key: cord-0697094-lwnv3lf0 authors: Rogers, B.C.; Dunn, G.; Novalia, W.; de Haan, F.J.; Brown, L.; Brown, R.R.; Hammer, K.; Lloyd, S.; Urich, C.; Wong, T.H.F.; Chesterfield, C. title: Water Sensitive Cities Index: A diagnostic tool to assess water sensitivity and guide management actions date: 2020-08-27 journal: Water Res X DOI: 10.1016/j.wroa.2020.100063 sha: 3bce7346ff754f5e26dc394922216cfa4fbfcc87 doc_id: 697094 cord_uid: lwnv3lf0 Cities are wrestling with the practical challenges of transitioning urban water services to become water sensitive; capable of enhancing liveability, sustainability, resilience and productivity in the face of climate change, rapid urbanisation, degraded ecosystems and ageing infrastructure. Indicators can be valuable for guiding actions for improvement, but there is not yet an established index that measures the full suite of attributes that constitute water sensitive performance. This paper therefore presents the Water Sensitive Cities (WSC) Index, a new benchmarking and diagnostic tool to assess the water sensitivity of a municipal or metropolitan city, set aspirational targets and inform management responses to improve water sensitive practices. Its 34 indicators are organised into seven goals: ensure good water sensitive governance, increase community capital, achieve equity of essential services, improve productivity and resource efficiency, improve ecological health, ensure quality urban spaces, and promote adaptive infrastructure. The WSC Index design as a quantitative framework based on qualitative rating descriptions and a participatory assessment methodology enables local contextual interpretations of the indicators, while maintaining a robust universal framework for city comparison and benchmarking. The paper demonstrates its application on three illustrative cases. Rapid uptake of the WSC Index in Australia highlights its value in helping stakeholders develop collective commitment and evidence-based priorities for action to accelerate their city's water sensitive transition. Early testing in cities in Asia and the Pacific has also showed the potential of the WSC Index internationally. There is growing emphasis globally on the importance of urban water services in enhancing 44 a city's liveability, sustainability, resilience and productivity (Farrelly and collection of attributes. Without such measures, stakeholders will struggle to operationalise 140 their shared WSC vision, lack comprehensive insight on current system performance, and 141 receive limited guidance on priorities for action to progress their water sensitive transition. 142 143 As a crosscutting issue, water-related metrics are found in indicator initiatives for 144 sustainability, urban greening, city governance, vulnerability, resilience and liveability. These 145 provide a useful starting point for considering the assessment of a city's water sensitive 146 performance. Table 1 highlights the components of water sensitivity in notable water-147 related indicators, mapped against the six city-states in Figure 1 . 148 Water' examines water demand in relation to supply, emphasising resource constraints, the 168 importance of integrated water management (including stormwater as a resource), pricing 169 and ecological health. However the Ecocity Standards does not provide tools, guidance or 170 methodology to enable practitioners to benchmark progress toward the ten levels 171 proposed, which the standards recognise are context specific. The Sustainable Cities Water 172 2 The most prominent are the two indicators developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA) to capture the range of benefits that green infrastructure afford urban areas. These include climate adaptation and mitigation, multiple ecosystem services (e.g. biodiversity), and improvements to public health and wellbeing through proximity to green urban spaces. Index (SCWI) developed by Arcadis is intended to be a global ranking tool . The Index centres 173 around three key sub-indices for water sustainability: resiliency, efficiency, and quality, 174 which are further supported by a series of sub-indices and indicators such as disaster risk, 175 water charges, green space and pollution. SCWI focuses on resources, public health and the 176 economic dimensions of water but does not include social and governance aspects of 177 integrated water management. Arup's City Resilience Index comprises 52 indicators (across 178 12 goals) that measure and assess multiple factors contributing to urban resilience, 179 including water and sanitation services, flood resilience and ecosystem stewardship (Arup, Table 1 . For WSC performance objectives that did not 245 have an existing associated indicator that adequately represented its intent (particularly for 246 those more closely aligned with the water cycle city and water sensitive city), we developed 247 a new measure that could be used to qualitatively distinguish between low and high water 248 sensitive performance. Scientific expertise and emerging knowledge from the CRCWSC's 249 research network and projects were drawn on to develop these new indicators and 250 integrated them into the prototype framework for the WSC Index. 251 The prototype was tested with two councils (City of Knox and City of Port Phillip) located in 253 Melbourne, Australia. This provided detailed feedback on its usability, functionality, benefits 254 and reliability, which led to a range of refinements and enhancements. Numerous indicators 255 were consolidated to reduce the overall number and therefore the time and effort burden 256 for assessment. We refined the assessment methodology in consultation with our industry 257 partners, whose feedback was that a data-driven approach was unwieldy, inefficient and 258 unlikely to be broadly adopted in practice-reconfirming earlier insights from literature that 259 time-intensive and costly benchmarking processes impede uptake (Norman et al., 2012) . 260 Instead, we judged that practitioners-equipped with system knowledge and available 261 evidence, and guided by a well-facilitated assessment process-would reach a sufficiently 262 robust score for the purposes of benchmarking, prioritisation and action planning. 263 To this end, we developed an assessment methodology based on deliberation by local 265 experts of available evidence to determine indicator scores. The indicator descriptions were 266 clarified through rewording to simplify language in accordance with the prototyping 267 participant feedback; ease of understanding was considered particularly crucial for an 268 assessment methodology based on facilitated discussion to ensure a reliable and consistent 269 approach to scoring across diverse cities. We developed the conceptual basis for analysing The WSC Index offers users the ability to benchmark cities at the metropolitan or municipal 296 scale, based on performance against a range of urban water indicators across the societal, 297 biophysical and ecological dimensions that characterise a WSC. These insights enable cities 298 around the world to be ranked according to their water sensitivity, as well as diagnose key 299 areas of strength and weakness. This enables governments to assess their cities' urban 300 water management trajectories in relation to other cities, identify priorities for 301 management actions and learn from other cities that are experiencing similar challenges or 302 opportunities. The WSC Index is accessed through a web interface that provides 303 The seven WSC Index goals are: (1) Ensure good water sensitive governance, (2) Increase 309 community capital, (3) Achieve equity of essential services, (4) Improve productivity and 310 resource efficiency, (5) Improve ecological health, (6) Ensure quality urban spaces, and (7) 311 Promote adaptive infrastructure. 34 indicators span these goals, collectively representing 312 the full suite of WSC objectives that have emerged over the last ten years in the Australian 313 water context 5 (Table 2) . 314 315 Scoring for each indicator is based on a rating from 1 to 5, assigned according to the 316 description that best fits the city's current situation. Half scores (1.5, 2.5, …) can be assigned 317 where the conditions are between the integer descriptions. However, scores of finer 318 granularity (1.1, 1.2, …) are not assigned, since the degree of accuracy that would be implied 319 by such scores has little meaning in the context of the WSC Index's key purpose of 320 identifying a city's relative strengths and weaknesses to inform priorities for management 321 actions. 322 323 While some indicators use quantitative thresholds to inform the score (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 4.3, 324 6.3), the majority are based on qualitative thresholds. This enables assessment through 325 5 Early testing internationally shows that the suite of indicators is relevant in other contexts, although potentially with some refinements. This is discussed further in Section 6. evidence-based judgement and provides opportunity for local expression of how the 326 indicator may manifest in different contexts. Once priority indicators for action have been 327 identified through the assessment process, attention can be given to defining quantitative 328 measures relevant to the local context that correspond to its 1-5 rating so that more 329 accurate tracking of progress can be done. As further WSCs research is conducted, including 330 city and water practitioners testing and applying their own measures, it is anticipated that 331 further indicator ratings descriptions could be updated to be more quantitative. 332 333 This measurement approach relies on clear methodological structure and detailed scoring 334 guidance to ensure consistency of application for diverse conditions. Table 3 Strengthen the capabilities of individuals and organisations to adopt water sensitive practices through science, experimentation, learning and training. 1.2 Water is key element in city planning and design Improve urban planning and design frameworks and processes to drive the implementation of water sensitive solutions through urban development. Encourage collaboration and coordination across organisations, sectors and levels of government to plan and implement water sensitive solutions. 1.4 Public engagement, participation and transparency Communicate effectively with citizens and encourage their meaningful involvement of citizens in planning, decision-making and design processes. Articulate a water sensitive vision that links to broader city aspirations, and commit to delivering the vision through policy, strategic plans and investment. 1.6 Water resourcing and funding to deliver broad societal value Invest in water sensitive practices that will deliver the highest community value, including consideration of externalities and non-market values. 1.7 Equitable representation of perspectives Ensure inclusiveness and representation of a diversity of perspectives in governance arrangements and decision-making Goal 2: Increase community capital 2.1 Water literacy Improve community knowledge about the water cycle and water issues so they can adopt water sensitive behaviours and participate in decision-making. Foster pride and connectedness of people with water through improved understanding and appreciation of water's role in landscape. Empower community to be an active participant in creating, operating and maintaining decentralised parts of the water system. 2.4 Community preparedness and response to extreme events Support citizens to cope with and recover from impacts associated with storms, floods, drought and heatwaves. Recognise Indigenous water values and interests in water system planning and management and involve Indigenous people in water system governance. Goal 3: Achieve equity of essential services 3.1 Equitable access to safe and secure water supply Provide safe, secure and affordable water supply services that meet the World Health Organization's (WHO) standards for drinking water quality. 