The city as nature and the nature of the city - climate adaptation using living infrastructure: governance and integration challenges

Australasian Journal of Water Resources ISSN: 1324-1583 (Print) 2204-227X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/twar20 The city as nature and the nature of the city - climate adaptation using living infrastructure: governance and integration challenges Jason Alexandra To cite this article: Jason Alexandra (2017) The city as nature and the nature of the city - climate adaptation using living infrastructure: governance and integration challenges, Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 21:2, 63-76, DOI: 10.1080/13241583.2017.1405570 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2017.1405570 Published online: 29 Nov 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 125 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=twar20 AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES, 2017 VOL. 21, NO. 2, 63–76 https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2017.1405570 The city as nature and the nature of the city - climate adaptation using living infrastructure: governance and integration challenges Jason Alexandraa,b,c a Alexandra & Associates Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia; bRMIT School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, Melbourne, Australia; cRegional Futures Network, Melbourne, Australia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The successful twenty-first-century cities are likely to be based on new visions and new Received 20 September 2017 imaginings of the city as nature and the nature of the city. Water is an integral part of our Accepted 7 November 2017 cities’ evolution with understanding of its values and relationships changing along with the KEYWORDS technologies and governance regimes used for managing it. Green or living infrastructure is Living infrastructure; urban emerging as a paradigm based on integrating ecological elements to enhance cities and their water; climate adaptation; adaptive capacity. Water is involved in almost all living infrastructure due to its ubiquitous nature water governance; urban and centrality in urban and living systems, for example, in the cooling nature of urban trees. This forestry; innovation; paper summarises the key water-related findings of the Canberra Urban and Regional Futures Australia; water policy project on living infrastructure. The wider application of living infrastructure could generate reform; institutions multiple social and environmental benefits but these are constrained by substantive integration and governance challenges within the intrinsically politicalised processes shaping cities. 1. Introduction nutrients from storm water and also achieve the func- tional effect of urban cooling (Alexandra et al. 2017). Water flows through our cities and towns. Its complex Many living infrastructure initiatives aim to deliber- roles and functions are being actively redefined within ately integrate related elements – trees, shrubs, grasses the emerging paradigm of living infrastructure. Water and open spaces (green infrastructure) with ponds, and carbon are essential to all biota, ecosystems and human cultures, their cycles connecting local, regional lakes and waterways (blue infrastructure) 1 and physical and global processes in multiple ways. In a rapidly structures (grey infrastructure) – to deliver social, envi- urbanising planet, our complex and intricate relation- ronmental and economic services. In terms of climate ships with carbon and water are being reconceived, adaptation, living infrastructure can lower the energy with climate change and other human impacts pos- used and reduce urban heat island effects through the ing creative challenges for the Anthropocene (Castree cooling functions of vegetation and water bodies (Chen 2014b). et al. 2006; Žuvela-Aloise et al. 2016) and sequester car- The pervasive social and physical effects of cli- bon in urban forests (MacPherson et al. 1997). mate change are redefining the challenges for water This paper is based on a review of the international governance (Pahl-Wostl 2007; Godden et al.  2011; literature undertaken to generate knowledge to support Alexandra 2017). Climate responsive cities are imple- innovative, high-quality living infrastructure in urban menting mitigation and adaption responses ( Hunt renewal and urban development processes in Canberra, and Watkiss 2011; Carmin, Dodman, and Chu 2013) Australia. As part of the Canberra Urban and Regional in a vast programme of experimentation that includes Futures partnership program the literature review was living infrastructure initiatives (Broto and Bulkeley iteratively developed and critiqued by senior urban pol- 2013) icy and planning professionals and researchers from a Living infrastructure is giving tangible expression to multiple disciplines (Alexandra et al. 2017). The study an emerging global ‘movement’ focused on enhancing found that the case for emphasising living infrastructure urban systems and reducing their planetary impacts. in urban renewal and urban development projects in Living infrastructure can be defined as biological and Australia’s cities is strong and builds on programmes of ecological elements or systems deliberately installed land use planning, water management and urban for- and managed in and around cities for beneficial pur- estry. Ecologically informed design can integrate climate poses. Examples include constructed wetlands that strip mitigation, adaptation and carbon sequestration. CONTACT Jason Alexandra s3088127@student.rmit.edu.au © 2017 Engineers Australia 64 J. ALEXANDRA Opportunities for rethinking and redesigning urban In the populous, south-east of Australia more intense water systems to deliver multiple benefits are summa- storm events and longer, more frequent and more rised in Section 2. The paper takes a broader focus than intense droughts and significant drying trends are pre- water and the infrastructure used to manage it because it dicted (CSIRO 2010, 2012). Therefore, climate change aims to consider how to ensure synergistic, climate adap- imposes different risks to a variable climate with more tive outcomes for urban environments. Given that urban severe extremes. While Australia’s water regimes evolved vegetation can be usefully conceived of as a dynamic under a highly variable climate with recurrent, decadal form of urban water, the functions and benefits of urban droughts interspersed with episodic floods (Kiem and vegetation are also summarised in Section 2. Verdon-Kidd 2013; Tozer et al. 2015) the ‘death of sta- Cities and their water systems have co-evolved. tionarity’ is undermining the predictive foundations of Adapting these systems to climate change represents hydrology, rendering the past as a less reliable guides to a complex and substantial challenge because of the the future (Milly et al. 2008). interrelated technical, material, cultural, political and Climate adaptive water strategies need different ways professional dimensions. Section 3 sets out how living of thinking to those that have traditionally dominated infrastructure can be part of climate adaptive responses, water management (Pahl-Wostl 2007; Godden et al. outlining health and community benefits and other 2011; Alexandra 2017). Historic thinking about water rationales for ensuring communities and governance and climate embeds certain expectations of normality institutions are engaged. To achieve multiple benefits (Alexandra 2017). The statistical and cultural construc- it is important not to focus on single elements of urban tion of ‘normal’ climate relies on elaborate systems of systems – like water supply or vegetation – but to adopt measurement and the statistical manipulation to arrive systemic and integrated approaches that span multiple at averages (Hulme et al. 2008). Deviations from the issues across different scales and disciplines. This need average, referred to as ‘anomalies’, imply the abnor- for multi-scaled and integrated approaches brings ques- mality of non-average conditions (Alexandra 2017). tions of governance into the frame, deserving further However, in Southern Australia, conditions conforming analysis. to ‘averages’ are infrequent (and possibly coincidental) By altering the form and function of cities, living due to fundamental drivers of climate variability in the infrastructure can give tangible expression to aspira- Southern, Indian and Pacific Oceans (Kiem and Verdon- tions for reducing cities’ environmental impacts. Some Kidd 2013; CSIRO 2010, 2012). Reconstruction of the opportunities arising from Canberra actively adopting climate beyond the instrumental records confirms that living infrastructure are outlined in Section 4, noting recurrent droughts punctuated by floods were typical that these extend beyond the city itself. As the largest city (Gallant and Gergis 2011; Tozer et al. 2015). in the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB), Canberra can play Operating in highly variable climates has posed sub- important leadership roles building on its experience as stantial challenges for Australia’s urban areas – firstly a planned city with traditions and capabilities in apply- securing reliable supplies of potable water, usually from ing water sensitive design and urban forestry. large dams in the hinterlands, designed to handle long Recognition of the cultural and policy dimensions dry periods and secondly, the need to drain excess water of innovations is central to this paper and its tenta- away through stormwater systems designed for episodic tive conclusions. Innovation in water systems, cities or floods (Troy 2008). adapting to climate change is inherently materially and The infrastructural technologies adopted in cities socially complex (Heynen, Kaika, and Swyngedouw have had a powerful bearing on the urban environment 2006) due to the way societies and their water