Content uploaded by Leonie J. Pearson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leonie J. Pearson on Jan 09, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
A SYNTHESIS OF THE LITERATURE
30 JUNE 2024
JO MUMMERY AND LEONIE PEARSON
EXTERNALLY REVIEWED
RESILIENCE, ADAPTATION
AND DRIVERS OF CHANGE
IN THE MURRAY–DARLING
BASIN:
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 2
Centre for Environmental Governance
Faculty of Business, Government and Law
University of Canberra
1 Kirinari Street, Bruce, ACT 2617
ABN: 81 633 873 422
ceg@canberra.edu.au
Ph: +61 2 6201 2961
Authors
Jo Mummery, Associate Professor
Leonie Pearson, Associate Professor
Expert reviews undertaken by; Prof. Jacki Shirmer, Prof. Lain Dare, and Prof. Paul Martin
ISBN: 978-1-74088-606-2
Report prepared for the: Murray–Darling Basin Authority
Cite as
Mummery, J., & Pearson, L. J. (2024). Resilience, adaptation and drivers of change in the Murray–
Darling Basin: A synthesis of the literature. Report to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority.
www.canberra.edu.au/research/centres/ceg
Acknowledgements
The University of Canberra acknowledges and pay respects to the Traditional Owners and their
Nations of the Murray–Darling Basin. There are more than 100,000 First Nations people from
more than 50 Nations living in the Basin. We recognise and acknowledge that the Traditional
Owners in the Basin have a deep cultural, social, environmental, spiritual and economic
connection to their lands and water, and tens of thousands of years of knowledge about caring for
water and river Country. Supported for this report provide by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 3
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Purpose and scope 5
1.2 Overview of the Murray–Darling Basin 6
1.3 Approach to literature synthesis 7
2.0 UNDERSTANDING RESILIENCE, ADAPTATION AND DRIVERS OF CHANGE 9
2.1 Defining RAD concepts 9
2.2 Conceptual framework for analysing RAD 11
2.2.1 Values of the MDB 11
2.2.2 Socio-ecological systems 14
3.0 RESILIENCE IN THE MDB 17
3.1 Context – resilience in a dynamic socio-ecological system 17
3.2 Resilience – of what, to what and for whom? 18
3.3 Attributes of resilience 20
3.4 Critical dynamics and thresholds of change 23
3.5 Knowledge gaps 27
4.0 DRIVERS OF CHANGE IN THE MDB 29
4.1 The framework for drivers of change 29
4.2 An overview of factors that are driving change in the MDB 31
4.2.1 Drivers of change to economic values 32
4.2.2 Drivers of change to social and cultural values 34
4.2.3 Drivers of change to environmental values 36
4.2.4 Insights on the relative significance of drivers of change 38
4.3 An initial synthesis of direct and indirect drivers of change 39
4.4 Knowledge gaps 41
5.0 ADAPTATION IN THE MDB 43
5.1 Context – a changing hydroclimate in the MDB 43
5.2 Climate vulnerability 45
5.3 Hydroclimate resilience 48
5.4 Adaptive capacity 50
5.5 Adaptation action, pathways and transformation 52
5.5.1 Agriculture and economic adaptation 52
5.5.2 Environmental adaptation 54
5.5.3 Water management and governance adaptation 58
5.5.4 Aligning local adaptation with Basin goals 61
5.5.5 Adaptation and transformation 62
5.6 Knowledge gaps 63
6.0 EMERGING INTEGRATIVE INSIGHTS ON RAD 65
REFERENCES 67
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Commissioned by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority, this literature synthesis forms an important
part of the growing attention in Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change for water
governance, it aims to deliver a robust and contemporary evidence base on these concepts to
support the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB). Understanding drivers of change and managing them
where needed to build resilience and enable adaptation are important for the effective
management and sustainability of dynamic socio-ecological systems such as the MDB, which is
recognised as having diverse values across multiple scales, some of which are under stress.
The synthesis begins by defining the concepts of resilience, adaptation and drivers of change so
that they are relevant to the MDB, drawing from the latest literature. It is clear that these
concepts have differing disciplinary interpretations and are being actively developed in the
scholarly literature. Importantly, they are increasingly significant in research, case study and
planning applications, including concerning the management and maintenance of the
environmental, community, cultural and economic factors people value about the MDB, the
interdependencies and trade-offs among them and how they are affected by drivers of change.
The literature supports the emerging understanding of resilience, urging specificity in ‘resilience of
what, to what and for whom’ and ensuring it is grounded in context. It identifies six critical
attributes of resilience pertinent to the MDB: diversification, variability, redundancy, modularity,
adaptation-orientation and the exploration of new strategies. Yet, the application of these
resilience attributes in the MDB faces significant hurdles, including the integration of traditional
and emerging knowledge and the practical application of resilience in real world dynamic contexts
that have thresholds or tipping points and where transformation may be a likely outcome.
The report scrutinises the drivers of change impacting the MDB, emphasising that a thorough
understanding of these drivers is essential for crafting effective interventions. Climate change
stands out as a significant driver, influencing various environmental, social, cultural and economic
values of the Basin. Nonetheless, existing knowledge gaps obstruct the assessment of the relative
significance of different drivers and the accurate attribution of changes.
Adaptation is highlighted as a critical area, particularly given the substantial shifts in hydroclimate
and the pronounced vulnerability of certain MDB sub-regions. Although adaptive capacity is
unevenly distributed across the Basin, the report identifies a unique opportunity to forge
partnerships with First Nations peoples to support both environmental and cultural objectives.
The literature advocates for urgent governance reform to address climate change adaptation,
challenging many existing policies and regulations that are predicated on a static climate
assumption.
In conclusion, the report calls for the urgent development of adaptation pathways and a more
nuanced understanding of how to utilise adaptation options in the MDB. Tackling these issues
demands a concerted effort to fill existing knowledge gaps and to integrate insights across
multiple, interacting drivers of change.
Recognising the living document nature of the literature review for the commissioned project on
resilience, drivers of change and adaptation, this synthesis will be updated prior to the project’s
completion.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and scope
This literature synthesis report has been commissioned by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority
(MDBA) as part of its third Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA) and inaugural Outlook for the Murray–
Darling Basin. The SRA will provide the most current assessment of condition and trends in the
Murray–Darling Basin across the themes of environment, social, economic and First Nations. The
Outlook for the Basin will assess the future trend of environment, social, economic and First
Nations values in the Basin, including the risks to these values.
Issues concerning resilience, drivers of change and adaptation have grown in significance and
community interest since the second SRA (2008–10). This synthesis of the literature on these
topics aims to provide a contemporary overview of how these concepts are understood in
scholarly literature, particularly with regard to the environmental, social, cultural and economic
values of the MDB.
This literature synthesis is part of a wider body of interlinked research and analysis on resilience,
adaptation and drivers of change (RAD) that the University of Canberra has been contracted to
deliver. Further key components of this contracted work are:
• Implementaon of an inial deliberave process to build understanding of drivers of
change in the MDB.
• Analysis and inial development of an indicator framework for RAD in the MDB.
• Development of case studies on current and future condions of RAD that can input into
the SRA and the Outlook for the Murray–Darling Basin.
• Development of a chapter on RAD to inform the Outlook.
• A living literature review process that can both support and be informed by research
outcomes from components 1 to 4 above.
Enabling First Nations insight
During the RAD project, we identified gaps in our knowledge and engagement efforts. We
specifically acknowledge the relative absence of First Nations peoples’ voices in the literature,
framing and knowledge in our initial discussion and scoping of the work. It is clear that a one-size-
fits-all approach to knowledge generation has excluded voices and peoples. Therefore, work that
builds solely on these traditionally western narratives does not enable First Nations accountability
and representation and is deprived of the benefits and insights that could be gained by bringing
together First Nations perspectives into the SRA and Outlook.
We acknowledge with respect the vital contributions of First Nations peoples, whose Indigenous
ways of knowing, being and doing have nurtured Country for thousands of years, including in the
MDB.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 6
1.2 Overview of the Murray–Darling Basin
The MDB, with Australia’s largest rivers and a catchment of more than 1.1 million km2, is a region
of high importance to the nation. Around 2.4 million Australians live in the Basin and rely on its
rivers for water, including people from more than 50 First Nations. First Nations people have lived
in the Basin for over 50,000 years, taking care of Country with a way of life that is interwoven with
the rivers and tributaries. As one of Australia’s most productive agricultural regions, the Basin
produces some $30 billion of food and fibre products every year, including 98% of rice, 93% of
cotton and 75% of grape production (MDBA, 2023b). In addition to the ecosystem services that
underpin agricultural production, the Basin contains more than half of Australia’s wetlands. These
wetlands have significant environmental values, with 16 internationally recognised Ramsar
wetland sites, and diverse and unique vegetation, water bird and fish species. Spending on tourism
and recreation in the Basin, drawing particularly on these environmental values, is now around
$15 billion each year (MDBA, 2023b).
The development of the Basin over the last century, particularly irrigated agriculture, involved
population growth, substantial land clearing and large-scale water diversion that reduced average
flows dramatically and resulted in degradation of aquatic habitats, as well as increased
sedimentation and nutrient runoff (CSIRO, 2023; Zhou et al., 2015). Many waterbirds and certain
vegetation communities, for example, are in decline as the levels of water extraction and river
regulation impact on the significant flooding events that are needed to trigger breeding events or
maintain healthy coolabah or black box forests (CSIRO, 2023). By the 1980s, it was recognised that
the existing water management systems were inefficient, expensive and causing significant
environmental damage (Doolan, 2016, as cited in Green & Moggridge, 2021). A national
collaborative approach to water policy was required to recalibrate the sharing of water between
consumptive and environmental uses.
Rainfall and river flow in the MDB are highly variable and unusually low rainfall has been
experienced in the last few decades, particularly during the hydrologically and agriculturally
important cooler months of the year that are important for water system recharge (see Figure 1;
BoM, 2020). The Millennium Drought (2001–2009), which has been described as the worst
drought on record for south-eastern Australia, arguably provided the strongest trigger for reform
in water management (e.g., Green & Moggridge, 2021). Parts of the Basin experienced severe
water scarcity in the Millennium Drought, the mouth of the Murray closed, the water supply to
Adelaide was threatened and severe effects were felt across many of the Basin’s communities,
environments and industries.
With the river network of the Basin spanning four states, the Australian Capital Territory and
interests of the Australian Government, governance is complex. Problems from over-extraction
and inadequate water stewardship across the rivers system led to development of interstate Basin
agreements, with the National Water Initiative in 2004 establishing a market-oriented and science-
informed governance architecture (Martin & Holley, 2024). The current legal framework for the
MDB is established under the Water Act 2007 (Cth) and the Murray–Darling Basin Plan (2012) and
seeks to:
rebalance the system and respond to the severe pressures the Millennium Drought placed
on the Basin’s rivers. The Basin Plan is the largest water reform of its kind in the world and
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 7
aims to achieve a sustainable healthy system for the benefit of all users – the environment,
communities, cultural and recreational users as well as irrigated and dryland agriculture.
(MDBA, 2020b)
Source: BoM (2020).
FIGURE 1. RAINFALL DECILES MAY TO OCTOBER 2000–2019.
The Millennium Drought directly resulted in widespread social, economic and technological
changes across the MDB and triggered varied research outputs on the Basin’s resilience in a
variable climate. Nonetheless, the implications of further water governance reform, climate
change projections, wider economic and structural change drivers affecting the region, such as
changing trade patterns, as well as ongoing environmental decline, are highlighting the need for
more systems-based approaches to understanding ongoing change and mapping resilient,
adaptive and sustainable futures (CSIRO, 2023; Williams, 2017).
1.3 Approach to literature synthesis
The initial focus of this literature synthesis was to draw on the three major reviews of the
literature on economic, environmental and relational values of the MDB, commissioned by the
MDBA, to illustrate the state of knowledge concerning RAD. The three reviews (Jackson et al.,
2023; A. J. King et al., 2022; Wheeler et al., 2023) provide detailed information on what is known
about the multiple values of the MDB, notably how the values can be measured, the current
condition and trend in each value, the benefits of and risks to each value, the future condition of
each value, particularly under climate change, and knowledge gaps.
Although the reviews contain much information pertinent to resilience, drivers of change and
climate change adaptation in the MDB, those issues were not explicitly identified within the
commissioned scope of the reviews. In addition, wider scholarly and grey literature needs to be
accessed to provide a robust contemporary understanding of the state of knowledge.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 8
This literature synthesis report has been developed through:
• Analysis of the three commissioned literature reviews (Jackson et al., 2023; A. J. King et al.,
2022; Wheeler et al., 2023) to identify key points relevant to RAD in the MDB.
• Wider literature searches in scholarly search engines using resilience, drivers of change,
adaptation and the MDB as keywords.
• Grey literature searches, particularly on reports to the MDBA relevant to resilience, drivers
of change and climate change adaptation.
• Expert scholarly and MDBA review of the draft report.
The structure of this report recognises that resilience, drivers of change and adaptation are
diverse concepts, showing a lack of agreement as to their meaning and scope. Following an initial
framing of the meaning of the concepts drawn from the literature as suited to this review as a
whole, each section then outlines the more specific framing of the concept, followed by a
synthesis of the state of knowledge relevant to the MDB. The key knowledge gaps for each
concept are also summarised and the report concludes with an overview of emerging integrative
insights.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 9
2.0 UNDERSTANDING RESILIENCE, ADAPTATION
AND DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Key synthesis findings
• RAD are mu-dimensional concepts with varied denions and applicaons. There is strong
recognion across the scholarly literature of the growing importance of these concepts for the
eecve management and sustainability of the MDB.
• The MDB is a complex socio-ecological system with diverse values. Progress is being made to
identify key Basin values; however, this is often within disciplinary siloes and there has not yet
been a coherent articulation of values across disciplines. Further work is needed to identify
interdependencies and trade-offs between values.
• Recent studies have explored the MDB as a socio-ecological system. A systems framework is
valuable because it enables analysis of multiple dimensions, system components and
interlinkages. However, these studies are relatively few in number and data gaps and
knowledge constraints tend to lead researchers to explore a single stressor or pathway.
2.1 Defining RAD concepts
An important challenge in RAD research is that there can be divergent understandings of the
meaning of the concepts. Resilience, in particular, has various meanings that have evolved in
disciplinary contexts. Engineering resilience, which assumes a system has only one steady state,
focuses on the speed and time of the system in returning to a stable state from stress states. The
Canadian ecologist, C. S. Holling, is widely attributed as first applying the concept of resilience to
ecology in the 1970s, using it to explain the non-linear characteristics of ecosystem changes. In
this way, ecological resilience refers to the maximum amount of interference that a system can
absorb before it crosses over to other states (Holling, 1996), with a system being able to have
multiple steady states. Ecological concepts of resilience have also been shaped by sustainable
livelihoods studies, where resilient households have capacities to recover from shocks and stress
and are able to maintain and enhance assets and capabilities into the future (Morse & McNamara,
2013). Resilience as a concept also emerged in the climate and disaster literature in the 1970s,
where it is understood to mean the ability to cope with and survive a disaster with the least
damage and adverse effects (Cutter et al., 2008).
More recently, with increasing attention on complex system and adaptive theories, the concept of
resilience was revised to evolutionary resilience, where resilience involves the changes,
adaptations and transformations of a system in response to interferences (Li et al., 2020; Quinlan
et al., 2016). Although the inclusion of transformation within the definition of resilience reflects
the dynamic nature of complex systems, it also creates ambiguity through its claim that parts of
resilient systems do not change (i.e., they maintain their essential structure), whereas other parts
of such systems can change (i.e., they maintain the capacity for transformation) (Orlove, 2022).
Further insights on the understanding of resilience within complex socio-ecological system can be
found in section 3.1.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 10
Although adaptation is a well-established concept in climate change research and policy settings, it
too has evolved as societal contexts and priorities have changed, with certain assumptions about
adaptation remaining relatively poorly explored. By the 1980s, growing awareness of the threat of
climate change led to recognition of the need to address the likely risks or effects of a changing
climate – action which was described as adaptation. Early descriptions of adaptation often listed
the different types of adaptation, such as autonomous and planned, or anticipatory and reactive,
rather than its central characteristics (McCarthy et al., 2001). Adaptation can also operate on
multiple temporal dimensions, ranging from short-term actions to longer-term pathway
approaches that recognise the climate is changing now and will continue to change, perhaps
significantly more adversely, into the future, with something of a missing ground in between
(Orlove, 2022). These diverse characteristics of adaptation and a lack of clarity on what type of
action is most important or most effective have exacerbated the difficulty in defining and
measuring adaptation, contributing to challenges in prioritising adaptation actions.
Through the 21st century, the concept of climate change adaptation has grown in prominence in
response to increasing climate-fuelled natural disasters, growing awareness of the vulnerability of
the global south and small island states to climate change and emerging concepts of loss and
damage, and the influential work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The need for adaptation
action is now widely seen as requiring urgency and concepts of vulnerability, equity and justice,
barriers and limits, and transformation, are now commonly associated with adaptation and add
valuable dimensions to its conceptualisation. Along with the IPCC definition, the breadth of the
2015 Paris Agreement’s Global Goal on Adaptation – which has been adopted by 196 countries
and is aimed at enhancing the world’s adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing
vulnerability to climate change –informs how adaptation is understood in this synthesis.
Finally, as with resilience, the drivers of change concept has varied origins and disciplinary
meanings. For example, its applications in political studies are concerned with understanding the
institutional and power dynamics of development trajectories, the factors that have led to
environmental decline, or how social behaviour changes may be implemented to enhance
sustainability or reduce greenhouse gas emissions in energy consumption (e.g., Manzini &
Tassinari, 2013; Tzanopoulos et al., 2013). Arguably, the most developed definition of the drivers
of change concept is that developed for the global Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003),
which has demonstrated its application to large-scale ecosystems and has informed the approach
of this synthesis. Further information on the meaning of drivers of change is in section 4.1 of this
report.
