Water-related problems in Australia

Discuss about the Rethinking Culture And Society.

Presently, most of the areas of Australia are suffering from water related problems in the form of failed aquifers and river system, long-term drought and unsustainable rates of urban water consumption (Bekele, Page, Vanderzalm, Kaksonen & Gonzalez, 2018). Therefore, a culture change is required to guide Australians regarding the use of water (Turner, Fiske & Hodge, 2016). For reducing the water demand, some practical initiatives and policies are aimed for the development of cultural innovations. It also necessary to understand the domestic patterns of water-use by keeping in mind the convergence of technology, social practice and cultural meaning so that manner of changing these conventions can be identified by way of mobilizing the resourcefulness, creativity and sense of connection of people to larger lifeworld (Pena- Guzman, Melgarejo, Prats, Torres & Martinez, 2017).

For gaining proper understanding regarding resource consumption, it is important to gain knowledge about this complex world and cultural domain so that effective natural resource management strategies can be developed which will play a significant role in the adoption of more sustainable urban lifestyles (Hellberg, 2017). This paper uses Everyday Water project in the form of a case study of latest cultural research on domestic water usage along with its application to policies and practice of natural resource. Everyday Water project is different as it does not consider water as discrete utility or resource but understands its use due to changing cultural traditions, use of services and intersection of day to day expectations and practices with socio-technical system. The approach adopted place emphasis on the importance of cultural meanings (for example, nature, water and gardens) and particular social practices, as both function by interacting with socio-technical systems and technologies and are embedded in the everyday life. The aim of this paper is to develop this approach by discussing recent research project on interactions, values and practices regarding water in Western Sydney (Crow- Miller, Chang, Stoker & Wentz, 2016).

Experts such as engineers, resource economists, biologists, etc. dominate the public discourses on conservation in places such as Australia. This approach is preoccupied with the prediction of demand and supply of future resources which are calculated in accordance with regional, national or global needs. For such analyses, humans appear as individuals, who are targeted by advertising campaigns and market research so that they are encouraged to adopt ‘green’ consumer choices, or as a whole population, the total consumers of socially anonymous resources. These models of humans have been operative in the strategies for the management of domestic water demand presently positioned in Sydney. The citizens who can be regulated by the law framed by government are targeted through mandatory water restriction while consumer rebates are used to target an individual water user for using water-saving technologies. The emphasis is on holding individuals responsible for excess consumption and for taking steps for reducing it (Tapsuwan, Burton, Mankad, Tucker & Greenhill, 2014).

The need for cultural innovations for sustainable water use

This resource and environment centered approach can be analyzed in several ways. Highly complex, diverse, multiple and ambivalent features of human engagement with natural energy resources and nature are ignored by such environmental instrumentalism (Huckle & Martin, 2014). The restrictions and penalties that are currently imposed along with the various sanctioned ‘green’ retrofits are in the form of demand management tools that are based on ‘one-size-fits-all’ model. Managing demand here means blaming users and demanding the required change from them. Restrictions are imposed by demand management that suppress ad ignore rather than supporting diversity in capacities, values and meaningful water practices while not being capable of addressing cultural, social and industrial dynamics driving the demand up for energy and water (Allon & Sofoulis, 2006). The research provided that everyday consumption of water is tangled with the users in the form of habitual enjoyment of technologies, services and experiences made possible by water. The approach adopted underscores the significance of investigating the daily life dimensions and inspecting the unobtrusive practices of consumption. Habits and expectations of cleanliness are hardly made explicit except in ads for deodorizers and cleaners and in case of childhood training while domestic water fittings are inconspicuous features of daily life that an attitude about it is not developed (Browne,  2015).