3.2 Equitable access to safe and reliable sanitation Provide safe, reliable and affordable sanitation services that meet the standards for sanitation defined by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Manage flood risk in a way that is affordable, including reducing nuisance flooding and protecting citizens and infrastructure from major floods. Enhance amenity values associated with urban landscapes through water sensitive solutions and provide affordable access J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f 343 water-related assets to water and water-related landscape features. Goal 4: Improve productivity & resource efficiency 4.1 Optimised resource recovery Optimise the recovery of water, energy, heat and nutrients through circular design of water systems. Maximise the use of alternatives to high carbon emitting energy sources in water system infrastructure. Stimulate investment in new business opportunities through innovation in the water sector. 4.4 Low end-user potable water demand Support low end-user potable water demand relative to the local scarcity or abundance of water. 4.5 Broad community benefits from water services Stimulate beneficial outcomes of water-related services for other sectors beyond water. Goal 5: Improve ecological health 5.1 Healthy and biodiverse habitat Design water systems to help protect, restore and create wellfunctioning ecosystems that contribute to ecological resilience. 5.2 Surface water quality and flows Improve and protect the quality of surface waters and marine environments. Improve and protect the quality of groundwater-connected environments. Protect existing areas of high ecological value from the impacts of catchment urbanisation. Goal 6: Ensure quality urban space 6.1 Activating connected greenblue space Plan and design the urban form to create many distributed, connected and well-maintained green spaces and waterways. 6.2 Urban elements functioning as part of the urban water system Plan and design the urban form (such as green walls, roofs, retarding basins in parks) to function as an integral part of the water system. 6.3 Vegetation coverage Provide significant vegetation coverage (e.g. tree canopies) supported by the water system. Goal 7: Promote adaptive infrastructure 7.1 Diverse fit-for-purpose water supply Provide a flexible and adaptive water supply system appropriate to the quality water and demand requirements of the end user. 7.2 Multi-functional water infrastructure Provide multi-functional water infrastructure that seamlessly integrates into the urban landscape. 7.3 Integration and intelligent control Optimise water system network performance through the use of intelligent control systems. Remove sensitivities and vulnerabilities in the water system network through redundancy measures and by-pass systems. 7.5 Infrastructure and ownership at multiple scales Optimise water system performance through the integration of centralised and decentralised infrastructure. 7.6 Adequate maintenance Improve maintenance policies and practices to ensure the longterm integrity of all water system infrastructure, including natural and green infrastructure assets. 1: Water-related assets do not provide amenity benefits in most areas of the city. Enjoyment of available amenity benefits of assets comes at a relatively high cost for some households. Water-related assets provide amenity values in some areas of the city. These areas are not easily accessible and enjoyment of these benefits comes at a relatively high cost for some households. 3: Water-related assets provide amenity values in large areas of the city. These areas are mostly accessible and come at a moderate cost for some households. 4: Water-related assets provide amenity values in most areas of the city. These areas are highly accessible and enjoyment of these benefits comes at low cost. 5: Water-related assets provide amenity values in all areas of the city and are implemented to improve lower socio-economic areas. These areas are highly accessible and enjoyment of these benefits comes at no cost. • Water-related assets: natural assets (e.g. rivers, creeks, bays, beaches) and built assets (e.g. constructed wetlands, retarding basins, reservoirs, biofilters, cycle paths and walking trails beside water assets) • Accessibility: people can readily access the amenity in terms of location (distribution and distance to travel), affordability (financial and time cost), universality (all people including those with a disability) Guiding questions • What amenity values are associated with water-related assets? Where are they located? Are they easily accessible? to evidence across all goals and indicators to provide a reliable assessment, and there is a 413 risk that the results would not be considered valid amongst key stakeholders without wider 414 participation. An expert-driven assessment also means that city stakeholders miss out on 415 participating in the dialogue that leads to the scoring, which applications of the WSC Index 416 July 2017 as part of the validation period. Involved 50 government and non-government participants from water, planning, environment and development sectors. October 2017 as part of the validation period. Involved 36 participants from the local council, water utility, state government department, catchment management authority, private developers, and Indigenous community representatives. April 2016 as part of the validation period. Participants represented a diverse range of internal stakeholders as well as external stakeholders (including representation from the local council, water utilities and state government department. Note: The scores in the radar diagrams range from 0 (lowest performance, centre of the radar) to 5 (highest performance, outer edge of the radar). The midpoint value of 2.5 is indicated as a grey line in the middle of the radar to show the relative performance of a city to this midpoint score across the different goals. The shaded blue areas show the overall performance of the city-the larger the shaded area the higher water sensitive performance. When interpreting the results in Table 4 , it is important to remember that the purpose of 434 the WSC Index and the intent of the assessment methodology is not to determine precise 435 scores. Rather, it is to understand the water sensitive performance of the system relative to 436 an aspirational benchmark or other comparable cities, so that opportunities for 437 management responses can be identified. Hence, while the results may be expressed with a 438 precise number between 0-5, where 0 indicates the lowest and 5 the highest performance 439 relative to the water sensitive city aspirations, it is important to attribute meaning from the 440 results with careful reference to the specific indicators that are diagnosed to be 441 performance enhancing or inhibiting. Comparing performance across cities will require 442 analysis of the types of ongoing challenges and potential management responses for specific 443 indicators, rather than drawing sweeping insights based on their aggregated scores. The The design of the WSC Index as a quantitative framework with qualitative rating 550 descriptions and a process-based assessment methodology has helped it be applicable 551 across diverse contexts. The indicator descriptions allow for contextual interpretations of 552 the indicators, while maintaining a robust universal framework that enables city comparison 553 and benchmarking. The scoring approach means it is feasible to benchmark any city where 554 there is sufficient stakeholder interest, even in situations where there is a lack of 555 quantitative data. This is because the evidence needed to determine the WSC Index scores 556 is typically readily accessible-for example, in the form of organisational policies, strategies 557 and reports, or in the tacit knowledge of key individuals. 558 559 Early testing Indonesia, China, Fiji and Myanmar showed the potential value of the WSC 560 Index for developing cities. Elaboration on this is beyond the scope of this paper, beyond 561 suggesting that refinement through further international testing may be necessary to 562 ensure the indicator and rating descriptions are sufficiently robust for universal application. 563 For example, it may be that finer granularity is needed in the lower rating scores for some 564 indicators, or that additional indicators may be needed to suit the particular conditions of 565 developing city contexts (for example, informal settlements). city-state benchmark. This would allow a city's results to be interpreted with respect to their 591 progress towards the water supply city, sewered city, drained city, waterways city, water 592 cycle city and, ultimately, the WSC, helping to give meaning to their results in relation to 593 city-state aspirations. Another potential diagnostic filter is the United Nations Sustainable 594 Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2019), with which the WSC Index has many 595 points of alignment. Their integration could help city stakeholders assess how 596 improvements to their city's water sensitive performance may contribute to the 597 achievement of SDG targets, and vice versa. These and other diagnostic filters would 598 support users to gain critical insights into the current state of the urban water services and 599 develop management actions that will address key priorities. 600 Finally, meta-analysis of city data collected through the assessment process, beyond simple 602 overlaying of results for visual interpretation and ranking of aggregate scores, would help to 603 gain comparative insight the water sensitive strengths and weaknesses of cities in diverse 604 contexts. Meta-analysis of data collected longitudinally would also generate insight on the 605 effectiveness of management actions in improving a city's water sensitivity, providing an 606 invaluable database for research into water sensitive city transitions. 607 608 This paper presents, for the first time, a framework for defining water sensitive 610 performance across the full range of technical, social, ecological, governance, economic, 611 liveability, multi-functional and adaptive attributes that are becoming recognised as 612 important features of future water systems. In building on established indicators and 613 developing new measures that address gaps in existing water-related metrics, the WSC 614 Index offers a robust and industry-relevant tool and process for diagnosing a city's strengths 615 and weaknesses in relation to its water sensitive aspirations, and guiding management 616 responses that will help improve a city's water sensitivity. Rapid uptake of the WSC Index in 617 Australia highlights its value in helping stakeholders develop a collective commitment and 618 evidence-based priorities for action to accelerate their city's water sensitive transition. 619 620 We have demonstrated application of the WSC Index through three illustrative case studies, 621 showing how it can be used to generate insights for benchmarking a city's water sensitive 622 performance, setting operational targets for improvement, developing management 623 responses, and monitoring progress towards its water sensitive aspirations. Comparing the 624 case study results across the seven WSC Index goals reveals which specific aspects of urban 625 water servicing and management responses can be enhanced to strengthen water sensitive 626 principles. The case applications also show the suitability of the WSC Index tool across a 627 range of biophysical and socio-political contexts, including large metropolitan scale, regional 628 city, and municipality with different climates and demography. 