2731
© IWA Publishing 2012 Water Science & Technology
|
66.12
|
2012
Co-governing decentralised water systems: an analytical
framework
C. Yu, R. Brown and P. Morison
ABSTRACT
Current discourses in urban water management emphasise a diversity of water sources and scales of
infrastructure for resilience and adaptability. During the last 2 decades, in particular, various smallscale systems emerged and developed so that the debate has largely moved from centralised versus
decentralised water systems toward governing integrated and networked systems of provision and
consumption where small-scale technologies are embedded in large-scale centralised
infrastructures. However, while centralised systems have established boundaries of ownership and
management, decentralised water systems (such as stormwater harvesting technologies for the
street, allotment/house scales) do not, therefore the viability for adoption and/or continued use of
decentralised water systems is challenged. This paper brings together insights from the literature on
C. Yu (corresponding author)
R. Brown
P. Morison
Centre for Water Sensitive Cities,
School of Geography and Environmental Science,
Building 11,
Monash University,
Clayton 3800 Victoria,
Australia
E-mail: carlyne.yu@monash.edu
P. Morison
Melbourne Water,
100 Wellington Parade,
East Melbourne 3002 Victoria,
Australia
public sector governance, co-production and social practices model to develop an analytical
framework for co-governing such systems. The framework provides urban water practitioners with
guidance when designing co-governance arrangements for decentralised water systems so that these
systems continue to exist, and become widely adopted, within the established urban water regime.
Key words
| co-governance, decentralised water systems, urban water management
INTRODUCTION
The last two decades saw the emergence of a new paradigm
of urban water management that emphasises, among other
things, a diversity of water sources and scales of infrastructure for resilience and adaptability (Mitchell ; Wong &
Brown ). This paradigm is reflected in the literature on
water management through such concepts as total water
cycle management (TWCM, Chanan & Woods ), integrated water resources management (IWRM, Mitchell
), ‘water soft path’ (Brooks et al. ), and sustainable
urban water management (SUWM, van de Meene &
Brown ), all of which highlight principles and
approaches that encourage the use of decentralised water
systems. TWCM and IWRM, for instance, include water sensitive planning and design, fit-for-purpose principles and a
diversity of technologies and non-structural tools while
water soft path and SUWM encourage physical and institutional integration of multi-scale infrastructures that are
suited to local conditions, responsive to human and ecological needs and with a long-term perspective.
Some of these principles have been applied and are
documented in recent empirical studies (e.g. Rygaard et al.
doi: 10.2166/wst.2012.489
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/66/12/2731/441131/2731.pdf
by guest
; Mankad & Tapsuwan ) that reveal the co-existence of decentralised technologies along with centralised
systems, resulting in a diverse array of systems from the
household to district scales. Figure 1 reveals smaller tailored
systems operating at the local level embedded in larger infrastructures that play key roles at wider scales.
The term ‘decentralised’ is used extensively in the
energy sector where it is defined in many ways and is
called by many names: on-site, dispersed, embedded, distributed and micro-generation systems (McCormick et al. ).
This paper adopts the definition of decentralised water systems by Cook et al. (: 15): ‘systems provided for
water, wastewater and stormwater services…that utilise
alternative water sources…based on a ‘fit-for-purpose’ concept’. Three subtypes of decentralised water systems are
highlighted following Warnken et al. (, see also
Figure 1): onsite (1–2 lots), communal (2–2,000 or more lots
developed under one development application) and district
systems (5,000–20,000 lots).
Renewed interest in decentralised water systems is driven
by the challenges of sustainability, climate change,
2732
Figure 1
C. Yu et al.
|
|
Co-governing decentralised water systems
Water Science & Technology
|
66.12
|
2012
Decentralised water systems at various scales (based on Yu et al. 2011, 2012).
limitations in infrastructure, and supply security (Sharma
et al. ), while its viability is enhanced greatly by advances
in technology (McCormick et al. ). Scholars (e.g., Biggs
et al. ; Wong & Brown ) highlight the need to
improve patterns of production and consumption to reduce
environmental pressures amid growing demand for water,
and to cope with the uncertainties related to climate
change. It is believed that variety and diversity in sources
and scales of water, redundancy and ‘modularity’ increase
resilience and facilitate continuous supply (Biggs et al.
). The use of decentralised technologies is also considered to foster flexibility and innovation by making use of
local resources, creating partnerships and by enhancing participation, communication and feedback (Biggs et al. ,
). In view of all these, decentralised systems are starting
to gain momentum in many countries around the world (cf.
Mankad & Tapsuwan ). But, these systems do not have
established boundaries of ownership and management
(Biggs et al. ). There remains so much uncertainty as to
who gets involved, how and to what extent these systems
are managed and/or integrated with the existing urban
water regime. Hence, the critical question regarding their viability for widespread adoption and/or continued use. To
answer questions surrounding the governance of decentralised systems, this paper explores the literature on public
sector governance, co-production and social practices
model to develop an analytical framework. The framework
brings to the fore the role of end-users, and the variables
necessary in the analyses and design of co-governance
arrangements for decentralised water systems.
BUILDING THE FRAMEWORK
The emergence of decentralised systems poses a challenge to
current governance structures (Biggs et al. ).
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/66/12/2731/441131/2731.pdf
by guest
Additionally, the concept of integrating decentralised and
centralised systems is new and complex. Many scholars
(such as Biggs et al. ; Brown et al. ; Sharma et al.
) point out the lack of knowledge in the governance of
decentralised water systems, that is, in their planning,
design, implementation, operation and management.
A number of reports and studies (see for instance Biggs
et al. ; Mankad & Tapsuwan ) are published on
the drivers and barriers, on community receptivity toward,
and household adoption of, decentralised systems. But
none explore provider and end-user roles (either) in planning
for, designing, implementing, operating and/or managing
decentralised systems. Some practitioners (e.g., West )
propose for centralised management of decentralised water
systems using advanced technology while others (e.g., van
Vliet et al. ; Brand ; Hegger ; Hegger & van
Vliet ) suggest that the involvement of end-users is critical to the success (or failure) of such systems. This paper
focuses on the latter not only because the literature in the
area remains underdeveloped, but also because of the important role end-users can play in a transition to SUWM.
End-user involvement: literature on public sector
governance and co-production
Citizen involvement is not a new phenomenon. Public participation studies have since documented different forms,
levels and motivations for citizen involvement in various
areas of concern. Similarly, a number of analogous studies
in public administration and sociology reveal a range of concepts pertaining to end-user involvement in public service
delivery: co-management (van Vliet et al. ; Brown
et al. ), co-provision (van Vliet et al. ), coproduction (Alford ; Bovaird ), co-design, codecision, co-evaluation and co-governance (Pollitt et al.
). The core of the different ‘co’ concepts is one and
2733
C. Yu et al.
|
Co-governing decentralised water systems
Water Science & Technology
the same, that is, the involvement of citizens, consumers or
end-users either in service planning, design, commissioning,
managing, delivering, monitoring or evaluation (Bovaird
), hence co-design, co-decision, co-production, co-evaluation and so on (see Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, co-production combines end-user
production (involving clients, citizens, neighbourhood
associations) and regular production (involving traditional
service delivery organisations and agents such as local
bureaucracies, street-level workers) of the same good or service. Table 1 also shows a number of co-productive activities
across the three phases of the service cycle, from planning to
delivery and evaluation. Co-production essentially occurs
when collaboration happens across all phases, something
akin to what Pollitt et al. () refer to as co-governance.
The concept builds on the strengths of both end-users and
regular producers to develop an effective service delivery
structure. Joshi & Moore () believe that such an
arrangement is considered effective in addressing varying
local needs and circumstances, and in capitalising on existing networks and resources. There is also the potential to
increase service reach, encourage flexibility and adaptability
of policy design and implementation, and empower citizens
(Allen ). However, Bovaird () warns that citizen
involvement is no panacea. In addition to practitioners’
reluctance to co-production, he pointed to at least two concerns: (1) potential decline of public accountability; and (2)
level of, and rationale for, participation. Problems such as
conflicts due to differing values and priorities, incompatible
incentives, unclear division of roles and free-riding, as well
as burnout could arise. Ostrom () suggests that the
nature and extent of involvement varies with the type of
good or service, technology of delivery, the sociodemographic makeup of the community, and governmental
decisions about who, and how involvement is organised or
encouraged.
Table 1
|
|
66.12
|
2012
Potential for end-user involvement in the water service
sector
The notion of citizen involvement has been documented in
various sectors and services (see for instance Alford ;
Joshi & Moore ). In the water sector in particular,
Brown et al. () refers to co-management in advocating
for a functional partnership between business, communities
and the government in managing the urban water cycle.
