Reviewing the Transition Process: A Summary

This Section briefl y reviews and summaries the four transition phases, as presented in Sections 4.2 to 4.5 and comments on the overall architecture of the transitioning process (i.e. the linkages between each transition phase) from a transition theory perspective as shown in Figure 32. The analysis of key factors that have underpinned this USQM transition to date is presented in Section 5 and a proposal of how to complete this transition is presented in Section 6. While the USQM transition is yet to reach completion, this analysis essentially reveals a process on how a new set of values relating to the environmental protection of waterways has been institutionalised across metropolitan Melbourne over the last 40 years.

Figure 32. Transition Architecture of USQM across metropolitan Melbourne

34. All new residential sub-divisions must achieve the best practice stormwater performance objectives, in addition to a 70% reduction of the typical urban annual litter load. More information is available at: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/B94519854FA94273CA257213000126AD/$File/VPP_Clause_56_4- Intwaterman.pdf33.

From an institutional perspective, the progress of this transition has occurred over a relatively short period given what is already understood about transitioning periods (see Geels, 2002; Geels, 2004). While it is diffi cult to confi rm the exact starting point of the seeding activity (presented in this report as the mid 1960s) underpinning the initial change process, the subsequent processes leading to the niche stabilisation have occurred within a relatively rapid timeframe between 1990 and 2006. Notwithstanding this positive transitioning momentum, as discussed in Section 6, there is still more work to be done so that USQM becomes mainstream practice for all stakeholders. The following discussion briefl y outlines the transitioning between each of the four phases as identifi ed in this case analysis.

The early macro-level shift in Phase 1 (1965-1989) was critical to the destabilisation of the then traditional waterway management approach seeded by the rapidly growing social activism that challenged the government to improve the protection and rehabilitation of waterways and their passive recreation opportunities. This macro-level change stimulated a number of key events and developments that seeded the USQM transition, however, the community and other stakeholders still generally perceived urban stormwater as a fl ooding nuisance and implicitly environmentally benign at this time. In response to this macro-level change, Phase 2 (1990-1995) involved the development of a new institutional working space between key stakeholders within the existing meso-level (or institutional

regime) as well as the innovation of new activities and technologies at the micro-level. It is important to note that this new activity acted as a ‘protective’ space (principally the relationship between Melbourne Water and the CRCs) with the focus on advancing learning and shielding the emerging research and associated technologies (such as gross pollutant traps and stormwater treatment wetlands) from the then mainstream priorities.

Phase 3 (1996-1999) witnesses the formation of the

USQM niche, with a strong and active connection between key stakeholders at the meso-level, and the technological research and development activities at the micro-level. The ‘protective space’ at the meso-level had expanded with new relationships and coordination extended (through the leadership of individuals within Melbourne Water and the CRCs) to include developers, planners and some local government authorities.

The formation of the niche was collectively galvanised through the establishment of the nitrogen target and the subsequent creation of the stormwater inter- agency committee, the production of best practice guidelines that were incorporated into policy, rapidly emerging science and its practical demonstration (such as the Lynbrook Estate project), and additional strategic funding opportunities. It is important to note that during this period, the language of USQM was being reframed to the language of WSUD.

Phase 4 (2000-2006) witnesses the stabilisation of

the USQM niche attracting important mainstream institutional legitimacy, meaning that it is it now recognised, but still not fully integrated into the mainstream priorities of all dominant stakeholders at the meso-level such as all local government organisations across Melbourne. The stabilisation of the niche was supported through a range of initiatives such as: a strategic state-wide funding source

dedicated to funding stormwater quality management practices; the development of a ‘deemed-to-comply’ assessment tool (MUSIC) for designers, planners and regulators; the launch of the fi rst national WSUD conference series; the production of local, state and national guidelines; an innovative market-based offset scheme, and dedicated industry training. The amendment to Clause 56: Residential Subdivision of the Victoria Planning Provisions and all Planning Schemes, under Melbourne 2030, in October 2006, provided the fi nal component to the stabilisation of this USQM niche.

The outcomes of this case analysis strongly suggest that the effective progress with advancing USQM has been highly dependent on the activities relating to the nurturing of this USQM niche. While it cannot be confi rmed at this point in time, it is likely that Melbourne may be entering the beginning of a new transition phase, involving the diffusion of the USQM niche across the meso-level through strategic institutional reform efforts. From a transition theory perspective, the stabilisation of the niche is not only very diffi cult, but a critical ingredient to substantially improving the chances of mainstreaming a new practice (or in transition language ‘enabling a system-wide lock-in across the Multi Level Perspective (MLP)’).

For a niche to be stable it needs to be able to withstand threats, such as the dominance of other priorities and sectoral issues that may arise, resulting in the redirection of limited resources (and sometimes professional interests) away from the focus of the niche. In this case, the phenomenon of drought (a macro-level driver) currently experienced across the nation, and the associated increased focus on alternative water sources and the recycling agenda, could be considered as presenting such a threat, as it essentially reinforces the already well-entrenched institutional value of providing water supply security. However, in Melbourne the USQM niche, perhaps in contrast to some of the other cities across Australia, has managed at this point to maintain its legitimacy and relative resource attention at this stage.

5. KEY TRANSITION FACTORS: