader outcomes (ref. 8). These per-
ceptions vary according to the responsibilities and interests of
each stakeholder group and are influenced by vested interests
and normative values. For example, individuals and in-
stitutions with responsibility for, or interest in, waterway
health and sustainability will have different perspectives to,
say, an economic regulator driven by the requirement to
maintain ‘efficiency’ from the perspective of customer bills.
Where groups or individuals consider that the outcomes of
water sector investments are inadequate (as in the case of
advocates for SUWM), this translates into a demand for
change in the way investments are justified and/or the type of
solutions funded, as evidenced in the SUWM literature.
The difference between these two feedback loops is
important for understanding why proponents of SUWM
consider insufficient progress is being made. At a fundamental
level, proponents are expressing opinions based on their own
values and, to some degree at least, their vested interests.
Values are an integral aspect of all decision making in that any
decision reduces to a choice between alternatives of what is
most valued (Sperry, 1977). However, proponents of SUWM
hold values that are not necessarily representative of broader
community aspirations. Certainly, willingness to pay surveys
carried out by WSPs in the UK have indicated that commu-
nities are becoming more reluctant to fund additional envi-
ronmental improvements (WERF, 2013). This can be explained
by recognising that historical investments were made in
response to highly visible issues such as water borne disease,
aesthetic impacts and pollution. Solving these problems pro-
vided benefits that were obvious to communities. In contrast,
the issues targeted by SUWM are somewhat less tangible from
the perspective of the broader community, though personal
engagement with the underlying values will vary depending
on socio-economic, demographic and other factors. Since it is
the broader community who must pay for the necessary
changes, the arguments for additional investments or alter-
native solutions are more difficult to make, especially were
customers are used to receiving reliable services and public
health and environmental benefits at relatively low cost.
5.2. Option identification and assessment
The stocks and flows model of investment shown in Fig. 1
shows how perceptions can lead to a call for change in in-
vestment that is not implied by formal asset management
feedback loops, and thus provides insights into why pro-
ponents consider progress towards SUWM is too slow. The
other relevant process relates to how options are identified and
considered for implementation. A key aspect in any invest-
ment decision is to identify feasible solutions. In this context,
‘feasible’ implies infrastructure (or other) options that are able
to provide service (or other outputs) over an economic life. We
refer to the ‘option space’ as that sub-set of solutions that is
seriously considered for implementation. Various factors in-
fluence the option space. These are shown in Fig. 2, grouped in
terms of ‘actors’, ‘technology’ and ‘drivers’. The combined influ-
ence of the individual factors defines the option space
Fig. 2 e Factors Influencing the Option Space Considered. A
key aspect in any investment decision is to identify
feasible solutions. Various factors related to ‘actors’,
‘technology’ and ‘drivers’ influence the option space
considered. These factors are dynamic and interact with
one another. The perspectives and attitudes of the actors
involved are a key determinant in how the option space is
defined.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
considered for a particular investment or scheme. It is note-
worthy that many of these factors also influence stakeholder
perception of investment needs, as shown in Fig. 1, which
provides a coupling between the two conceptual models.
The perspectives and attitudes of the actors involved are a
key determinant in how the option space is defined. In this
context, actors are taken to be the individuals or teams
making the decision over which technology/solution to select.
The options considered by these actors will reflect vested in-
terests and normative values. However, other stakeholders
with different values and interests will judge both the options
considered and the solution ultimately selected from their
own perspective. The implication is that both the agents
making the decision and those commentating on it can have
different opinions that reflect their own vested interests and
values, as exemplified by comments proponents for SUWM
have made with respect to continued investments in cen-
tralised solutions. These differences in opinion are com-
pounded by the fact that a controversial knowledge base
allows different lines of argument to be made in support of
different perspectives (Pahl-Wostl, 2002).