Similarly, van Vliet et al. () proposes for the comanagement of service by providers and end-users in light
of the various innovations in infrastructures for water provision and consumption. Accordingly, the diversifications
that have taken place in terms of resources, providers, mediating technologies and end-users allowed many other
arrangements to emerge and co-exist with the traditional
form of provision composed of its large technological
system linking natural resources, providers and consumers
(Figure 2).
Figure 2 reveals that contemporary service provision
acknowledges a diverse mix of sources of water, different
service providers and a wide variety of technologies so
that end-users have more choice and/or influence, and are
more differentiated as well. While some may remain captive/passive end-users, others can now assert their
individual needs and preferences as ‘customer end-users’,
represent their concern for the environment and become
‘citizen end-users’, or get involved in generating the services
for their own and possibly others’ consumption as ‘co-providers’ (van Vliet et al. ). In many ways, the use of
alternative sources of water and diverse scales of infrastructures is linking end-users more closely with providers, with
the small-scale technology, and the water resource. In Australia, for instance, Gardiner () and Hoban et al. ()
point out how end-users help maintain decentralised water
systems such as rain water tanks and rain gardens,
Co-production and the service cycle
Planning
Delivery
Evaluation
End-user production
End-users as sole service planners, deliverers and evaluators (e.g., on-site systems)
Co-production
• Co-design
• Co-commissioning
• Co-prioritising
• Co-budgeting
• Co-selection of providers
Regular production
Traditional service delivery organisations and agents such as local bureaucracies, street-level workers and
professionals as planners, deliverers and evaluators with little (e.g., through consultation, surveys, etc.) or no
input from end-users
Yu et al. (2011).
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/66/12/2731/441131/2731.pdf
by guest
• Co-construction/Co-implementation
• Co-provision
• Co-management (Operation and Maintenance)
• Co-monitoring
• Co-review
• Co-improvement planning
2734
Figure 2
C. Yu et al.
|
|
Co-governing decentralised water systems
Water Science & Technology
|
66.12
|
2012
Diversifications in utility system of provision (adapted from van Vliet et al. 2005). Note: E-end-user, T-technology, P-provider, R-resource.
indicating increased opportunities for end-users to be
involved at small, but useful scales. These developments
form part of a trend towards involving end-users in environmental governance in general, and in the production and
delivery of water and sanitation services in particular (see
e.g., Hegger ; Allen ; Hegger & van Vliet ).
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CO-GOVERNING
Insights from the literature and from empirical cases featuring end-user involvement in the governance of decentralised
water systems acknowledge complexity and diversity, and
the availability of various solutions depending on specific
temporal-spatial contexts, as opposed to a single sustainable
solution (c.f., Hegger ). These solutions are achieved
through the formation of ‘adequate mixes of scales, technologies, payment systems and cultural and institutional
structures that are both economically and environmentally
sustainable’ (Hegger & van Vliet ). This means the creation of a ‘fit’ between various physical and social
infrastructural options, and existing conditions. Such
emphasis on ‘adequate mixes’ and ‘fit’ suggests the need to
outline variables considered relevant in the analysis and
design of co-governance arrangements. Some of these variables are discussed briefly below (see also Yu et al. ,
).
Technical considerations
The literature (cf. Hegger ; Hegger & van Vliet )
suggests that technologies be designed with the view of
the end-user for greater uptake. The technology in itself,
its scale (e.g., single household to whole city level) and
structure (e.g., combined vs. separate, Hegger ) are
all important when designing co-governance arrangements.
These indicators help determine the technical complexities
and required skills to operate and/or maintain the system,
and thus indicate the potential for end-users to get
involved.
End-users’ lifestyles
This dimension encompasses what co-production literature
refers to as the socio-demographic make-up of a community.
Following the social practices model, it considers the routines and lifestyles of end-users as the basis for analysing
(provision and) consumption patterns. Here, it is used in
expanding the notion of co-governing the small-scale systems
via the analysis of end-users’ ability, willingness and/or
motivation for getting involved in planning and/or in
taking extra tasks to manage and maintain the innovations
in relation to their everyday routines and, interdependently
with other household members and/or the wider
community.
Resources
Governance policy processes
The type of good or service is considered one of the determining factors in designing co-governance arrangements
(Ostrom ). In the water sector for instance, the notion
of fit-for-purpose use as advocated by urban water scholars
(like Mitchell ) implies the use of diverse sources and/
or qualities of water. Consequently, there is a need for different technologies and levels of expertise to deal with
associated risks. Decisions taken in this regard are likely
to affect who is a responsible stakeholder and how they
manage the system.