The socio-technical and socio- culture approach represents the users as the knots in the networks. Users are bundles of habits, conventions and expectations that have been shaped together by interacting with present water technologies and water along with diverse effects of infrastructures and large-scale systems for sewerage, water supply and drainage, and linked corporate, social and government arrangements. The effects caused by the large scale systems are ignored by the overriding discourses on water conservation at the time of determining expectations regarding water use habits and its supply (Kenway & Lam, 2016). The limitations on the capacities and powers of the users are overlooked by them that are baked into domestic water fillings and urban water infrastructures and therefore constantly fails in recognizing the hurdles in saving water presented by standard fittings, infrastructure and water utilities. The current institutional and technological infrastructures for water delivery can be classified as ‘Big Water’ in urban Australia. With the help of clicking sentinel, Big Water is established in the houses in the water meter which is a device that hooks the individuals into dependency on large scale systems deputized with obligation for water supply (Fam & Mellick Lopes, 2015). The collective conventions of Big Water related to the use of water and responsibility distribution related to it are baked in to domestic objects such as sewer systems, drains, taps and automatic washing machines which form part of the standard water fittings. These are the user friendly interfaces that are designed for the purpose of providing ease in water usage. However, such devices are saver-unfriendly as their design is for delivering and disposing of water of drinking quality after using it for one time (Sofoulis, 2005).   

The Everyday Water project as a case study

This analysis provides that the evolvement of water bodies is for the purpose of delivering residents with a counter-rational imagination of a periodically invariant and endless flow of water.  However, the civic goals related to sanitized and clean population are attained by this and it also arrogates every responsibility for wastes and supply and also sets infrastructures with the help of which these powers are cemented into the housing design and urban landscape. In case of water crisis, Big Water puts the blame on individual users and does not admit its own responsibility. Big Water expects the users to compensate for the unsustainability and wastefulness of the system on which approximately 94% of the households in Sydney are dependent. Everyday Water project research provides that a number of people are willing to take responsibility involving ad hoc and inconvenient efforts for saving and reusing water by making the use of domestic technologies so that gardens can be kept alive (Meyer & Kersten, 2016).

The Everyday Water project was developed in partnership by researchers from University of Western Sydney’s Centre for Cultural Research and Integrated Catchment and Environmental Management group and developers from Western Sydney’s new housing settlement. The objectives of the project were as follows:

• Standardizing the current practices and attitudes of the community around water in Western Sydney
• Determining the hurdles in the adoption of further techniques and technologies related to water-conservation
• Recommending ideas for intervention strategies and community education.

Participants for the research were recruited from the limit of 15 km radium of the projected development by articles in newspapers and letterbox drops. After interviewing 33 respondents, 25 agreed to proceed to the next stage by maintain a Water Diary for 1-4 week period. A kit was provided to the diarists with pen, exercise book, instructions, camera, etc. for stimulating reflection and ideas. A short questionnaire on the ideas and habits about recycling of water constituted the third stage of the project. Unexpected findings resulted through this sample than 56% of the general sample was recycling water than the first sample of 48%. Both the samples consisted of the households with modest household incomes (Wu, Keremane & McKay, 2016).The actor-network theory and socio-technical interests provided that there is a vital role of water sites and water in the social life of households. The research found that the kitchen sink was the place of interaction with other household members and water. All the social interactions concerning water took place at the kitchen sink. 25% of the domestic water is consumed by the laundry for cleaning the clothes. The question arises regarding the form of practices and technologies that can be facilitated in the new housing designs (Fam, Lahiri- Dutt & Sofoulis, 2015).

The limitations and drawbacks of environmental instrumentalism

Half of the interviewees made attempts for recycling the water from kitchen, laundry, bath and shower by making the use of do it yourself methods that involves hoses and buckets. The key use of recycled water is to keep the drought affected gardens alive. Some participants have also stored the rainwater for birds while some others carried water from the bathtub to the garden. Those who attempted recycling of water had some prior experience of surviving at the place where the water was supplied, whether overseas or in rural Australia.  The findings suggest the link between the different parts of the world and Australia. These are the connections which have been established as a result of childhood memories, family networks and travel experiences which play an important part in the urban water cultures (Sofoulis, 2015).

