222893e

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WATERbio-mimicry, towards green infrastructure that organically integratesanthropogenic and natural features). The fundamental ideais a holistic rather than a fragmentary engagement with the taskof managing resources. There is, after all the analysis, just oneenvironment – not several. The urban and the natural are not asdistinct as traditional thinking has assumed.The third and last pillar, cities with the social and institutionalcapital for sustainability, resilience, and liveability, stands unitedwith the other pillars and in contradiction to superseded ways ofthinking; but it demands a more extended explanation. While citieshave long been condemned as alienating and alienated – prone to becharacterized as inhuman blemishes on the landscape rather than ascentres for human thriving – we can with at least equal justificationcelebrate, nurture and harness the social capital that is concentratedin the modern city. Cities are not simply the problem; the moderncity’s emergent social properties make it a source of solutions. Weencountered precursors of this idea above: according to the firstpillar, cities have infrastructure that can be turned to use as newwater catchments; and according to the second pillar, the urbanruraldivide is best treated as artificial anyway, to be transcended forhuman purposes as much as for ‘natural’ ones. We saw how WSUDcan work as a set of ‘urban design solutions’ for the provision ofgreen infrastructure. Now we must extend the idea. Technologybased on biophysical-science research alone cannot deliver, andour appreciation of the crucial role institutions play in sustainableresource usage is just beginning. We argue that unless new technologiesare socially and institutionally embedded, their developmentwill not yield complete solutions for urban water management. Thesocial and institutional dimensions must be included in the holisticvision too, on an equal footing with technological initiatives.Insight in this area is elusive. The socio-institutional dimensionsof WSUD, necessary for effective policy development andtechnology diffusion, need more research. Our analysisof the historical and socio-technical drivers ofWSUD development across Melbourne (a city oftenidentified as a WSUD leader, both nationally andinternationally, especially for stormwater management)revealed that the deployment of WSUD inMelbourne has been the result of a complex interplaybetween key ‘champions’ (or change agents) andimportant local variables. In particular, the championsrepresent a small and informally connectedgroup of individuals across government, academiaand the development industry. These are the playerswho have pursued change from an ideology of bestpractice management, consistently underpinnedby local developments in science and technology.Beyond the existence of champions, analysis revealedthe involvement of instrumental variables – amixture of historical accident and intentional advocacyoutcomes such as the rise of environmentalism,external funding avenues and the establishment ofa number of industry-focused cooperative researchcentres. The implications are well worth pursuing;but it is important now to highlight sustainability,resilience, and liveability – the desiderata mentionedin connection with the third pillar.Sustainability in the service of water sensitive citiesdemands a solid reserve of sociopolitical capital, andan assurance that citizens’ decision-making and behaviourare themselves water sensitive. It is a matter ofeducation in the broadest sense: the community mustvalue an ecologically sustainable lifestyle, with aheightened receptivity to necessary innovations, andImage: Prof. Zhu Qiang and Prof. Li Yuanhong, Gansu Institute of Water Conservancy, ChinaHarvesting rainwater (left) and harvesting road run-off in rural China (right) – simple ways for our cities and towns to serve as catchments[ 277 ]