Home' Future Water : Future Water 2016 Contents Future Water >> Australian Water Management Yearbook >> 43
WATER SENSITIVE CITIES
place, and they have the history and the knowledge of the vision.
Our researchers have their fingers on the pulse of the latest
research knowledge and the ideas that have worked elsewhere,
but the partners are really the ones who understand the specific
problem the best.’
So, what are the challenges for Ripley Valley?
The development began in 2000, yet ‘not a sod of earth
was turned before 2013’, explains Chris Tanner, Director of
Environmental Planning for engineering consultancy Bligh
Tanner – a CRCWSC industry and Small- and Medium-Enterprise
Associate (SME) Partner. As Hall comments, ‘Ripley is unique
because there are 11 developers involved, an urban utility, a
local government, and the Queensland State Government’.
Collaboration between so many stakeholders is difficult. ‘Every
single piece of infrastructure that you put in is dependent on
another piece of infrastructure or another piece of innovation,
and unless you’ve got the regulatory framework and the enabling
environment correct, it doesn’t always work,’ says Hall.
Ideas and solutions
Tanner and Hall both speak highly of the ideas generated in the
CRCWSC’s discussion paper. As Tanner notes, ‘the ideas that
came out of it could easily form the basis of some good policy,
and could take things forward. We’ve got a suite of technical
solutions that could be adopted right now’.
‘Part of the reason for undertaking research synthesis case
studies,’ explains Hall, ‘is that when we face a different challenge,
we come up with new ideas; and these ideas can be adapted and
taken to another location, or taken up by another partner’. The
theoretical work of our CRCWSC researchers has been put to the
test, and has generated new ideas for Ripley Valley and beyond.
Experts from across all four program areas of the CRCWSC took
part in the workshop, developing innovative and context-specific
ideas for efficient water and sewage services, rehabilitation of the
waterway and local environment, and urban design to enhance the
microclimate in Ripley Valley and provide space for flood waters.
So, how will these ideas translate into practice, given the challenges
and opportunities that the development presents? In Tanner’s
opinion, regulation plays an important role. ‘There needs to be
a better mix of good regulation and good policy, combined with
appropriate “carrot and stick” incentives, to achieve some of the
important principles that were set down in the workshop,’ he says.
Institutional collaboration or fragmentation?
There is a clear and crucial lesson for researchers and industry
to take from Ripley Valley, and to apply in other contexts as well:
having innovative ideas is one important step, but it is only the first.
Implementation of those ideas requires more than just innovation
by the CRCWSC; it requires leadership and support from the
industry and government. To enable appropriate regulation
and policy, the water and urban development industry needs to
continue to engage actively with policymakers.
Such challenges highlight the significance of the CRCWSC’s
Science-Policy Partnerships project (Project D3.1), which has
investigated just how we can effectively ‘facilitate dialogue and
discussion between researchers and policymakers’. One outcome of
this project: ‘There is not a single model for effective science-policy
partnership arrangements, rather tailored solutions are necessary to
match the particular circumstances and requirements’.
This reinforces one of the key ideas generated by the Ripley
Valley discussion paper: the need for a joint taskforce or
collaborative planning mechanism involving all stakeholders at
Ripley, collaborating toward such a ‘tailored solution’ for this
development area. The goal of such a taskforce would be ‘to work
through the institutional fragmentation already occurring between
the Development Scheme, local policies and planning instruments,
state level regulations and policies, and development goals’.
Without such a taskforce, it will be a real challenge to implement
the many other important innovations generated by the Ideas for
Ripley Valley discussion paper.
In the end, the truth is that the value of an idea is irreplaceable;
yet so, too, is the value of engaging with government regulators,
industry and the general public to explain the importance of
our ideas, and to generate the political support and regulatory
incentives that allow us to turn those ideas into a reality.
Ripley Valley Priority Development Area
What is a Water Sensitive City
Other Research Synthesis projects
Batavia: innovation in regional Western Australia
New publication: Ideas for Fishermans Bend
Links Archive Future Water 2015 Future Water 2017 Navigation Previous Page Next Page