Community Acceptance of Water Sensitive Urban Design: Six Case Studies

Executive summary The Socio-Technical Analysis and Community Engagement Research is Task2 of the Goyder Institute funded project, Water Sensitive Urban Design Impediments and Potential Contributions to the SA Urban Water Blueprint. The broader project aims to gain insight into the impediments to mainstream adoption of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) systems in the Greater Adelaide region. The need for WSUD is becoming paramount as the population of Adelaide continues to grow, placing pressure on existing infrastructure, receiving water bodies and water resources. This project aimed to determine the factors that facilitate or inhibit community acceptance of WSUD. More specifically, it provides an understanding of: ”¢ Perceived benefits of WSUD by community members ”¢ Perceived barriers affecting the uptake of WSUD by the community ”¢ Community responses to WSUD ”¢ Ways to improve community acceptance of WSUD over the long term The research design adopted a case study approach because of its ability to integrate multiple sources of information within a single site and also to contact community directly living in developments designed with WSUD approaches. The six case studies were Christy Walk, Lochiel Park, Mawson Lakes, Springbank Waters, Mile End streetscape and Harbrow Grove Reserve. They provided opportunity for comparison of findings across a diverse range of WSUD installations and represented WSUD operating at different scales and in both new developments and retrofitting existing suburban areas. Consistent with a case study approach, for each site there were three main components to the data collection: 1) analysis of the technical aspects of the WSUD sites, 2) interview material from key informants, focus groups and short interviews, 3) questionnaires to assess attitudes to the environment and water. Findings Overall there was strong support for WSUD innovations. There were two categories of WSUD features:- ”¢ WSUD features that had instant appeal included features that improved aesthetics, greenscape, recreational amenity, and increased resident control over their own water supply ”¢ WSUD features that were less obvious but gained community support once the features were explained and understood. They included features that improved the quality of water runoff or flood mitigation. There were no specific WSUD features that were disliked by respondents rather there were problems that could arise with any feature and, if left unaddressed, could jeopardise acceptance of WSUD both long-term and to the wider community. The barriers, which could be cumulative, included: 1. Poor functioning of the WSUD systems, often occurring soon after installation: Poorly functioning WSUD features make developers, residents, and councils reluctant to invest in them. Increased availability of technical knowledge, and training of contractors and those who oversee the work seems to be required if WSUD is not to get a reputation of being “too difficult”. 2. Inadequate maintenance and ongoing management: Respondents wanted a long-term maintenance plan including a plan for the hand-over to council so councils and residents are aware of the long-term maintenance requirements and costs. 3. Lack of community consultation: Most obviously communities cannot support WSUD facilities if they do not know that they exist. Understanding a WSUD facility is likely to need two-way communication such as discussion groups and tours of the facility rather than one way communication such as the distribution of flyers. Two-way dialogue also has the added benefit of directly hearing back from the community aspects about the WSUD feature that they particularly like or dislike. This type of feedback can assist future innovation and development of WSUD. 4. Uncertainties about costs: All residents in the new sites had paid extra for their home with WSUD and other features; however poor design, functioning and maintenance, ...