These diverging definitions highlight that there is no single or ‘right’ way these terms can be used
that satisfies all people, contexts and applications. Consequently, these words have taken on the
role of ‘boundary objects’ in which they can be used as concepts to catalyse knowledge, learning
and processing to support cross-functional discussion (Caccamo et al., 2023). Recognising the
utility of systems-based approaches to understanding and managing change in the MDB, as noted
in section 1.2, this report draws particularly on socio-ecological system literature in the
development of concept definitions. Other definition of resilience abound with specific end points,
power structures, terms etc. Here we use the concept of resilience as both a boundary object (i.e.,
widely) and for specification. For the purposes of the collective Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers
of Change project, and as agreed by the MDBA, the concepts are defined as follows.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 11
Resilience is the capacity of social-ecological systems to cope with a hazardous event or
threat, and to respond through absorbing, adapting or transforming while maintaining
essential system functions or structures. Resilience can be explored at many scales and
across many focal areas, from complex systems to sectors, communities and individuals.
Two types of resilience can be identified – specified and general – where specified
resilience refers to a system component responding to one driver of change or threat, and
general resilience refers to a system response to many drivers of change. Approaches to
enhance understanding of general resilience draw attention to the diversity, connectivity
and dynamism within systems.
Adaptation is about tangible
1
action that addresses the impacts and risks from a changing
climate. Adaptation includes action to respond to particular climate impacts and to both
reduce vulnerability and build adaptive capacity to climate change. Such action can occur
over multiple temporal and spatial scales. Importantly, adaptation has an anticipatory
dimension and is embedded in uncertainty. Adaptation further recognises that lessons
from the past are not sufficient to guide future action in a changing climate. Adaptation
actions in human-influenced systems can be described as incremental (i.e., extensions of
actions or behaviours to maintain the integrity of a system or process) or transformational
(actions that change the fundamental attributes of a socio-ecological system in anticipation
of climate change and its impacts).
Drivers of change can be understood as any natural or human-induced factor that directly
or indirectly causes a change in a socio-ecological system. Drivers of change can include
climate change, land-use change, invasive species and alteration of river flow patterns, as
well as technology developments and demographic or economic changes, such as
exogenously-driven changes in commodity prices. Consideration of drivers of change
within a socio-ecological system foregrounds that drivers can operate in multi-dimensional
ways, cause coping capacities or resilience thresholds to be exceeded and are usefully
considered within temporal horizons relevant to sustainability considerations. Drivers of
change interact with each other and can adversely affect system components, with their
effects mediated by the extent to which capacity to adapt is present and able to be
enacted.
2.2 Conceptual framework for analysing RAD
2.2.1 Values of the MDB
A focus on values is important in assessing RAD in the MDB as it draws attention to those assets,
features or qualities that are valued in the region and for which resilience is desired. Importantly,
it allows identification of diverse values, recognition that values can occur at multiple scales and,
further, may be contested, lack compatibility and operate in contradictory ways. To date, there is
no cohesive, overarching articulation of all the values of particular importance in the MDB.
However, four recent detailed reviews and analyses of values in community, economic, relational
and environmental domains provide detailed information on key values, their current condition
and trend, and risks to that condition into the future (see, e.g., Jackson et al., 2023; A. J. King et al.,
1
Tangible action is understood to embody agency and resources.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 12
2022; Schirmer et al., 2023; Wheeler et al., 2023). These reviews were commissioned by the MDBA
to inform the development of the Outlook of the Murray–Darling Basin, which would report on the
current condition and trend of Basin values and how these trends could be expected to change
under various climate scenarios.
The economic values of the MDB are related to the benefits that industries, communities and
people gain from the use or interaction with water resources in the Basin. To identify and review
the economic value of water in the Basin, Wheeler and colleagues (2023) apply a total economic
value of water framework, which spans direct and indirect use values, as well as non-use values
(see Figure 2). Key direct use economic values in the MDB include agricultural outputs and
profitability, the value of businesses reliant on farming communities and the related community
economic values that arise, for example, from agricultural employment, income and services.
Recreation, fishing and tourism industries that directly use or rely on water, and their supporting
services, are also direct economic values, as are householders that access water and the
entitlements and allocations of the water market.
Wheeler and colleagues (2023) indicate that indirect use economic values arise where there is an
indirect benefit from the water of the MDB. For example, water views and water quality can
improve adjacent property valuations and, more widely, deliver valued ecosystem services that
support direct use values, as well as community health and wellbeing. Non-use values are
attributed to people knowing that rivers, wetlands and the interlinked environments are healthy,
and will continue to be so, but are not reliant on direct contact for valuation. Examples of non-use
economic values include bequest and existence values, as well as cultural economic water values.
Source: Wheeler et al. (2023, p. 8).
FIGURE 2. ECONOMIC VALUES OF WATER.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 13
Water has deep cultural significance for First Nations peoples of the MDB and is understood as
central to culture, Country and people. The research paper, ‘A pathway to cultural flows in
Australia’, by the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, the Northern Basin Aboriginal
Nations and the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, summarises the
centrality of water to Indigenous people:
For First People, water is a sacred source of life. The natural flow of water sustains aquatic
ecosystems that are central to our spirituality, our social and cultural economy and
wellbeing. The rivers are the veins of Country, carrying water to sustain all parts of our
sacred landscape. The wetlands are the kidneys, filtering the water as it passes through the
land. First Nations Peoples have rights and a moral obligation to care for water under their
law and customs. These obligations connect across communities and language groups,
extending to downstream communities, throughout catchments and over connected
aquifer and groundwater systems (Nelson et al., 2018).
With regard to social and cultural values, Jackson and colleagues (2023) argued that attention to
relational values is appropriate in the MDB, with such an approach moving beyond a binary
economic versus environmental values discourse and enabling conversations about why people
care about the Basin. In a relational value frame, the inter-relatedness of values can be
recognised, along with their complex dependences on water and healthy ecosystems (Jackson et
al., 2023). The relational values literature review drew on the typology of values developed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Values Assessment, which
supported a global assessment of the values relating to nature, seeing them as arising from the
different ways that people relate with, appreciate and value the environment (IPBES, 2022).
The relational values conceptualised by the IPBES, and utilised by Jackson and colleagues (2023),
are concerned with the diverse ways in which nature can support a good quality of life. These
values encompass (i) governance and justice, which recognises such concepts as environmental
justice and intra- and inter-generational equity; (ii) living well and in harmony with nature and
mother earth, such as through stewardship or contemplation of nature; (iii) health and wellbeing,
including holistic and mental health; (iv) sustainability and resilience; (v) education and
knowledge, such as the inspiration and learning from nature; (vi) art and cultural heritage; (vii)
diversity and options including those that come from biocultural and future options diversity; (viii)
good social relations; (ix) identity and autonomy, which span senses of place and community; and
(x) spirituality and religion, including sacred sites and totemic species.
Engaging more specifically with both the literature on communities and with community
stakeholders, Schirmer and colleagues (2023) identified ten types of water-related values in the
Basin that are important for monitoring and management. At an aggregate level, and in no order
of importance, these values are: (i) human health, wellbeing and safety; (ii) environmental health;
(iii) First Nations’ cultures, rights and responsibilities; (iv) economy, jobs and livelihoods; (v)
liveable and viable communities; (vi) spending time in and with nature; (vii) living well with
climatic variability and climate change; (viii) water rights and access; (ix) meaningful engagement
in decision-making processes; and (x) effective water governance. Further work is underway for
the MDBA in the identification, measurement and analysis of indicators that relate to these values
for measuring change over time in values across different Basin communities (Schirmer et al.,
2023).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 14
Finally, King and colleagues (2022) drew on four broad environmental values of the MDB in their
review of the literature. These values were: (i) water quality, which is the outcome of physical,
chemical and biological processes and which underpins higher order ecosystem health of the
aquatic system; (ii) water-dependent ecosystems and habitats that support species, referring to
the structure, function and processes of ecosystems that depend on water inundation; (iii)
ecological processes, which underpin the functions required by plants and animals to persist in a
system (key attributes being hydrological connectivity and habitat provision); and (iv) biodiversity
and populations, where many species rely on the aquatic habitats of the Basin, have important
social and cultural values and are commonly used as indicators of the health of ecosystems. The
review focused specifically on fish and waterbird populations.
It is apparent from these reviews that there is no clear distinction between environmental, social,
cultural and economic values, with significant conceptual overlapping between economic and
social spaces in particular. A holistic articulation of Basin values could be useful in clarifying the
rationale for monitoring and in communicating priorities for management. In exploring the assets,
features and qualities of the MDB for which resilience and adaptation are sought to maintain
essential qualities in the context of drivers of change, this literature review report draws on the
diverse values identified in these reviews and in the wider scholarly and grey literature.
2.2.2 Socio-ecological systems
Fundamental to the framing of socio-ecological systems is a recognition that people are a part of
the biosphere and integrated into global and regional ecosystems. In turn, the activities of people
contribute to the shaping of the environment on which they depend for ecosystem services and
for the maintenance of wellbeing (Shi et al., 2018). Socio-ecological systems function dynamically,
with people linked to ecosystems through a range of structures, processes and feedbacks that can
be perturbed by cyclical changes, disturbances or external impacts (Lesslie et al., 2023).
The MDB is a socio-ecological system (or systems) where natural environments have multiple
strong connections to people through values such as identity, food, production, health,
livelihoods, education, culture, future options, spirituality and more. Numerous studies highlight a
need for recognition of First Nations’ values in the MDB and the inherent value and ecological
processes of nature (Jackson et al., 2023; A. J. King et al., 2022). To adequately maintain the
breadth of values that are currently considered important in the implementation of the Water Act
2007 (Cth) – and to facilitate the sustainability of the Basin – explicit consideration is needed of
the properties of the socio-ecological system, as well as their capacities to absorb and respond to
change (Biggs et al., 2021). Also required is the recognition of pluricentric world views.
Recognising pluricentric world views requires an acceptance of the multiple and diverse
knowledges required to understand the relationships between humans and other-than-humans.
Figure 3 illustrates how understanding of the linkages between social and ecological systems
differs according to world view. A pluricentric conceptualisation of socio-ecological system will be
drawn upon to inform this project’s synthesis and research on RAD, given that these concepts
illustrate multiple dimensions, perspectives and, at times, areas of contestation.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 15
FIGURE 3. REFLECTION OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS IN ALTERNATE WORLD VIEWS.
Recognition of the MDB as a complex socio-ecological system has begun to emerge in recent
literature, with this framing helping to shed light on the challenges in balancing and supporting
resilience in environmental, social and economic values. Williams (2017), for example, has
described the MDB as a complex interaction of three systems: (i) a biophysical system of rivers,
groundwater landscapes and ecosystems driven by a highly variable climate; (ii) a social and
economic system that has evolved to utilise water and other natural resources for community
development and agricultural productivity; and (iii) a complex system of engineering, policy and
governance to address the large over-extraction of water for agriculture from the rivers and
groundwater aquifers of the Basin. Across all of this complexity is climate change, with the climate
being a complex system in its own right that is affected by human activity. Climate change will
affect the Basin’s climate variability and challenge policy that aims to return stressed rivers and
groundwater systems to healthy conditions where floodplains, wetlands and riverine ecosystems
regain a significant part of their ecological and hydrological function.
Institutional arrangements provide important instruments and approaches that can influence
thinking and behaviour in social-ecological systems, including supporting resilience and achieving
ecological sustainability. Institutions can be understood as the formal and informal rules, norms
and customs of groups that structure human interactions with the environment and each other. A
systems lens on institutional analysis highlights the importance of understanding how institutions
(i) address the multiple variables, cross-scale dynamics and feedbacks within social-ecological
systems and (ii) change over time in response to the operation of drivers of change within the
system (Epstein et al., 2020). At a catchment level, there are many institutional factors that
influence and affect water in the landscape (see Figure 4).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 16
Source: Paul Martin, Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, University of New England, and Adjunct
Professor, Centre for Environmental Governance, University of Canberra.
FIGURE 4. INSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS THAT AFFECT WATER IN A CATCHMENT AND LANDSCAPE.
In exploring institutional governance for resilience in the MDB as a social-ecological system,
Martin and Holley (2024) have found, among other things, that governance arrangements need to
be better informed by the drivers of change, future shocks and contingencies that are predictable.
In particular, they stress the need for better understanding of cross-scale dynamics and the
capacity of the system to withstand change; contextualised governance that supports problem-
solving, innovation and adaptation; and enhanced risk management and contingency planning
(Martin & Holley, 2024).
A specific example of how systems approaches can enable the exploration of resilience capacities
and adaptation opportunities is provided by Lesslie and colleagues (2023) on thresholds of
concern in the MDB. This study identified key interactions between environmental and socio-
economic thresholds, where those socio-economic thresholds could shift, as well as the need for
enhanced understanding of where interventions are needed to avoid further maladaptation and
support effective adaptation pathways to climate change. In this way, a socio-ecological systems
framing can help identify where diverse values may all be met or where policies need to find
acceptable trade-offs between contested values. Systems approaches can overcome the clear
deficiencies of single-issue analyses, such as simplistic cost-benefit analyses that (i) miss
opportunities or synergies, (ii) encompass higher risks of targeted investments becoming
redundant as wider contextual factors are insufficiently considered and (iii) fail to facilitate
adequate investment in the adaptive management needed to build resilience for further change
(Bowmer, 2014).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 17
3.0 RESILIENCE IN THE MDB
Key synthesis findings
• Resilience is a contested term in the literature and its main use in this report is to facilitate
being specific about what is meant – resilience of what, to what and for whom.
• There are six resilience attributes that are key to the MDB: diversification, variability, creating
redundancy, modularity, being adaptation-oriented and exploring new strategies.
• A core part of resilience application is the inclusion of thresholds or tipping points that can
account for socio-ecological system dynamics across scales and which are important in the
MDB (e.g., saline groundwater table levels).
• Key knowledge gaps in resilience literature concern the lack of inclusion of old knowledge and
new knowledge issues (e.g., First Nations and equity), the application of resilience to real
world and inter- and intra-system dynamic operability (e.g., thresholds in human systems do
not work) and the lack of application to the MDB.
3.1 Context – resilience in a dynamic socio-ecological system
As noted in section 2.1, with social-ecological systems being recognised as complex adaptive
systems, the concept of resilience in socio-ecological systems has been revised to become
evolutionary and encompass dynamic adaptations to disturbances, including learning and
innovation within the system and transformations (Li et al., 2020). It is these processes of
disturbance and dynamic adaptation responses that are core to the resilience assessment of socio-
ecological systems. There is growing interest in this field of research given that problems such as
climate change, land-use change, biodiversity loss and over-extraction of natural resources, among
others, can exceed the capacity of key systems to absorb and adapt to change. This can entail
adverse and irreversible consequences for value maintenance and sustainability, as well as
challenges for management (Biggs et al., 2015).
A focus on resilience within socio-ecological systems foregrounds how such systems have adapted
to address dynamics and change, how the capacities for resilience are maintained or lost under
perturbations, as well as what combination of institutions and governance approaches can be
applied to enhance the resilience of the system (Lesslie et al., 2023). Social-ecological systems are
constituted relationally and have adaptive capacities, responding to disturbances via a series of
feedback mechanisms (Li et al., 2020; Preiser et al., 2018). Interactions within and between
disturbances, subsystems and inter-dependent variables produce outcomes that can affect the
function or structure of subsystems and components. Identification and analysis of these
interactions and feedback effects are essential to understanding how social-ecological systems
persist or transform, and why some are sustainable and others collapse (Ostrom, 2009).
Resilience is also important for informing the management of socio-ecological systems –
specifically informing decisions, monitoring, evaluations and governance to help prevent systems
from losing values and switching into an undesirable state or cycle (Li et al., 2020). In this way,
resilience as a concept provides an important perspective and framework for analysing social-
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 18
ecological systems in the context of their vulnerability, adaptability and sustainability. This is
crucially important with regard to complex socio-ecological systems such as water catchments, like
the MDB, where there is no single attribute, goal or shared vision that management can deliver.
3.2 Resilience – of what, to what and for whom?
Resilience is clearly a multifaceted concept within a social-ecological system with multiple scales,
domains and temporal dimensions. Hence, in understanding and assessing resilience, key
questions concern its specification; for instance, what is it about the system of interest that is
valued and for which resilience is sought? (Walker & Salt, 2012). Importantly, the complexity of
systems means that there are likely multiple states of stability, different tolerances to
perturbations within various domains – that can also shift in various contexts and timeframes –
and also areas where there are trade-offs between domain resilience (Talubo et al., 2022).
Importantly, the social systems in social and ecological systems have their own issues of politics,
power and equity (see Cote & Nightingale, 2011; MacKinnon & Derickson, 2012). For example,
economic resilience could be enhanced by increasing the availability of resources at a given time,
which may in turn not be optimal for future generations and may not build the adaptive capacities
needed to manage further dynamic change (e.g., Rose, 2007). Similarly, actions to enhance
economic resilience in one region or domain may privilege one group over another or shift
vulnerability to another group that may have less adaptive capacity (Cutter, 2016). Further
examples of the trade-offs that need to be considered in building resilience and undertaking
adaptation action are provided in section 5.5 on adaptation action, pathways and transformation.
One useful approach articulated is to ask simple clarifying questions such as resilience of what to
what? (Walker & Salt, 2012) and resilience for whom? (Lebel et al., 2006). These clarifying
questions have been extended over time to include the five W’s of resilience – who, what, when,
where, why – and the implicit trade-offs that have resulted from the need to achieve specific
resilience. TABLE 1 outlines the depth and breadth of possible focuses and provides clear practical
questions that should be addressed when considering resilience in water management.
TABLE 1. THE FIVE W’S OF RESILIENCE IN RELATION TO WATER MANAGEMENT.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Who?
