Enhancing the value of water: the need to start from somewhere else

1. Introduction

Recently, there has been concern about social fragmentation, especially in western democracies, where trust in mainstream political processes and support of populist politicians has revealed that sections of the community feel isolated and disempowered. This phenomenon is also exemplified in the increasingly troublesome issues of environmental policy and management (Newig and Rose 2020). Responses to climate change have been inconsistent as systems approaches are required from societies when many institutions are currently organised only to deal with problems one at a time and in a sequential manner.

The need for an integrated approach is best illustrated here by the requirements of water resources management. In the water cycle, there is an imperative to define each issue in terms of its relationship to another component. Everything is related to everything else. Upstream land use and management practices not only affect downstream water flows but also water quality (Fenemor et al. 2011a). There is little point in managing groundwater without understanding its relationship to surface water (Abbott et al. 2019; NZ Hydrological Society 2021). When catchment dams are poorly managed during drought, such as through spillway blocking or neglect, they can then fail under pressure from intense rain and exacerbate flood conditions (Tingey-Holyoak 2014; Pisaniello and Tingey-Holyoak 2017; Becker 2021). Problems occur when urban water is managed without reference to the catchments it comes from, or the receiving water environment (Vörösmarty et al. 2010). The way water is managed also has an obvious effect on uses and values as diverse as food production, industrial processing, recreation, and culture.

This Special Issue addresses a range of policy issues pertaining to the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural barriers and opportunities for more sustainable water management and planning. Papers on markets including investigating water trading in ways that go beyond popular approaches to consider the socio-economic, ecological, and cultural needs, covering determinants of irrigators’ valuing of water in Australia (Haensch 2022), and whether water trading is a viable option for Aotearoa-New Zealand (Booker et al., 2022). Papers focused on equity and governance in water planning consider social justice implications of water planning (Brown et al. 2022; O’Donnell et al., 2022) and the need for improved stakeholder engagement (Broderick and McFarlane et al. 2022). Papers also consider the need for collaborative approaches, including how we design more holistic frameworks for New Zealand’s indigenous people (Robson-Williams, Painter, and Kirk 2022), how lessons from the past can inform the future and help design improved decision-making frameworks (Harcourt, Robson-Williams, and Tamepo 2022), and how intermediaries may assist in this process (Kirk et al. 2022).

At the centre of these papers is the thesis that water underpins the wellbeing of the planet and the humans that live on it and has a critical role in spirituality (Caron et al. 2021; Cooper and Crase 2016). How well we manage the water cycle is a direct indicator of how well our societies are physically, mentally, and spiritually functioning and is a significant basis on which our human ecology will evolve (Abbott et al. 2019; Fenemor et al. 2011a).

This editorial proceeds by considering what it is we are sharing through the lens of the Modified Sphere of Needs met by Water (Syme et al. 2008). Links to the papers in this Special Issue are then made and lessons for how we might do better in the future are derived.

2. What are we sharing?

There are multifaceted benefits that can be delivered by water resources. Developed as a primer (Syme et al. 2008) these are represented in the so-called sphere of needs shown in Figure 1. This is one of many representations of the wide variety of impacts and benefits that water has on human society (see Gleick 1998) but can serve as a simple illustration of the breadth that needs consideration when water allocation and management decisions are made.

Figure 1. Modified sphere of needs met by water (Syme et al. 2008).

Three aspects of the Sphere of Needs are worthy of note. The first is that the inner circles are reflective of the so-called utilitarian uses of water and the second is that it is considered that the complexity of analysis gets to be less quantifiable and more variable towards the outer rings of the sphere. The circle labelled Recreation represents the ‘boundary’ between utility and more humanistic benefits. It is here that there is a need to consider unpriced values as well as profit. It is extremely hard to convincingly represent achievements in the outer rings in economic terms as these are inherent properties of humanity.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs assumed one needed to get basic needs met to underpin the reaching of higher goals such as self-actualisation (Maslow 1954, 1971). Water planners (and others) in the past have adopted a similar stance (White 2020). The assumption is that the wider, more global benefits will ensue once the utilitarian needs have been met. An important second assumption is that because the so-called humanitarian needs are not linear and are driven by factors such as emotion and societal ideas of attachment and identity, they are uncertain, uncountable, and too ephemeral to drive water planning. They can only be addressed through political rather than rational processes. Yet water governance is an inherently political and value(s)-laden process (Fenemor et al. 2011b).

3. The advantages of starting from outside

In Australia, State government institutions which have major responsibilities for water management have gone through multiple phases. Since the 1980s their ambit has been widened to include water quality and catchment management issues. In Australia, water utility and water management issues have been separated in many cases but are still combined in some smaller and local government-run agencies. Their management approach has varied according to the philosophy of the government from public good through to corporatisation and even privatisation. In general, there has been an attempt to follow the guidance of the national water reform agenda and an adherence to the philosophy that water is primarily an economic good. In New Zealand, the Resource Management Act has promoted integrated planning under its definition of sustainable management, yet regional councils have struggled with the multiple dimensions of integration, including policy to deliver integrated catchment management (Fenemor et al. 2011b).

Nevertheless, with the rise of both formal and informal public input into resources management and the demands for more holistic planning and procedural justice, the values associated with the humanitarian parts of the Sphere of Needs become an inherent part of the planning process. The planning professional has come a long way since the 1970s with better conceptual and practical understanding of procedural justice issues, and this can lead to better acceptance by the public for the outcomes of decision-making (e.g. Grillos, Zarychta, and Nunez 2021). Retaining this acceptance and meeting the increasing awareness and demands of the public requires a broadening of institutional skills including professional expertise in the social and economic disciplines but also in the art of listening, cultural interpretation, and the understanding of cyclical time perception within the water cycle.

Fortunately, in Australia and New Zealand we have the substantial advantage of First Nation’s cultures which sees humanity embodied in an environment with mutual obligations to nurture (see O’Donnell et al. (2022) and Robson-Williams, Painter, and Kirk (2022) this Special Issue). The spiritual and well-being effects of conservative management of the environment, especially water, for all in the community are now understood. If these advantages are realised, long-term water management can more sustainably support communities from the ‘outside-in’.

Moggridge and Thompson (2021) present the case for starting from cultural spiritual ties, rather than from positions of wealth and market value, selling and trading water as it moves up and down with availability. Rather, water is sacred and living and is removed from current concepts of quantification. Moggridge and Thompson (2021) develop a practical methodology that can assist in assigning water values when working outside-in, including mapping the physical and non-physical value sets whilst working with Indigenous communities to determine duration, timing, and quantity of water to meet the needs of the outer parts of the sphere. It is important to note that the needs in the outer part of the sphere are not just a ‘nice to have’ but are ‘must have’ needs that must be met by water; this includes language about water, connection to Country and the water in it, and the oral histories that involve water (Moggridge and Thompson 2021).

This is evidenced in Te Mana o te Wai, the new underpinning concept for NZ water management under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, enacted in 2017 and updated in 2020 (NZ Government 2020). Te Mana o te Wai imposes a hierarchy of obligations that prioritise the health and well-being of water first, the health needs of people second, and the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being third. In a parallel move, the New Zealand government now recognises the Whanganui River as a legal person meaning it has the same rights and responsibilities as a human person (Cheater 2018; Taylor et al. 2021). These are shifts in thinking that put the health of the water first (Our Land our Water NZ 2020).

In contrast, the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) provides an example of a working inside-out approach to enhance the value of water. Wheeler (2014) provides the history of the Basin Plan and the significant effort to estimate and quantify value and benefits and costs of needs met by water. Extensive consultation over many years has meant that some outer parts of the sphere are incorporated into the plan. However, reallocation scenarios do not always reach the outermost parts of the sphere of needs even though they are acknowledged as important. Wheeler (2014) notes these as ‘non-use values’ including cultural, spiritual, and environmental benefits associated with a healthier Basin. Similarly, the proposal in 1979 by the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania to build a dam on the Gordon River below Franklin is a conflict that had many nuances legal, political, and in terms of the willingness of the general population to defend their environment and culture.¹ Whilst the dam was approached from the inner parts of the sphere, there were in fact three considerations relating to the outer rings (Crase 2011, 2012) of the sphere of needs that were pivotal to the decision. These were human rights demonstrated through the adherence to international agreements and Australia’s commitment as a good, international citizen, an early and powerful recognition that aboriginal culture is primarily expressed in terms of attachment to a specific environment and finally, at least a tacit recognition, that the natural environment contributes to national human wellbeing (see also O’Donnell (2022) this Special Issue). In short, the decision was made by the High Court at least substantially, from the perspective of the outer rings of the sphere of needs.

4. Discussion

As noted in Section 3, the Murray-Darling Basin and Gordon-below-Franklin Dam in Tasmania are cases that can demonstrate the risks of focus on the inner, utilitarian needs. Examples of ways of thinking from Indigenous Australia and New Zealand provide a stark contrast. Yet we are not saying that inclusion of first nation flows is merely dealing with the outer, that is cultural and spiritual issues. Rather, we are arguing that by meeting these we will gain new opportunities for water managers and institutional design to deal with the wider public good. Starting there, from the outside in considering cultural and spiritual needs, provides new opportunities to cater for the other benefits as well and indeed could be a solution for improved water planning. As we consider the issue of the value and values of water in this special issue, its physical, mental, spiritual, and economic importance, we have collected papers across three main intersecting themes: trading and markets, equity and governance, and lessons for the future. These papers allow for further consideration of the working of the sphere.