629 The outlook for the WSC Index as a valuable benchmarking and diagnostic tool to support 631 the assessment of urban water services in practice appears positive, with applications 632 continuing across Australia. There has also been increasing interest from international cities; 633 further testing and refinement of the WSC Index in diverse contexts will help realise its full 634 potential as a global tool. There may also be additional diagnostic filters that would provide 635 new ways of interpreting and communicating the WSC Index results. Innovation in the 636 assessment methodology may present opportunity to increase the flexibility of application, 637 for example by utilising online collaboration platforms, especially relevant in the current 638 COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, there would be value in complementing the WSC Index's focus 639 on material outcomes of water sensitive practices with transitions-focused frameworks that 640 can provide guidance on the process of change itself, such as how to drive organisational 641 cultural change, enhance collaborative practices, and establish enabling institutional 642 structures. 643 644 645 been engaged in the WSC Index development and testing process, particularly staff from the 649 City of Knox, City of Port Phillip, City of Subiaco, City of Swan and water-related 650 organisations for Perth's greater metropolitan area. We also thank members of the steering 651 committee and working groups for their time and input. 652 Delivering sustainable urban water management: a 692 review of the hurdles we face An Integrated Indicator Based on Basin Hydrology The Watershed Sustainability Index. Water Resources 697 Management Indicators of sustainability and quality of life: 700 Translating vision into reality Water and poverty in rural China: Developing an 704 instrument to assess the multiple dimensions of water and poverty An integrated 709 methodology to assess the benefits of urban green space Should the ecosystem services concept be used in 713 European Commission impact assessment? Ecological Indicators Canadian Approaches to Assessing Water Security: an 717 Inventory of Indicators. (Policy Report) Fresh water-related indicators in Canada: An inventory and 720 analysis The rising pressure of global water shortages Enhancing Sustainable Communities 726 with Green Infrastructure Macro-scale water scarcity requires 730 micro-scale approaches Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a 733 way forward? The City Blueprint Approach: Urban Water 737 Management and Governance in Cities in the U The 741 enabling institutional context for integrated water management: lessons from Melbourne A strategic program for 745 transitioning to a Water Sensitive City Global Water 749 Availability and Requirements for Future Food Production Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic Needs Water International Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment. 756 SCOPE 67 Envisioning and Transition Planning for a Water Sensitive Greater Sydney: 760 Final Case Report The Development of Flood 764 Vulnerability Index applied to 114 Major River Basins around the World The water footprint of humanity Water availability index based on quality and quantity: Its 772 application in Mexico The non-use and influence of UK Energy Sector Indicators. Ecological 776 Indicators The multiple roles of sustainability 779 indicators in informational governance: between intended use and unanticipated influence Water Sensitive Cities Benchmarking and Assessment: 783 Moonee Valley City Council Measuring the sustainability of urban water 787 services Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for 790 multidimensional systems Indicators of sustainability: challenges and 794 opportunities at the interface of science and policy Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards 798 a new City Sustainability Index (CSI) Water 802 Security Assessment: Integrating Governance and Freshwater Indicators Development of a global flood risk index 806 based on natural and socioeconomic factors Organisation for Economic 814 Cooperation and Development. 815 816 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Discussion Paper Prepared under a Consulting Agreement on 822 behalf of the UN Division for Sustainable Development Canadian Water Sustainability Index (CWSI): project 826 report. Policy Research Initiative Urban water metabolism indicators derived from a water mass balance -Bridging the gap 830 between visions and performance assessment of urban water resource management Configuring transformative 834 governance to enhance resilient urban water systems Benchmarking, 838 Envisioning and Transition Planning for a Water Sensitive Bendigo: Final Case Report Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities The human development index: a critical review The International Wealth Index (IWI) An organisational 849 innovation perspective on change in water and wastewater systems -the implementation 850 of the Water Framework Directive in England and Wales A planning-oriented 854 sustainability assessment framework for peri-urban water management in developing 855 countries Calculating a water poverty index The Water Poverty Index: 860 Development and application at the community scale Integration of the biophysical and social sciences using an 864 indicator approach: Addressing water problems at different scales. Water Resources 865 Management Seven tools for creating adaptive policies The challenge of embedding an ecosystem 872 services approach: patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal Megacities and rivers: Scalar 879 mismatches between urban water management and river basin management City Blueprints: Baseline Assessments of Sustainable Water 890 Management in 11 Cities of the Future An overview of urban water management and problems in the U.S.A Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity The support of the Commonwealth of Australia through the Cooperative Research Centre 647 program is acknowledged. We are grateful to the many industry stakeholders who have 648 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f ☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f