Who determines what is desirable for MDB? Whose resilience is prioritised? Who is included (and
excluded) from the socio-ecological system?
What?
What perturbations should the MDB be resilient to? What networks and sectors are included in
the socio-ecological system? Is the focus on generic or specific resilience?
When?
Is the focus on rapid-onset disturbances or slow-onset changes? What is the temporal focus of the
socio-ecological system and perturbations? Is the focus on the resilience of present or future
generations?
Where?
Where are the spatial boundaries of the socio-ecological system? Is the resilience of some areas
prioritised over others? Does building resilience in some areas affect resilience elsewhere?
Why?
What is the goal of building resilience? What are the underlying motivations for building
resilience? Is the focus on process or outcome?
Source: Adapted from Meerow et al. (2016).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 19
A popular approach, and one used in other socio-ecological system studies (see, e.g., the relational
values study of the MDBA by Jackson et al., 2023), is to use an ecosystem goods and services
framework. Such a framework can help identify and distinguish the outputs that are valued, as
well as the system components (e.g., stocks of healthy soil or fish stocks from which harvested fish
are caught) that underpin the extracted values. Stocks provide the foundation of the wealth of
certain values and too heavy an extraction of the flows or products can undermine the stocks and
the system resilience. When seeking to maintain the resilience of flows, products or values, the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) also identified the need to consider the resilience of the
stocks that underpin them in the system and understand the interactions between them. The
application of values to the MDB community is currently being explored through the MDBA as part
of its Basin Condition Monitoring Program, which is examining the diversity of water-related
values held by both residents of the Basin and those living outside the Basin about the Basin (see,
e.g., the Basin Community Values project).
Beyond the question ‘resilience of what?’, is the question ‘resilience to what?’. Social-ecological
systems are dynamic and they face, and have evolved with, a range of pressures, stressors and
shocks. Again, Walker and Salt (2012) provide a useful framework that differentiates between
characteristic disturbances, large infrequent disturbances and unknown shocks. In this framing,
characteristic disturbances are expected – they are disturbances under which the system has
evolved, such as severe frosts in temperate zones or monsoonal flooding in tropical areas. A
system, therefore, has adapted to these disturbances and is resilient to them; for example, the
capacity of fire-tolerant eucalypt forests dominated by species with resprouting capabilities to
cope with and regenerate after a moderate fire. Large infrequent disturbances are rarer and of
greater magnitude, and systems typically would not have had sufficient experience with these
disturbances to have evolved coping mechanisms. Such events – for example, several one-in-100-
year weather extremes in temporal proximity – can push a system into an alternative regime.
Finally, unknown shocks cannot be predicted and cannot readily be prepared for. Clarity will be
needed in any resilience assessment as to the likely disturbances to the system and the resilience
goals for the values of interest.
This delivers the third key question, related to social systems work around the power, politics and
equity of resilience in socio-ecological systems. These issues are at the heart of why contention
still reigns over much of the resilience literature informed by Folke et al.’s (2005) seminal
definition. This definition states that resilience is the capacity of socio-ecological systems to
absorb disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the
same function, structure, identity and feedbacks (Folke et al., 2005, p. 443). Under this definition,
the ‘social’ is ignored and depoliticised language negates goals, power, conflicts, institutions and
equity (see Jerneck & Olsson, 2015; Sjöstedt, 2015). These points need to be clarified, leading to
the third broad question of ‘resilience for whom?’, which is required to fully understand resilience
in any socio-ecological system. Importantly, the ‘whom’ identified here should encompass more-
than-human interests. As noted in earlier work by Jackson et al. (2023), multiple relational values
include human and other-than-human actors. In addition, there is a clear and strong need to
include transformation as part of resilience to ensure a much greater engagement and reflection
of social dimensions of resilience (Pelling et al., 2015; Weichselgartner & Kelman, 2015).
Unfortunately, the application of these more specified resilience approaches to complex water
management systems is embryonic. With growing focus on extending models of water ecology to
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 20
include management decisions, or to consider social-economic impacts and resilience, there is an
opportunity for new knowledge from the application of resilience concepts to large and cross-
scale water basins, with a clear focus on specifying the resilience of what to what and for whom,
and further acknowledging the need to include elements of transformation.
3.3 Attributes of resilience
A number of scholars have identified various attributes by which resilience can be characterised
and assessed. In his pioneering work on resilience, for instance, Holling (1973) noted that both
diversity and connectivity are important for system resilience. Concerning ecosystems undergoing
change, Folke and colleagues (2004) reinforced the importance of diversity, finding that
maintaining both functional-group diversity and functional-response diversity is essential for the
conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. Complementing this with an exploration of
institutions, Ostrom (2005, 2009) found that institutional characteristics, notably learning
capacities, leadership and group capacities – including trust, entrepreneurialism and respect – can
positively enable institutional resilience. With a wider focus on social-ecological systems, Walker
and colleagues (2006) developed a series of attributes of resilient systems that spanned (i)
adaptability (including functional diversity, response diversity, redundancy, social capacity
including leadership, social networks, trust, innovation and skills); (ii) linkages; (iii) institutions for
self-determination; (iv) capital reserves (natural, social, financial, infrastructure); and (v) learning,
memory and adaptive co-management. These culminated in Walker and Salt (2012) referring to
attributes of diversity, ecological variability and modularity, and acknowledging slow variables,
tight feedbacks, social capital, innovation and overlaps in governance and ecosystem services,
along with a range of other factors (e.g., fairness and equity, humility, learning, education, myths
and democratic station).
With a goal to help system stakeholders make practical use of resilience concepts in tangible
applications, Kerner and Thomas (2014) synthesised and categorised the resilience attributes of
social-ecological systems. They organised resilience attributes into three categories: stability,
adaptive capacity and readiness. This work kickstarted a resurgence in becoming specific about the
boundary object ‘resilience’, which had become ‘all things to all people’. Hoekstra et al. (2018), for
instance, created a framework that lists the resilience attributes used throughout the literature
and then compared them to those attributes used in control system management. TABLE 2
illustrates that applying a focus of resilience at a conceptual level or ‘resilience thinking’ (as
termed by some) on a socio-ecological system highlights and promotes different system
characteristics to those that a control approach would use with complex systems. For example, an
engineering control approach would prioritise the optimisation of resources and the reduction of
variability as success, while a resilience approach would consider creating redundancy and valuing
modularity and variability as success. Here we only focus on the resilience attributes.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 21
TABLE 2. PREFERRED SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES IN CONTROL AND RESILIENCE RATIONALES.
Source: Hoekstra et al. (2018, p. 6).
There are six resilience system attributes identified throughout the review that focus on diversity,
variability, exploration and adaptation-oriented learning within the system. For instance, the
diversification of a socio-ecological system is fundamental for coping with shocks and avoiding
lock-ins in undesirable states, with diversification referring to species, people, strategies,
behaviours, organisations, institutions, etc. (see Aerts et al., 2008; Van den Bergh, 2008; Walker &
Salt, 2006). A resilience rationale also values variability and the dynamics of the socio-ecological
system, seeing both natural and social variability as essential when a system faces shocks, given
that some parts will be vulnerable or adaptive. This is ‘living with’ dynamics and ensuring
institutions are fit for purpose (see A. King, 1995). Connected with variability is the concept of
redundancy in the socio-ecological system or reserves, meaning the presence of a buffer capacity
or resources to cope with change and surprise. In a socio-ecological system, this may relate to
multiple stocks of capital (i.e., social, natural, physical and human) – as suggested by Walker et al.
(2010) in their assessment of resilience in the Goulburn Broken Catchment – or to actual identical
system elements supported in the socio-ecological system. Although loosely connected and highly
independent subsystems or a modular socio-ecological system are desired in resilience because
they can slow down or stop catastrophic shocks, it is a balance. There is a need for systems to
connect to avoid patterns of ‘islands’ of stagnation, self-reinforcement and a lack of learning
(Walker et al., 2004). This modularity extends across scales, purpose and time, as well as within
and between components of the system (i.e., within ecological or social as well as across both).
Resilience and adaptive capacity are used interchangeably in socio-ecological system literature,
making it a core system attribute. This attribute enables flexibility, self-organisation and
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 22
adaptation in the face of change or shocks. Elements include stakeholder collaboration, shared
knowledge and learning networks, as well as feedback loops related to the local context and place
of interest (Plummer et al., 2012). Finally, where the intent of applying resilience is to inform
policy making, an important attribute is to be exploring new strategies; that is, continually
learning, evolving and developing alternatives. Crucially, resilience must be open to
transformability, meaning the capacity of people to create a fundamentally new social-ecological
system when ecological, political, social or economic conditions make the existing system
untenable (Walker et al., 2004).
Derived from across the socio-ecological system, these six attributes provide insight for resilience.
However, when compared with more stringent control approaches, it is clear that there is a
significant difference in what is valued and how the socio-ecological system would be managed
according to each perspective (Hoekstra et al., 2018). For this review, we should also highlight that
resilience attributes are found throughout all systems, as are control attributes – it is just that they
take different perspectives and are required for different conditions. For example, water
management using dams prioritises a control approach and requires optimised and performance-
oriented delivery. Conversely, water management that requires wetland wetting and rewetting, is
adaptation-oriented and explores new strategies after initial approaches are trialled, may deliver a
resilience approach through its diversification of approaches. This is particularly the case when
initial strategies focus on water quantity issues (i.e., when to deliver how much water) but initial
trials show that water quality is problematic (see, e.g., Figure 5).
Source: Weise et al. (2020, p. 453).
FIGURE 5. MEASURES TO SAFEGUARD THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF WATER PURIFICATION ACROSS DIFFERENT TIME
HORIZONS, WHERE THE TIME HORIZON OF INTEREST DETERMINES THE DECISION CONTEXT.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 23
In the MDB, there is a growing body of literature that takes a socio-ecological system resilience
approach (e.g., Marshall & Lobry de Bruyn, 2021). However, few studies have sought to examine
entire social-ecological systems, with many studies typically seeking to examine one specific
aspect or domain within social-ecological systems, such as human or community resilience (see,
e.g., Schirmer & Mylek, 2020), economic resilience (see Dinh & Pearson, 2015) or ecological
resilience (see Thompson et al., 2024). Studies may also consider resilience in the context of a
specific event, such as drought (see Gonzalez et al., 2020), water scarcity (see Asghari et al., 2021)
or climate change (see Samnakay et al., 2024). These approaches all contribute insights on parts of
the system, but further work is needed to link key parts of the system together and show the
interplay and dynamism of the system as a whole. This whole socio-ecological system approach is
critically important for the MDB, given that issues can cross both temporal and geographical scales
(i.e., involving both local and Basin scales and northern and southern Basin priorities).
Resilience has also had a large part to play in literature around delivering long-term global
priorities such as sustainability and ‘safe operating’ spaces for humanity and the more-than-
human. This moves us from specified resilience, which refers to the resilience of a specified part of
the system to identified disruptions, into general resilience, which refers to the capacity of a
system to withstand all hazards, including novel and unforeseen ones, while continuing to provide
essential functions (Walker et al., 2004). The attributes listed here are the same, no matter the
scale or application. Walker and Salt (2012), for instance, identify the attributes of general
resilience as diversity, modularity, the tightness of feedbacks, openness, reserves and high levels
of all types of capitals (natural, built, social, human, financial). Collectively, the existence of these
attributes supports general resilience, enabling the system to respond quickly and effectively to
shocks, have the reserves and resources needed to effectively increase the safe space for
operating and keep options open.
In pragmatically tying together resilience time and place horizons and decision contexts, Weise et
al. (2020) constructed a framework that unpacks these as related to uncertainty, urgency of
intervention and the spread between short-term (i.e., reactive) and longer-term priorities (i.e.,
provident) in water purification. Here we can see that dealing with short-term, reactive issues
results in more specific requirements and higher alignments with some control attributes. Longer
time horizon (provident) priorities, such as resolution, deal with cross-scale, high uncertainty
issues that are more strongly aligned to resilience attributes. These points reinforce that no matter
the focus scale within a single socio-ecological system, the application of resilience attributes to
management remains context specific.
3.4 Critical dynamics and thresholds of change
As outlined, most literature on resilience is specified, referring to the resilience of some part of the
social-ecological system to particular kinds of disturbance. A question of key importance in
specified resilience is whether a disturbance could push a system over a threshold or tipping point
to another state wherein it would function in a different way with values or capacities being
diminished or lost (Walker et al., 2006). Importantly, within a system, multiple thresholds can
exist, operate at various scales and interact with each other in ways that may not be fully
predictable where knowledge is incomplete. The ecological concept of thresholds is extended into
the social resilience space and, although this exact terminology is awkward, it highlights a key
issue for social systems – that, when transformation happens, it encompasses a combination of
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 24
power, agency and social capital across multiple scales and system levels (Berkes & Ross, 2016;
Milkoreit et al., 2018). This terminology is increasingly used with regard to general resilience; for
instance, the world tipping into decarbonising or more sustainable practices (see Olsson & Moore,
2024; Scown et al., 2023).
For example, a resilience study of the Goulburn Broken Catchment identified ten thresholds and
alternative regimes across biophysical, economic and social domains across three geographical
scales (Walker et al., 2009). Figure 6 shows these ten thresholds or tipping points, with one of
these thresholds relating to groundwater, which, when it rises in response to tree clearing, means
the soil can be affected by salinity and plant growth then drops steeply. This threshold is a concern
because it is effectively irreversible. Importantly, we can see that these thresholds for change are
related to each other – they interact in ways that are categorised here, but which do not show
hitherto unknown relationships. Such points reinforce the importance of dynamics and thresholds
of change in resilience. This case highlights that considering the MDB as a socio-ecological system
can become very complicated, very quickly. For example, 22 catchments, each with at least ten
thresholds of change, would result in 220 catchment thresholds, each of which would further
show downstream implications of upstream dynamics. In the instance of Figure 6, dynamics and
thresholds were derived from interviews and existing environmental modelling of the catchment.
FIGURE 6. TEN SLOW VARIABLES WITH IDENTIFIED THRESHOLDS IN THE PANARCHY THAT CONSTITUTES THE GOULBURN
BROKEN REGION.
Note: The arrows between boxes indicate possible cascading threshold effects (from Walker et al., 2009).
The majority of thresholds work across the MDB has occurred within separate domains of
economics, social or environmental. However, each domain has identified thresholds or tipping
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 25
points that can occur. Table 3 provides a summary of some key papers and the environmental
thresholds they have identified, clarifying that different components of a system – for instance,
red gum versus black box – have different thresholds (e.g., as related to environmental watering).
Importantly for the dynamics of the socio-ecological system and thresholds of change, recent work
by Lesslie et al. (2023) has highlighted that ecological thresholds are perceived as being fixed and
rigid, with the social being more flexible in application – especially when social thresholds have a
strong influence on the management of and policy related to ecological systems.
TABLE 3. EXAMPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE THRESHOLDS IN RELATION TO WATER
MANAGEMENT*.
ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD
REFERENCE
Healthy red gum forests that support multi-age communities require
inundation every 1–3 years
Catelotti et al. (2015)
Black box forests require flood inundation every 3–7 years to maintain health
and support recruitment
CSIRO (2024)
A. J. King et al. (2022)
Coolabah forests require flood inundation every 10–20 years to maintain health
and support recruitment
CSIRO (2024)
A. J. King et al. (2022)
Hydrological connectivity and in-channel flow pulses are critical for many short-
lived fish species that depend on wetlands for nursery areas, spawning grounds
or food resources such as the Murray hardyhead and olive perchlet
MDBA (2020a)
Longer-lived specialist fish face spawning and recruitment thresholds with
changes in flow conditions or floodplain habitats
A. J. King et al. (2022)
Blackwater events cause mass fish kills
Green and Moggridge
(2021)
Many waterbird species are dependent on flooding events for the maintenance
of nesting sites and to trigger breeding events and support recruitment,
particularly for colonially breeding waterbirds
A. J. King et al. (2022)
Brandis et al. (2018)
Bino et al. (2020)
* We expect this table to be updated as more single threshold MDB scale attributes are uncovered.
Drought is a key natural and characteristic disturbance that can challenge the resilience of the
MDB and has been the subject of several studies. In combination with poor farming practices,
drought can adversely affect agricultural economic and community resilience. At the same time,
farmers have a variety of tools at their disposal to lessen the impacts of water scarcity and climate
variability, including (for some) the capacity of water trading to provide some resilience to higher
value horticultural crops (arising from greater water allocation purchasing power; Wheeler et al.,
2023). Following experience from water scarcity conditions and water recovery initiatives,
researchers have identified characteristics of more resilient communities to drought, including
those of a larger population size, increased diversity in industry and regional economy, less
dependence on irrigated agriculture, as well as locational factors (EBC et al., 2011). As outlined in
Pearson and Dare (2021), on-farm resilience to water scarcity (either driven by environmental or
policy conditions) takes various forms from adaptation to transformation.
Similarly, the recent review of relational values in the MDB (Jackson et al., 2023) finds that farming
businesses most affected by drought share three factors: (i) lower levels of business management
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 26
skills, (ii) lower levels of pre-drought preparedness during non-drought periods and (iii) slower
responses when the intensity of drought increases. The Sefton Report (Sefton et al., 2019) also
notes a positive relationship between economic diversity and regional and community wellbeing,
reinforcing the strong link between resilience attributes and higher desirable outcomes from MDB.
Context is also important for assessing social and community resilience, including the way
historical factors influence current conditions (Schirmer et al., 2019). The University of Canberra
Regional Wellbeing Survey has found, for instance, that context matters for specified socio-
cultural resilience, with the top issues for wellbeing identified as the existence of good social
connections and networks; good community facilities, services and activities; and good
governance. Included in the list of issues perceived to decrease community – and individual –
wellbeing were poor quality services and infrastructure, poor governance, lack of social
connection, as well as environmental factors such as drought and poor farming conditions
(Schirmer et al., 2019).