systems including on urban stream networks and their aquatic are co-evolved with complex hydrological, social and ecosystems. Urban runoff is also a source of major water political dynamics. quality problems as a result of litter, nutrients, pollution and sediment draining to streams, lakes and rivers, and 2. Climate adaptation and urban water estuaries (NLWRA 2002). Changes in runoff resulting governance from impervious surfaces – e.g. roofs, roads, pave- ments, car parks – shedding rainfall more rapidly with 2.1. Climate adaptation and urban water high sharp peaked hydrographs in creeks thus posing Climate change is altering the political and physi- challenges for stream restoration (Walsh, Fletcher, and cal geographies of water (Bates et al. 2008; Eriksson Ladson 2005). et al. 2009; Xu et al. 2009) redefining challenges for Australia’s cities also face the challenges of adapting water governance (Pahl-Wostl 2007; Godden et al. to changing rainfall patterns predicted to bring more 2011; Rijke et al. 2013). Concerns about climate risks intense rainfall events, increasing flooding and drought are leading to the reformulation of water and natural risks (CSIRO 2010, 2012), so any programme of living resources policies (Alexandra 2012; Grafton et al. 2013, infrastructure will need to be designed with these pro- 2014). spective changes in mind. Expanding urban stormwater  AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 65 storages and flood retention wetlands can assist in reduc- more efficient water use including capturing and using ing drought risks and increase urban water reuse (US stormwater via swales and artificial wetlands. In urban EPA 2016b). Good practice design aims at minimis- areas, living infrastructure approaches redirect and ing the risks associated with changing rainfall regimes reconceive waters, especially stormwater and wastewa- whilst generating a range of complementary outcomes ter, as resources that can be managed to enhance urban or co-benefits, like habitat provision and urban cooling. amenity using wetlands or urban forests (Grant et al. Australia’s wetter and drier phases have different risk 2012; Young 2011) or as sources of irrigation water for and resource profiles with flood and drought risks vary- parks or crops (Dillon 2000). A wide range of strate- ing significantly across annual and decadal time scales, gies and technologies exist for redirecting stormwater depending on whether Eastern Australia is in its wet towards biologically productive uses including through or dry phases, with each of these phases dependent on flood outs, ponds, dams, wetlands, water gardens and the conditions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans (Kiem soaks that can be constructed on both public and pri- and Verdon-Kidd 2013). The ocean conditions provide vate lands to enhance the diversity and productivity of useful predictive indicators that can be used in seasonal urban ecosystems (Wong 2006) and for managed aquifer anticipation of different risks – floods, drought and fires storage and recovery (Dillon 2005). – and to dispense with the idea that in any given sea- The US EPA (2016b) outlines strategies for linking son the probability of risks is roughly equal. Kiem and the use of green and blue infrastructure for both flood Verdon-Kidd (2013) use climate prediction indicators mitigation and drought resilience emphasising ben- to estimate flood frequency probabilities, demonstrating eficial uses of urban stormwater. Constructed urban that design for the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability wetlands have been extensively studied in the USA (US for floods or the 1% recurrence interval for droughts EPA 2016a), Europe (Shutes et al. 1997; Shutes 2001) are not useful when planning for actual events when China (Qingan et al. 2001) and Australia (Wong et al. a wet or dry sequence is occurring. This capacity for 2006) to such an extent that they can be considered seasonal climate prediction could be used for risk man- proven technologies. They have been assessed for pollu- agement and operational planning to ensure that living tion mitigation (US EPA 2016; Hsieh and Davis 2005), infrastructure can be designed and managed to be useful for promoting urban biodiversity (Gaston et al. 2005) in both drought and flood phases. and flood minimisation and retention (Guo 2001). Their use can be considered one of the attributes of 2.2. Water sensitive urban design – infrastructure a water sensitive city (Ward et al. 2012) for which a for living urban water wide variety of software, modelling and measurement tools have been developed (Wong et al. 2006; Kenway After a comprehensive review, Australia’s National et al. 2011; Dotto et al. 2012; Rauch et al. 2012; Bach Water Commission (NWC 2011) urged Australian et al. 2014). Governments to reform urban water to make ‘more Many elements of water sensitive urban design are liveable, sustainable and economically prosperous cit- already being applied such as urban lakes and con- ies’. Likewise, the CRC for water-sensitive cities calls for structed wetlands, swales and enhancements of natural a radical rethink of urban water systems because in the drainage patterns that can be used to link green and context of ‘climate change, resource limitations and other blue infrastructure, but rates of adoption in Australia drivers, there is growing international acceptance that are likely to be constrained by the lock-in of slowly conventional technocratic approaches to planning urban evolving institutionalised logic (Brodnik et al. 2017). water systems are inadequate to deliver the services soci- Concentrating water and nutrients these fertile patches ety requires’ (Ferguson et al. 2013a). The CRC adopts a (Tongway and Ludwig 1996) would create highly pro- ‘societal needs’ approach to urban ‘liveability’ arguing ductive urban ecosystems with high rates of carbon that water-sensitive design includes ‘considerations of sequestration and more effective cooling than surround- urban amenity, public health, urban microclimates and ing vegetation. Beneficial ecosystem services generated heat mitigation, biodiversity and the ecological health by urban forests have been extensively documented and of natural environments and receiving waters’ (CRC for are described briefly in below. Water Sensitive Cities 2016). Water-sensitive urban design refers to the planning 2.3. Urban forests – the many benefits of urban and management of all components of the hydrologi- trees cal cycle in urban settings in ways that deliver multiple benefits such as enhancing water quality and liveabil- Urban vegetation can be usefully conceived as a dynamic ity (Newman and Mouritz 1996; Coombes, Argue, and form of urban water contributing to the ‘pool’ of biolog- Kuczera 2000; Wong 2006; Ward et al. 2012; Ferguson ically mobile water in cities by linking soil moisture and et al. 2013b). Specific approaches include retention or the atmosphere. restoration of urban waterways and their riparian zones, Australia had several pioneering advocates of urban the recycling of water (e.g. storm or grey water) and forestry with Yeoman’s (1971) book ‘The City Forest’ 66 J. ALEXANDRA a classic reference. Similarly, John French, a termite 2.4. Reducing hazard and risks – extreme heat researcher was an inspiring advocate for urban forestry There is much literature on urban climate adaptation (French 1975, 1983). With the global revival of inter- focused on quantifying and minimising hazards and est in urban forestry there is active re-evaluation of the risks, including those related to water. benefits of urban and peri-urban trees for enhancing With many cities predicted to become hotter in the urban environments and biodiversity conservation (Li future due to climate change there are significant risks of et al. 2005; James et al. 2009; Navarro and Pereira 2012; increased heat stress and the amplification of heat island Goddard, Dougill, and Benton 2010). effects. Shade trees, lakes and wetlands can be used for Bolund and Hunhammar (1999) identify seven types cooling to reduce the impacts of extreme heat through of urban ecosystems that generate services, with trees the ‘evaporative cooling’ effects, especially during heat- and parklands featuring in four – street trees; lawns/ waves and hot days (Chen et al. 2006; Žuvela-Aloise et parks; urban forests; cultivated lands – and waterscapes al. 2016). featuring in the balance, with all worthy of more active Žuvela-Aloise et al. (2016) simulated urban temper- consideration in land use planning. Likewise, Jim and ature conditions for Vienna, modelling terrain, land Chen (2009) concluded that urban forestry in China use and climate data. The modelling showed that living delivered ‘microclimatic amelioration (mainly evapo- infrastructure applied extensively, resulted in substantive transpiration-cooling effects), carbon dioxide seques- city scale cooling with the best efficiency tration, oxygen generation, removal of gaseous and particulate pollutants, recreational and amenity’. reached by targeted implementation of minor but com- bined measures such as a decrease in building density of The multiple benefits or urban forests have demon- 10 per cent, a decrease in pavement by 20 per cent and strated in practice (Konijnendijk 2003) with specific an enlargement in green or water spaces by 20 per cent. benefits including: microclimate regulations, including Likewise, Li et al. (2011) found strong correlative evi- reducing urban heat island effects (McPherson et al. dence for the relationships between urban vegetation 1997; Bolund and Hunhammar 1999; Chen et al. 2006; and reduction in the urban heat island effects. Using Gill et al. 2007); reducing air pollution (McPherson remote sensing Chen et al. (2006) found strong sup- et al. 1997); increasing carbon sequestration (Nowak portive evidence for cooling effects of vegetation at the and Crane 2002; Lui 2012; Chen et al. 2006); provid- scale of mega cities. Other studies emphasise the value ing amenity (Price 2003, Standish, Hobbs, and Miller of living roofs and reduced hard pavements surfaces 2013); timber, biomass and bioenergy production (Coutts et al. 2013) while Shashua-Bar and Hoffman (MacFarlane 2009) increasing biodiversity corridors (2000) found even small pockets of shade trees and and habitats ( Andersson et al. 2014); community other greenery reduce the impacts of extreme heat and empowerment (Driver et al. 1980); increasing prop- urban heat island effects. Combining the use of ponds, erty values (Tyrväinen 1997), and educational, recre- street trees and parklands for urban heat reduction has ational and well-being benefits (Tyrväinen et al. 2005; been advocated for greater Melbourne (VCCCAR 2015) Standish, Hobbs, and Miller 2013; Andersson et al. and greater London (Kingsborough, Jenkins, and Hall 2014). 