Water Resources Management

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 1697–1711

Using the Concept of Common Pool Resources to Understand Community Perceptions of Diverse Water Sources in Adelaide, South Australia



Diversification and integration of water supply systems is occurring to advance both water security and environmental sustainability, but research into community perceptions of these changes is in its infancy. In this paper, water user group discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of the diverse water sources used in Adelaide, Australia, are analyzed in terms of the urban water system as a common pool resource: one competitively accessed by numerous users that put it at risk of depletion. The research method was a water planning activity, in which visual cues were utilised to help water users reflect on conditions that they perceived would enable acceptance of seven water source options and one water efficiency option. The key results were that water sources were perceived to be in two categories: bounded sources associated with eco-systems and viewed as common pool resources vulnerable to depletion. Unbounded sources such as rainwater in tanks, stormwater, and wastewater were seen as under-utilised sources to be further exploited if any risks to health could be mitigated. Finally, keys to acceptance were authority to govern, prevention of waste, and community engagement.


Common pool resource Urban water planning Community perceptions 


  1. Cools M, Brijs K, Tormans H, Moons E, Janssens D, Wets G (2011) The socio-cognitive links between road pricing acceptability and changes in travel-behavior. Transp Res A Policy Pract 45(8):779–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dillon P (2011) Water security for Adelaide, South Australia. In: Quentin Grafton R, Hussey K (eds) Water resources planning and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 505–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dolnicar S, Schäfer AI (2009) Desalinated versus recycled water: public perceptions and profiles of the accepters. J Environ Manag 90(2):888–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE (2000) Measuring Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56(3):425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox D, Batley G, Blackburn D, Bone Y, Bryars S, Cheshire A, Collings G, Ellis D, Fairweather P, Fallowfield H (2007) The Adelaide coastal waters study. Final report volume 1-summary of study findingsRep. CSIRO, Glen OsmondGoogle Scholar
  6. Fujii S (2006) Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. J Environ Psychol 26(4):262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hurlimann A (2008) Community attitudes to recycled water use: an urban Australian case study–part 2Rep. The Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment, SalisburyGoogle Scholar
  9. Hurlimann A, Hemphill E, McKay J, Geursen G (2008) Establishing components of community satisfaction with recycled water use through a structural equation model. J Environ Manag 88(4):1221–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs MH, Buijs AE (2011) Understanding stakeholders’ attitudes toward water management interventions: role of place meanings. Water Resour Res 47(1)Google Scholar
  11. Leonard R, Walton A, Koth B, Green M, Spinks A, Myers B, Malkin S, Mankad A, Chacko P, Sharma A, Pezzaniti D (2013) Community acceptance of water sensitive urban design: six case studies. Goyder Institute for Water Research, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  12. Mankad A, Tapsuwan S (2011) Review of socio-economic drivers of community acceptance and adoption of decentralised water systems. J Environ Manag 92(3):380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mankad A, Tucker D (2013) Alternative household water systems: perceptions of knowledge and trust among residents of South East Queensland. Ecopscyhology 4(4):296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mankad A, Tucker D, Greenhill MP (2011) Mandated versus retrofitted tank owners: psychological factors predicting maintenance and management urban water security research alliance technical report no. 51Google Scholar
  15. Mankad A, Walton A, Leonard R (2013) Public attitudes towards managed aquifer recharge and urban stormwater use in Adelaide, Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 13/10, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  16. Marks J (2006) Taking the public seriously: the case of potable and non potable reuse. Desalination 187(1):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marlow DR, Moglia M, Cook S, Beale DJ (2013) Towards sustainable urban water management: a critical reassessment. Water Res 47(20):7150–7161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray Darling Basin Commission (2002) The living Murray: a discussion paper on restoring the health of the River Murray. Stage 1: informing and engaging the community. Murray Darling Basin Commission, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  19. Nancarrow B, Leviston Z, Po M, Porter N, Tucker D (2008) What drives communities’ decisions and behaviours in the reuse of wastewater. Water Sci Technol 57(4):485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nancarrow B, Leviston Z, Tucker D (2009) Measuring the predictors of communities’ behavioural decisions for potable reuse of wastewater. Water Sci Technol 60(12):3199–3209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nancarrow B, Porter N, Leviston Z (2010) Predicting community acceptability of alternative urban water supply systems: a decision making model. Urban Water J 7(3):197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostrom E (2008) The challenge of common-pool resources. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 50(4):8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 20(4):550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parks CD, Joireman J, Van Lange PA (2013) Cooperation, trust, and antagonism how public goods are promoted. Psychol Sci Public Interest 14(3):119–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. QSR (2008) NVIVO8 www.qsrinternational.com
  28. Rosenbloom JD (2013) Labeling nature as a common pool resource. In: Hirokawa KH (ed) Environmental Law and Contrasting Ideas of Nature: A Constructivist Approach. pp. 12–35Google Scholar
  29. SA Water (2007) Annual report 2006–2007. South Australian Water Corporation, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  30. SA Water (2013) Annual report 2012–2013. South Australian Water Corporation, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  31. South Australian Government (2012), South Australian water industry act 2012, editedGoogle Scholar
  32. Spies B, Dandy G (2012) Sustainable water management. Securing Australia’s future in a green economy. Melbourne Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. pp. 146Google Scholar
  33. Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A (2014) Public attitudes toward water management and drought in the United States. Water Resour Manag 28:697–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability—a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 26:3153–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary Leonard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrea Walton
    • 3
  • Carol Farbotko
    • 3
  1. 1.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)FloreatAustralia
  2. 2.University of Western SydneyPenrithAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRODutton ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations