A Review and Comparative Analysis of IWCM Concepts in Australia and Similar Jurisdictions

Abstract

Interpretations of integrated water cycle management (IWCM) differ across jurisdictions. This paper discusses 10 interpretations of the IWCM concept globally, in Australia and in jurisdictions similar to Australia. Five interpretations of many IWCM versions in Australia are reviewed. This strategic concept aims to address the internal challenges of managing water demand and supply, achieving appropriate disposal and/or wastewater recycling for re-use and distribution networks and providing services at an affordable rate, per changing community needs. The IWCM concept is also recognised as a resource planning tool to address external challenges, such as the uncertainties of climate change, the circular economy and resilience. All 10 IWCM concepts reviewed in this paper acknowledge governance and stakeholders to be of primary importance: governance to drive the conceptual interpretation and stakeholders to develop, drive, implement and promote IWCM as adept at addressing local challenges. The two global interpretations place primary importance on governance, stakeholder engagement and natural resource management, whereas the local interpretations place equally high importance on water critical infrastructure and water economy. Technology, which is changing at an unprecedented pace, is considered, but not as an immediate or primary challenge. These differences are mainly attributed to the organisations’ responsibilities and constraints, which drive IWCM concept design.