The inaction on water recycling has been justified by the State government by citing market research that people are uncomfortable in drinking recycled sewage. However, the recycles water is accepted by people for other purposes. Adequate recycling technologies are wanted by 80% of questionnaire sample such as pumps and treatment tanks. Participants are also interested in reticulated recycled water and urban stormwater schemes of the government (Radcliffe, 2015). Some believed that incentives and rebates will help Western Sydney in saving more water. On the other hand, barriers to change comprised lack of information regarding the availability of required technology, uncertainty regarding regulations on greywater and rainwater tanks, dependence on landlords, etc. The water authorities are unwilling to let go their control over sewerage and water supply and on the other hand, users perceiving domestic water technologies are expecting technical and financial assistance for acquiring water-saving innovations. The cost of new technology adoption can be reduced by subsidies, financial schemes and microcredit arrangements. Therefore, it can be concluded that people in Western Sydney are willing to adopt do it yourself recycling measures for their gardens. Home based solutions are being considered by the householders more willingly than water authorities and political leaders for reusing and saving water (Chubaka, Ross & Edwards, 2017).

Attitudes towards recycled water have significantly changed as a result of the longing to keep the gardens blooming even under the situation of water restrictions and drought. The strong attachment of people towards their gardens can be evaluated against the fluctuating domestic water use patterns over the past 20 years, when gardens and homes have established as a place of recreation, leisure and identity display.  The research made under the Everyday Water project confirmed the extent and depth of spiritual and cultural investments in water in context of gardens. A relationship to water has been expressed by a number of participants which was attached with identity, memory and attitudes. However, some belief that the people have not changed and this behavior is only the result of duress as their gardens were drying up (Gomez-Reyes, 2016). The research also confirmed that there is also a positive correlation between the water used outside home and the emotional feelings and attitudes towards garden.  This implies that the desire to preserve the gardens is the biggest motivator for people to collect or recycle water. The research also highlighted that water restrictions have some negative effect such as causing reduction in the gardening activities could damage the connectedness with a bigger lifeworld which could inspire further struggles of individuals at conservation (Bichai, Grindle & Murthy, 2018).

The socio-technical and socio-culture approach to water use

Water is not only an important constituent of tangible activities but is also linked with a number of intangible beliefs, values and indefinable concepts such as cleanliness, comfort and pleasure. The demand for resources is automatically driven up as they can provide experiences and services. Water offers cleanliness, comfort and convenience to the individuals. The significance of water in terms of its consumption in everyday life can only be understood after appreciating the habitual, affective, experiential and sensory qualities of water experiences. The main theme of Everyday Water Research was the experiences of physical sensation, pleasure and comfort linked with water. Water and the linked socio- technical services and systems are associated with the standards maintained of bodily comfort and cleanliness and with the body as a basis of pleasure, sensuality and fun. The entire home revolves around the water usage which provides that water does not only comprise 70% of our bodies but also equal to 70% of our lives. Cleaning and scrubbing form the necessary obsessions in which much of the water is used and very small quantity of water is used for the purpose of drinking (Watson, 2017).

As discussed throughout this paper, water plays a major role in the life of every individual. For the purpose of developing a multidimensional understanding regarding the interconnections and complex relationships involving humans, non-human and water in gardens and domestic homes and to make the application of this involvedness within housing policy, design and practice, an attempt was made in the form of the Everyday Water project. However, it cannot be appropriately commented upon that ho the results of the project will influence a particular housing development but still a better understanding of the values and cultural meanings affecting domestic water consumption is required for the purpose of achieving the cultural shifts needed for sustainable water future.  ‘Culture’ is a combination of practices, values and interactions that involve both non-human and human forms, technologies and socio- technical systems. The nature surrounding the humans including water also comprises a part of culture. The activities in which is used by people are particular combination of practices and ideas that take place by interacting with systems and technologies thereby providing ‘built-in ‘ hurdles to water saving. Therefore, this paper helps in concluding that reshaping of practice is dependent upon the combination of multiple issues and strategies. The cultural and social values the requirement of change underscoring the significance of lawn or daily shower as a contemporary sign of identity seem to simply work against and at last override. However, if the cultural and social construction of identities and norms were instead re-imagined, revised or recast differently, there would be a better probability for consumptions patterns to change.