With regard to environmental values, drought is also clearly identified as a disturbance that can
lead to severe negative impacts on the resilience of riparian vegetation communities (including
keystone plant species such as river red gum and black box), Basin habitats (particularly
floodplains and wetlands) and native animal populations (including waterbirds and native fish), as
well as on the hydrological connectivity of the Basin (Bino et al., 2021; Capon et al., 2016; A. J. King
et al., 2022; Sheldon et al., 2022). It is clear in these studies that severe climate or weather
extremes, in combination with other stressors on environmental values, could see adverse
threshold effects and a loss of values.
River regulation and management over historic timeframes have supported the growth of valuable
irrigation-based industries, with much of the preceding century prioritising rapid water resource
development and the maximisation of water use for economic objectives (Zhou et al., 2015).
However, major changes in river flow regulation have had mixed consequences for value resilience
across domains. The extensive interruption of natural river flow patterns has adversely affected
environmental values, such as waterbird breeding, and riparian and floodplain vegetation
communities (A. J. King et al., 2022). Given that many Basin aquatic species and waterbirds have
evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response to the natural flow regimes of the Basin,
the viability of many of these populations is dependent on the maintenance of natural patterns of
longitudinal and lateral connectivity (A. J. King et al., 2022, p. 50).
Social researchers have also found that the value distribution of water from river governance in
the MDB has been uneven. Studies report perceptions of winners and losers, with one (see, e.g.,
Alston & Whittenbury, 2011) framing the Water Act 2007 (Cth) as an instrument that has failed to
build the local capacity or community resilience needed to constructively adapt to change.
Further, the underpinning economic rationalist paradigm of water governance in the Basin, with
its utilitarian values, has also marginalised First Nations peoples’ rights and interests, perpetuating
dispossession and reproducing substantive power asymmetries (Hartwig et al., 2022; Jackson et
al., 2023). Finally, with regard to recent governance objectives – and despite perceptions in some
MDB communities that allocating water entitlements to environmental use impacts negatively on
human communities – high quality studies using more comprehensive data and realistic modelling
find irrigated farming and rural communities are generally resilient to the impacts of water
recovery, with only small impacts on employment and GDP (Wheeler et al., 2023).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 27
Resilience is often used as a system attribute – for instance, a ‘resilient system’ – with such
framing creating a normative value for resilience that is ‘good’. However, such framing has also
created a growing literature of undesirable resilience, lock-ins, maladaptation or social traps (see
Dornelles et al., 2020 for a review). This framing of resilience as a desirable attribute of the system
rather than as a wider conceptual way of thinking, creates confusion in operation. For example,
the Sefton Report (Sefton et al., 2019) suggests a positive relationship between economic base
diversity and regional wellbeing, with more diverse economies and livelihoods offering
communities greater options for adapting to reduced water availability or other changes to the
natural resource base. The authors of a study of the Goulburn Broken, as outlined earlier, identify
that resilience could be increased by (i) building and deploying human and social capital (including
political influence), (ii) fostering experimentation and learning, (iii) investing in response diversity
and reserves of resources, (iv) maintaining or increasing options, and (v) increasing spatial
heterogeneity and ecological connectivity (Walker et al., 2009). Where human capital is individual,
people-specific skills and knowledge and social capital relate to the connections, trust and
reciprocity between people (see, e.g., Jackson et al., 2023). These authors further reflect on
mechanisms to enhance wider regional resilience and identify the importance of incentives,
including for improving off-farm water quality, conserving wetlands and maintaining on-farm
biodiversity. Further information on human and social attributes of resilience in the MDB context,
see section 5.4 on adaptive capacity.
Complementary to this, the recent review of environmental values in the Basin (A. J. King et al.,
2022) stresses the importance of a strong future focus on environmental water recovery for the
health of the Basin’s hydrological connectivity and the resilience of its ecosystems and
biodiversity. Finally, First Nations peoples have their own ideas as to what constitutes wellbeing
and resilience. Therefore, there is a need for research to better accommodate different
understandings of wellbeing and resilience across socio-cultural groups even before we look to
include ecological values (Jackson et al., 2023).
3.5 Knowledge gaps
There are large knowledge gaps in resilience or, taking a resilience approach, these gaps are
evolving and inherent. At the wider literature scale, we identify three broad knowledge gaps:
• Application or operationalisation. Because most resilience work is conceptual with
separate case studies, more application of resilience across scales and multiple system
components is needed to truly identify areas of usefulness in application or redundancy in
conceptualising. For example, Goulburn Broken Catchment work on thresholds and
dynamics.
• Incorporating old and new knowledges. It is important to incorporate First Nations
knowledge (see, e.g., Copes-Gerbitz et al., 2021) as well as human rights, equity, power,
etc. (see, e.g., Calderón-Contreras & White, 2020; Matin et al., 2018).
• Inter- and intra-system operability. A challenge for resilience to overcome is the continued
application of in-system terms to wider system issues – for instance, ‘human resilience’ to
socio-ecological system resilience or ‘thresholds of change’ to human systems and the
dynamic systems characteristics that emerge. Indicators of human resilience will not
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 28
account for environmental conditions, and vice versa, resulting in the MDBA requiring
clarity on what inter- and intra-system resilience is of concern and measured in operability.
Although these gaps in literature hinder the application of resilience to the MDB, there are more
localised knowledge gaps. Although there is a growing focus on resilience in the MDB, there
remains a relatively small of body of research on this topic, particularly with regard to socio-
cultural resilience. Not only are there substantial gaps in the research on specified resilience to
expected disturbances, but, as reported in the Sefton Report (Sefton et al., 2019), there is little
understanding of the things Basin residents value most for their wellbeing and resilience. Indeed,
almost no information is available on the aspirations, visions and objectives of Basin communities,
or on the self-rated challenges being experienced (Jackson et al., 2023, p. 40). This is surprising
given that the sustainability of land and water use is a critical challenge facing the Basin and Basin
residents (Jackson et al., 2023). However, with recent work by the MDBA on the Social and
Economic Conditions Report (2022) and the upcoming focus on community values, this information
is dynamic and gaps are increasingly being addressed.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 29
4.0 DRIVERS OF CHANGE IN THE MDB
Key synthesis findings
• Understanding the drivers of change is important for the effective management of complex
socio-ecological systems. Drivers of change can affect the condition of important values and
can be factors external to those values. Attributing drivers of change to observed and potential
changes in condition is essential for the design and implementation of effective interventions
to realise and maintain values.
• The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provides a useful framework to understand direct and
indirect drivers of change and their implications for ecosystem services and human wellbeing.
• There are multiple drivers of change operating in the MDB that affect the environmental,
social, cultural and economic values of the Basin. Climate change is a significant driver of
change affecting many values.
• Multiple knowledge gaps on drivers of change make it difficult to understand the relative
significance of drivers and attribute changes to particular drivers.
4.1 The framework for drivers of change
The framework for drivers of change used most widely globally is the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2003). This foregrounded drivers of change in its conceptual framework and
assessment of global ecosystems, defining a driver as any natural or human-induced factor that
directly or indirectly causes a change in an ecosystem. Whereas a direct driver can be understood
as unequivocally influencing ecosystem processes, an indirect driver operates more diffusely by
altering one or more direct drivers. Categories of indirect drivers described in the Assessment
include demographic, economic and technological changes, with direct drivers including climate
change, land conversion, invasive species and excessive plant nutrient loading.
Understanding how different drivers operate and the magnitude of resulting change is important
for any assessment. For instance, the doubling of the global human population in the 40 years
leading to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) meant global economic activity increased
nearly sevenfold between 1950 and 2000, increasing demand for natural resources. Major
advances in the application of science and technology also underpinned rapid growth in
production – for example, in food yield per hectare – as well as giving rise to unintended effects,
such as ecosystem degradation. These factors provide important framing for the operation of
indirect drivers. Socio-political drivers, which influence decision-making, also changed significantly
in the last half of the twentieth century, with observed changes including a rise in democracies,
increases in the education and role of women and a rise in civil society, such as in the involvement
of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
These indirect drivers have influenced the activity of direct drivers, leading, in turn, to substantial
ecosystem change. Economic activity and the application of new technologies have, for example,
underpinned an increased supply of services, such as food, timber and fibre. These same factors
have also underpinned the conversion of natural systems into production systems, with cropped
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 30
areas covering 30% of the Earth’s surface, sever forest loss in some regions and the degradation of
around 10% of the drylands and arid zones of the world. Improved marine fishing technology has
made it possible to extract considerable fish biomass from ecosystems, with thresholds of fish
removal likely already reached or exceeded in some places. In freshwater ecosystems, important
direct drivers of change in the last half of the twentieth century include modification of water
regimes and increased introductions of invasive species and pollution, particularly high levels of
nutrient loading. Also driven by economic activity, climate change has had a measurable impact on
ecosystems in the last century.
Importantly, as found in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, changes in ecosystem services are
typically caused by multiple, interacting drivers that work over time and at different scales.
Changes in ecosystem services can also, through feedback, alter drivers. For example, such
changes may give rise to new opportunities for institutions and resource management approaches
to reduce measured and anticipated resource degradation.
The conceptual framework for drivers of change developed for the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2003) informs this project (see Figure 7).
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003).
FIGURE 7. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT
Figure 7 illustrates the linkages between different drivers, how they relate to ecosystem services
and human wellbeing and shows, through the wedges across the arrows, where strategies and
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 31
interventions are possible. Importantly, it makes clear that most activity to support human
wellbeing directly influences only the indirect drivers of change but is, in turn, influenced by all
other elements of the conceptual framework.
This conceptual framing has been reconceptualised in multiple studies to inform understanding of
drivers of change. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), for example, has
drawn on and refined the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment drivers of change conceptual
framework in various studies to identify the drivers of change for the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park. For the purposes of the Reef 2050 draft Cumulative Impact Management and Net Benefit
policies and the Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program, it is proposed to adopt
six drivers of change for the Great Barrier Reef system: climate change, population growth,
economic growth, technological developments, societal attitudes and governance systems
(GBRMPA, 2024). The GBRMPA has then identified key pressures and impacts as the change
mechanisms (e.g., processes or activities) that result from drivers, and which are consistently
defined to align with the Outlook and the Strategic Assessment reports. Such an approach would
appear appropriate for consideration by the MDBA.
4.2 An overview of factors that are driving change in the MDB
There is a considerable body of research and analysis (including in grey literature) that, albeit
fragmented, has identified factors that lead to change in the MDB as a socio-ecological system. For
tens of thousands of years, First Nations people thrived in the ecosystems supported by the rivers
and wetlands of the Basin (Clarkson et al., 2017). Economic and resource development,
particularly for irrigated industry, have in more recent decades led to widespread changes in MDB
ecosystems (Bureau of Rural Science, 2004; Chen et al., 2020). Land-use change from the clearing
of native vegetation has been extensive over the last 150 years and has contributed to salinity and
water quality problems in the Basin (Haron & Dragovich, 2010; Wheeler et al., 2023). The
substantial expansion of irrigation that occurred in the post-World War II period – and that was
coincident with long intervals of a positive rainfall anomaly – was enabled by big increases in
water extraction and alterations of natural water flows (Williams, 2017). Figure 8 illustrates the
growth in water diversions from the late 1950s (around 4,000 GL/year) to 1990 (more than 11,000
GL/year).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 32
Source: Williams (2017).
FIGURE 8: GROWTH IN WATER USE IN THE MURRAY–DARLING BASIN SINCE 1920.
The intensification of agricultural practices over this period has enabled the region to become the
most significant in Australia in terms of its value of production, as well as the provider of
important community, recreational, tourism and water market economic values (Wheeler et al.,
2023). It is also clear that these drivers of ecosystem change for development purposes have
adversely affected environmental values in multiple parts of the Basin (King et al., 2022).
4.2.1 Drivers of change to economic values
The economic values of the MDB (see section 2.2.1) are themselves subject to multiple and
ongoing drivers of change. Changes in commodity and input prices, climate variability and
technology change (e.g., from genetic advances) have led to significant structural changes and
shifts in agricultural practices and water demand over recent decades (Wheeler et al., 2023). For
Australian agriculture, and relevant to the MDB, CSIRO (2024) identified 14 drivers of change
across five areas: (i) global context, (ii) environment and climate, (iii) land and water, (iv)
technology and innovation, and (v) market and trade access. These drivers are interacting and
escalating risks to the long-term productivity, resilience and sustainability of the agriculture sector.
In the MDB, the establishment of a water market in conjunction with these drivers has led to
water moving to higher value agricultural commodities or to more efficient practices, including a
shift from broadacre farming and irrigated pasture to horticulture, and a reduction in the numbers
of farmers in the region (Goesch et al., 2020; National Water Commission, 2012; Wheeler et al.,
2023). In the southern Basin, an increase in the demand for water for cotton and almonds has
been experienced, and a decrease in demand for rice, dairy pastures and grapevines. For certain
crops the extent of change has been dramatic. Planted almonds increased from 3,500 hectares in
2000 to around 45,000 hectares in 2018, leading to higher water demand in the southern Basin,
with implications for the way that water is delivered downstream and over time (MDBA, 2024).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 33
The water market, in turn, faces multiple drivers of change from supply factors, demand factors,
and water pricing and trade flows, with an ABARES report on market trends (2002–03 to 2018–19)
identifying rainfall patterns, changes in demand and inter-regional trade mechanisms as having
the greatest influence during that period (Goesch et al., 2020).
The availability of water strongly influences the value of MDB economic values, such as irrigated
production, where broadacre crops such as rice and pasture have been found to contract most in
times of drought (Wheeler et al., 2023). Climate is a key determinant of water availability and in a
changing climate there are likely to be more frequent droughts and floods that also affect
community economic values. Schirmer and Mylek (2020), for example, found that drought
affected Basin communities experience changes in unemployment rates, financial distress and
labour force participation. Flooding, drought and climate change are also key risks to the
recreational, fishing and tourism economic values of the MDB (Wheeler et al., 2023).
Government investment also seeks to shape the socio-economic outcomes in the MDB, including
with an aim to offset potential negative impacts from water recovery on rural and regional MDB
communities. Water recovery programs have been in operation since 2007 and have supported
the buyback of around 1,100GL of water between 2008 and 2012. Of note, the gross value of
agricultural commodities produced in the MDB as a whole – and of irrigated agricultural
production in particular – increased in aggregate from 2005 to 2015 and, while variable, has
remained at a high level since then (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2022).
Nevertheless, although there is no high quality, longitudinal assessment of the outcomes of water
recovery on agricultural economic values to date, the issue is highly contentious, with vocal
opponents in the rural sector associating the MDB Plan and water recovery with rural decline
(Wheeler et al., 2023). In analysing the effects of water recovery in the MDB, Whittle et al. (2020)
noted that the effects of different drivers can be complex and difficult to observe. This is
particularly the case because the period of key water recovery activity coincided with a drying
climate, changes in market conditions, technology developments and structural changes in
regional Australia.
In addition, a detailed review of studies on the effects of water recovery conducted by Wheeler
and colleagues (2023) found that those that identify large economic impacts tend to be of lower
quality. These studies are typically not peer reviewed and use simplistic input–output models that
incorrectly assume a proportionate reduction in water equated to an equivalent proportionate
reduction in agricultural output. These simple models align poorly with the complexities of
practice and exclude other key factors driving productivity, the adaptability of farmers, the range
of benefits to farmers and regions from the buyback – such as funding and enhanced resilience –
as well as the full social costs of irrigation infrastructure (Wheeler et al., 2023).
More broadly, it is clear that a land-use transition is underway in the MDB. Changes in the
structure of the wider economy in Australia, and globally, have led to the share of GDP from
agriculture declining from around 20% in the 1950s to less than 3% now (Sefton et al., 2020). This
is reflected in the number of farmers in the MDB, which has declined since the 1970s (see Figure
9), directly in alignment with declining terms of trade (Wheeler et al., 2023). Simultaneously, rural
areas in Australia, including the MDB, are becoming increasingly multifunctional with consumption
and conservation values influencing the character of regions, as well as more diversified
production values (Groth et al., 2017). Amenity values, in particular, have increased in significance,
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 34
with tourism, lifestyle and recreation now recognised as factors that can drive landscape change
(e.g., Howard, 2008).
Source: Wheeler et al. (2023, p. 12).
FIGURE 9. FARMER NUMBERS AND TERMS OF TRADE IN THE MDB, 1971–2021.
Further summary information on the factors affecting other direct, indirect and non-use economic
values in the MDB can be found in Wheeler et al. (2023).
4.2.2 Drivers of change to social and cultural values
Social researchers are also identifying multiple factors that are leading to change in the MDB and
affecting the Basin’s social and cultural values. These include technology changes and economic
diversification, emergent landscape management instruments, changing demographics and
populations in rural communities, and changes in awareness and attitudes towards institutions
and the environment (Jackson et al., 2023). It can be noted that social researchers often highlight
some of the same drivers as economic researchers, revealing the interlinked nature of social and
economic factors in any system. In a major review of the literature on relational values of the MDB
– which can be understood as the principles, preferences and virtues associated with individual
and collective relationships to nature (Chan et al., 2016) – Jackson and colleagues (2023) identified
11 drivers of socio-cultural change in the MDB. These are outlined in Table 4.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 35
TABLE 4. DRIVERS OF SOCIO-CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE MDB.
DRIVERS OF CHANGE
Population change (size, location, composition) through regional migration as well as fertility rates of resident
communities (e.g., growth in the Indigenous population)
Expectation of diversity and inclusion in decision-making
Appreciation of interconnections between healthy waterways and healthy people and communities
Interest in and support for Aboriginal water rights and cultural flows
Neoliberal marketisation and the roll-back of the state
Siloed approach to land and water management, regional development and industry policy
(Mis)trust in institutions and experts
Diversification of instruments to shape post-industrial landscape (Payments for Environmental Services: biodiversity
and carbon credits, stewardship, rights for rivers)
Land-use and economic diversification leading to potential water use changes (e.g., amenity, tourism, hobby farms,
renewable energy, Payments for Environmental Services)
Service delivery (health, education, technology, banking etc) in regions
Technological innovation – within agriculture and in other sectors
Source: Jackson et al. (2023, p. 74).
Importantly, changes in social values in the MDB are not uniformly distributed. Some communities
have experienced a decline in wellbeing, in part due to the wider economic changes identified
above. Analysing survey data from 2013–20, Schirmer and Mylek (2020) found that although inner
regional communities in the Basin have similar socio-economic conditions to similar communities
outside the Basin, outer regional and remote and very remote communities are relatively more
vulnerable. These communities are typically in areas with smaller populations, less economic
diversification and a high dependency on agriculture and irrigation spend per capita (Schirmer &
Mylek, 2020). The authors further identified a range of causes as explanatory factors for this
decline in wellbeing, including the migration of jobs and workers into larger regional centres and
cities, consolidation of smaller farms into larger enterprises, changes in commodity prices and the
effects of climate change (Schirmer & Mylek, 2020). Further information on community
vulnerability and adaptive capacity can be found in section 5.4.
Although the social implications of water reforms on Basin communities has been found to be
varied, a number of studies have emphasised that the centralisation and embedded prioritisation
of benefits to those with more economic power have created distance between government
decision-makers and affected communities, exacerbating tensions between upstream and
downstream communities and undermining relational capital (Alston et al., 2016; Gross &
Dumaresq, 2014; Lukasiewicz & Baldwin, 2017). In these ways, the implementation approach of
the water reforms may have been driving unintended consequences for social values of equity in
governance, justice and good social relations (e.g., Hartwig et al., 2022; Jackson et al., 2019, 2023;
Wheeler et al., 2017). Several studies have found, for example, that current governance
arrangements have created winners and losers, with those having prior use rights and
investments, and greater economic influence, gaining more from the policy interventions,
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 36
including at the expense of the environment (Bell, 2022; Lukasiewicz, 2014; Marshall & Alexandra,
2016).
More broadly, people have diverse and complex relationships with ecosystems and waterways,
and varied health and wellbeing, sustainability, social capital and spirituality values arise from this
interconnectedness. However, the literature in this area typically explores local cases in depth,
from which it is difficult to generalise (Jackson et al., 2023). Growth in the Landcare movement
since the late 1990s may reflect a shift towards normalising responsibility for the environment and
improving sustainability outcomes from land and water management, but other studies found
tensions or conflicts between stewardship and economic interests (Cocklin et al., 2006). The
tension within the living in harmony with nature value is revealed in a study by Mendham and
Curtis (2018), where communities were committed to maintaining the health of the Gunbower
Island Forest Ramsar site but opposed government initiatives to secure environmental water.
First Nations people have strong connections to waterways, landscapes, and species,
predominantly conceptualised with humans considered part of an ecological system. These
connections are explored in the literature for some First Nations groups in the MDB (e.g., Ellis et
al., 2022; Jackson et al., 2023; McLean et al., 2018). Of note, First Nations knowledge and world
views have but rarely been used or accessed in non-First Nations water management practices
(Green & Moggridge, 2021). Although many First Nations cultural practices were subsumed within
state water control, persistence by communities and legislative change, such as through the
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), are allowing some recognition of the multiple First Nations’ cultural
values of water in the Basin. For example, the 18-year struggle by the Barkandji and Malyangapa
people in the vicinity of Menindee Lakes finally led to native title rights protecting activities such
as ceremonies, the preparation of food or bush medicines, the manufacture of artefacts and the
teaching of traditional laws, customs and practices such as fishing (Jackson & Head, 2020).
The concept of cultural flows is now growing in recognition in the literature, and can be
understood as:
‘Cultural flows’ are water entitlements that are legally and beneficially owned by the
Nations of a sufficient and adequate quantity and quality to improve the spiritual, cultural,
natural, environmental, social and economic conditions of those Nations. (Murray Lower
Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, 2007)
One key focus of the literature on cultural flows addresses the marginalisation of First Nations
peoples with regard to water holdings. For example, the First Nations people in the MDB in New
South Wales comprise 9.3% of the population but own only 0.22% of water holdings (Hartwig et
al., 2022). Other relevant literature links cultural flows to governance values, including land access
and ownership, and issues of water justice (Hartwig et al., 2022; Hemming et al., 2019; Jackson et
al., 2023). Further information on other drivers of change relevant to social, cultural and relational
values can be found in Jackson et al. (2023).
4.2.3 Drivers of change to environmental values
Powerful drivers of change have significantly affected the health and functioning of a range of
wetland and floodplain ecosystems in the MDB (A. J. King et al., 2022). The national State of the
Environment report documents the environmental and wellbeing effects from threats to surface
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 37
and groundwater, including to the MDB, and identifies key pressures from climate change,
population and industry on inland waters (Green & Moggridge, 2021). Many environmental values
in the MDB are in decline, with A. J. King and colleagues (2022) identifying altered flow regimes
and inadequate hydrological connectivity as the major causes of these declines.
The regulation of water flows and barriers to fish movement in the MDB are central to disruption
of the natural water regime triggers for fish spawning and have contributed to the finding that
native fish make up only 20% of the total catch in the regulated rivers (Gehrke & Harris, 2001;
Growns, 2008). For example, from 1940–45 to 1987–92, Macquarie perch disappeared, and silver
perch and Murray cod numbers declined by around 95% in the Murray River near Euston (MDBA,
2020a). This is consistent with the findings of the SRAs in 2008 and 2012, which found the overall
condition for fish index scores for the majority of valleys in the MDB to be poor, very poor and
extremely poor (P. Davies et al., 2008, 2012). It is noted later in this section that governance
mechanisms, notably implementation of the Basin Plan, can contribute to address these poor
conditions.
Water quality problems, which often reflect larger-scale ecosystem processes or changes – such as
from the clearing of native vegetation, barriers to hydro-connectivity and large-scale extractions –
also need careful management in the MDB. There has been a recent increase in the number of
algal blooms in the Basin, which can be triggered by warmer temperatures, low flow conditions
and increased nutrient inputs, with five mega-blooms since 2008 compared with four mega-
blooms in the preceding 65 years (Joehnk et al., 2021). Settlement patterns have also influenced
levels of erosion and suspended sediment in the MDB, although the heterogeneity of the Basin
and the interruptions to hydrological flow and sediment transport make generalisations difficult.
Nevertheless, a CSIRO study that modelled sediment transport found that 63% of rivers in the
MDB are predicted to have suspended sediment loads in excess of 20 times natural levels and 18%
of rivers are predicted to have loads greater than 100 times natural levels, particularly in tributary
river networks in upland areas above distributaries and reservoirs (DeRose et al., 2003).
More broadly, several processes challenge habitat condition and provision in the MDB. Historical
vegetation clearing has changed floodplain and wetland habitats, and the more recent increase in
irrigated agriculture since the 1950s has underpinned large water extractions from river channels
and led to a reduction in habitat complexity. Water resource development means that cease to
flow periods now occur 40% of the time, compared with 1% under natural conditions prior to river
regulation (CSIRO, 2008). Similarly, natural flooding events are much less frequent now, as well as
being shorter in duration, lower in depth and covering a smaller area than before river regulation
(Sims et al., 2012).
Current water regimes clearly differ from the natural hydrology of the Basin under which
evolutionary adaptations of species occurred (Colloff & Pittock, 2019; Mac Nally et al., 2011).
Iconic species such as river red gums, and communities such as the black box woodlands and the
Moira Grass plains of the Barmah Forest, have declined in condition from reduced flooding and
changed hydrology, particularly in the southern Basin (Catelotti et al., 2015; DELWP, 2020). Recent
studies, however, indicate that the provision of environmental water is supporting habitat
condition, with species richness and vegetation cover in the Gwydir wetlands being high following
larger releases of Commonwealth water (CEWO, 2019).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 38
Similarly, waterbird populations are highly sensitive to environmental change, including water
availability, flood extent and climate variability, and there has been a significant decline in the
abundance of waterbirds in the MDB since the early 1980s (Bino et al., 2019, 2020; Kingsford et
al., 2017). This is illustrated in Figure 10 which shows total annual waterbirds and standardised
flow volume. Importantly, declines in waterbirds have occurred across all functional groups: fish
eaters, herbivores, ducks and small grebes, and both large and small wading birds. Further, there
is evidence for decreasing populations of migratory shorebird species in Australia, with the
decreases higher in the southern half of the continent where declines for 17 of 19 migratory
species were found over a 15-year period (Clemens et al., 2016).
Source: Bino et al. (2019) as cited in A. J. King et al. (2022).
FIGURE 10. TOTAL ANNUAL WATERBIRDS COLOURED BY STANDARDISED SCORE (GREEN > 0.5SD, BLUE BETWEEN 0.5SD AND
–0.5SD, AND RED BELOW –0.5SD) AND STANDARDISED FLOW VOLUME (DASHED LINE), MDB 1983–2018.
Opportunities for, and success of, waterbird breeding are also adversely affected under current
water regulation and extraction, particularly for colonially breeding waterbirds (Borrell & Webster,
2019; Brandis et al., 2018). Environmental water has been used to provide flows to maintain
habitat for a period that allows for successful breeding of waterbirds, but the current volumes of
environmental water available in the MDB are usually insufficient to provide the initial inundation
needed to trigger a significant breeding event (MDBA, 2020b; Prosser et al., 2012).
4.2.4 Insights on the relative significance of drivers of change
There is a paucity of literature that comprehensively assesses and identifies the relative
significance of drivers of change in the MDB. However, it is argued that water governance in the
Basin is underpinned by an economic rationalist paradigm, where priority has been afforded to
economic and commercial interests (Jackson et al., 2023). In turn, social issues have less
dominance in dominant discourses and the interests of peoples, such as First Nations peoples,
with ways of relating to Country that are inconsistent with this paradigm, have been marginalised
(Alston & Mason, 2008; Jackson, 2015; McLean et al., 2018). Similarly, the decline in
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 39
environmental values is directly associated with land-use and resource practices that favour short-
term financial returns (A. J. King et al., 2022).
Governance is, however, also intended to achieve particular outcomes, including the enabling of
change. The State of the Environment report noted that the 2020 evaluation of the MDB Plan –
established to respond to the severe pressures placed on the Basin’s rivers by the Millennium
Drought – found that progress had been made and there were measurable improvements in
sustainable and adaptive water management (Green & Moggridge, 2021). For example, the 2020
Basin Plan Evaluation found that although rivers in the southern Basin remained highly degraded,
provision of water for the environment had helped maintain key native fish populations, including
Murray cod and golden perch. In the northern Basin, fish passages and refuges in several rivers,
such as the Gwydir River in 2019, were maintained via water provision (MDBA, 2020b). At the
same time, the significance of water recovery as a driver of economic change is unclear, with
thorough reviews of the data available revealing that other factors (such as commodity and input
prices, climate variability and technology change) play a much more significant role in influencing
economic values than water recovery (Wheeler et al., 2023). Recent literature also identifies
embedded institutional and cultural factors – including path dependency – that influence the
direction and nature of change and the strength of some drivers (e.g., Gell et al., 2019; Marshall &
Alexandra, 2016; Pittock, 2019).
Numerous reports identify climate change as the biggest risk to many MDB values, noting its likely
wide impacts on water availability, environmental condition, biodiversity, agricultural production
and human wellbeing (e.g., Green & Moggridge, 2021; Wheeler et al., 2023). Climate change is
identified as a major driver of change for most economic values, both directly and from its
capacity to influence future condition (Wheeler et al., 2023). Supporting this, studies of the drivers
of farmer exit in the MDB find that climate factors (e.g., increases in maximum temperature and
increased drought risk) along with socio-economic issues (e.g., decreases in commodity output
prices, increased urbanisation and higher unemployment) are the most important explanatory
factors (Schirmer & Mylek, 2020). Increasing drought in a warmer climate, and other likely climate
changes, are also recognised as challenging health and wellbeing values, and good social relations
values (Jackson et al., 2023). Finally, climate change is a significant risk to all key environment
values of the MDB (A. J. King et al., 2022).
4.3 An initial synthesis of direct and indirect drivers of change
Table 5 provides a list of suggested drivers of change identified in the literature.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 40
TABLE 5. DIVERSE DRIVERS OF CHANGE IN THE MDB IDENTIFIED IN THE LITERATURE.
DRIVER OF CHANGE SUGGESTIONS
NATURE OF CHANGE
POSSIBLE THEME
Water recovery
Affected community cohesion
Supported ecosystem resilience
Governance
Demographic and population changes to
rural and regional towns (e.g., increased
urbanisation)
Larger communities more resilient, smaller
remote ones less so
Demography
Climate change
Exacerbate challenges
Affect multiple environmental (e.g., fish, algal
blooms) and economic values
Climate change
Declining infrastructure and services
Impacting community vulnerability
Governance / socio-
political
Expectation of diversity and inclusion in
decision-making
Strengthening community engagement and
cohesion
Governance / socio-
political
Appreciation of interconnections between
healthy waterways and healthy people and
communities
Enhancing sustainability capacities
Knowledge
Interest in and support for First Nations
water rights and cultural flows
Improving breadth of voices heard and values
recognised
Governance / socio-
political
Neoliberal marketisation and the roll-back
of the state
Reduction of breadth of values recognised
Socio-political
Siloed approach to land and water
management, regional development and
industry policy
Impacts on quality and outcomes of river
management
Governance
Rise in use of social media and (mis)trust in
institutions and experts
Impacting on community capacities to understand
and engage with reforms
Socio-political
Diversification of instruments to shape
post-industrial landscape (biodiversity and
carbon credits, stewardship, rights for
rivers)
Strengthen regional and community options
Governance
Land-use and economic diversification
leading to potential water use changes
(amenity, tourism, hobby farms, renewable
energy)
Diverse impacts with options for larger
communities strengthened
Economic
Service delivery (health, education,
technology, banking etc) in regions
Non-uniform implications
Governance
Technological innovation – within
agriculture and in other sectors
Improved economic efficiency and water use
efficiency
Technology
Commodity and input pricing
Shift to higher value cropping
Economic
Water extraction and regulation operation
Improved economic efficiency
Reduced hydrological connectivity
Embedding power of irrigation industry
Negative ecosystem impacts
Negative consequences for First Nations interests
in water
Governance
Modification of water
regimes
Vegetation clearing and land conversion
Negative water quality impacts
Land-use change
Invasive species
Decline in native fish species
Invasive species
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 41
Drought
Major droughts can severely degrade wetlands
Increased stress on communities
Climate
Range of drivers that affect dissolved
oxygen
Stress and death of aquatic biota, ecosystem
stress
Land use
Climate
Algal blooms
Waterways closed due to toxins
Health impacts
Invasive species
Irrigation infrastructure investment
schemes
Mixed – farm productivity improvements
Unclear water recovery outcomes
Negative consequences including from floodplain
harvesting and for resilience
Governance
Modification of water
regimes
In summary, although drivers of change may not have been the explicit focus, a considerable body
of literature identifies major changes occurring in the Basin. It is clear that there are diverse
factors affecting values in the MDB and that an alignment in perspectives on key drivers cannot be
assumed across stakeholder groups in the Basin. This is not surprising and it aligns with the
complexity of the MDB as a socio-ecological system. Climate change (including increased climate
variability) was a commonly identified driver of change for multiple values across all reviews.
Other direct drivers of change suggested in the literature include nutrient loading, land-use
conversion, river regulation and barriers to flow, and water extraction. Indirect drivers of change
suggested in the literature include changes in technology, urbanisation in regional communities,
changes in knowledge and attitudes, and resource management approaches, including
underpinning assumptions concerning prioritisation of use and access to resources.
4.4 Knowledge gaps
Information on the causation of changes observed and projected in the MDB, and the level of
evidence provided concerning the nature and direction of expected change, varies significantly in
the scholarly literature. Importantly, insights in the literature on drivers of change are not
consistently contextualised and an assessment of the relative significance of drivers has not been
undertaken to date. As a result, the drivers that have been identified in various studies are not
readily comparable. A critical deficit in the Basin Plan identified in the literature is the lack of a
conceptual model of the nature and drivers of ecosystem change that can be used to assess
whether policy interventions are achieving the outcomes they intend (Colloff & Pittock, 2019).
More specifically, gaps in the data make it difficult to attribute changes experienced to particular
drivers, either alone or in combination. Key reviews of economic values of the MDB have found
that the varied approaches to and scales of data collection – such as within state and/or local
government jurisdictions, by industry sector, or subject to varying definitions and interpretations
of what constitutes an agricultural business in ABS statistics – can make it difficult to attribute
primary causes for changes in economic value in the MDB (Wheeler et al., 2023; Whittle et al.,
2020). A major review of relational values in the region also found that more studies are needed
to understand what is driving, enabling or constraining the transitions to multifunctional
landscapes in the Basin, the causality of the drivers and how they are likely to influence people in
the Basin (Groth et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2023). Further, additional and holistic approaches are
needed to understand the cultural issues that are driving landscape change and changes in the
importance of agriculture and non-production industries, including through recognition of voices
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 42
from groups poorly described in the literature, such as those from rural urban settings (Bell, 2022;
Jackson et al., 2023; Lindsay et al., 2019; Lukasiewicz & Baldwin, 2017; Rawluk & Curtis, 2016).
Finally, although climate change has been repeatedly recognised in the literature as a major driver
of change, the majority of studies do not span the range of likely future climate change challenges,
rather focusing on, for example, drought or water scarcity or flooding impacts. Further studies are
needed that include other impacts such as from increased periods where conditions switch from
water scarcity to abundance more frequently (Head et al., 2018).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 43
5.0 ADAPTATION IN THE MDB
Key synthesis findings
• Substantial changes in hydroclimate are projected for the MDB – facilitating recognition that
adaptation is becoming a matter for urgent attention.
