Australian water decision making: are politicians performing?

2021 ◽  
pp. 240-261
Author(s):  
James Horne
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Wilson ◽  
Chantal Donnelly ◽  
Pandora Hope ◽  
Elisabeth Vogel ◽  
Wendy Sharples ◽  
...  

<p>Climate change is already impacting on Australian water resources with step changes in rainfall regimes, changes in catchment functioning and drier, hotter conditions creating major challenges for water resource management.  Water resources in most parts of the country are influenced by high interannual variability. Thus Australia's operational water management, as well as water policy and infrastructure development decisions require high resolution information that realistically defines this variability both for the past, at seasonal scales, and into the future.</p><p>In Australia, water information accounting for climate change that is available to planners and resource managers, exists for limited geographical regions such as single catchments, urban regions or states. It is typically sourced from multiple regional downscaling efforts and using different methods to interpret this data for hydrological impacts. These regional downscaling and hydrological impact data collections are either not application-ready or tailored for specific purposes only, which poses additional barriers to their use across the water and other sectors. The needs of the water sector in managing this resource over vast river basins which cross jurisdictional boundaries, such as the Murray Darling Basin, have provided a challenge for providers of climate projection information and climate services. Consistent, agreed upon approaches across impacts at the national scale are yet to be developed. However, an accessible and consistent set of climate projections for water will help ensure that climate change risks are properly factored into decision-making in the water sector.</p><p>The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is developing a seamless national landscape water service, combining historical data on water availability with forecast products, as well as hydrological impact projections. This system uses a consistent methodology based upon the Australian Water resources Assessment (AWRA-L) hydrological model across all time scales. Once delivered, these new products will contribute towards comparable water services for the water, agricultural, energy, and other sectors, providing data across timescales. From a user's perspective the service will facilitate understanding of both past and future variability across multiple timescales of interest including the associated impacts of a changing climate. Providing a seamless service will improve operational decision making by putting short- and medium-term forecasts in the context of the past and future climate variability. Operational decision making can therefore be better integrated with longer-term strategic decision making on climate change.</p><p>For services to meet user needs they must be designed in consultation with these users. An extensive user centred design (UCD) process underpins the scope and nature of the new service. Insights will be shared from the UCD outcomes including user-defined data requirements of past and future variability. Users clearly expressed needs for guidance material and information about skill, confidence and uncertainty to accompany and contextualise climate information which is a major focus of this seamless water service. To engage users and ensure useful outputs, co-design principles are being employed as part of the confidence and uncertainty assessment process to be undertaken as part of the hydrological projections service, which will underpin development of guidance to assist users navigate multiple datasets.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Rayner

Abstract In the complex institutional and physical infrastructure nexus of South Australia, weather and climate information is highly valued by freshwater managers and users. But different users focus on very different time scales. Recent changes in water rights and technology, driven by the Millennium Drought, enable agricultural users to focus on real-time monitoring and relatively short-term forecasts (3–5 days ahead). A wide range of users make extensive use of the full 7-day weather forecasts and there is awareness of, but not reliance on, seasonal outlooks. These are widely viewed as providing “background” indications and are seldom directly used in decision-making. While concern about climate change is driving scientific research on downscaling climate impact models for the region, there are different views among decision-makers about the usefulness of these for adaptation. All forms of weather and climate information appear to be best integrated into decision-making when incorporated into sector-specific models and decision-support tools alongside other relevant variables. However, there remains something of a mismatch between scientific aspirations to improve the skill of seasonal and long-term climate forecasting and the temporal rhythms of water-resource decision-making.


Water Policy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 1094-1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dena Fam ◽  
Cynthia Mitchell ◽  
Kumi Abeysuriya ◽  
Toni Meek

This paper investigates the process of organisational learning in decision making and planning for sustainability in the water sector. A Melbourne water utility (Yarra Valley Water) trialling sustainable systems of service provision utilised multi-stakeholder experiences to facilitate learning within the organisation. Diverse perspectives of the trial were sought through 50 interviews with staff managing/operating/maintaining the system and household residents using the system. Outcomes from interviews were shared with the project team in a social learning workshop and translated into recommendations for trialling innovation within the water utility and more broadly within the Australian water sector. The facilitated process of organisational learning highlighted the importance of cross-departmental communication and co-operation, reflective processes of management and the value of a ‘transdisciplinary’ approach to planning and implementing novel systems of service provision. The outcome was the development of new procedures to support integrated knowledge development in trialling innovation within Yarra Valley Water.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document