The role of domestic water fittings and urban water infrastructures

References

Allon, F. and Sofoulis, Z., 2006. Everyday water: cultures in transition. Australian Geographer, 37(1), pp.45-55.

Bekele, E., Page, D., Vanderzalm, J., Kaksonen, A. and Gonzalez, D., 2018. Water Recycling via Aquifers for Sustainable Urban Water Quality Management: Current Status, Challenges and Opportunities. Water, 10(4), p.457.

Bichai, F., Grindle, A.K. and Murthy, S.L., 2018. Addressing barriers in the water-recycling innovation system to reach water security in arid countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, pp.S97-S109.

Browne, A.L., 2015. Insights from the everyday: implications of reframing the governance of water supply and demand from ‘people’to ‘practice’. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 2(4), pp.415-424.

Chubaka, C.E., Ross, K.E. and Edwards, J.W., 2017. Rainwater for drinking water: A study of household attitudes. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 216, pp.299-311.

Crow-Miller, B., Chang, H., Stoker, P. and Wentz, E.A., 2016. Facilitating collaborative urban water management through university-utility cooperation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 27, pp.475-483.

Fam, D. and Mellick Lopes, A., 2015. Designing for System Change: Innovation, Practice and Everyday Water. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(3).

Fam, D., Lahiri-Dutt, K. and Sofoulis, Z., 2015. Scaling down: researching household water practices. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(3), pp.639-651.

Gomez-Reyes, E., 2016. Water Use Pattern. In Water, Food and Welfare . Springer, Cham. pp. 75-83.

Hellberg, S., 2017. Water for survival, water for pleasure-A biopolitical perspective on the social sustainability of the basic water agenda. Water Alternatives, 10(1), p.65.

Huckle, J. and Martin, A. 2014. Environments in a Changing World. Routledge.

Kenway, S.J. and Lam, K.L., 2016. Quantifying and managing urban water-related energy use systemically: case study lessons from Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 32(3), pp.379-397.

Meyer, J. M. and Kersten, J. 2016. The Greening of Everyday Life: Challenging Practices, Imagining Possibilities. Oxford University Press.

Pena-Guzman, C.A., Melgarejo, J., Prats, D., Torres, A. and Martinez, S., 2017. Urban Water Cycle Simulation/Management Models: A Review. Water, 9(4), p.285.

Radcliffe, J.C., 2015. Water recycling in Australia–during and after the drought. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 1(5), pp.554-562.

Sofoulis, Z. 2005. Big Water, Everyday Water: A Sociotechnical Perspective. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 19(4), pp. 445-463.

Sofoulis, Z., 2015. The trouble with tanks: unsettling dominant Australian urban water management paradigms. Local Environment, 20(5), pp.529-547.

Tapsuwan, S., Burton, M., Mankad, A., Tucker, D. and Greenhill, M., 2014. Adapting to less water: household willingness to pay for decentralised water systems in urban Australia. Water resources management, 28(4), pp.1111-1125.

Turner, G., Fiske, J. and Hodge, B., 2016. Myths of Oz: reading Australian popular culture. Routledge.

van Vliet, B. and Spaargaren, G., 2017. Against sustainable ways of. Routledge Handbook on Consumption, p.353.

Watson, S., 2017. Consuming water smartly: the significance of sociocultural differences to water-saving initiatives. Local Environment, 22(10), pp.1237-1251.

Wu, Z., Keremane, G. and McKay, J., 2016. Sustainable urban water management through the lens of community–a photostory exercise in metropolitan Adelaide. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 23(2), pp.141-156.