As well as values and vested interests, the issue of risk
perception is critical to understanding different perspectives
of option selection. Decision makers are, by definition,
responsible for selecting the solution implemented, and thus
are exposed to risks associated with making a poor choice. In
contrast, while advocates for innovative options may have an
informed view of the technical and broader issues and even a
stake in the outcome, they are not making the decision and
will thus have a different risk perception (the decision making
risks are born by others) and a different frame of reference
(Lems et al., 2011). This has significant implications to com-
mentary over the willingness to innovate. For example,
Farrelly and Brown (2011) have stated that the continued use
of large scale technological solutions reflects a ‘reticence’ to go
beyond pilot trials, which is taken to be representative of both
the ‘fear of failure’ of actors and inherent conservatism, espe-
cially with respect to public health risks. Noting that Fig. 2
includes performance and cost certainty as key factors that
influence the option space, an alternative view is that many
innovative solutions remain unproven and have low com-
munity acceptance, as described earlier. From this perspec-
tive, any ‘conservatism’ could then be considered as an
appropriate assessment of this uncertainty, especially given
that funds are not unlimited and that community preferences
must be considered (Speers, 2009). The continued use of
traditional solutions would then be seen as a rational decision
based on a pragmatic assessment of available options.
6. Conclusion
A significant body of work within the academic literature as-
serts that that the current model of urban water service pro-
vision needs to change. The aspiration for change is referred
to in this paper as ‘sustainable urban water management’
(SUWM). SUWM reflects a generalised goal to manage the
urban water cycle so as to produce more benefits than tradi-
tional approaches. Despite ongoing calls for change, the pre-
dominant model of service provision remains the same
7157
approach that is considered by commentators to be ‘unsus-
tainable’. With this in mind, this paper has provided a critical
reassessment of the SUWM paradigm, which was undertaken
specifically to examine why transformational agendas have
not realised the change proponents imply is needed.
It has been shown that a range of factors mean that the
process of change within the water sector occurs as a gradual
process, which we term ‘system hybridisation’. The incremental
nature of this process, the need to retain capacity to manage
legacy infrastructure and the clash between values, expecta-
tions and interpretation of opportunities is central to the fact
that the transition to SUWM has not occurred in the way
advocated in the literature. In particular, in comparison to the
community more generally, the adoption of values associated
with SUWM concepts is stronger within the niche group of
individuals contributing to the SUWM literature, and this in-
forms the implicit assessment of cost and benefits that un-
derpins their call for change.
Advocacy for a change in community expectations and
values is a matter of choice for any individual, but mixing such
advocacy with arguments for specific technical solutions, as is
done in some of the literature reviewed, is potentially prob-
lematic because of the possibility that benefits of proposed
solutions will be overstated and risks understated. Further-
more, making value-based rather than evidence-based argu-
ments could lead to polarized positions, wherein agents with
responsibility for ensuring due diligence in how community
funds are spent (e.g. economic regulators) impede innovation.
While it has its risks, advocacy for SUWM does provide a
driver for experimentation and infrastructure diversification.
However, this is counterbalanced by perceptions of certainty/
uncertainty and the perception/exposure to risk of decision
makers. Overcoming these issues implies gaining a better
understanding of life cycle performance, costs, risks and
benefits of specific SUWM innovations and broader system
effects. Evidence should be presented, as far as is practicable,
in a way that is free of cognitive and other biases. There is also
a need to develop core competencies necessary to manage
innovations and build the institutional capacity to manage
risk. In practice, this implies the type of experimentation that
has been undertaken to date, but this has resulted in slower
progress than proponents of SUWM consider necessary.
From a purely economic perspective, the benefit of altering
the system should outweigh costs. It is currently left as an
implicit assumption in some arguments for SUWM that the
benefits derived from transforming to a new model of service
provision will exceed the costs. Whether or not this is actually
the case depends on how benefits and costs are defined. Given
that investments are made on behalf of communities, the
‘social business case’ for change needs further testing in
terms of all relevant cost and benefits, including externalities,
with due consideration given to community willingness to pay
and other relevant perspectives, including maintenance of
ecosystem services. In particular, since many of the benefits of
SUWM are non-market (i.e. the intangible components of total
economic value) and somewhat nebulous from the perspec-
tive of communities, the value placed on them requires
further research (Daniels and Porter, 2011; Marlow et al., 2011).