2017). Combining water-sensitive design with urban forestry Minimising extreme heat and the urban heat island can be used to slow the rates of discharge of stormwa- effects can be achieved by integrating living infrastruc- ter to streams by increasing infiltration, thus promot- ture into urban precincts through: ing wetland vegetation and/or tree and plant growth resulting in habitat creation and carbon sequestration (1) Programmes of urban forestry and maintain- (Bartens et al. 2008; Escobedo, Kroeger, and Wagner ing appropriate ratios of open spaces and treed 2011). With tree growth in most of Australia moisture areas to areas with hard surfaces such as car limited (Donohue, Roderick, and McVicar 2011) con- parks, roads and buildings (Žuvela-Aloise et centrating runoff enhances growth (Xiao et al. 1998). al. 2016); Pockets of constructed ‘floodplain forest’ could mimic (2) Channelling urban runoff to trees increasing the extensive Redgum (Eucalytus camaldulensis) forests their evapotranspiration and cooling impacts that occur on the floodplains of many Australian riv- (Bartens et al. 2008; Escobedo et al. 2011); ers (Bren and Gibbs 1986; Briggs and Maher 1983). By (3) Water bodies (lakes, ponds and wetlands) that concentrating water and nutrients these fertile patches provide cooling services (Žuvela-Aloise et al. (Tongway and Ludwig 1996) would create highly pro- 2016) along with nutrient striping, water qual- ductive urban ecosystems with higher rates of carbon ity, amenity and habitat services; and sequestration and more effective cooling than surround- (4) Using living roofs and planted walls and cooler ing vegetation. colours on hard surfaces (Coutts et al. 2013).  AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 67 In summary, this section sketches out some of the in order to reduce emissions (e.g. Broto and significant potential for living infrastructure identified Bulkeley 2013); in the literature, including specific technologies suitable (3) The innovative city sponsors innovation and for transforming urban water systems. However, appro- adaptation, including through R&D, commu- priate governance processes and institutional structures nity engagement, pilot projects and the for- are needed for their successful uptake and wider applica- mation of catalytic groups. This tends to focus tion (Brown, Ashley, and Farrelly 2011; Rijke et al. 2013; on the sociology of change and the cultural Daniell, Coombes, and White 2014). The next section geography of cities (for example, Bettencourt explores these in the context of innovation, governance, et al. 2007; Anguelovski and Carmin 2011; integration and engagement. Leichenko 2011); (4) Living or biophilic cities aim to achieve multi- 3. Climate responsive cities ple ecosystem services and biodiversity con- servation (e.g. Goddard, Dougill, and Benton 3.1. Living infrastructure, innovative cities and 2010; Navarro and Pereira 2012; Andersson et climate responses al. 2014) including through gardens, parklands Cities have historically been centres of innovation and reforestation (Young 2011) and the green- where the ferment of new ideas engenders the tech- ing of buildings and built environments (Dover nological, cultural and institutional capabilities for 2015); and adapting to changing circumstances (DeLanda 2006; (5) The Water sensitive city focuses on reconfig- Attali 2009). uring water technology, and urban hydrology It is estimated that over 1500 cities and regions are to achieve multiple outcomes (see Wong 2006; involved in climate initiatives promoting innovation Ferguson et al. 2013a). and capacity building (ICLEI 2016). Cities are therefore Given these various dimensions and perspectives central to global climate responses undertaking a vast there are strong rationales for integrating approaches. global programme of focused on reducing emissions and Ecosystem services provide one conceptual framework increasing sequestration whilst also building social and for thinking about integrated approaches (Bolund institutional capacity (Broto and Bulkeley 2013). With and Hunhammar 1999; Nelson et al. 2009; Gómez- over 1500 cities and regions committed to integrated Baggethun and Barton 2013). However, the analysis of climate initiatives (ICLEI 2016) (http://www.iclei.org). Laurans and Mermet (2014) found significant failings in Living infrastructure is an essential component of effec- influencing policy decisions with few reports of ecosys- tive climate mitigation and adaptation strategies (see, tem service valuation studies being applied in policy and for example, Anguelovski and Carmin 2011; Groot planning decisions. Planning and decision guidelines for et al. 2015). Promoting innovation and capacity building technical and social integration offer another approach are also central features of many strategies. This wealth (Henstra 2012) but numerous studies identify substan- of activity is contributing to the generation of an exten- tive integration constraints (Carmin, Dodman, and Chu sive literature spanning the material, operational, stra- 2013; Daniell, Coombes, and White 2014). Laurans and tegic, institutional and risk aspects of climate adaptation Mermet (2014) found ecosystem service valuation stud- and mitigation strategies (e.g. Leal Filho 2010; Hunt ies rarely being usefully applied in policy and planning and Watkiss 2011; Broto and Bulkeley 2013; Carmin, decisions, while Funfgeld 2010 found governance, sym- Dodman, and Chu 2013). bolic and cultural dimensions critical. The literature on planning, practice and research for urban climate responses tends to occur in five related domains with corresponding disciplinary dimensions. 3.2. Governance and institutions for living water For illustrative purposes these are outlined as five dis- infrastructure crete conceptualised types of cities to emphasise the dominant framings and perspectives: Water governance regimes can be defined as the estab- lished processes, practices and systems that determine (1) The planner’s city focuses on adapting the phys- how water is governed with institutions and institutional ical layout of cities, for example, through urban path dependence playing key roles in determining poli- renewal and intensification with literature cies and practice (Marshall and Alexandra 2016). These mostly from planning and urban design per- governance regimes are made up of institutions, rules, spectives (see, for example, Wilson 2006; Gill policies, laws, paradigms, norms, practices and the net- et al. 2007; Measham et al. 2011); works of relationships that form the governance models, (2) Decarbonising cities are adapting material and practices and frameworks. From these regimes, specific energy processes critical to cites’ functions, policy and management decisions about water are made including transport, technologies and the at multiple, nested scales, from local water treatment stock and flows of energy, goods and materials schemes through to the governing of multi-jurisdictional 68 J. ALEXANDRA river basins. Water governance regimes tend to have Urban systems face significant constraints to trans- strong stabilising factors reinforcing established power formative adaptation including institutional complex- structures and societal bias due to multiple, slowly evolv- ity, sunk investment in fixed long-lived infrastructure, ing, institutionalised logic (Brodnik, Brown, and Cocklin incremental planning and development processes and 2017). While typically conservative, they respond slowly diffuse responsibilities across multiple governance to dominant societal concerns through processes of processes (Funfgeld 2010; Carter, 2011). However, as social learning (Pahl-Wostl 2002; Pahl-Wostl, Mostert, outlined above cities are also sources of innovation and and Tàbara 2008; Brodnik et al. 2017) evolving due to experimentation (Broto and Bulkeley 2013; ICLEI 2016). internal and external pressures and incentives (Marshall The literature on transformations emphasises that and Alexandra 2016). responsiveness to new challenges, circumstances and Due to the pervasive concerns about climate change knowledge are central to adaptive capacity (Attali 2009; in cities – the social and material polis – are increasingly Pahl-Wostl 2007; Alexandra 2012; Rickards et al. 2014; focusing on adopting climate adaptive responses, includ- Boyd et al. 2015). The need for radical sustainability ing in their water systems. focused change is supported by the extensive litera- Cities and their water systems have co-evolved with ture (see, for example, Jerneck et al. 2011; Pahl-Wostl, complex hydrological, social and political regimes. The Mostert, and Tàbara 2008; Miller et al. 2014) yet in social and historical constructions of disciplines like existing urban areas change is typically incremen- public health and engineering hydrology have had strong tal and highly contested (Swyngedouw 2011; Fuller influences on the adoption of specific policies, technolo- 2013). Transformative urban initiatives, like imple- gies and approaches to water management, (Molle