• Vulnerability to climate change is high in parts of the MDB socio-ecological system, notably in
sub-regions facing a significant decline in annual available water, combined with relatively
lower adaptive capacities, such as in more remote communities with lower incomes.
• Adaptive capacity is unevenly spread across the Basin and water governance to date has not
built preparedness capacities for climate change.
• Adaptaon is important in the MDB for the maintenance and long-term sustainability of the
region’s economic, environmental, cultural and social values in the context of a changing
climate, which, with other drivers of change, could lead to undesirable damages or losses.
• There is an opportunity to build partnerships with First Naons peoples across the Basin that
support both environmental and cultural objecves.
• Areas of maladaptation to risk exist in the Basin, particularly arising from some programs that
enabled private benefits from funding irrigaon infrastructure improvements that failed to
deliver water savings.
• Governance reform is needed for climate change adaptation because many policies and
regulations still assume a static climate and will not be fit for purpose in the future. Reforms
will be needed to understand and manage increasing risks to water quality as well as quantity,
and enable transformations for longer-term sustainability.
• Adaptation pathways need consideration and development. Inadequate attention to date has
been given to how these need to be realised in socio-ecological system subject to multiple,
interacting drivers of change.
• There are key knowledge gaps concerning when, where and how to utilise adaptation options,
and on the sensitivity of key values to a changing climate in a complex socio-ecological system.
5.1 Context – a changing hydroclimate in the MDB
There is a substantial body of science that indicates that the climate and hydrology of the MDB are
changing, with projections indicating a hotter and, most likely, drier future, with more frequent
drought periods and extreme weather events (Zhang et al., 2020). These changes in the Basin’s
climate and hydrology will have a substantial impact on water availability and river flow
characteristics in the Basin, and the social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes sought
by the Murray–Darling Basin Plan (Zhang et al., 2020).
A recent review of hydroclimate literature relevant to the MDB provides information on the highly
variable and changing nature of the current and likely future hydroclimate of the Basin (Chiew et
al., 2022). The temperature in the MDB has risen by approximately 1.4 °C over the past 100 years,
with most of the increase occurring after 1970. Rainfall and streamflow records over south-
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 44
eastern Australia in the past 50 years show a declining trend and, in most catchments in the
southern MDB and Victoria, less annual streamflow has been measured from after the Millennium
Drought compared with the same annual rainfall pre-drought conditions. We understand that
further analysis, commissioned by the MDBA, is underway on the current and future hydroclimate
of the MDB.
Climate change will further affect water resource availability in the Basin, driven by reductions in
cool-season rainfall and higher potential evapotranspiration. Hydroclimate modelling projects a
median reduction of about 20% in mean annual runoff across the MDB under 2 °C global average
warming (2060 relative to 1990). There is also a large range in the projected change in future
mean annual runoff, ranging from –40% to +10% in the southern MDB and –45% to +30% in the
northern MDB. The variability in the future hydroclimate will also remain high, with long wet
periods and long dry periods continuing to occur against a background trend of declining rainfall
and runoff. More frequent and severe droughts can be expected, however, reflecting the reduced
mean annual runoff. Under the median projection, 3-year hydrological droughts experienced in
the historical climate would occur up to twice more frequently in the future.
The reduction in water resources will have significant effects on agriculture (irrigation),
communities and the environment in the Basin. To better understand such effects, the MDBA has
commissioned CSIRO to advise on climate change scenarios and on hydroclimate change factors
that can be incorporated into river system modelling (see Figure 11). It must also be noted that
the hazards from the different types of extreme events (e.g., heatwaves, droughts, fires and
floods) can have cascading, compounding and aggregate impacts on communities, infrastructure
and supply-chains and services.
Source: Robertson et al. (2023, p. 6).
FIGURE 11. REGIONAL RUNOFF CHANGE SIGNALS FOR THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN MDB SHOWING THE REGIONAL-
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TEXT UNDERLAIN BY THE CORRESPONDING CHANGES IN THE 5 KM GRIDDED RUNOFF.
Recent research has also generated a more nuanced understanding of the water quality
implications of the interlinkages between climate change, catchment vegetation and hydrology.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 45
Importantly, this improved understanding highlights that the risks from systemic events, such as
from bushfires and extreme temperature events likely with climate change, will increase and have
significant future implications for water quality in the Basin (Beavis et al., 2023).
An appreciation of these likely futures is essential for a robust exploration of resilience and climate
change adaptation in the Basin, as the recovery capacity of socio-ecological systems under higher
change scenarios, accompanied by other drivers of change, will be challenged. Although there are
multiple ways to frame resilience and adaptation, for the purposes of this report a simple
approach is chosen. This is based on the 2015 UNFCCC Paris Agreement’s global goal on
adaptation, to which the Australian Government has committed. This goal identifies the need to
reduce vulnerability, build adaptive capacity and strengthen resilience to enhance tangible and
effective adaptation actions and outcomes (Adaptation Committee, 2021).
5.2 Climate vulnerability
According to the IPCC, vulnerability is ‘the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected’
and it includes several elements that span exposure to impacts or harm, sensitivity or
susceptibility to harm, and lack of capacity to cope or adapt (IPCC, 2018). By way of illustration, a
species that is found in, has evolved within and is adapted to very specific regional climate and
natural flow patterns is more vulnerable to climate change than a species, found in the same
location, with a wider climate habitat and the capability to move across the habitat range when
needed. Predicted climate changes in the Basin follow a number of trends as identified by the
MDBA (Figure 12), which are likely to increase the Basin’s overall vulnerability in a changing
climate.
Source: (MDBA, 2019).
FIGURE 12. SYNTHESIS OF TRENDS ASSOCIATED WITH CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE MURRAY–DARLING BASIN.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 46
There is a strong body of literature that suggests that many of the MDB’s economic values are
vulnerable or highly vulnerable to climate change, including agriculture (irrigated, cropping and
livestock); recreational fishing and tourism; the water market; ecosystem services and cultural
economic values (Hughes et al., 2022; Wheeler et al., 2023; Whittle et al., 2020). Wheeler and
colleagues (2023) identify climate change as the biggest risk to agricultural values in the Basin,
with the projected reduction in runoff and increasing drought leading to increasing impacts on
profitability and declining agricultural productivity. There has also been substantial growth in the
water market trade in the southern MDB over the last decade, and water scarcity, which can arise
from a hotter and drier climate, is a key risk to water market economic values (BoM, 2022; Seidl et
al., 2020; Wheeler et al., 2023). With regard to irrigated agriculture, although capacities may exist
to tolerate the impacts of a median climate change scenario, adaptation to an extremely dry and
variable climate, and to higher intensity flood events, would likely be very difficult (Fowler et al.,
2022; Jiang & Grafton, 2012; Whittle et al., 2020).
Social and cultural values in the Basin, such as community resilience, health and wellbeing, good
social relations and cultural water are also vulnerable to drought and climate change (Jackson et
al., 2023). Several studies on climate, health and wellbeing in the MDB have found that distress,
suicide risk and mental health challenges increase under drought and other extreme weather
conditions, but can to some extent be ameliorated by strong social networks (Hanigan et al., 2012,
2018; Schirmer et al., 2019). Further impacts from climate change can also affect social relations
within and between communities if tensions are exacerbated – for example, from the degradation
of natural values (Alston & Whittenbury, 2011; Rothenburg, 2021). Although there is only a small
body of literature on cultural values and climate change, some examples provided – such as a
reduction in flow along the Darling (Barka) and lack of access for First Nations groups entailing a
threat to continued connection for Barkindji people – suggest areas of potentially significant
vulnerability (Gibson, 2008). Jackson and colleagues (2023), in a major review of relational values
in the MDB, also emphasised the need for further work on the differential impacts of climate
change at the community level, particularly for already marginalised groups, such as First Nations
communities.
The Basin’s environmental values are also highly vulnerable to climate change, with vulnerabilities
further exacerbated should water flow regulation continue to prioritise irrigation and other human
interests over known requirements for ecosystem functioning and biodiversity (A. J. King et al.,
2022). The future conditions of the Basin’s hydrological systems – particularly their connectivity –
are highly vulnerable to climate change, given the potential for increases in the frequency,
duration and severity of droughts, as well as elevated levels of evapotranspiration, reductions in
groundwater recharge and declines in surface water availability (Nielson et al., 2017; Sheldon et
al., 2022). The mouth of the River Murray has been predicted to bear the brunt of climate change
effects, with reduced outflows exacerbated by water diversions (Leblanc et al., 2012). Climate
change effects are also predicted to increase the number and severity of low dissolved oxygen
events (e.g., blackwater events) to the point that species and ecosystems may not receive
adequate recovery time between events (A. J. King et al., 2022). Climate change is also predicted
to increase the vulnerability of the Basin’s hydrological systems to blue-green algal blooms,
increasing their frequency as well as extending their duration and scale. Further, future conditions
under climate change may cause a shift in the composition of typical blooms (Baldwin, 2016).
Given the significant negative environmental, economic and social impacts of blooms, as well as
knowledge gaps regarding their long-term impacts on human health (e.g., their possible link to
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 47
degenerative neurological conditions, such as BMAA or beta-methylamino-L-alanine), bloom
monitoring and management practices may need revision and extension (Baldwin, 2021; Cox et al.,
2018).
With aquatic ecosystems, the vulnerability of vegetation communities (e.g., riparian and river bank
vegetation) and native fauna (e.g., waterbirds and native fish) – already identified as being under
significant challenge from water regimes that differ significantly from natural hydrology (e.g., the
reversal of seasonal flows, channel modification and cold-water pollution caused by water storage
and the discharge of reservoirs) – will increase with climate change (A. J. King et al., 2022). Dieback
and range reductions of keystone plant species would likely become a common landscape feature
under climate change, and changed climatic conditions may also facilitate exotic plant invasions,
further reducing native species cover (Catford & Jansson, 2014; Johnson-Bates et al., 2022). These
changed conditions – from both climate change and water regimes oriented to human interests –
are, in turn, predicted to negatively affect habitat condition and provision. This will mean that
species with specialist habitat requirements, and those that lack drought-resistant stages in their
life cycle or are limited in their movement ability and susceptible to altered flow regimes and
longer periods of drought, will be under increased conservation risk (Klunzinger et al., 2022; A.
Ryan et al., 2021). Waterbird populations have, in particular, been identified as under significant
risk from predicted climate change impacts, given these populations are already shown to be
dependent on environmental water flows (Hawke et al., 2022). With opportunities for successful
breeding already limited under current water allocations, waterbird numbers are anticipated to
continue to decline – potentially catastrophically – in the future due to climate change impacts
(Bino et al., 2021; MDBA, 2020b). Native fish have similarly been assessed as highly vulnerable to
changed climatic conditions, with species with restricted ranges and/or highly fragmented
populations facing a significant risk of extinction (de Oliveira et al., 2019; Mynott et al., 2022).
Projected climate changes to environmental values can also adversely affect recreational, fishing
and tourism economic values. This can be as significant as extractive values, as well as socio-
cultural values concerned with wellbeing, relationships with the natural world, cultural heritage
and spirituality, especially with regard to First Nations peoples’ experiences regarding connection
with Country (see, e.g., Heagney et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2023), all rely on functioning
environmental values. It has also been noted that with a future under climate change that is likely
to be increasingly environmentally insecure and water scarce, existing resource conflicts between
communities could be exacerbated, adversely affecting social relations between different Basin
communities (Alston & Whittenbury, 2011; Rothenburg, 2021). This is expected to make the
overall governance of the Basin even more contentious (Alexandra, 2018; Jackson et al., 2023).
The literature also reveals instances where decision-making and practice in river regulation and
the pricing and trade of water, in both the policy and producer context, has increased vulnerability
in some areas to a changing climate. For instance, current governance arrangements have been
noted by some researchers to have favoured growth in large, irrigated agribusinesses, while
negatively impacting both groups not previously considered vulnerable and the environment (Bell,
2022; Marshall & Alexandra, 2016). Similarly, market drivers for higher value crops have led to a
large expansion of horticultural tree crops in the southern MDB, which has increased the region’s
vulnerability to climate change as the ability of perennial producers to adapt decreases with
increased drought and reduced water availability (Adamson et al., 2017; Wheeler et al., 2023;
Whittle et al., 2020). Additionally, there are examples of path dependency in the MDB that
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 48
reinforce the status quo and can increase vulnerability to shocks associated with climate change –
for example, in the prioritisation of supply-side infrastructure (Alexandra & Rickards, 2021;
Marshall & Alexandra, 2016). Importantly, Jackson and colleagues (2023) have emphasised that
climate change is likely to affect Basin communities and ecosystems in ways that cannot be dealt
with via siloed approaches that separate land from water, and ecosystems and natural resource
management from regional and industrial policy and development.
With regard to indicators of climate vulnerability, the literature is fragmented and incomplete. As
noted earlier, good social relations could be affected by the impacts of climate change, but
analyses undertaken indicate diverse outcomes, including increased empowerment and cohesion,
or increased tension (e.g., Dinh et al., 2017; Rothenburg, 2021; Wheeler et al., 2017). There is a
lack of clarity as to whether the vulnerability of some values is increasing or decreasing. Some data
sources have an inherent capacity to identify determinants of a change in condition; for example,
the data base of Australian Rural Mental Health contains investigations into the determinants of
mental health in non-metropolitan New South Wales, presumably facilitating analysis into
whether the vulnerability of rural communities is changing. Other existing indicators that provide
technical information on conditions would likely need additional context to inform an
understanding of vulnerability.
In summary, vulnerability to a changing climate is a key challenge for the MDB. Vulnerability is a
multifaceted concept, driven by both exposure to, for example, climate change and patterns of
development, river regulation and water extraction. There is agreement across much of the
literature that vulnerability is expected to increase with climate change; however, detailed cross-
disciplinary studies on climate change are limited and drought is the dominant focus of studies
rather than a more comprehensive consideration of climate change impacts. This deficiency is
problematic given expectations of significant challenges to Basin values from climate change,
including from flooding and heatwave events (e.g., CSIRO & BoM, 2015). Further analysis is
needed on how vulnerability in the MDB will change in response to future hydroclimate scenarios
and, in particular, to risks of increasing climate volatility.
5.3 Hydroclimate resilience
Building on section 3.4 of this report and drawing on the definition of resilience by the IPCC,
climate resilience can be understood as the capacity of social, economic and environmental
systems to cope with a hazardous climate event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganising
in ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure, while also maintaining the
capacity for adaptation, learning and transformation. It can be noted here that this definition of
resilience differs from that in Chapter 3 in taking a more normative framing of the concept as
distinct from system functioning. However, a focus on thresholds of concern remains central to
understanding the resilience implications of climate change in the MDB. Surprisingly, given the
vulnerability to climate change of the MDB as described in section 5.2, there is relatively little
research that has identified resilience thresholds for key values in the MDB.
The magnitude of socio-economic vulnerability in the MDB to climate change, in concert with
other drivers such as technological change, changing trade and consumer demand patterns, and
water reform, have created a complex web of factors that are deeply affecting business and
communities in some areas at a rate that exceeds their capacity to adapt (CSIRO, 2023). This
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 49
finding suggests the existence of thresholds of concern with widespread application across the
Basin, supported by the growing evidence of resource-use, business and community transitions
underway. With climate change, one study suggests that the farm profitability cycle could shift
from that observed in the past (e.g., three years profit, one year loss, four years break-even) to
one year of profit and three years of loss (Loch et al., 2013), which would undoubtedly exceed a
threshold for viability of current farm practice. Water markets can offer a decentralised approach
to assist in water reallocation and to help cope with increasing drought conditions, but such
markets are also contributing to socio-economic transitions in the Basin and can be affected by
climate change in their own right (Debaere & Li, 2022; Wheeler, 2022). As noted previously, small
and remote towns in Australia and the Basin are highly vulnerable to climate change, with a drier
and more extreme climate undermining the sustainability and growth potential of their economies
(CSIRO, 2023), factors that suggest a resilience threshold of concern for those communities.
Socio-economic values of the Basin are also dependent on functioning ecosystems that provide
ecosystem services to communities and businesses. Not only is it clear that the Basin is facing
significant environmental vulnerabilities from historic over-extraction of water and the ongoing
degradation of habitat, but climate change is a major threat to ecosystems and species (CSIRO,
2023). Vegetation communities of importance occur on floodplains and riparian habitats, and they
rely on water from rainfall, river flows and periodic flooding events. Regular inundation events are
needed, for example, to sustain red gum forests (every 1 to 3 years), and large flooding events are
needed for black box forests (every 3 to 7 years) and Coolabah communities (every 10 to 20 years)
that occur higher on the floodplain. In the regions supporting these forests – and under a warmer
and drier climate change scenario – flood plain inundation is expected to decline by around 22–
24%, which would most likely exceed a resilience threshold and result in flood plain woodlands
and forests transitioning to other types of vegetation communities (CSIRO, 2023).
Similarly, as noted earlier, significant flooding events are needed for many waterbird species to
maintain nesting sites, foraging habits, trigger breeding events and support recruitment. The
Victorian Murray, Wimmera-Mallee and South Australian regions of the Basin have many
significant bird sites and are likely to experience large increases in the number of days when the
river basically stops flowing. Under a warming and drying scenario, the lower Darling is expected
to face a 25% reduction in runoff for flood plain inundation, which may reduce the maintenance of
waterbird habitat and successful breeding (CSIRO, 2023). Flow regimes are also essential for
wetland fish species in the MDB, and in regions with important fish species and at risk of reduced
flood plain inundation – such as the Queensland Border Rivers–Moonie, Condamine-Balonne and
the South Australian Murray – the spawning, recruitment, survival and distribution of wetland-
dependent native fish could be substantially affected.