Overall, the challenge for proponents of SUWM remains
the need to provide valid economic assessments of alternative
7158 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
options, considering social equity, the aggregate whole life
costs of modified systems and the benefits these will deliver
when compared to competing demands for community in-
vestments. Even with all this information, given the lock-in
effects of legacy solutions, it seems likely that the process of
change will continue as a system hybridisation. This will
mean that SUWM solutions are added to legacy systems that
are perpetuated into the future through like-for-like replace-
ment. With that in mind, we conclude that transformational
agendas will continue to fall short of the expectations of
SUWM proponents, though their advocacy will remain a
driver for the hybridisation process.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
the National Flagship Water for a Healthy Country (CSIRO). In
addition, the authors acknowledge the role of reviewers for
helpful and detailed comments on the initial draft of this
paper.
references
Allen, A., You, N., Meijer, S., Atkinson, A., 2002. Sustainable
Urbanisation: Bridging the Green and Brown Agendas. ASCE,
2001, Report Card for America’s infrastructure: Water and
environment report card. American Society of Civil Engineers,
ISBN 1 874502 40 4.
Arthur, B., 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the
Economy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Ashley, R.M., Blackwood, D.J., Butler, D., Davies, J.A., Jowitt, P.,
Smith, H., 2003. Sustainable decision making for the UK water
industry. Eng. Sustain. 156 (ES1), 41e49.
Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Jowitt, P., Davies, J.,
Smith, H., Gilmour, D., Oltean-Dumbrava, C., 2008. Making
asset investment decisions for wastewater systems that
include sustainability. J. Environ. Eng. 134 (3), 200e209.
Backhaus, A., Dam, T., Jensen, M.B., 2012. Stormwater
management challenges as revealed through a design
experiment with professional landscape architects. Urban
Water J. 9 (1), 29e43.
Bartone, C., Bernstein, J., Leitmann, J., Eigen, J., 1994. Toward
Environmental Strategies for Cities. World Bank, Washington,
DC, USA.
Balslev Nielsen, S., Elle, M., 2000. Assessing the potential for
change in urban infrastructure systems. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 20 (3), 403e412.
Beal, C.D., Sharma, A., Gardner, T., Chong, M., 2012. A desktop
analysis of potable water savings from internally plumbed
rainwater tanks in south-east Queensland, Australia. Water
Resour. Manage. 26 (6), 1577e1590.
Biggs, C., Ryan, C., Wiseman, J., Larsen, K., 2009. Distributed
Water Systems: a Networked and Localised Approach for
Sustainable Water Services. Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab
(VEIL), Melbourne, Australia.
Binney, P.D., 2012. A framework for developing sustainable water
utilities in the coming decades. In: Howe, C., Mitchell, C. (Eds.),
Water Sensitive Cities. IWA Publishing, London, pp. 82e94.
Blackmore, J.M., Plant, R., 2008. Risk and resilience to enhance
sustainability with application to urban water systems. J.
Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 134 (3), 224e233.
Bos, J.J., Brown, R.R., 2012. Governance experimentation and
factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban
water sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 79 (7),
1340e1353.
Brown, R.R., Keath, N., Wong, T., 2008. Transitioning to the water
sensitive city: historical, current and future transition states.
In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Urban
Drainage. Edinburgh, 31 Auguste5 September (CD-ROM).
Brown, R.R., Ashley, R., Farrelly, M., 2011. Political and
professional agency entrapment: an agenda for urban water
research. Water Resour. Manage. 25 (15), 4037e4050.
Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M.A., 2009. Delivering sustainable urban
water management: a review of the hurdles we face. Water
Sci. Technol. 59 (5), 839e846.
Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M., Keath, N., 2009a. Practitioner
perceptions of social and institutional barriers to advancing a
diverse water source approach in Australia. Int. J. Water
Resour. Develop. 25 (1), 15e28.
Brown, R.R., Keath, N., Wong, T.H.F., 2009b. Urban water
management in cities: historical, current and future regimes.
Water Sci. Technol. 59 (5), 847e855.
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), 113e121.
Burn, D., Marlow, D., Tran, D., 2010. Modelling asset lifetimes and
their role in asset management. J. Water Supply: Res. Technol.
