Large scale centralised water, wastewater and stormwater systems have been implemented for over 100 years. These systems have provided a safe drinking water supply, efficient collection and disposal of wastewater to protect human health, and the mitigation of urban flood risk. The sustainability of current urban water systems is under pressure from a range of challenges which include: rapid population growth and resulting urbanisation, climate change impacts, and infrastructure that is ageing and reaching capacity constraints. To address these issues, urban water services are now being implemented with Integrated Urban Water Management (IUWM) and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) approaches. WSUD systems can deliver multiple benefits including water conservation, stormwater quality improvement, flood control, landscape amenity and a healthy living environment. These systems can be provided as stand-alone systems or in combination with centralised systems. These systems are still novel and thus face knowledge gaps that are impeding their mainstream uptake. Knowledge gaps cover technical, economic, social, and institutional aspects of their implementation. This paper is based on the outcomes of a comprehensive study conducted in South Australia which investigated impediments for mainstream uptake of WSUD, community perceptions of WSUD and potential of WSUD to achieve water conservation through the application of alternative resources, and in flood management. The outcomes are discussed in this paper for the benefit of water professionals engaged with WSUD planning, implementation, community consultation and regulation. Although the paper is based on a study conducted in South Australia, the comprehensive framework developed to conduct this detailed study and investigation can be adopted in any part of the world.

This article presents the conceptual basis for empirically testing the relationship between community wellbeing and resilience. Previous research has argued that rural communities facing rapid economic, social and environmental change need to be resilient to maintain or enhance their community wellbeing. However, it is often not clear what is meant by community wellbeing or resilience, and how they differ. Both concepts are often imprecise and seldom clearly distinguished from each other when placed in a theoretical context. Further, wellbeing and resilience are often assumed to be positively associated but this may not necessarily be the case (Amundsen, 2012; Armitage, Béné, Charles, Johnson, & Allison, 2012; Coulthard, 2012). The present analysis suggests that community resilience is best conceptualised as a type of functioning or process whereby community resources are mobilised in strategic ways by community agents in adaptive responses to change (e.g., Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008) and community wellbeing is best conceptualised as a state, which is hopefully enhanced as a result of community resilience. Rather than a direct correlation, the relationship might be iterative whereby poor wellbeing triggers a mobilising of resilience which in turn leads to future wellbeing. The article outlines the main dimensions of community wellbeing and resilience that require valid and reliable measurement to test the relationship. The implication of such a relationship is that communities might need to focus on resilience rather than current wellbeing to achieve future wellbeing.