These findings are supported by the A. J. King et al. (2022) review of environmental values, which
finds that it is likely that climate change will exceed thresholds of environmental resilience.
Environmental systems such as hydrological connectivity, and the native flora and fauna
populations that depend on this connectivity, have already become so degraded that they
currently possess little if any resilience to perturbations. Although climate change impact
predictions invariably retain some degree of uncertainty, it is evident that more resilience
thresholds will be exceeded should hotter and drier scenarios in the Basin come to pass. In
addition, enhanced variability under any of the three modelled scenarios means there is potential
for the exceeding of recovery capacities of environmental values.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 50
5.4 Adaptive capacity
Related to the concept of climate resilience is that of adaptive capacity, defined by the IPCC (2018)
as the ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage,
to take advantage of opportunities or respond to consequences. Adaptive capacity relates to both
the resources (including natural, financial, institutional or human) available in a given system for
adaptation and the ability of that system to effectively deploy those resources to advance
adaptation. In this way, adaptive capacity can be considered a positive attribute of a society given
the deployment of relevant capacities can help avoid an undesirable regime change (Walker et al.,
2009).
Although adaptive capacities are identified in multiple articles and reports, there is an absence of
a robust focus and exploration of the topic for the MDB. Importantly, several studies find an
inherent level of adaptive capacity in some sectors and communities in the Basin. For instance, the
majority of farmers in the region make decisions every year on how to maximise their farm
production and they regularly adapt to changed situations, such as changes in climate (Wheeler et
al., 2023). However, adaptive capacity is heterogeneous across the Basin. Smaller communities
with less resourcing and less purchasing power, and where social cohesion may be diminished –
for example, from degradation in the living well and in harmony with nature value – have
relatively less adaptive capacity than bigger, more resourced and economically diversified
communities (Jackson et al., 2023; Schirmer et al., 2019; Schirmer & Mylek, 2020). Although
further research is required, the potential for increased tension between communities and
interests under conditions of greater water scarcity (spanning multiple dimensions such as
upstream and downstream, irrigation and the environment, scales of decision-making, rural and
urban, irrigated and dryland agriculture, irrigation and other industries) could also act to reduce
inherent adaptive capacities across the Basin (Alston et al., 2016; Gross & Dumaresq, 2014;
Jackson et al., 2023).
Similarly, the adaptive capacity of natural habitats, ecosystems and species in the MDB is not
uniform. Historical land-use change and water resource development have resulted in substantial
changes in habitats across the Basin, with declines in the abundance and diversity of waterbirds
and native fish, including iconic species, observed in multiple locations in the Basin, suggesting
weak adaptive capacity (Bino et al., 2021; MDBA, 2020a). Further, the severe impacts of the
Millennium Drought on areas of ecological significance, such as the Macquarie Marshes and the
Coorong, also indicate a limit to adaptive capacity (Bowen & Simpson, 2009, as cited in A. J. King et
al., 2022). It is evident that the adaptive capacity of environmental values in the MDB will be
strongly reliant on current and future management actions to address the adverse impacts of
hydrological and environmental change (A. J. King et al., 2022).
Governance is an important institutional capacity and a key mechanism through which adaptive
capacity can be enhanced. While water governance in the MDB has co-evolved through distinct
phases, and recent governance is seeking to embrace a wider set of Basin values, it does appear
that further reform is needed for current governance mechanisms to build adaptive capacity to
future risks from climate change (Alexandra, 2018). One study finds that the Water Act 2007 (Cth),
through a lack of attention to enabling participation and local capacity building, caused avoidable
stress and social dislocation that undermined community resilience and capacities to
constructively adapt to change (Alston & Whittenbury, 2011).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 51
More broadly, in their review of social and cultural values across the MDB, Jackson and colleagues
(2023) found both persistent issues with the current governance arrangements for community
engagement and equity, and gaps in understanding how governance enables or constrains
community level adaptation. Adaptive governance, as an important capacity to understand and
manage change, is also noted in the literature, although perhaps with less focus on learning from
governance reforms to date and more on the need for greater attention to temporal dimensions,
fairness, cross-scale issues and the better integration of scientific expertise with local knowledge
in managing future reforms (Alexandra, 2018; Ayre & Nettle, 2017; Gross & Dumaresq, 2014).
Knowledge can also build adaptive capacity and, although the literature is fragmented, several
studies have pointed to the value of recognising and engaging with multiple knowledges – notably
from regional communities, youth and First Nations peoples, as well as science – in realising
improved outcomes for communities and river health (Conallin et al., 2018; Jackson et al., 2023).
Formal education is relevant to the adaptive capacity of farmers, with a correlation being found
between higher education levels and a significant reduction in anxieties over government
mechanisms, particularly in response to climate change adaptation support (Fielke & Bardsley,
2014). In four case studies in Victoria, access to government-supported, informal education and
adult learning was also found to be positively associated with knowledge and understanding
capacities that helped communities prepare to adapt to drier conditions (Golding et al., 2009).
Migrant agricultural knowledge can also be understood as an adaptive resource, as it can expand
the suite of adaptive options available to communities (Head et al., 2019; Klocker et al., 2018).
Importantly, the increasing roles of First Nations individuals in land and water management
programs and jobs, and in partnerships for environmental and cultural water delivery (see section
5.5.4), is arguably increasing the capacity of First Nations people to engage in wider initiatives such
as water markets for adaptation purposes (e.g., CSIRO, 2023). In their review of social and cultural
values of the MDB, Jackson and colleagues (2023) highlight the need for further research on
understanding how First Nations’ knowledge can be integrated into water planning and how it can
contribute to climate change adaptation.
As in the discussion of resilience, adaptive capacity is also supported by social networks and
community cohesion. One 2017 study cited found, for instance, that social networks were relied
upon by irrigators and dryland farmers to help cope with water-related challenges in the previous
five years, where about 60% of both types of farmers relied on between one and five social
networks for support in difficult times (Dinh et al., 2017). Social networks were also highlighted as
an important strategy for rural women, particularly in adapting to drought (Casey et al., 2022).
Further, in some circumstances, community action in response to challenges such as water scarcity
and disasters can lead to greater community cohesion and adaptive capacity among previously
divided groups (Sherval et al., 2018).
The fragmented nature of the literature, as well as the case study and interview-based methods of
many studies that give some attention to adaptive capacity, make it difficult to appreciate the
heterogeneity of adaptive capacity across the Basin. In a Basin-wide rapid assessment of values
and vulnerability of the MDB, particularly in a changing climate, CSIRO (2023) assessed the
adaptive capacity of water-dependent industries and communities in 17 regions in the MDB using
available data (see Table 6). In this assessment, changes in mean annual runoff, runoff for
floodplain inundation and seasonal runoff were initially assessed relative to a historic baseline
(1898–2018). The regional dependence on agriculture and farmer income exposure and sensitivity
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 52
to these changes in runoff were determined through indicator values. Adaptive capacity
characteristics of off-farm income, economic diversity, remoteness, social and community factors,
and community leadership and collaboration were then rated. On this basis, for example,
communities in the Lachlan, Namoi and Queensland Border Rivers–Moonie regions are facing
significant likely declines in annual runoff as well as relatively fewer opportunities for social
connectivity. Such context and changes could compromise these communities’ adaptive capacity
to maintain social values (CSIRO, 2023).
TABLE 6. CHANGES IN FLOW CHARACTERISTICS (BETWEEN WARMER-DRIER SCENARIO AND HISTORICAL BASELINE)
INFLUENCING WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES AND COMMUNITIES AND THEIR ADAPTIVE CAPACITY INDICATOR VALUES.
Source: CSIRO (2023, p. 38).
5.5 Adaptation action, pathways and transformation
Although there is a growing body of research exploring climate change adaptation in the MDB,
more studies appear conceptual in their proposal of options or reforms than describe tangible
insights from implemented adaptation measures. Features that characterise climate change
adaptation studies include an anticipatory focus of adapting to ongoing, uncertain future change
over longer time horizons – a focus distinguishable from research on how communities and
industries responded to past climate events or variability. This section synthesises key studies on
adaptation to climate change as they relate to agriculture and economy, environment, water
management and governance, and the need for transformation.
5.5.1 Agriculture and economic adaptation
Agricultural sectors are generally recognised as dynamic, facing multiple and ongoing drivers of
change, and as highly adaptive (Howden & Stokes, 2010). Traditionally, farmers have used a range
of incremental adaptation measures that do not require any major decisions or reforms. These
include economies of scale, technology improvements, diversification of crop type and/or income
source, changes in planting timing, drought preparedness measures and family farm succession
practices. However, changes in climate, markets and other drivers are increasingly highlighting the
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 53
importance of transformational adaptation measures to underpin the resilience and sustainability
of agricultural regions. Transformational measures – such as a shift to dryland operations, the
selling of water entitlements, relocation or migration under conditions of drought or the leaving of
farming – reflect more significant changes in land use or practices (Jackson et al., 2023; Wheeler et
al., 2023). Howden and Stokes (2010) found that whereas the adaptiveness of agriculture has
typically been, to date, in response to fairly well-defined single factors, such as changes in markets
or consumer preferences, climate change is uncertain with regard to its nature and magnitude,
and has multiple related dimensions.
As Australia’s key irrigation area, and with parts of the Basin very likely facing a drier climate, it is
unsurprising that the agriculture adaptation literature is dominated by studies on irrigated
agriculture. There have been multiple studies on the importance of adaptation to water scarcity
and drought in the Basin (e.g., Dinh et al., 2017; Quiggin et al., 2010). In contrast to many earlier
studies of drought response that explored the behaviour of individual irrigators, Kirby and
colleagues (2014) explored how the worst drought in the past 110 years, the Millennium Drought,
affected the gross value and performance of irrigation in the Basin. Of note, while irrigators
received around one-third of previous levels of water allocation, considerable adaptation occurred
through crop mix changes, water trade, substitution in dairy production of purchased feed for
irrigated pasture, and irrigation efficiency and crop yield improvements. This meant that irrigated
production declined by only 14%, substantially less than pro rata with reduced water availability.
Recent studies on adaptation in irrigated agriculture typically identify water trading and irrigation
infrastructure efficiency upgrades as the two main strategies (Seidl et al., 2021). Water trading has
been found to be effective and flexible as an adaptation measure during drought and climate
variability (e.g., Goesch et al., 2020; Kirby et al., 2014; Qureshi & Whitten, 2014). Similar to the
findings of social research, farm exit – driven by climate or commodity pricing factors and
undertaken particularly in relation to water trading – has also recently received attention
(Wheeler & Zuo, 2017). Irrigation infrastructure efficiency upgrades have been found beneficial by
many individual irrigators (e.g., Ticehurst & Curtis, 2015), but also present maladaptation risks at
the Basin-scale (Pittock & Finlayson, 2013; Wheeler et al., 2020, 2023). Similarly, the finding by
Seidl and colleagues (2021) that the preference of most irrigators in the MDB is for expansive (as
distinct from accommodating or contracting) adaptation could be maladaptive at larger scales if
widely adopted across the Basin.
Another theme that emerges from the agriculture adaptation literature relates to the importance
of recognising and integrating more local knowledge of social and cultural capacities and
environmental dimensions. Describing an example of cooperative adaptation, Skinner and
colleagues (2023) reveal the value placed on natural flood events in the Langhorne Creek
viticulture area of South Australia, where an innovative solution to the sharing of flood waters
from one property to another has been maintained and underpins the region’s hydrosocial terroir.
The importance of local socio-ecological features for agricultural adaptation has also been learnt
through hard experience. In irrigation-reliant dairy communities in northern Victoria, for example,
technological and managerial approaches to larger-scale water reforms have challenged many
family businesses, highlighting the need for institutional structures and support to be appropriate
to the social context (Alston et al., 2018). In exploring an approach to enhance adaptive
governance in water management, also in the Victorian Goulburn Murray Irrigation District, Ayre
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 54
and Nettle (2017) have shown how a focus on co-designed resilience approaches can support
learning and mobilise collective action. These studies have emphasised that a singular focus for
adaptation is likely to be flawed, and that long-term resilience in a region needs adaptation
approaches that attend to social, ecological and economic systems and other critical local
characteristics (Pahl-Wostl, 2015).
Although there are no known studies that have directly considered the effects of adaptation on
tourism in the MDB, it is clear that, as an economic industry, tourism thrives with high aesthetic
values – which can be derived from healthy floodplains and wetlands and enhanced sense of
wellbeing for visitor and residents (tourism and recreation; see Ernst & Young, 2011 for value
estimates). Importantly, the adaptation strategies used to deliver water throughout the MDB for
irrigation, or environmental flows due to water scarcity, can have co-benefits for tourism, as
proposed in Abel et al. (2016) and Kahan et al. (2021). Finally, there are a few studies that discuss
how cultural values are specifically important for the tourism industry, as well as how despite
adaptation actions directly affecting cultural values at multiple scales (local to Basin-wide), such
values are rarely included in analysis, which typically focuses on hydrology or environmental
services (see, e.g., Kahan et al., 2021; Robinson et al., 2015).
5.5.2 Environmental adaptation
Robust approaches to adaptation will be needed in the MDB to maintain important environmental
values (A. J. King et al., 2022). Across the Basin, the extent of historic water resource development
and alteration to natural flows, such as through direct impacts on hydrological connectivity, have
been found by multiple studies as having led to reductions in aquatic habitat condition and
biodiversity (A. J. King et al., 2022). In large part, the Australian Government purchase of water
rights and return of these to the environment aimed to improve environmental conditions in the
Basin. Looking ahead, the challenges for the Basin, given already-stressed environmental
attributes, long-term climate trends and increased climate variability due to climate change,
foreground the need for rapid and robust environmental adaptation interventions.
A key adaptation strategy in the literature is the restoration of natural environmental flows (e-
flows), identified in studies around the world as necessary to stem the rate of freshwater
biodiversity loss and the decline in aquatic ecosystems (Arthington et al., 2023; Tickner et al.,
2020). Reductions in flow variability from water management in the MDB, particularly in the
southern Basin, have adversely affected vegetation heterogeneity in riparian and floodplain areas,
and there is now a current and future requirement for the prioritisation of e-flows to sustain the
condition of vegetation communities and key dependent species (Wallace et al., 2021).
In response to the use of e-flows to reduce the impacts of water resource development on
environmental assets in the Basin, research has increased on how vegetation communities
respond to managed e-flows. Many of these studies have occurred on specific sites of ecological
value (e.g., RAMSAR wetlands), are small in scale and not designed to capture the wider effects of
e-flows on catchments (A. J. King et al., 2022). It is clear, nevertheless, that e-flows are important
experiments for learning what does and does not work regarding restoration objectives. Diverse
emerging insights include recognition that (i) e-flows in protected areas, such as the Macquarie
Marshes, provide opportunities for expanded partnerships with First Nations peoples (Berney &
Hosking, 2016), (ii) e-flow inundation provides a significant nutritional benefit to black box in the
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 55
Hattah Lakes in semi-arid Victoria (Fernando et al., 2021), and (iii) gains in vegetation vigour from
e-flows, for iconic species such as red gum in the Murrumbidgee, were temporary and much larger
overbank flows will be needed on a regular and continuing basis to rejuvenate the forest (Glenn et
al., 2017).
More tailored knowledge to support success is also needed, with P. M. Davies et al. (2013) having
identified a focus in the published literature on methods at the expense of flow-ecology linkages,
noting that more monitoring and evaluation studies were needed to underpin the adaptive
management of e-flows. Other water management and land-use factors and institutional
capabilities are also critical for e-flow success and need to be better understood. There are lessons
learnt, for example, from the e-flow implementation for the Lower Goulburn River in Victoria. This
is restoring elements of the natural wet–dry season flow pattern to the river below Lake Eildon
and Goulburn Weir, thereby reinvigorating channel habitats and low elevation connected
wetlands (Lovell & Casanelia, 2021). This case highlights the importance of recognising multiple
knowledge and stakeholder views, connecting local scientific knowledge to wider social,
environmental and economic objectives for the river and monitoring programs, and recognising
both enabling and constraining factors in implementation design (see Table 7; Arthington et al.,
2023; A. C. Horne et al., 2022).
TABLE 7. LOWER GOULBURN RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW (E-FLOW) IMPLEMENTATION, WITH HIGHLY RANKED ENABLING
AND CONSTRAINING FACTORS.
E-FLOW IMPLEMENTATION
DETAILS
LOWER GOULBURN RIVER
Location, length and flow regime
modifications
The 570 km Goulburn River in the MDB is Victoria’s largest basin. Lake Eildon
and Goulburn Weir store wet season flows and release water during dry
periods for irrigation. This regime reverses the natural wet–dry seasonal flow
pattern. Elevated water levels in summer–autumn damage bank vegetation
and reduce shallow riffle habitat for invertebrates and fish; regime reduces
flows to floodplain wetlands.
E-flow objectives
Restore natural wet–dry seasonal flow pattern of the river, enhance channel
and floodplain flows, river health and biodiversity.
Biodiversity and other outcomes of
e-flows
Winter and spring e-flows deposit sediment and seeds on riverbanks with
minimal erosion. Spring flows support water-dependent vegetation. Late
spring/early summer flows trigger fish spawning.
Enabling factors
Ranks and reasons
Effective legislation and regulation
of e-flows
Water Act 2007 (Cth) and 2012 MDB Plan set limits on water use and regulate
e-flow releases from storage. Rules set by the Victorian Government and
implemented by Goulburn Murray Water, the storage operator.
Engagement with diverse
stakeholders
MDBA, Goulburn Broken Catchment Authority, Victorian and Commonwealth
Environmental Water Holders, and Victorian Government enable e-flows.
Researchers informed e-flow assessment, design and implementation of
monitoring program. Environmental Water Advisory Group facilitated
engagement of landowners, Indigenous owners and business owners.