AQUA 59 (6e7), 362e377.
Button, K.J., Pearce, D.W., 1989. Improving the urban
environment: how to adjust national and local government
policy for sustainable urban growth. Prog. Plann. 32, 135e184.
Chanan, A., Woods, P., 2006. Introducing total water cycle
management in Sydney: a Kogarah council initiative.
Desalination 187 (1e3), 11e16.
Choguill, C.L., 1993. Editorial: sustainable cities: urban policies for
the future. Habitat Int. 17 (3), 1e12.
Cook, S., Tjandraatmadja, G., Ho, A., Sharma, A., 2009. Definition
of Decentralised Systems in the South East Queensland
Context. Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical
Report No. 12. CSIRO Land and Water, Melbourne, Australia.
Coombes, P.J., Kuczera, G., 2002. Integrated urban water cycle
management: moving towards system understanding. In: 2nd
National Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design.
Engineers Australia, Brisbane, Australia.
Dahan, M., Nisan, U., 2007. Unintended consequences of
increasing block tariffs pricing policy in urban water. Water
Resour. Res. 43 (3). Art. no. W03402.
Daigger, G.T., 2009. Evolving urban water and residuals
management paradigms: water reclamation and reuse,
decentralization, and resource recovery. Water Environ. Res.
81 (8), 809e823.
Daniels, P., Porter, M., 2011. Externality effects and their
monetary values for water servicing options in south east
Queensland. In: Begbie, D. (Ed.), Urban Water Security
Research Alliance 3rd Science Forum: Brisbane, Australia.
de Graaf, R., van Der Brugge, R., 2010. Transforming water
infrastructure by linking water management and urban
renewal in Rotterdam. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77 (8),
1282e1291.
Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A., 2009. Drinking water from alternative
water sources: differences in beliefs, social norms and factors
of perceived behavioural control across eight Australian
locations. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (6), 1433e1444.
Elzen, B., Wieczorek, A., 2005. Transitions towards sustainability
through system innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72
(6), 651e661.
Farrelly, M., Brown, R., 2011. Rethinking urban water
management: experimentation as a way forward? Glob.
Environ. Change 721 (2), 721e732.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
Fiorino, D., 2001. Environmental policy as learning: a new view of
an old landscape. Public Adm. Rev. 61 (3), 322e334.
Fletcher, T.D., Mitchell, V.G., Deletic, A., Ladson, T.R., Séven, A.,
2007. Is stormwater harvesting beneficial to urban waterway
environmental flows? Water Sci. Technol. 55 (4), 265e272.
Foxon, T.J., McIlkenny, G., Gilmour, D., Oltean-Dumbrava, C.,
Souter, N., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Pearson, P., Jowitt, P., Moir, J.,
2002. Sustainability criteria for decision support in the UK
water industry. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 45 (2), 285e301.
Gandy, M., 2004. Rethinking urban metabolism: water, space and
the modern city. City 8 (3), 363e379.
Gandy, M., 2006. The bacteriological city and its discontents. Hist.
Geogr. 34, 14e25.
Gardiner, A., Skoien, P., Gardner, T., 2008. Decentralised water
supplies: south-east Queensland householders’ experience
and attitudes. Water 36 (1), 53e58.
Gato-Trinidad, S., Jayasuriya, N., Roberts, P., 2011. Understanding
urban residential end uses of water. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (1),
36e42.
Geels, F.W., 2005a. Co-evolution of technology and society: the
transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the
Netherlands (1850e1930): a case study in multi-level
perspective. Technol. Soc. 27 (3), 363e397.
Geels, F.W., 2005. Processes and patterns in transitions and
system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-
level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72 (6),
681e696.
Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., 2007. Dynamics in socio-technical systems:
typology of change processes and contrasting case studies.
Technol. Soc. 29 (4), 441e455.
Gikas, P., Tchobanoglous, G., 2009. The role of satellite and
decentralized strategies in water resources management. J.
Environ. Manage. 90 (1), 144e152.
Grant, B., Ramilo, N., Weber, T., 2010. Total water cycle
management strategy for Moreton Bay regional council. BMT
WBM, Brisbane, Australia.
Hall, M.R., 2012. The cost of pollution: supporting cost effective
options evaluation and pollution reduction. In: Begbie, D. (Ed.),
Urban Water Security Research Alliance 4th Science Forum:
Brisbane, Australia.
Hatton MacDonald, D., 2004. The Economics of Water: Taking Full
Account of First Use, Reuse and Return to the Environment.
CSIRO Land and Water.
Hellström, D., Jeppsson, U., Kärrman, E., 2000. A framework for
systems analysis of sustainable urban water management.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20 (3), 311e321.
Hengeveld, H., De Vocht, C., 1982. Role of water in urban ecology.
Urban Ecol. 6 (1e4), 335e347.
Hochmuth, G., Nell, T., Bryan Unruh, J., Trenholm, L., Sartain, J.,
2012. Potential unintended consequences associated with
urban fertilizer bans in Florida e a scientific review.
HortTechnology 22 (5), 600e616.
Howe, C., Jones, R.N., Maheepala, S., Rhodes, B., 2005.
Implications of Potential Climate Change for Melbourne’s
Water Resources. CMIT-2005-106. CSIRO, Melbourne,
Australia.
Hurlimann, A., Dolnicar, S., 2010. When public opposition defeats
alternative water projects - the case of Toowoomba Australia.
Water Res. 44 (1), 287e297.
Hurlimann, A., McKay, J., 2004. Attitudes to reclaimed water for
domestic use: part 2. Trust, water. J. Aust. Water Assoc. 31 (5),
40e45.
Inman, D., Jeffrey, P., 2006. A review of residential water
conservation tool performance and influences on
implementation effectiveness. Urban Water J. 3 (3), 127e143.
Keath, N.A., Brown, R.R., 2009. Extreme events: being prepared for
the pitfalls with progressing sustainable urban water
management. Water Sci. Technol. 59 (7), 1271e1280.
7159
Kennedy, S.P., Lewis, L.A., Sharp, L.S., Wong, S., 2007. Sustainable
urban water management (SUWM) in urban regeneration
projects. In: Combined International Conference of
Computing and Control for the Water Industry CCWI2007 and
Sustainable Urban Water Management: Leicester, United
Kingdom, pp. 675e680.
Lems, P., Aarts, N., van Woerkum, C., 2011. The communication
of water managers in participatory processesand their effect
on the support for implementation: a case study in The
Netherlands. In: 12th International Conference on Urban
Drainage, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Listowski, A., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., 2013. Establishment of an
economic evaluation model for urban recycled water. Res.
Conserv. Recycl. 72, 67e75.
Lloyd, S., Wong, T., Blunt, S., 2012. Water-sensitive cities:
applying the framework to Melbourne. Aust. J. Water Resour.
16 (1), 65e74.
Lundin, M., Morrison, G.M., 2002. A life cycle assessment based
procedure for development of environmental sustainability
indicators for urban water systems. Urban Water J. 4 (2),
145e152.
Maheepala, S., Blackmore, J., Diaper, C., Moglia, M., Sharma, A.,
Kenway, S., 2010. Integrated Urban Water Management
Planning Manual. Water Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Makropoulos, C.K., Memon, F.A., Shirley-Smith, C., Butler, D.,
2008. Futures: an exploration of scenarios for sustainable
urban water management. Water Pol. 10 (4), 345e373.
Mankad, A., 2012. Decentralised water systems: emotional
influences on resource decision making. Environ. Int. 44 (1),
128e140.
Mankad, A., Tapsuwan, S., 2010. Review of socio-economic
drivers of community acceptance and adoption of
decentralised systems. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (3), 380e391.
Marks, J.S., 2006. Taking the public seriously: the case of potable
and non-potable reuse. Desalination 187 (1e3), 137e147.
Marks, J.S., Zadaroznyj, M., 2005. Managing sustainable urban
water reuse: structural contexts and cultures of trust. Soc. Nat.
Resour. 18 (6), 557e572.
Marleni, N., Gray, S., Sharma, A., Burn, S., Muttil, N., 2012. Impact
of water source management practices in residential areas on
sewer networks - a review. Water Sci. Technol. 65 (4), 624e642.
Marlow, D., Beale, D., Burn, S., 2010a. Linking asset management
with sustainability: views from the Australian sector. J.
AWWA 102 (1), 56e67.
Marlow, D.R., Beale, D.J., Burn, S., 2010b. A pathway to a more
sustainable water sector: sustainability-based asset
management. Water Sci. Technol. 61 (5), 1245e1255.
Marlow, D., Pearson, L., Whitten, S., Hatton MacDonald, D.,
Burn, S., 2011. A framework for considering externalities in
urban water asset management, water science and
technology. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (11), 2011e2199.
Melbourne Water (MW), 2012. Clayton South Wetland. <http://
www.melbournewater.com.au/content/current_projects/
rivers_creeks_and_wetlands/clayton_south_stormwater_
harvesting_and_reuse_project/clayton_south_stormwater_
harvesting_and_reuse_project.asp?bhcp¼1> (accessed
1.12.12.).
Milly, P.C.D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.M.,
Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lettenmaier, D.P., Stouffer, R.J., 2008.
Climate change: stationarity is dead: whither water
management? Science 319 (5863), 573e574.
Mitchell, C., Fane, S., Willetts, J., Plant, R., Kazaglis, A., 2007.
Costing for Sustainable Outcomes in Urban Water Systems: a
Guidebook. Research Report 35. Institute for Sustainable
Futures CRC for Water Quality and Treatment.
Mitchell, V.G., 2006. Applying integrated urban water
management concepts: a review of Australian experience.
Environ. Manage. 37 (5), 598e605.
7160 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
Moglia, M., Alexander, K.S., Sharma, A., 2011a. Discussion of the
enabling environments for decentralised water systems.
Water Sci. Technol. 63 (10), 2331e2339.
Moglia, M., Cook, S., Sharma, A., Burn, S., 2010. Assessing
decentralised water solutions: towards a framework for
adaptive learning. Water Resour. Manage. 25 (1), 217e238.
Moglia, M., Sharma, A., Alexander, K., Mankad, A., 2011b.
Perceived performance of decentralised water systems: a
survey approach. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 11 (5),
516e526.
Moglia, M., Sharma, A.K., Maheepala, S., 2012a. Multi criteria
decision assessments using subjective logic: methodology and
the case of urban water strategies. J. Hydrol. 452-453, 180e189.
Moglia, M., Tjandraatmadja, G., Sharma, A.K., 2012b. Industry and
householder perceptions on rainwater tank maintenance.
Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 13 (2), 191e201.
Najia, F., Lustig, T., 2006. On-site water recycling - a total water
cycle management approach. Desalination 188 (1e3), 195e202.
Nancarrow, B.E., Leviston, Z., Tucker, D.I., 2009. Measuring the
predictors of communities’ behavioural decisions for potable
reuse of wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (12), 3199e3209.
Nancarrow, B.E., Porter, N.B., Leviston, Z., 2010. Predicting
community acceptability of alternative urban water supply
systems: a decision making model. Urban Water J. 7 (3),
197e210.
Naylor, T., Moglia, M., Grant, A.L., Sharma, A.K., 2012. Self-
reported judgements of management and governance issues
in stormwater and greywater systems. J. Clean. Prod. 29-30,
144e150.
Newman, P., 2001. Sustainable urban water systems in rich and
poor citiesdsteps towards a new approach. Water Sci.
Technol. 43 (4), 93e99.
Newman, P., 2009. Understanding city-regional cooperation: what
works where. Int. J. Public Sector Manage. 22 (3), 183e191.
Niemczynowicz, J., 1999. Urban hydrology and water
management - present and future challenges. Urban Water J. 1
(1), 1e14.
Novotny, V., 2009. Sustainable urban water management. In:
International Urban Water Conference, 15the19th September
2008 2009 Heverlee, Belgium, pp. 19e31.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2002. Towards sustainability in the water sector e
the importance of human actors and processes of social
learning. Aquat. Sci. 64 (4), 394e411.