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/66/12/2731/441131/2731.pdf
by guest
Furlong & Bakker () suggest that governance policy
processes act as the backdrop that supports effective
implementation of alternative service delivery arrangements
(co-governance included). This dimension not only includes
decisions about who is involved and how their involvement
is organised and/or encouraged (Ostrom ), but also
covers social and institutional considerations with which
co-governance arrangements are established through, for
instance, regulation and incentives.
2735
Figure 3
C. Yu et al.
|
|
Co-governing decentralised water systems
Water Science & Technology
|
66.12
|
2012
Analytical framework for co-governing decentralised water systems (based on Yu et al. 2011). Note: DS-decentralised water system.
Macro-level trends
According to Brand (), consumption behaviour develops
in relation to broader structural dynamics and trends. The
analysis of co-governance, therefore, requires investigation
of not only water-related practices or governance processes
but also of national or global issues, discourses and developments (e.g., on climate change and sustainability) that affect
water-related cultural standards, value systems, regulation
and infrastructure.
Figure 3 shows how the aforementioned variables are
related. The middle box, ‘arrangements for DS’, represents
the variety of ways a technology (e.g., stormwater systems)
may be co-governed (i.e., co-planned and/or co-managed,
for instance, by private utility companies and end-users),
based on an analysis of the lifestyles and aspirations of
end-users (left box), and of the structures and technology
of delivery (right box). Such analysis may start from either
side – consumption (end-user) or provision (resources and
providers), although the lines demarcating both spheres
have become less well defined. It is possible, for instance,
to start with an understanding of the preferences, lifestyles
and practices of particular groups of end-users before deciding on the resource (e.g., stormwater, wastewater,
desalination), technology type and scale, and governance
arrangement. Similarly, it is feasible to start with an analysis
of resources, technology, and institutions. Both perspectives
have strengths: an end-user’s view challenges providers to
adapt their innovations to fit daily routines of individuals,
while the other perspective challenges end-users to adapt
their practices in relation to the system. But, taking only
one approach over the other is inadequate. Decentralised
water systems must be designed with consideration to
both perspectives in order to ensure their viability for
more extensive adoption and/or continued use in a regime
characterised by centralised infrastructures (see e.g.,
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/66/12/2731/441131/2731.pdf
by guest
Hegger ; Allen ). Similarly, co-governance arrangements must be designed with the view of ensuring that the
systems are suited to, and will be looked after by concerned
stakeholders – government, private and/or civil society.
CONCLUSIONS
The notion of appropriate mixes and ‘fit’ is not limited to
water sources, types of technology or scale of infrastructure.
It is similarly found in public sector governance discourses.
This paper focused on a specific service delivery arrangement that highlights the critical role of end-users in
environmental governance through sustainable forms of
water service provision and consumption. The emergence
of decentralised water systems provides new opportunities
for end-users to play more active roles from planning to delivery and evaluation of the technology and/or water service.
However, the analysis and design of arrangements that
involve end-users need to consider a number of variables
including water resource, technology, provider and even
end-user characteristics and dimensions. In addition, these
co-governance arrangements need to be linked to broader
water-related policy and planning, and to discourses on
water security and sustainability. When organised effectively,
co-production could help facilitate widespread adoption, and
ensure continued use of the decentralised water systems in a
regime characterised by centralised structures.
REFERENCES
Alford, J.  A public management road less traveled: clients as
co-producers of public services. Australian Journal of Public
Administration 57 (4), 128–137.
2736
C. Yu et al.
|
Co-governing decentralised water systems
Allen, A.  Neither rural nor urban: service delivery options
that work for the peri-urban poor. In: Peri-urban Water and
Sanitation Services: Policy, planning and Method (P. Khurian
& P. McCarney, eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg,
London and New York.
Biggs, C., Ryan, C. & Wiseman, J.  Distributed Systems: A
Design Model for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
(No. 3). Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab (VEIL), Melbourne,
Australia.
Biggs, C., Ryan, C., Wiseman, J. & Larsen, K.  Distributed
Water Systems: A Networked and Localised Approach for
Sustainable Water Services. (No. 2). Victorian EcoInnovation Lab (VEIL), Melbourne, Australia.
Bovaird, T.  Beyond engagement and participation – user and
community co-production of public services. Public
Administration Review 67 (5), 846–860.
Brand, K.-W.  Social practices and sustainable consumption:
benefits and limitations of a new theoretical approach. In:
Environmental Sociology: European Perspectives and
Interdisciplinary Challenges (M. Gross & H. Heinrichs, eds.).
Springer, The Netherlands. pp. 217–235.