et al. menting water sensitive urban design, while aiming 2009; Linton and Budd 2014). Therefore, the transfor- explicitly to meet societal needs for sustainability and mation of urban water systems includes both technical ‘liveability’ (de Haan et al. 2014; Ward et al. 2012) are and technological innovation and broader challenges of inexorably embedded in politics and power relations governance and institutional reform (Rijke et al. 2013; raising critical questions about whose needs are met, Ferguson et al. 2013b). While living infrastructure offers who determines them and preferred ways of delivering tangible, physical manifestations of climate adaptation them (Fuller 2013). strategies its adoption represents more than a technical Debates about how to shape or reshape cities are or technocratic challenge. If it is to be understood in inherently political. They are rich in cultural and scien- terms of transitions towards sustainability (de Haan et tific representations because science contributes to the al. 2014) the relational dimensions are equally critical as co-production of knowledge and order (Jasanoff 2004) the technical and material dimensions. entrenching normative frames and institutionalised Climate change may be driving experimentation logic (Miller 2001; Sarewitz 2004). Therefore, climate and innovations in water governance (Godden et al. adaptive responses span issues well beyond the technical 2011) but Brown, Ashley, and Farrelly (2011) cautions challenge related to adoption of specific technologies like about the significant risks of professional and agency for energy or water. Furthermore, specific technologies, entrapment in the water sector where certain established human organisations and urban systems are not separate paradigms and logic continue to dominate (Brodnik et entities instead they are usefully conceived as evolving al. 2017). Likewise Molle et al. (2009) warn about the assemblages of related processes, practices, knowledges, water sector’s capacity for rhetorical appropriation of activities and material entities (Orlikowski and Scott social and environmental critiques whilst retaining its 2008). engineering construction orientation and modalities of Choices about a desirable future involve balancing command and control. the possible with the feasible but are often constrained by conflicts about priorities and preconceived ways of 3.3. Enabling transformative adaptation – in thinking (Rickards et al. 2014), as well as embedded technology and policy institutionalised logic (Brodnik et al. 2017). Successful social innovations are typically co-produced by broad Climate change adaptation is now embedded as a nor- partnerships that build constituencies for policies (see, mative goal in many national and sub-national strategies for example, Campbell 2005; Campbell 2010; Godden (see, for example, McGray 2007; Burton 2009; Wilby and et al. 2011). Heuristic processes of deliberative gov- Dessai 2010; Juhola et al. 2011; Biesbroek et al. 2014; ernance and participatory scenario planning can help Waters et al. 2014). Many studies emphasise the impor- mobilise these partnerships and empower people to tance of the framings and underlying conceptualisation prepare for transformative futures (Pahl-Wostl 2002; of climate adaptation (Füssel 2007; Head 2010; McEvoy, Walker et al. 2002; Folke et al. 2002; Rickards et al. Fünfgeld, and Bosomworth 2013; Eriksen, Nightingale, 2014). Transformative approaches are often based on and Eakin 2015) with a key conceptual distinction rethinking and reordering fundamental relationships between incremental and transformational adaptation and imaginatively mapping possibilities (Alexandra and (Park et al. 2012; Rickards and Howden 2012). Riddington 2007; Castree 2014b; Vervoort et al. 2015).  AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 69 Therefore, an explicit challenge for transformations is implementation by establishing cooperative, multidisci- engaging people in processes that disrupt and challenge plinary networks empowered to deliver on co-produced their notions of possible futures and fixed conceptualis- strategies (Chapin et al. 2010). Given these relational ations of what is desirable, feasible or likely in the future dimensions many studies emphasise the critical role (Vervoort et al. 2015). of engaging people, ensuring participation and mak- ing sure citizens, communities and practitioners are 3.4. Political, symbolic and culturally expressive involved (Walker et al. 2002; Folke et al. 2002; Standish, functions Hobbs, and Miller 2013). Urban ecosystems provide cultural, educational and Through their structure, layout and design, cities have recreational opportunities (Bolund and Hunhammar symbolic or representative roles that exceed the sum of 1999; Andersson et al. 2014). Frequent contact with their monuments and institutional buildings (DeLanda urban natures can enhance physical, mental, commu- 2006). Strategies for living infrastructure need to rec- nity health, including cognitive function and mental ognise cities cultural and intellectual roles and their health (Standish, Hobbs, and Miller 2013) with substan- political, symbolic and culturally expressive functions. tive evidence of the beneficial human health impacts While these dimensions appear less tangible, they are enhanced by diverse participation strategies (Tzoulas et critically important given that cities are socio-ecological al. 2007). Opportunities for involving citizens include systems in which knowledge, politics and imagination active sports, passive recreation and networks of envi- play critical roles (Amin and Thrift 2002; Heynen, Kaika, ronmental stewards, for example, landcare and friends and Swyngedouw 2006). of parks group and citizen scientists. Urban food pro- Climate change responses need to mobilise citizens duction – e.g. community gardens, veggie plots, urban and civic institutions in future-orientated processes that farms – generates health and community well-being build capacity for anticipation in socio-ecological sys- benefits (Wakefield et al. 2007). Successful examples tems (Boyd et al. 2015). Therefore, committing to living of community gardens include CERES Community infrastructure could play significant roles in providing Environment Park (see http://ceres.org.au/) and The inspiration and stimulating innovation, as well as mak- Vegout Community gardens in St Kilda (https:// ing cities more liveable and functional in their material vegout.org.au). Citizen science networks provide other dimensions. opportunities including water-watch and frog-watch Taking account of these symbolic and culturally (Campbell 1994; Alexandra, Haffenden, and White expressive functions, cities can usefully be conceived 1996). of as evolving assemblages of intertwined cultural, material and ecological elements emphasising multiple 3.6. Supporting policies decisions – can we relationships and networks operating at multiple scales improve on valuations? (Anderson and McFarlane 2011; Fuller 2013). These assemblages are co-evolving socio-ecological systems Urban ecosystems generate a range of valuable goods (Folke et al. 2002; Gual and Norgaard 2010) in which and services (Andersson et al 2014). Numerous stud- urban natures are human created in two senses. Firstly, ies provide evidence of their high value when assessed all conceptualisations of nature are cultural constructs in terms of dispersed community well-being and the (Castree 2014a) and secondly urban natures exist within vibrancy of ‘liveable’ cities (Standish, Hobbs, and Miller and in relation to the constructed urban systems that are 2013). inherently materially and socially complex, politicised Valuation studies accounting for these benefits environments (Heynen, Kaika, and Swyngedouw 2006). depend heavily on assumptions used and whether ben- Conceiving of cities as co-evolving assemblage assists in efits to private property are included (ABC 2017). For framing strategies that support the active engagement in example, McPherson et al. (2005) found positive returns the co-production of urban areas. in their analysis of the structure, functions and value of street and park trees in five US cities (Fort Collins, 3.5. Living cities and living communities – health Colorado; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Bismarck, North and well-being Dakota; Berkeley, California; and Glendale, Arizona) with very dollar invested in tree management return- Living infrastructure requires greater human involve- ing between $1.37 and $3.09 although ‘these cities spent ment than ‘hard’ infrastructure – like roads, bridges $13–$65 annually per tree, benefits ranged from $31 to and drains – but as a result it emphasises human rela- $89 per tree’ (McPherson et al. 2005). tionships and the social dimensions of life in cities. Ecosystem valuation studies have been widely pro- Engaging people broadly in participatory processes can moted as a means of supporting informed policy deci- build support for the adoption and maintenance of liv- sions with economic calculations the basis for many ing infrastructure. Participatory processes support the thousands of elaborate ecosystem services valuation co-production of strategies ensuring commitments to studies (De Groot 2012). But there is growing literature 70 J. ALEXANDRA about their constraints and limitations. For example, racks through to more recently constructed swales, water Sullivan (2013) suggests that a blizzard of calculation gardens and wetlands. is blinding us to the extreme financialisation of nature Inner Canberra is already receiving significant cool- and the unthinking adoption of neoliberal logic (see also ing from its extensive plantings of mature urban vege- Robertson 2007; Dempsey and Roberson 2012). tation (Chen et al. 2006; Li et al. 2011; Oliveira 2011; Laurans and Mermet (2014) examined the claim that Žuvela-Aloise et al. 2016). However, heat studies indicate ecosystem valuations lead