Pahl-wostl, C., 2007. Transitions towards adaptive management
of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour.
Manage. 21 (1), 49e62.
Parkinson, J., Schutze, M., Butler, D., 2005. Modelling the impacts
of domestic water conservation on the sustainability of the
urban sewerage system. Water Environ. J. 19 (1), 49e56.
Pearson, L.J., Coggan, A., Proctor, W., Smith, T.F., 2009. A
sustainable decision support framework for urban water
management. Water Resour. Manage. 24 (2), 363e376.
Pearson, L.J., Park, S., Harman, B., Heyenga, S., 2010. Sustainable
land use scenario framework: framework and outcomes from
peri-urban south-east Queensland, Australia. Landscape
Urban Plann. 96 (2), 88e97.
Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council
(PMSEIC), 2007. Water for Our Cities: Building Resilience in a
Climate of Uncertainty, a Report of the PMSEIC Working
Group. http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/
20070622-Waterfor-our-cities.pdf. Canberra, Australia.
Rhoads, B.L., Wilson, D., Urban, M., Herricks, E.E., 1999.
Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in
community-based watershed management: emergence of the
concept of stream naturalization. Environ. Manage. 24 (3),
297e308.
Rittell, H.W.J., Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory
of planning. Policy Sci. 4 (2), 155e169.
Rozos, E., Makropoulos, C., 2012. Assessing the combined benefits
of water recycling technologies by modelling the total urban
water cycle. Urban Water J. 9 (1), 1e10.
Rygaard, M., Binning, P.J., Albrechtsen, H.-J., 2011. Increasing
urban water self-sufficiency: new era, new challenges. J.
Environ. Manage. 92 (1), 185e194.
Schaffer, D., Vollmer, D., 2010. Pathways to urban sustainability:
research and development on urban systems. In: Summary of
a Workshop. National Academies Press, Washington D.C.,
United States.
Sharma, A., Burn, S., Gardner, T., Gregory, A., 2010. Role of
decentralised systems in the transition of urban water
systems. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 10 (4), 577e583.
Sharma, A., Gray, S., Diaper, C., Liston, P., Howe, C., 2008a.
Assessing integrated water management options for urban
developments e Canberra case study. Urban Water 5 (2),
147e162.
Sharma, A.K., Grant, A.L., Grant, T., Pamminger, F., Opray, L.,
2009. Environmental and economic assessment of urban
water services for a Greenfield development. Environ. Eng. Sci.
26 (5), 921e934.
Sharma, A.K., Gray, S., Diaper, C., Howe, C., Liston, P., 2008b.
Assessing integrated water management options for urban
developments e Canberra case study. Urban Water 5 (2),
147e159.
Singh, M.R., Upadhyay, V., Mittal, A.K., 2007. Rational Water Tariff:
a Tool for Sustainable Urban Water Management in India.
Söderberg, H., Åberg, H., 2002. Assessing socio-cultural aspects of
sustainable urban water systems e the case of Hamarby
sjöstad. Water Sci. Tech. 2 (4), 203e210.
Speers, A., 2009. Urban water futures. In: Newton, P.W. (Ed.),
Transitions: Pathways toward Sustainable Urban
Development in Australia. CSIRO Publishing; Melbourne,
Australia, Chapter 29, pp. 451e460.
Speers, A., Mitchell, G., 2000. Integrated urban water cycle. In:
National Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design e
Sustainable Drainage Systems for Urban Areas: Melbourne,
Australia.
Sperry, R.W., 1977. Bridging science and values: a unifying view of
mind and brain. Am. Psychol., 237e245.
Tarr, J.A., McCurley, F.C., McMichael, F.C., Voisie, T., 1984. Water
and wastes: a retrospective assessment of wastewater
technology in the United States. Technol. Cult. 15 (2), 226e263.
Thomas, J.F., McLeod, P.B., 1992. Australian Research Priorities in
the Urban Water Services and Utilities Area, Division of Water
Resources No. 7. CSIRO, Australia.
Thomas, J.F., Gomboso, J., Oliver, J.E., Ritchie, V.A., 1997.