Brooks, D., Brandes, O. & Gurman, S.  Making the Most of
the Water we have: The Soft Path Approach to Water
Management. VA: Earthscan, London, Sterling.
Brown, R., Keath, N. & Wong, T.  Urban water management
in cities: historical, current and future Regimes. Water
Science and Technology 59 (5), 847–855.
Chanan, A. & Woods, P.  Introducing total water cycle
management in Sydney: a Kogarah Council initiative.
Desalination 187 (1–3), 11–16.
Cook, S., Tjandraatmadja, G., Ho, A. & Sharma, A. 
Definition of decentralised systems in the South East
Queensland context (No. 12): Urban Water Security
Research Alliance.
Furlong, K. & Bakker, K.  The contradictions in ’alternative’
service delivery: governance, business models, and
sustainability in municipal water supply. Environment and
Planning C 28 (2), 349–368.
Gardiner, A.  Do rainwater tanks herald a cultural change in
household water use? Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management 17, 100–110.
Hegger, D.  Greening Sanitary Systems: An End-User
Perspective. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Hegger, D. & Van Vliet, B.  End user perspectives on the
transformation of sanitary systems. In: Social Perspectives on
the Sanitation Challenge (B. van Vliet, G. Spaargaren & P.
Oosterveer, eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London
and New York.
Hoban, A., Kennedy, K. & Jones, S.  Community Perceptions
of Raingardens in Residential Streets at Bellvista Estate. 7th
International Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference,
February 2012, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 21–23.
Joshi, A. & Moore, M.  Institutionalised co-production:
Unorthodox Public Service Delivery in Challenging
Water Science & Technology
66.12
|
2012
Environments. Brighton: IDS. Journal of Development
Studies 40 (4), 31–49.
Mankad, A. & Tapsuwan, S.  Review of socio-economic drivers
of community acceptance and adoption of decentralised
water systems. Environmental Management 92 (3), 380–391.
McCormick, K., Falk, R. & Viswanathan, S.  An Overview of
Development in Distributed Energy. Australian Centre for
Science Innovation and Society, Melbourne.
Mitchell, V. G.  Applying integrated urban water management
concepts: a review of Australian experience. Environmental
Management 37 (5), 589–605.
Ostrom, E.  Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy
and development. World Development 24 (6), 1073–1087.
Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G. & Loeffler, E.  Making Quality
Sustainable: Co-design, Co-decide, Co-produce, Co-evaluate.
4QC Conference for Public Administration in the EU,
Finland. pp. 27–29, September.
Rygaard, M., Binning, P. J. & Albrechtsen, H.-J.  Alternative
Water Management and Self-Sufficient Water Supplies. IWA
Publishing, London.
Sharma, A., Burn, S., Gardner, T. & Gregory, A.  Role of
decentralised systems in the transition of urban water
systems. Water Science and Technology 10 (4), 577–583.
van de Meene, S. & Brown, R.  Delving into the ’Institutional
Black Box’: revealing the attributes of future sustainable
urban water management regimes. American Water
Resources Association 45 (6), 1448–1464.
van Vliet, B., Chappells, H. & Shove, E.  Infrastructures of
Consumption: Environmental Innovation in the Utility
Industries. Earthscan, London.
Warnken, J., Johnston, N. & Guilding, C.  Exploring the
regulatory framework and governance of decentralised water
management systems: a strata and community title
perspective. Waterlines Report Series No. 19, September.
Available from: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0004/206707/exploring-the-regulatory-frameworkand-governance-of-decentralised-water-management-systems.
pdf (accessed 10 November 2011).
West, S.  Centralised management: the key to successful onsite and decentralised sewerage service. On-site ’01
Conference, Armidale, NSW, September.
Wong, T. & Brown, R.  Transitioning to water sensitive cities:
ensuring resilience through a new hydro-social contract.
Water Science and Technology 60 (3), 673–682.
Yu, C., Farrelly, M. & Brown, R.  Governance arrangements
for decentralised stormwater systems. Industry report for the
Centre for Water Sensitive Cities. Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia. Available from: http://www.
watersensitivecities.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Project6SocietyInstitutions-Nov2011.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012)
Yu, C., Farrelly, M. & Brown, R.  Revealing the variables in the
management of decentralised water systems in Australia. 7th
International Water Sensitive Urban Design Conference,
Melbourne, Australia, pp. 21–23, February 2012.
First received 24 November 2011; accepted in revised form 9 July 2012
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/66/12/2731/441131/2731.pdf
by guest
|