Deliberative tools for meeting the challenges of water planning in Australia

被引:24
|
作者
Tan, Poh-Ling [1 ]
Bowmer, Kathleen H. [2 ,3 ]
Mackenzie, John [4 ]
机构
[1] Griffith Univ, Griffith Law Sch, Nathan, Qld 4011, Australia
[2] Charles Sturt Univ, Inst Land Water & Soc, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
[3] Charles Sturt Univ, Sch Agr & Wine Sci, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
[4] Griffith Univ, Sociolegal Res Ctr, Nathan, Qld 4011, Australia
关键词
Sustainable management; Water planning; Water allocation; Deliberative tools; Australia; PUBLIC-PARTICIPATION; MANAGEMENT; REGIMES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.032
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Australian governments have set an ambitious policy agenda for reform. By 2010, water plans were to have provided for the return of all overallocated or overused systems to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction, however, many communities do not yet have full confidence in water plans or their processes. In two national research projects we developed practical tools for transparent and engaging processes to build confidence in water planning. We observe that inherent politicised risks in water planning mean that current methods of public participation, such as information giving and allowing written submissions, are 'safer' and more easily managed. The next article in this special issue sets out the methodology including performance indicators for the tools that we used in the research. To demonstrate their role in building community confidence using best available science we trialled tools which included agent-based participatory modelling, deliberative multi-criteria evaluation, social impact assessment, and groundwater visualisation models. The suite of 'good-practice' tools, including Indigenous engagement, is fully described in the following articles of this special issue. Evaluations show deliberative processes have much to offer when applied to questions that have been developed collaboratively and formulated carefully to allow implementation of findings. Interactive tools and those which have high visual impact are consistently rated highly by all sectors of the community, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and also by water planners. These results have implications for water planning internationally especially where science is contested, social values are uncertain, and communities are diverse. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:2 / 10
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Activist challenges to deliberative democracy
    Young, IM
    POLITICAL THEORY, 2001, 29 (05) : 670 - 690
  • [22] Recognition of indigenous water values in Australia's Northern Territory: current progress and ongoing challenges for social justice in water planning
    Jackson, Sue
    Barber, Marcus
    PLANNING THEORY & PRACTICE, 2013, 14 (04) : 435 - 454
  • [24] Managing Water for Australia: The Social and Institutional Challenges
    Haward, Marcus
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2009, 44 (04) : 748 - 749
  • [25] Australian neuroendocrine tumours consensus workshop: meeting management challenges in Australia
    Evans, Alison
    CANCER FORUM, 2008, 32 (03)
  • [26] Cotton Breeding in Australia: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century
    Conaty, Warren C.
    Broughton, Katrina J.
    Egan, Lucy M.
    Li, Xiaoqing
    Li, Zitong
    Liu, Shiming
    Llewellyn, Danny J.
    MacMillan, Colleen P.
    Moncuquet, Philippe
    Rolland, Vivien
    Ross, Brett
    Sargent, Demi
    Zhu, Qian-Hao
    Pettolino, Filomena A.
    Stiller, Warwick N.
    FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE, 2022, 13
  • [27] Masonry in Australia-meeting the challenges of the 21st century
    Page, Adrian W.
    McIntyre, Elizabeth
    BRICK AND BLOCK MASONRY: TRENDS, INNOVATIONS AND CHALLENGES, 2016, : 917 - 923
  • [28] Biodiversity conservation planning tools: Present status and challenges for the future
    Sarkar, Sahotra
    Pressey, Robert L.
    Faith, Daniel P.
    Margules, Christopher R.
    Fuller, Trevon
    Stoms, David M.
    Moffett, Alexander
    Wilson, Kerrie A.
    Williams, Kristen J.
    Williams, Paul H.
    Andelman, Sandy
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, 2006, 31 : 123 - 159
  • [29] District Energy Systems: Challenges and New Tools for Planning and Evaluation
    Wehkamp, Steffen
    Schmeling, Lucas
    Vorspel, Lena
    Roelcke, Fabian
    Windmeier, Kai-Lukas
    ENERGIES, 2020, 13 (11)
  • [30] The emancipatory limits of participation in planning Equity and power in deliberative plan-making in Perth, Western Australia
    Hopkins, Diane
    TOWN PLANNING REVIEW, 2010, 81 (01): : 55 - 81