Wastewater Re-use, Stormwater Management, and the
National Water Reform Agenda.
Tjandraatmadja, G., Burn, S., McLaughlin, M., Biswas, T., 2005.
Rethinking urban water systems: revisiting concepts in urban
wastewater collection and treatment to ensure infrastructure
sustainability. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 5 (2),
145e154.
Tjandraatmadja, G., Cook, S., Ho, A., Sharma, A., Gardner, T.,
2009. Drivers for decentralised systems in south east
Queensland. In: Begbie, D. (Ed.), Urban Water Security
Research Alliance. Urban Water Security Research Alliance,
Brisbane, Australia. Technical Report No. 13.
Tjandraatmadja, G., Pollard, C., Aharma, A., Gardner, T., 2012.
How supply system design can reduce the energy footprint of
rainwater supply in urban areas in Australia. In: The 3rd IWA-
RWHM Conference & Exhibition: Goseong, Korea.
Urich, C., Bach, P.M., Hellbach, C., Sitzenfrei, R., Kleidorfer, M.,
McCarthy, D.T., Deletic, A., Rauch, W., 2011. Dynamics of cities
and water infrastructure in the DAnCE4Water model. In: 12th
International Conference on Urban Drainage: Porto Alegre/
Brazil.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 1 5 0 e7 1 6 1
Van Der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., 2005. The transition
in Dutch water management. Reg. Environ. Change 5 (4),
164e176.
Vlachos, P.E., Braga, P.B., 2001. Chapter 1: the challenge
of urban water management. In: Maksimovic, C.,
Tejada-Guibert, J.A. (Eds.), Frontiers in Urban Water
Management, Deadlock or Hope. IWA Publishing, London,
U.K, pp. 1e34.
Walsh, C.J., Fletcher, T.D., Ladson, A.R., 2005. Stream restoration
in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater
systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream. J. North
Am. Benthological Soc. 24 (3), 690e705.
Walton, C., Holmes, K., 2011. How much water efficiency does
$321 million buy. In: Proceedings of the 5th IWA Specialist
Conference ’Efficient 2009’. International Water Association
(IWA) and Australian Water Association (AWA), Sydney,
Australia.
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), 2009.
Remaining Asset Life: a State of the Art Review. Project
Ref. SAM1R06d. WERF, Alexandria, VA.
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), 2013. A
Practitioner’s Guide to Economic Decision Making in Asset
Management. WERF, Alexandria, VA.
Werbeloff, L., Brown, R., 2011a. Working towards sustainable
urban water management: the vulnerability blind spot. Water
Sci. Technol. 64 (12), 2362e2369.
7161
Werbeloff, L., Brown, R., 2011b. Security through diversity:
moving from rhetoric to practice. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (4),
781e788.
Willetts, J., Fane, S., Mitchell, C., 2007. Making decentralised
systems viable: a guide to managing decentralised assets and
risks. Water Sci. Technology 56 (5), 165e173.
Wong, T., Brown, R., 2008. Transitioning to water sensitive cities:
ensuring resilience through a new hydro-social contract. In:
11th International Conference on Urban Drainage: Edinburgh,
Scotland, UK.
Wong, T., Brown, R.R., 2009. The water sensitive city: principles
for practice. Water Sci. Technol 60 (3), 673e682.
Wong, T.H.F., 2006. An overview of water sensitive urban design
practices in Australia. Water Pract. Technol. 1 (1) (online).
Yu, C., Farrelly, M., Brown, R., 2012. Revealing the variables in the
management of decentralised water systems in Australia. In:
WSUD 2012-7th International Conference on Water Sensitive
Urban Design: Building the Water Sensitive Community, Final
Program and Abstract Book. Centre for Water Sensitive Cities,
Melbourne, Australia.
Zarghami, M., 2005. Urban water management using fuzzy-
probabilistic multi-objective programming with dynamic
efficiency. Water Resour. Manage. 24 (15), 4491e4504.
Zarghami, M., Abrishamchi, A., Ardakanian, R., 2008. Multi-
criteria decision making for integrated urban water
management. Water Resour. Manage. 22 (8), 1017e1029.