to better policy decisions a significant variation between inner Canberra and the reviewing over 313 papers on valuation studies utilisa- less treed suburbs on the urban fringe (Mahmuda and tion. They found low rates of application and that over Webb 2015). These require a commitment to large scale confidence in ‘rational decision making’ modes amongst living infrastructure initiatives if they are to achieve proponents was constraining the utilisation of ecosystem comparable liveability. services valuations. An ambitious programme of living infrastructure Poorly executed attempts to value benefits can also would establish Canberra as a leader in Australia and weaken the case for living infrastructure, especially if in the global cities movement. It is possible to envisage there is a tendency to focus on direct costs at the expense a transformed city: one that integrates the best aspects of of broader and longer term benefits for individuals, the contemporary urban design to build a capital city more community and the environment. The UK’s Department suited to the emerging climate adaptation challenges. of Communities and Local Government, (2012) has It would be fitting for Australia’s most planned city to introduced guiding design principles that focus on integrate its planning legacy with its research, educa- achieving outcomes. These may be more effective than tion and innovation capabilities to shift towards a more investing in more detailed valuation studies given the climate-responsive, water-sensitive, biophilic city that intrinsic uncertainty about ecological processes and provides high-quality lifestyles to its inhabitants. The valuation metrics and the poor application of ecosys- prospective influence of such initiatives should not be tem service valuations in informing decision-making underestimated, taking into account the symbolic and (Laurans and Mermet 2014). cultural influence of cities as outlined above. While detailed valuations and adoption of planning The creation of a model city may have wider influ- guidelines can contribute to informed policy decisions, ence in Australia, including throughout the Murray– it is important to recognise the essentially politicised Darling Basin. History provides numerous examples nature of the decisions that shape cities’ futures (Heynen, of the influence of progressive cities extending far Kaika, and Swyngedouw 2006). The next section outlines beyond their hinterlands (Attali 2009). There is also options for living infrastructure to play a role in adap- the prospect of policy influence through Australia’s tation planning in Australia’s capital, Canberra, where federated system of government. The Australian politicised decisions are central to the city’s purpose. Capital Territory (ACT) is one of the jurisdictions involved in the MDB initiative, and in Australia’s 4. The case of Canberra water policy reforms as a member of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), so it has the poten- Canberra’s major urban initiatives aim to create more tial to influence policy and practice including through sustainable urban futures including through intro- demonstration, research and education. Specifically, ducing light rail, alternative energy, urban renewal through integrating theory and practice by demon- and redevelopment programmes, and a legislated strating a planned transition to a water-sensitive and code for water-sensitive urban design or WSUD (ACT climate-responsive city. Government 2009). The ACT is also actively respond- As a planned city, Canberra has the opportunity ing to climate change with its Climate Change Strategy to bring together green infrastructure (building on focusing on reducing emissions adopting a target of its legacy of parks, open space and urban forestry), 100% renewable electricity by 2020 via solar and wind blue infrastructure (building on its lakes and more energy. The ACT’s ‘Climate Change Adaptation Strategy: recent commitment to WSUD) and grey infrastructure living with a warming climate’ includes a commitment (transforming its transports and built infrastructure). to ‘develop and implement a strategy to enhance living However, while all this technically feasible, as this paper infrastructure in the Territory’ (ACT Government 2016) cautions, it is important to not underestimate the inte- which builds on its prior commitments to WSUD. gration and governance challenges. Canberra has redefined its future vision to include The examples outlined above, derived from the litera- a commitment to adopt living infrastructure, building ture, demonstrate many opportunities for how Canberra on its heritage of urban planning with parklands, urban could achieve multiple benefits delivered through well- wetlands, lakes and urban forests. For example, Sullivan’s planned living infrastructure including: (i) amenity and Creek provides a useful ‘school house’ of the changing liveability; (ii) shade and cooling (adaptation to extreme patterns of urban stormwater management over the dec- heat); (iii) sequestering carbon (contributing to mitiga- ades since the 1970s with its concrete silt traps and trash tion); (iv) reducing the use of energy for artificial cooling;  AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 71 and (v) provision of habitat. To achieve these kinds of ‘environmental program’ with strong evidence of the multiple benefits it is important not to focus on single multiple social and economic benefits. elements of urban systems – like water supply or drain- Researchers, planners and urban water managers age– but to adopt systemic and integrated approaches that need to engage in the challenges of adopting genuinely span issues across scales. So while these opportunities integrated planning approaches that can enhance syner- exist for Canberra, there remains the challenge of inte- gistic benefits. The literature identifies five dimensions gration of multiple elements, strategies and agencies in critical to the success of living infrastructure initiatives order to achieve synergies and multiple potential benefits. including: Like most cities, Canberra has the potential to integrate (1) The need to adopt genuinely integrated the five conceptual types of cities outlined earlier in the approaches that engage across multiple issues, paper. It is possible to envisage Canberra remaining the scales and functions of governments; planner’s city by continuing to focus on adapting its phys- (2) The need to actively engage communities and ical layout to meet contemporary needs. It can become agencies in the visioning and practical aspects the decarbonising city by radically modifying its energy of planning and managing urban systems; and transport systems in line with its current strategy. It (3) Integrating technical, social and systemic can adopt the mantle of the innovative city by sponsoring dimensions; diverse innovations and seriously investing in research, (4) Incorporating symbolic and cultural dimen- education and dynamic social change. It can aim to fur- sions with the technical and material aspects; ther enhance its status as the ‘bush capital’ claiming to and be one of world’s biophilic cities with its commitment to (5) Long-term institutional support and finan- biodiversity conservation through gardens, parklands and cial commitment to adaptive learning, R&D urban reforestation. Finally, Canberra has the opportunity and education that enhances capacity for to showcase itself as a water-sensitive city through build- transformations. ing on its WSUD and continuing to reconfigure its urban hydrology to achieve multiple social and environmental This paper sketches out the potential of adopt- benefits. ing policies that enable living infrastructure to While the potential for bringing all such opportu- enhance cities, towns and suburbs. Further substan- nities together is apparent in the literature, in practice tive advances will come from integrating theory and there are the many practical, integration and govern- practice. ance challenges that are also identified, as previously The emerging and successful cities of the twenty-first discussed, which will need careful attention and work- century are likely to be based on new visions and new ing though for Canberra to make the most of its future. imaginings of the city as nature and the nature of the city. These visions are reinterpreting the possible and the 5. Conclusions desirable, redefining the kinds of cities that will attract visitors and provide satisfying locales for urban living. High-quality urban planning, including commitments Yet choices about the evolving cities of the future are to living infrastructure, offers some significant opportu- intrinsically political and will remain so because of the nities for our rapidly urbanising planet to meet the press- nature of cities. ing imperatives of the twenty-first century. An emerging global living cities movement is actively exploring the use biological and ecological elements to enhance cit- Note ies whilst contributing to environmental challenges. 1. Waterscapes and systems are often referred to as ‘blue’ While there is always a risk of tokenism and of the direct environments but in Australia with our turbid waters impacts of these efforts being overstated the cultural and dry wetlands, waterscapes are more generally influence of cities as sources of innovation and inspira- murky brown or the olive grey greens and olives of tion remains centrally important. Living infrastructure water plants. can give tangible expression to a city’s aspirations with renewed interest in how parks, urban forests and remod- Disclosure statement elled waterways contribute to cities’ revitalisation. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Cities are engaged in a survival and reputational race, in terms of attracting trade, population, invest- ment, employment and tourism. There are signs that Funding those cities, like Bordeaux, that are engaged in active The work is based on research funded as part of the Canberra transformations are becoming magnets for commercial Urban and Regional Futures (CURF) program managed by and lifestyle investments (Ferbrache and Knowles 2017). University of Canberra as a joint initiative with the Australian In this way, living infrastructure is much more than an National University’s Climate Change Institute. 72 J. ALEXANDRA Notes on contributor of Life in Cities.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (17): 7301–7306. Jason Alexandra is the managing director of Alexandra and Biesbroek, G. R., C. J. Termeer, J. E. Klostermann, P. Kabat. Associates, and a Phd Student at RMIT School of Global, 2014. “Rethinking Barriers to Adaptation: Mechanism- Urban and Social Studies and Researcher Regional Futures Based Explanation of Impasses in the Governance of an Network Melbourne Australia. His research is focused on Innovative Adaptation Measure.” Global Environmental how climate change and adaption is affecting water govern- Change 26: 108–118. ance regimes. Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar. 1999. “Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas.” Ecological Economics 29 (2): 293–301. Boyd, E., B. Nykvist, S. Borgström, and I. A. Stacewicz. 2015. “Anticipatory Governance for Social-Ecological References Resilience.” AMBIO 44 (S1): 149–161. ACT Government. 2009. Water Sensitive Urban Design Bren, L. J., and N. L. Gibbs. 1986. “Relationships between Code. Accessed 5.10.17 http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ Flood Frequency, Vegetation and Topography in a River ni/2008-27/copy/64663/pdf/2008-27.pdf Red Gum Forest.” Australian Forest Research (Australia). ACT Government. 2016. ACT Climate Change Adaptation Briggs, S. V., and M. T. Maher. 1983. “Litter Fall and Strategy: Living with a Warming Climate. Canberra. Leaf Decomposition in a River Red Gum (Eucalyptus ABC. 2017. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ Camaldulensis) Swamp.” Australian Journal of Botany 31 themoney/turning-a-new-leaf:-the-value-of-green- (3): 307–316. investment/8858984. Brodnik, C., R. Brown, and C. Cocklin. 2017. “The Alexandra, J. 2012. “Australia’s Landscapes in a Institutional Dynamics of Stability and Practice Change: Changing Climate — Caution, Hope, Inspiration, and The Urban Water Management Sector of Australia (1970– Transformation.” Crop and Pasture Science 63 (3): 215– 2015).” Water Resources Management 31 (7): 2299–2314. 231. doi:10.1071/CP11189. Broto, V. C., and H. Bulkeley. 2013. “A Survey of Urban Alexandra, J. 2017. “Risks, Uncertainty and Climate Climate Change Experiments in 100 Cities.” Global Confusion in the Murray-Darling Basin Reforms.” Environmental Change 23 (1): 92–102. Water Economics & Policy 3 (3): 1650038. doi: 10.1142/ Brown, R., R. Ashley, and M. Farrelly. 2011. “Political and S2382624X16500387 Professional Agency Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Alexandra, J., B. Norman, W. Steffen, and W. Maher. 2017. Water Research.” Water Resources Management 25 (15): Planning and Implementing Living Infrastructure in the 4037–4050. Australian Capital Territory Canberra Urban and Regional Burton, I. 2009. “Climate Change and the Adaptation Deficit.” Futures. Canberra: University of Canberra. In The Earthscan Reader on Adaptation to Climate Change, Alexandra, J., and C. Riddington. 2007. “Redreaming the edited by E. Schipper and I. Burton, 89–98. London: Rural Landscape.” Futures 39 (2–3): 324–339. doi:10.1016/j. Earthscan. futures.2006.04.002. Campbell, A. 1994. Landcare. Melbourne: Penguin Books. Alexandra, J., S. Haffenden, and T. White 1996. Listening Campbell, A. 2010. Murray Murmurings: Rethinking to the Land: A Directory of Community Environmental the Basin Plan CRIKEY | NOV 16, 2010 12:06PM . Monitoring Groups in Australia, edited by J. McKenzie, Accessed April 19, 2016 http://blogs.crikey.com.au/ Australian Conservation Foundation. rooted/2010/11/16/murray-murmurings-rethinking-the- Amin, A., and N. Thrift. 2002. Cities – Reimagining the Urban. basin-plan/ Oxford: Blackwell. Campbell, A. 2005. Knowledge for Managing Australian Anderson, B., and C. McFarlane. 2011. “Assemblage and Landscapes. Canberra: Land and Water Australia. Geography.” Area 43 (2): 124–127. Carmin, J., D. Dodman and E. Chu. 2013. Urban Andersson, E., S. Barthel, S. Borgström, J. Colding, T. Elmqvist, Climate Adaptation and Leadership: From Conceptual C. Folke, and Å. Gren. 2014. “Reconnecting Cities to the Understanding to Practical Action (No. 2013/26). Paris: Biosphere: Stewardship of Green Infrastructure and Urban OECD Publishing. Ecosystem Services.” AMBIO 43 (4): 445–453. Carter, J. G. 2011. “Climate Change Adaptation in European Anguelovski, I., and J. Carmin. 2011. “Something Borrowed, Cities.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 Everything New: Innovation and Institutionalization (3): 193–198. in Urban Climate Governance.” Current Opinion in Castree, N. 2014a. Making Sense of Nature. London: Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 169–175. Routledge Oxford. Attali, J. 2009. A Brief History of the Future. Sydney: Allen Castree, N. 2014b. “The Anthropocene and Geography III: and Unwin. Future Directions.” Geography Compass 8 (7): 464–476. Bach, P. M., W. Rauch, P. S. Mikkelsen, D. T. McCarthy, Chapin, F. S., S. R. Carpenter, G. P. Kofinas, C. Folke, N. Abel, and A. Deletic. 2014. “A Critical Review of Integrated W. C. Clark, P. Olsson, et al. 2010. “Ecosystem Stewardship: Urban Water Modelling – Urban Drainage and beyond.” Sustainability Strategies for a Rapidly Changing Planet.” Environmental Modelling and Software 54: 88–107. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (4): 241–249. Bartens, J., S. D. Day, J. R. Harris, J. E. Dove, and T. M. Wynn. Chen, X. L., H. M. Zhao, P. X. Li, and Z. Y. Yin. 2006. “Remote 2008. “Can Urban Tree Roots Improve Infiltration through Sensing Image-based Analysis of the Relationship between Compacted Subsoils for Stormwater Management?” Urban Heat Island and Land Use/cover Changes.” Remote Journal of Environment Quality 37 (6): 2048–2057. Sensing of Environment 104 (2): 133–146. Bates, B., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. Palutikof. 2008. Coombes, P. J., J. R. Argue, and G. Kuczera. 2000. “Figtree Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper VI. Geneva: Place: A Case Study in Water Sensitive Urban Development Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (WSUD).” Urban Water 1 (4): 335–343. Bettencourt, L. M., J. Lobo, D. Helbing, C. Kühnert, and G. Coutts, A. M., E. Daly, J. Beringer, and N. J. Tapper. 2013. B. West. 2007. “Growth, Innovation, Scaling, and the pace “Assessing Practical Measures to Reduce Urban Heat:  AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 73 Green and Cool Roofs.” Building and Environment 70: of Climate Change on Water Resources and Livelihoods in 266–276. the Greater Himalayas. Kathmandu: International centre CRC for Water Sensitive Cities. 2016. Accessed August 2, for integrated mountain development (ICIMOD). 2016 (http://watersensitivecities.org.au/resource-library/ Escobedo, F. J., T. Kroeger, and J. E. Wagner. 2011. “Urban liveability-and-the-water-sensitive-city/ Forests and Pollution Mitigation: Analyzing Ecosystem CSIRO. 2010. Climate Change and Variability in SE Australia Services and Disservices.” Environmental Pollution 159 (8): – A Synthesis of Phase 1 of South Eastern Australia Climate 2078–2087. Initaitive (SEACI). CSIRO. Ferbrache, F., and R. D. Knowles. 2017. “City Boosterism and CSIRO. 2012. SEACI Phase 2 Synthesis Report, Climate and Place-making with Light Rail Transit: A Critical Review of Water Availability in South-Eastern Australia. Accessed Light Rail Impacts on City Image and Quality.” Geoforum December 12, 2015] http://www.seaci.org/publications/ 80: 103–113. do c uments/SEACI-2R ep or ts/SEACI_Phas e2_ Ferguson, B. C., R. R. Brown, N. Frantzeskaki, F. J. de SynthesisReport.pdf Haan, and A. Deletic. 2013a. “The Enabling Institutional Daniell, K. A., P. J. Coombes, and I. White. 2014. “Politics Context for Integrated Water Management: Lessons from of Innovation in Multi-Level Water Governance Systems.” Melbourne.” Water Research 47 (20): 7300–7314. Journal of Hydrology 519: 2415–2435. Ferguson, B. C., N. Frantzeskaki, and R. R. Brown. 2013b. “A de Groot, R., L. Brander, S. van der Ploeg, R. Costanza, Strategic Program for Transitioning to a Water Sensitive F. Bernard, L. Braat, M. Christie, et al. 2012. Global City.” Landscape and Urban Planning 117: 32–45. estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C. S. monetary units. Ecosystem Services. 1(1) 50–61. Holling, and B. Walker. 2002. “Resilience and Sustainable de Haan, F. J., B. C. Ferguson, R. C. Adamowicz, P. Johnstone, Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World R. R. Brown, and T. H. Wong. 2014. “The Needs of Society: of Transformations.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human A New Understanding of Transitions, Sustainability and Environment 31: 437–440. Liveability.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change French, J. R. 1983. “Planning for Urban Forestry at the 85: 121–132. Municipal Level.” Urban Policy and Research 1 (3): 11–15. DeLanda, M. 2006. Assemblage: A New Philosophy of Society. French, J. R. J. 1975. “The Concept of Urban Forestry.” New York: Continuum Books. Australian Forestry 38 (3): 177–182. Dempsey, J., and M. Robertson. 2012. “Ecosystem Services: Fuller, C. 2013. “Urban Politics and the Social Practices Tensions, Impurities, and Points of Engagement within of Critique and Justification Conceptual Insights from Neoliberalism.” Progress in Human Geography 36 (6): 758– French Pragmatism.” Progress in Human Geography 37 (5): 779. doi:10.1177/0309132512437076. 