4.1. Trading and markets

The first theme is trading and markets. The first paper by Haensch (2022) goes beyond popular examination of irrigators’ water trading behaviour to consider how they value water, especially for water entitlements. A spatial awareness can be made that showcases the difference in valuation between various locations and regional socio-economic status, demonstrating the endowment effect that inhibits water trading, as irrigators have a wish to hoard water rights regardless of their cost due to the feeling of connection to the property they ‘own’. The second paper by Booker et al. (2022) turns our attention to the potential for water trading in New Zealand to allow a more dynamic allocation framework, recognising the environment as a water user. The desired goal would be for a market mechanism (traditionally inside-out in nature) which supports ecological, cultural, aesthetic, and recreational values (outside-in approach). The authors conclude that market mechanisms may not be the panacea that many perceive that there may be significant set-up costs and that the outside-in aspect of allocations which meet cultural and spiritual needs has not yet been agreed.

4.2. Equity and governance

The second theme focuses on equity and justice. The first paper by Brown et al. (2022) considers the detrimental effects of overallocation for irrigation on the wetlands of the Murray–Darling Basin. The authors note the lack of water accounts especially for floodplain harvesting in the northern Basin which negatively affects downstream users and the environment. Without awareness of the volume of take from floodplain harvesting, the needs of water users downstream cannot be met, with significant social justice implications. The second paper in this theme by O’Donnell et al. (2022) considers the inadequacies in the Northern Territory (NT) regulatory framework around water management. The authors consider the issues particularly from an outside-in perspective, by focusing on acceleration of development. This is conceptualised as a ‘hydrological frontier’, which does not secure rights for much of NT (areas predominantly owned and occupied by Indigenous peoples). O’Donnell et al. (2022) present a picture of water insecurity for Indigenous peoples across the NT. The third paper by Broderick and McFarlane et al. (2022) focuses on the case of Perth and new water sourcing, such as the introduction of seawater desalination, the addition of treated wastewater to drinking water supplies via groundwater replenishment, and the continued expansion of the Integrated Water Supply Scheme (IWSS). The authors focus on the urgent need to adjust governance settings to increase engagement of stakeholders, the consideration of Indigenous water rights and social and cultural values in resource planning and management, and more localised approaches, with meaning lost through issues of scale (see Section 3.2 above). The third paper by Robson-Williams, Painter, and Kirk (2022) considers water management in the Canterbury region of New Zealand in the decade following 2000, which was characterised by irrigation expansion and a lack of consideration of outer needs of the sphere, such as inclusion of Māori values in decision-making about water use. The authors describe a collaborative process as a necessary and successful radical shift from previous technocratic approaches, although they note that any planning that attempts to work outside to inside the sphere, or iteratively, may not be resilient to national political changes.

4.3. Lessons for the future

The final theme considers lessons for the future with specific focus on intermediaries, science–policy interactions, and holistic frameworks. The first paper by Kirk et al. (2022) considers how intermediaries can assist with sustainability transitions through their role connecting, translating, and facilitating flows of information between different groups. The authors present three case studies of intermediaries working to improve freshwater quality in the Hawke’s Bay region of Aotearoa New Zealand to draw lessons for local authorities and communities on when and how to productively engage with intermediaries. The second paper by Harcourt, Robson-Williams, and Tamepo (2022) proposes holistic decision-making frameworks to support Māori communities to have their needs, values, and priorities inform land use choices. This highlights the need to work from outside the sphere, to promote relationships with the whenua (land), the wai (the water), and te taiao (the environment). However, this requires different types and formats of data in their decision-making from those traditionally encompassed by science-based frameworks, and so the challenges for this way of working and a proposed alternative are reported. The final paper in this theme by Larned et al. (2022) considers how we can learn from past science–policy interactions to improve what we do for the future of water planning. In New Zealand, a century of ecological degradation has impacted freshwater health yet the science–policy interface has often functioned poorly, due to science output with low policy relevance, long lag times from both sides, in addition to poor communications. The final paper by Hart and Fenemor (2022) provides a link between two Special Issues of the Australasian Journal of Water Resources – this Issue on Improved Water Planning and another in preparation on Review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2026: An opportunity to reconsider the management of the Murray–Darling Basin. By doing so, the author showcases the very important and increasingly challenging area of the policy, planning, and management of water resources, and similarities and differences between planning in the Australian Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) and Australasia more broadly.

The papers all deal with different approaches to water and management, but all agree with the theme of this editorial that our existing philosophy and tendency for linear thinking in our planning need a revisit.

5. Conclusion

This Special Issue focuses our attention on different ways water planning can be approached and what that means for individuals, communities, and environments. Starting from spirituality and cultural values provides a frame that will affect each of the other benefits accruing to the wider population. It will improve institutional design, provide for social cohesion, and improve sustainable utilitarian outcomes. In short, our hypothesis is that if you get spirituality and cultural values right, you are on the path to creating less contested and fairer outcomes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The reader is directed to Coper, Roberts, and Stellios (2017), for a more detailed review and interpretation of the Gordon Dam case.