639–657. Department of Communities and Local Government. Fünfgeld, H. 2010. “Institutional Challenges to Climate Risk 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. London: UK Management in Cities.” Current Opinion in Environmental Government. Sustainability 2 (3): 156–160. Dillon, P. 2005. “Future Management of Aquifer Recharge.” Füssel, H. M. 2007. “Adaptation Planning for Climate Change: Hydrogeology Journal 13: 313. doi:10.1007/s10040-004- Concepts, Assessment Approaches, and Key Lessons.” 0413-6. Sustainability Science 2: 265–275. Dillon, P. 2000. Water Reuse in Australia: Current Status, Gallant, A. J. E., and J. Gergis. 2011. “An Experimental Projections and Research. Proc. Water Re- Cycling Streamflow Reconstruction for the River Murray, Australia 2000, edited by P. J. Dillon,99–104. Adelaide, Australia.” Water Resources Research 47: W00G04. 19–20 October. doi:10.1029/2010WR009832. Donohue, R. J., M. L. Roderick, and T. R. McVicar. 2011. Gaston, K. J., R. M. Smith, K. Thompson, and P. H. Warren. “Assessing the Differences in Sensitivities of Runoff to 2005. “Urban Domestic Gardens (II): Experimental Tests Changes in Climatic Conditions across a Large Basin.” of Methods for Increasing Biodiversity.” Biodiversity and Journal of Hydrology. 406 (3–4): 234–244. doi:10.1016/j. Conservation 14 (2): 395–413. jhydrol.2011.07.003. Gill, S. E., J. F. Handley, A. R. Ennos, and S. Pauleit. 2007. Dotto, C. B. S., R. Allen, T. Wong. and A. Deletic. 2012. “Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the September. Development of an Integrated Software Tool Green Infrastructure.” Built Environment 33 (1): 115–133. for Strategic Planning and Conceptual Design of Water Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2010. Sensitive Cities. In Proceedings of the 9th International “Scaling up from Gardens: Biodiversity Conservation in Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling, Belgrade, Serbia Urban Environments.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (Vol. 37). (2): 90–98. Dover, J. W. 2015. Green Infrastructure: Incorporating Plants Godden, L., R. L. Ison, and P. J. Wallis. 2011. “Water and Enhancing Biodiversity in Buildings and Urban Governance in a Climate Change World: Appraising Environments. Oxon: Routledge. Systemic and Adaptive Effectiveness.” Water Resources Driver, B. L., D. Rosenthal, G. Peterson and G. Hopkins. 1980. Management 25 (15): 3971–3976. Social Benefits of Urban Forests and Related Green Spaces Gómez-Baggethun, E., and D. N. Barton. 2013. “Classifying in Cities. In Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry and Valuing Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning.” Conference November 13–16, 1978, Washington, DC. 98– Ecological Economics 86: 235–245. 113. College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State Grafton, R. Q., J. Pittock, R. Davis, J. Williams, G. Fu, M. University of New York. Warburton, B. Udall, et al. 2013. “Global Insights into Eriksen, S. H., A. J. Nightingale, and H. Eakin. 2015. Water Resources, Climate Change and Governance.” “Reframing Adaptation: The Political Nature of Climate Nature Climate Change 3 (4): 315–321. Change Adaptation.” Global Environmental Change 35: Grafton, R. Q., J. Pittock, J. Williams, Q. Jiang, H. Possingham, 523–533. and J. Quiggin. 2014. “Water Planning and Hydro– Eriksson, M., X. Jianchu, A. B. Shrestha, R. A. Vaidya, S. Nepal, Climatic Change in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia.” and K. Sandström. 2009. The Changing Himalayas: Impact Ambio 43 (8): 1082–1092. 74 J. ALEXANDRA Grant, S. B., J. D. Saphores, D. L. Feldman, A. J. Hamilton, T. for Robust Flood Risk Planning in the Coastal Zone.” D. Fletcher, P. L. Cook, M. Stewardson, et al. 2012. “Taking Australian Journal of Water Resources 17 (2) 126–134. the ‘Waste’ out of ‘Wastewater’ for Human Water Security Kingsborough, A., K. Jenkins, and J. W. Hall. 2017. and Ecosystem Sustainability.” Science 337 (6095): 681– “Development and Appraisal of Long-term Adaptation 686. Pathways for Managing Heat-risk in London.” Climate Risk Groot, A. M. E. P. R. Bosch, S. Buijs, C. M. J. Jacobs, and E. Management 16: 73–92. doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.01.001. J. Moors. 2015. Integration in Urban Climate Adaptation: Konijnendijk, C. C. 2003. “A Decade of Urban Forestry in Lessons from Rotterdam on Integration between Scientific Europe.” Forest Policy and Economics 5 (2): 173–186. Disciplines and Integration between Scientific and Laurans, Y., and L. Mermet. 2014. “Ecosystem Services Stakeholder Knowledge. Building and Environment 83: Economic Valuation, Decision-support System or 177–188. Advocacy?” Ecosystem Services 7: 98–105. Gual, M. A., and R. B. Norgaard. 2010. “Bridging Ecological Leal Filho, W, ed. 2010. The Economic, Social and Political and Social Systems Coevolution: A Review and Proposal.” Elements of Climate Change. New York: Springer Science Ecological Economics 69 (4): 707–717. and Business Media. Guo, Y. 2001. “Hydrologic Design of Urban Flood Control Leichenko, R. 2011. “Climate Change and Urban Resilience.” Detention Ponds.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 6 (6): Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 3 (3): 472–479. 164–168. Head, L. 2010. Cultural Ecology: Adaptation–Retrofitting a Li, F., R. Wang, J. Paulussen, and X. Liu. 2005. “Comprehensive Concept? Progress in Human Geography 34 (2): 234–242, Concept Planning of Urban Greening Based on Ecological April. Principles: A Case Study in Beijing.” China. Landscape and Henstra, D. 2012. “Toward the Climate-resilient City: Urban Planning 72 (4): 325–336. Extreme Weather and Urban Climate Adaptation Policies Li, J., C. Song, L. Cao, F. Zhu, X. Meng, and J. Wu. 2011. in Two Canadian Provinces.” Journal of Comparative Policy “Impacts of Landscape Structure on Surface Urban Heat Analysis: Research and Practice, 2012, 14(2): 175–194 Islands: A Case Study of Shanghai.” China. Remote Sensing Heynen, N., M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw. 2006. “Urban of Environment 115 (12): 3249–3263. Political Ecology: Politicizing the Production of Linton, J., and J. Budds. 2014. “The Hydrosocial Cycle: Urban Natures.” In In the Nature of Cities, edited by E. Defining and Mobilizing a Relational-Dialectical Swyngedouw, M. Kaika and N. Heynen, 1–20. New York: Approach to Water.” Geoforum 57: 170–180. Routledge. Marshall, G. R., and J. Alexandra. 2016. “Institutional Path Hsieh, C. H., and A. P. Davis. 2005. “Evaluation and Dependence and Environmental Water Recovery in Optimization of Bioretention Media for Treatment of Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin Water.” Alternatives 9 Urban Stormwater Runoff.” Journal of Environmental (3): 679. Engineering 131 (11): 1521–1531. MacFarlane, D. W. 2009. “Potential Availability of Urban Hulme, M., S. Dessai, I. Lorenzoni, S. Donald, and D. R. Wood Biomass in Michigan: Implications for Energy Nelson. 2008. “Unstable Climates: Exploring the Statistical Production, Carbon Sequestration and Sustainable Forest and Social Constructions of ‘Normal’ Climate.” Geoforum Management in the USA.” Biomass and Bioenergy 33 (4): 40 (2009): 197–206. 628–634. Hunt, A., and P. Watkiss. 2011. “Climate Change Impacts and Mahmuda S., and R. Webb. 2015. “Climate adaptation Adaptation in Cities: A Review of the Literature.” Climatic and urban planning for heat islands: a case study of the Change 104 (1): 13–49. Australian Capital Territory”. 127–142 . https://doi.org/10. ICLEI. 2016. Accessed July 4, 2016 http://www.iclei.org 1080/07293682.2015.1136661 IPCC. 2012. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, McEvoy, D., H. Fünfgeld, and K. Bosomworth. 2013. Summary for Policy Makers: Managing the Risks of Extreme “Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation: The Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Adaptation. www. Importance of Framing.” Planning Practice and Research ipcc.org. 28 (3): 280–293. James, P., K. Tzoulas, M. D. Adams, A. Barber, J. Box, J. McGray, H., A. Hammill, R. Bradley, E. L. Schipper, and J. Breuste, T. Elmqvist, et al. 2009. “Towards an Integrated E. Parry. 2007. Weathering the Storm: Options for Framing Understanding of Green Space in the European Built Adaptation and Development. Washington, DC: World Environment.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8 (2): Resources Institute. 65–75. McPherson, E. G., D. Nowak, G. Heisler, S. Grimmond, C. Jasanoff, S, ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production Souch, R. Grant, and R. Rowntree. 1997. “Quantifying of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge. Urban Forest Structure, Function, and Value: The Chicago Jerneck, A., L. Olsson, B. Ness, S. Anderberg, M. Baier, E. Urban Forest Climate Project.” Urban Ecosystems 1 (1): Clark, T. Hickler, et al. 2011. “Structuring Sustainability 49–61. Science.” Sustainability Science 6 (1): 69–82. McPherson, G., J. R. Simpson, P. J. Peper, S. E. Maco, and Q. Jim, C. Y., and W. Y. Chen. 2009. “Ecosystem Services and Xiao. 2005. “Municipal Forest Benefits and Costs in Five Valuation of Urban Forests in China.” Cities 26 (4): 187– US Cities.” Journal of Forestry 103 (8): 411–416. 194. Measham, T. G., B. L. Preston, T. F. Smith, C. Brooke, R. Juhola, S., E. C. H. Keskitalo, and L. Westerhoff. 2011. Gorddard, G. Withycombe, and C. Morrison. 2011. “Understanding the Framings of Climate Change “Adapting to Climate Change through Local Municipal Adaptation across Multiple Scales of Governance in Planning: Barriers and Challenges.” Mitigation and Europe.” Environmental Politics 20: 445–463. Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16 (8): 889–909. Kenway, S. J., P. A. Lant, A. Priestley, and P. Daniels. 2011. Miller, C. A. 2001. “Hybrid Management: Boundary “The Connection between Water and Energy in Cities: A Organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental Review.” Water Science and Technology 63 (9): 1983–1990. Governance in the Climate Regime.” Science, Technology, Kiem, A. S. and D. C. Verdon-Kidd. 2013. “The Importance and Human Values 26 (4): 478–500. Accessed from http:// of Understanding Drivers of Hydroclimatic Variability www.jstor.org/stable/690165  AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES 75 Miller, T. R., A. Wiek, D. Sarewitz, J. Robinson, L. Olsson, Rickards, L., and S. M. Howden. 2012. “Transformational D. Kriebel, and D. Loorbach. 2014. “The Future of Adaptation: Agriculture and Climate Change.” Crop and Sustainability Science: A Solutions-Oriented Research Pasture Science 63 (3): 240–250. Agenda.” Sustainability Science 9 (2): 239–246. Rickards, L., R. Ison, H. Fünfgeld, and J. Wiseman. 2014. Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, and M. Falkenmark. 2008. “Opening and Closing the Future: Climate Change, “Climate Change: Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Adaptation, and Scenario Planning.” Environment and Management?” Science 319 (5863): 573–574. Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (4): 587–602. Molle, F., P. Mollinga, and P. Wester. 2009. “Hydraulic Rijke, J., M. Farrelly, R. Brown, and C. Zevenbergen. 2013. Bureaucracies and the Hydraulic Mission: Flows of Water, “Configuring Transformative Governance to Enhance Flows of Power.” Water Alternatives 2 (3): 328–349. Resilient Urban Water Systems.” Environmental Science NWC (National Water Commission). 2011. Urban Water in and Policy 25: 62–72. Australia: Future Directions. Canberra: National Water Robertson M. 2007. Discovering Price in All the Wrong Commission. Places: The Work of Commodity Definition and Price Navarro, L. M., and H. M. Pereira. 2012. “Rewilding under Neoliberal Environmental Policy. Antipode 39 (3): Abandoned Landscapes in Europe.” Ecosystems 15 (6): 500–526. 900–912. Sarewitz, D. 2004. “How Science Makes Environmental Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, D. Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science and Policy 7 Cameron, K. Chan, et al. 2009. “Modeling Multiple (5): 385–403. Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity Conservation, Shashua-Bar, L., and M. E. Hoffman. 2000. “Vegetation as Commodity Production, and Tradeoffs at Landscape a Climatic Component in the Design of an Urban Street: Scales.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (1): An Empirical Model for Predicting the Cooling Effect of 4–11. Urban Green Areas with Trees.” Energy and Buildings 31 Newman, P., and M. Mouritz. 1996. “Principles and Planning (3): 221–235. Opportunities for Community Scale Systems of Water and Shutes, R. B. E. 2001. “Artificial Wetlands and Water Quality Waste Management.” Desalination 106 (1–3): 339–354. Improvement.” Environment International 26 (5): 441–447. NLWRA. 2002. Australian Catchment, River and Estuary Shutes, R. B. E., D. M. Revitt, A. S. Mungur, and L. N. L. Assessment Vol. 1 Land and Water Australia Canberra Scholes. 1997. “The Design of Wetland Systems for the Nowak, D. J., and D. E. Crane. 2002. “Carbon Storage and Treatment of Urban Run off.” Water Science and Technology Sequestration by Urban Trees in the USA.” Environmental 35 (5): 19–25. Pollution 116 (3): 381–389. Standish, R. J., R. J. Hobbs, and J. R. Miller. 2013. “Improving Oliveira, S., H. Andrade, and T. Vaz. 2011. “The Cooling City Life: Options for Ecological Restoration in Urban Effect of Green Spaces as a Contribution to the Mitigation Landscapes and How These Might Influence Interactions of Urban Heat: A Case Study in Lisbon.” Building and between People and Nature.” Landscape Ecology 28 (6): Environment 46 (11): 2186–2194. 1213–1221. Orlikowski, W. J., and S. V. Scott. 2008. “Sociomateriality: Sullivan, S. 2013. Banking Nature? The Spectacular Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Financialisation of Environmental Conservation. Organization.” The Academy of Management Annals 2 (1): Antipode. 45(1) 198–217. 433–474. Swyngedouw, E. 2011. “Whose Environment?: the End Pahl-Wostl, C. 2002. Towards Sustainability in the Water of Nature, Climate Change and the Process of Post- Sector – The Importance of Human Actors and Processes of Politicization.” Ambiente and Sociedade 14 (2): 69–87. Social Learning. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ Tongway, D. J., and J. A. Ludwig. 1996. “Rehabilitation of PL00012594. Semiarid Landscapes in Australia. I. Restoring Productive Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. “Transitions towards Adaptive Soil Patches.” Restoration Ecology 4 (4): 388–397. Management of Water Facing Climate and Global Change.” Tozer, C. R., T. R. Vance, J. Roberts, A. S. Kiem, M. A. J. Water Resources Management. 21: 49–62. doi:10.1007/ Curran, and A. D. Moy. 2015. “An Ice Core Derived 1013- s11269-006-9040-4. Year Catchment Scale Annual Rainfall Reconstruction Pahl-Wostl, C., E. Mostert, and D. Tàbara. 2008. “The in Subtropical Eastern Australia.” Hydrology and Earth Growing Importance of Social Learning in Water System Sciences Discussions 12 (12). Resources Management and Sustainability Science.” Troy, P. 2008. Conclusion: A New Solution in Troubled Ecology and Society 13 (1): 2008. Waters: Confronting the Water Crisis in Australia’s Cities Park, S. E., N. A. Marshall, E. Jakku, A. M. Dowd, S. M. /Editor, Patrick Troy. ANU Canberra. Accessed 5.10.17 Howden, E. Mendham, and A. Fleming. 2012. “Informing http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p20601/ Adaptation Responses to Climate Change through pdf/conclusion.pdf Theories of Transformation.” Global Environmental Tyrväinen, L. 1997. “The Amenity Value of the Urban Change 22 (1): 115–126. Forest: An Application of the Hedonic Pricing Method.” Price, C. 2003. “Quantifying the Aesthetic Benefits of Urban Landscape and Urban Planning 37 (3-4): 211–222. Forestry.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1 (3): 123– Tyrväinen, L., S. Pauleit, K. Seeland, and S. de Vries. 2005. 133. “Benefits and Uses of Urban Forests and Trees.” Urban Qingan, W., R. Yong, Q. Jun, and Z. Qiujin. 2001. “Biological Rorests and Trees, 81–114. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Community in Constructed Wetland Pond-Bed System Tzoulas, K., K. Korpela, S. Venn, V. Yli-Pelkonen, A. of Living Water Garden in Chengdu [J].” Chongqing Kaźmierczak, J. Niemela, and P. James. 2007. “Promoting Environmental Science 2: 018. Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Rauch, W., P. M. Bach, R. Brown, A. Deletic, B. Ferguson, J. De Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review.” Landscape and Haan, D. T. McCarthy, et al. 2012. Modelling Transitions Urban Planning 81 (3): 167–178. in Urban Drainage Management. Proceedings of the Ninth US EPA. 2016a. Accessed July 4, 2016 https://www.epa.gov/ International Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling. green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure 76 J. ALEXANDRA US EPA. 2016b Accessed July 4, 2016 https://www.epa. Waters, E., J. Barnett, and A. Puleston. 2014. “Contrasting gov/green-infrastructure/green-infrastructure-climate- Perspectives on Barriers to Adaptation in Australian resiliency Climate Change Policy.” Climatic Change 124 (4): 691–702. VCCCAR. 2015. Green Infrastructure Policy Briefing. http:// Wilby, R. L., and S. Dessai. 2010. “Robust Adaptation to www.vcccar.org.au/sites/default/files/publications/ Climate Change.” Weather 65 (7): 180–185. VCCCAR_GreenInfrastructure_PolicyBrief-2015.pdf. Wilson, E. 2006. “Adapting to Climate Change at the Local Vervoort, J. M., R. Bendor, A. Kelliher, O. Strik, and A. E. Level: The Spatial Planning Response.” Local Environment Helfgott. 2015. “Scenarios and the Art of Worldmaking.” 11 (6): 609–625. Futures 74: 62–70. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.009. Wong, T. H. 2006. “An Overview of Water Sensitive Urban Wakefield, S., F. Yeudall, C. Taron, J. Reynolds, and A. Skinner. Design Practices in Australia.” Water Practice and 2007. “Growing Urban Health: Community Gardening in Technology 1 (1): wpt2006018. South-East Toronto.” Health Promotion International 22 Wong, T. H., T. D. Fletcher, H. P. Duncan, and G. A. Jenkins. (2): 92–101. 2006. “Modelling Urban Stormwater Treatment – A Walker, B., S. Carpenter, J. Anderies, N. Abel, G. S. Unified Approach.” Ecological Engineering 27 (1): 58–70. Cumming, M. Janssen, L. Lebel, J. Norberg, G. D. Xiao, Q., E. G. McPherson, J. R. Simpson, and S. L. Ustin. Peterson, and R. Pritchard. 2002. “Resilience Management 1998. “Rainfall Interception by Sacramento’s Urban in Socio-Ecological Systems: A Working Hypothesis for a Forest.” Journal of Arboriculture 24: 235–244. Participatory Approach.” Conservation Ecology 6 (1): 14. Xu, J., R. E. Grumbine, A. Shrestha, M. Eriksson, X. Yang, [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14/ Y. U. N. Wang, and A. Wilkes. 2009. “The Melting Walsh, C. J., T. D. Fletcher, and A. R. Ladson. 2005. “Stream Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Restoration in Urban Catchments through Redesigning Biodiversity, and Livelihoods.” Conservation Biology 23 Stormwater Systems: Looking to the Catchment to save (3): 520–530. the Stream.” Journal of the North American Benthological Yeomans, P. A. 1971. The City Forest: The Keyline Plan for the Society 24 (3): 690–705. Human Environment Revolution. Keyline. Ward, S., L. Lundy, P. Shaffer, T. Wong, R. Ashley, S. Arthur, Young, R. F. 2011. “Planting the Living City: Best Practices in N. P. Armitage, et al. 2012. “Water Sensitive Urban Planning Green Infrastructure – Results from Major US Design in the City of the Future [Online].” In WSUD Cities.” Journal of the American Planning Association 77 2012: Water Sensitive Urban Design; Building the Water (4): 368–381. Sensitve Community; 7th International Conference on Žuvela-Aloise, M., R. Koch, S. Buchholz, and B. Früh. 2016. Water Sensitive Urban Design, 79–86. Barton: Engineers “Modelling the Potential of Green and Blue Infrastructure Australia. to Reduce Urban Heat Load in the City of Vienna.” Climatic Change 135 (3–4): 425–438.