Use of best available stakeholder
knowledge
Diverse stakeholder contributions were used.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 56
Monitoring of ecological and socio-
economic outcomes
Monitoring, evaluation and research program reports annually on e-flow
outcomes. Continual long-term monitoring informs biodiversity outcomes
against program objectives.
Constraining factors
Ranks and reasons
Areas where legislation and
regulation of e-flows weak
Limited legislative control of floodplain flows and wetland connectivity due to
potential flooding of private property. Planning is in progress to address
these constraints.
Limited funding and human
resources
E-flows are funded by Victorian Government (through an Environmental
Levy) and the Commonwealth Government.
Source: Adapted from Arthington et al. (2023).
In over-utilised or degraded river systems, the restoration of natural e-flows must be integrated
with other river system recovery measures, such as improving water quality, restoring habitats
and their connectivity and reducing the impacts of invasive species (A. J. King et al., 2022). Because
climate change will further challenge MDB vegetation and aquatic biota, it is important to
understand the interactions between different environmental stressors and design effective
adaptation interventions. Studies suggest that waterbird numbers will continue to decline under
near future climate change, meaning that the benefits of partly restored waterbird abundances
from e-flows could be significantly reduced (Kingsford et al., 2017). In addition to the better
tailoring of models and assessment tools to both future climate and waterbird life histories,
additional management strategies can also be drawn on to improve waterbird outcomes; for
example, the increased use of storage of environmental flows in dams to enable larger flooding
events (Bino et al., 2021). Similarly, in a study of 23 native fish species in the MDB, because severe
negative impacts on species richness and functional characteristics were predicted with climate
change, there is an urgent need to incorporate future climate and potential species range shifts in
measures to rehabilitate native fish (de Oliveira et al., 2019; MDBA, 2020a).
Given environmental responses to past perturbations (e.g., periods of drought), refuges such as
billabongs and waterholes will become more important in a changing climate and need protection
as critical landscape features as the region dries and rivers contract (James et al., 2013). Such
refuges must be able to facilitate key life stages for many species and provide buffering during
periods of unfavourable conditions, as well as provide a recolonisation source to the surrounding
area, following the return of favourable conditions (Nielson et al., 2017). Identification of key
refuges is of growing importance in an effective adaptation strategy and needs to be informed by
analyses of species as to how physiological requirements and habitat suitability will be affected by
climate change, as well as the physical features that provide habitat diversity and resilience. The
findings of de Oliveira and colleagues (2019) on the potential of the upper catchments of the
southern Basin – especially the upper Murray, Mitta Mitta, Goulburn and Campaspe Rivers as they
show the highest values of retained species richness and functional diversity – to act as climate
refuges in the future scenarios is a useful example. It can be expected that many places that could
provide refuge for important species in a future climate are currently degraded to some extent
and will require restoration and protection to provide an ongoing desired habitat.
Finally, the approaches used to bring water to wetlands to enhance their conservation need
careful scrutiny for effective maintenance of environmental values in a changing climate. In a
review of policy and infrastructure adaptation measures in the MDB’s Coorong, Lower Lakes
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 57
region and along the Murray River, a dominance of infrastructure-led approaches was found to
disrupt ecological processes more than ecosystem-based measures (Pittock & Finlayson, 2013).
Ecosystem processes in the MDB are more likely to be maintained through the deployment of a
suite of adaptation measures that spread risk, do not overly narrow future choices and focus on
support for resilience attributes (Pittock, 2013). In parts of the Basin that have been substantially
altered, such as the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth, research and management
partnerships – including for infrastructure measures – can help restore the health of the system,
particularly in the context of climate change (DEH, 2022). Table 8 summarises key environmental
adaptation options and steps that water managers should consider for environmental water
management to be effective in a non-stationary hydroclimate.
TABLE 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION OPTIONS AND MEASURES RELEVANT TO WATER MANAGERS.
ADAPTATION OPTIONS AND MEASURES
REFERENCE
Reallocation of water flows to the environment to offset flow reductions caused by
climate change.
CSIRO (2023)
Water saving techniques, including behavioural and infrastructure approaches (that are
well designed and incentivised to achieve objective).
Wheeler et al. (2023)
Increasing landscape connectivity to permit movement to more tolerable habitats in a
changing climate.
A. J. King et al. (2022)
Identifying and protecting, or creating, local refuges for species of importance.
James et al. (2013)
West et al. (2009)
Tailored community engagement programs and incentives to support native fish recovery.
K. Ryan et al. (2023)
Establishing land easements to provide for flooding private land where important for
ecosystem function.
Capon et al. (2018)
West et al. (2009)
Revegetation of waterways to enhance shade and bank stability in a warmer climate with
greater variability in extreme events.
West et al. (2009)
Establish an adaptive management framework, including knowledge integration, to
ensure that learning can be enabled from on-ground measures.
Judd et al. (2023)
Water managers to learn from, develop and apply frameworks, such as those developed
with natural resource management, to identify effective and potentially ineffective
management responses to climate change.
Crausbay et al. (2022)
Explicit examination of barriers to the incorporation of climate change within freshwater
ecosystem management and delivery of tailored guidance on effective ways to address
them.
Judd et al. (2023)
Marshall and Alexandra
(2016)
Review and reform of environmental objectives of policy, regulation and water plans
under non-stationarity, including feasibility and prioritisation of ecological improvement
and conservation objectives under climate change scenarios.
Lesslie et al. (2023)
Pittock et al. (2015)
Research to understand the capacity of ecosystems and habitats of significance to persist,
adapt or transform to a desirable state in a changing climate.
A. J. King et al. (2022)
Long-term management strategies that identify triggers for new actions, including novel
or high-risk options (e.g., translocation of species), and plan for such eventualities.
Finlayson et al. (2017)
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 58
5.5.3 Water management and governance adaptation
The governance of water management in the MDB is complex, reflecting its cross-jurisdictional
scale and the diverse social, cultural, environmental and economic values of the Basin. As noted
earlier, a key element of this governance is the Water Act 2007 (Cth), which, among other matters,
aims to protect, restore and provide for the environment of the Basin, ensure the return to
environmentally sustainable levels of extraction for water resources that are overallocated or
overused and promote the use and management of the Basin’s water resources in a way that
optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes. Importantly, the Act provides for the
development of a Basin Plan that includes limits to the amount of water that can be taken from
the Basin each year, water for the environment and River Murray operations, including
infrastructure. The objectives of the Basin Plan are supported in the Intergovernmental Agreement
on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–Darling Basin between the Australian Government
and Basin states, which came into effect in 2013. Significantly, the Basin Plan (2012) placed a new
lower limit on water use across the Basin and transferred some 2,700 GL/y of water entitlements
from irrigators to public management to restore degraded ecosystems (J. Horne, 2017).
In principle, water governance in the MDB is designed to be adaptive, with the Basin Plan to be
reviewed every 10 years and the diversion limit and policies within the Plan able to be altered to
accommodate new science and risk knowledge, as well as results from monitoring and evaluation
carried out on annual and five-yearly cycles. To support the development and implementation of
the Basin Plan, the MDBA – also established under the Water Act 2007 (Cth) – supports and draws
on scientific knowledge; for example, from the Murray–Darling Water and Environment Research
Program, the Basin Condition Monitoring Program and the SRAs on the health of Basin rivers.
Further, states develop plans consistent with the Basin Plan for each valley, which are reviewed
every five years and renegotiated every 10 years. However, a recent review of these plans reveals
that adaptive management to future climate change is not always comprehensively enabled
through the plans or their implementation (Prosser et al., 2021).
The development of the Sustainable Diversion Limit under the Basin Plan – the key measure for
promoting sustainable water use and building the resilience of water-dependent ecosystems –
was a substantial undertaking and achievement, given the context of some vocal community and
industry opposition to the reform (Alexandra, 2018; Owens, 2022). Nevertheless, there are several
robust critiques of the limits identified, most notably regarding their exclusion of future climate
change despite the then availability of climate change projections, which indicated a likely drier
climate in southern Australia (Pittock et al., 2015; Walker, 2019). Instead, historic climate and
hydrology data over the last 100 years or so in the Basin were used to inform the limits, a limited
test to inform decisions that need to build resilience in a changing climate. This was compounded
by a key Basin state government removing data on recent severe droughts from water operations
modelling with the rationale that unprecedented events skew water availability data (A. Davies,
2020; Prosser et al., 2021). The Basin Plan must draw upon the best available science, implement
robust approaches to utilising climate change science with its levels of uncertainty, and
incorporate climate non-stationarity and emerging understandings of increasing risks (e.g.,
drought) in Basin planning (Flack et al., 2020; Noble et al., 2023; Prosser et al., 2021). This is a
particular priority given recent analysis shows that because of uneven sharing arrangements,
water for the environment reduces by a greater proportion than water for consumptive uses in
dry years (Prosser et al., 2021).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 59
Risk assessments for water availability, water flow assessments and water quality also need to
recognise climate non-stationarity and that systemic shocks from extreme events are increasing.
Drawing on survey responses from 32 environmental water managers in Australia, Judd and
colleagues (2023) found that the flow assessment methods being used to support ecological
objectives were predominantly based on historical data and did not consider future streamflow
and ecological responses to climate change. Input from First Nations peoples was also noted as
not being often considered in this study. Further, key implementation approaches for the Act and
the Plan do not appear to have built capacities to manage future climate change risks. Water
managers have not yet implemented effective strategies for managing climate risk and there do
not appear to be any proposals to adjust state water plans to climate change (Owens, 2022;
Prosser et al., 2021). Of concern, the 10-year cycle for revising the Basin Plan has been interpreted
as a 10-year planning horizon. This has resulted in only incremental considerations of climate and
the risks from climate change being deferred as matters for later planning cycles (Prosser et al.,
2021). Clear development is needed of tools and capacities to not only enable the use of climate
scenarios in decision-making – including in combination with other drivers of change in the Basin –
but to also integrate 10-year plans within, say, a 50-year strategic plan to enable effective pathway
approaches and adaptability (Prosser et al., 2021).
More broadly, many risks to shared water resources are complex or compound and have been
assessed as increasing (Pittock et al., 2023). Risks and drivers of change also interact with each
other and can have cascading and damaging consequences. For example, the frequency of events
that lead to water scarcity or poor water quality is likely to increase with climate change, as well as
with climate change combined with extreme drought and floods and higher rates of harvesting of
unregulated water. Of concern, little is known about the risk interactions that can lead to non-
linear effects in the social-ecological system. This knowledge deficiency needs to be addressed for
effective management and adaptation in a changing climate (Figure 13).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 60
Source: Pittock et al. (2023, p. 10).
FIGURE 13. RISK INTERACTIONS RELATING TO SHARED WATER RESOURCES OF THE MURRAY–DARLING BASIN.
Note: Magnitude and extent of interaction: red = high, amber = medium, blue = low. ‘x’ indicates an
interaction exists, but evidence of magnitude and extent is limited.
Effective management of water resources in a complex socio-ecological system also calls for
approaches that explicitly explore how the consequences of management interventions and risks
are spread spatially and temporally, as well as how various groups benefit from or are relatively
marginalised by management decisions. Jackson and colleagues (2023) found that expected
challenges to Basin values from climate change would exacerbate tensions and trade-offs between
values and make the overall governance of the Basin more contentious. There is a substantial
theme in the literature that calls for governance reform to also give greater attention to fairness,
equity and justice (Lukasiewicz & Baldwin, 2017; Marshall & Alexandra, 2016). It is clear that
justice now demands explicit consideration of First Nations’ interests in water, water-dependent
species and ecosystems, and river, wetland and floodplain sites of cultural significance (Hartwig et
al., 2022; Jackson et al., 2019).
Climate change and a likely drier climate in the southern Basin need to better inform priorities for
water management. This may involve a shift in objectives from ‘protect and restore’ to
‘adaptation’, where attention is focused on maintenance of a subset of sites, and adaptation
options are evaluated in processes that navigate trade-offs among social, economic, cultural and
environmental values and between protection, restoration and adaptation (Gawne & Thompson,
2023). Lessons from interventions to date to enhance water security for select groups also
highlight that apparent solutions to water crises can bring new risks to the socio-ecological system.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 61
For example, the shift to reliance on Murray River water for irrigation in the Langhorne Creek area,
in response to declining local sources, increased the region’s exposure to risks relating to flow
rates affected by upstream extractions, climate fluctuations and management policy across the
broader MDB (Skinner et al., 2024). Additionally, short-term management responses to water
security may exacerbate risks from, for example, the over-exploitation and depletion of
groundwater resources, with adverse effects on groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Pittock et
al., 2023). Governance objectives and approaches need to better align with the multiple
dimensions and temporal dynamics of the MDB as a social-ecological system, and allow for more
rapid adjustments in line with longer-term change.
Finally, with the capacity for the trade in water increasing under the Basin Plan, there has been
debate as to whether or not water markets can facilitate climate change adaptation. Water
markets are known to provide a tool for the voluntary and efficient allocation of a scarce resource.
For instance, as of the end of 2021, over 2,106 GL of water entitlements have been recovered for
environmental purposes (MDBA, 2022) – the majority through buyback from voluntary tenders –
making the MDB trade one of the largest reallocations of water from consumptive use in the world
(Wheeler, 2022). Importantly, water markets can adapt to changing circumstances and equity
issues can be met through trade arrangements that allow for water sharing in times of scarcity
(Crase et al., 2020; Holley & Sinclair, 2016). In an era of increasing water scarcity, water markets in
the MDB can assist in water sharing, reallocation and farm adaptation to climate change,
contributing towards a more sustainable water future (Grafton & Horne, 2014; Wheeler, 2022).
Nevertheless, although it is anticipated that water markets will be important in mitigating some of
the risks of future climate change, the markets themselves can be affected by the uncertainties
associated with ongoing climate change (CSIRO, 2023).
5.5.4 Aligning local adaptation with Basin goals
A comprehensive review of bottom-up adaptation approaches at local, sub-regional or state scales
is beyond the scope of this synthesis. However, there is growing scholarship in how approaches
that provide for the direct participation of local communities can contribute to larger-scale natural
resource management initiatives (Robinson et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2015). Australia’s Water
Act 2007 (Cth) declares, for instance, that the values and priorities of Indigenous people and
communities need to be considered in water resource management and decision-making (s22),
and lessons have been learnt on the value of local involvement in developing options for achieving
ecosystem resilience in the face of increasing demand for water combined with climate variability
and change (Tan, 2012). For effective alignment of local and Basin-wide initiatives, a governance
system is needed that can ensure that the use of credible information underpins coordinated
planning, supports local groups and enables robust monitoring and evaluation (Robinson et al.,
2015).
The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH), the single largest water holder in the
MDB, is supporting several local initiatives that demonstrate how local institutions can manage
land and water resources to achieve locally important objectives and contribute to Basin-scale
outcomes. For example, the CEWH partnered in 2012 with the Nature Foundation South Australia
(NFSA) to help redress the loss of habitat on River Murray wetlands and floodplains and re-
establish stands of black box trees, with the NFSA having responsibility to manage some 50 GL of
water over five years. Of note, the long history of the NFSA, as a locally based NGO working with
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 62
landholders and community groups, underpinned its capacity to progress environmental
management opportunities on private lands that would be unlikely to be realised at a federal level
(Robinson et al., 2015). Such initiatives make clear that NGOs can robustly prioritise sites for
watering and ensure that monitoring and evaluation frameworks are critical for implementation
and that shared information on cross-scale planning, including on the maintenance of local values,
is important for effective and adaptive governance (Robinson et al., 2015). Lessons learnt from the
CEWH’s 2014–2019 Long-Term Intervention Monitoring and Environmental Water Knowledge
Research projects, along with the Flow-MER (Monitoring Evaluation Reporting) Program, can
further guide the assessment of how environmental water delivery can achieve local and Basin-
scale ecological outcomes (CEWH, 2024a).
Although studies show that environmental water practices are not yet sufficiently inclusive of First
Nations people’s knowledge, values, rights and interests (e.g., Taylor, Moggridge & Poelina, 2017),
engagement and partnership with First Nations peoples is increasing in the Basin. This is led by the
MDBA, the CEWH and state governments. In 2016, for instance, the CEWH formalised an
agreement at the mouth of the Murray in South Australia with the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority
for their involvement in water planning, advising on environmental flows and monitoring
Commonwealth environmental water in the wetlands of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong
(Jackson & Nias, 2019). The Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation (YYNAC) plays a key role in
the implementation of the Barmah–Millewa Forest Environmental Watering Project, which aims to
restore the health of an important cultural site and a critical habitat for native species, and
contributes to decision-making on environmental watering of the Goulburn River (CSIRO, 2023;
VEWH, 2023). In early 2023, for example, the YYNAC identified where alignment between planned
watering actions for Kaiela (Goulburn River reaches 4 and 5) and the cultural and ecological values
of the Yorta Yorta people would encourage native fish to spawn, alleviate the slumping of
culturally important sites (such as middens and scar trees) and revive streamside vegetation
important for food, fibre and medicine (VEWH, 2023).
Similarly in NSW, a multi-stakeholder partnership has commenced to deliver water to the Carrs,
Capitts and Bunberoo Creeks system and Backwater Lagoon to rejuvenate threatened river red
gum and black box communities in lands being returned to Barkindji traditional owners (Jackson &
Nias, 2019). Further examples of environmental water partnerships with First Nations peoples can
be found on the MDBA and CEWH’s websites (see, e.g., CEWH, 2024b; MDBA, 2023a). Such cases
remain few in number, perhaps in reflection of the complexity of the water management sector,
but there appears to be a substantial opportunity for growth in the role of First Nations
communities’ responsibilities for delivering environmental water to achieve local cultural and
environmental and Basin-scale objectives.
5.5.5 Adaptation and transformation
An emerging theme in the literature is that the interactions of climate change with complex socio-
ecological dynamics necessitate a shift by decision-makers from incremental adaptation toward
transformational approaches that can help cope with unprecedented, uncertain and ongoing
change (Abel et al., 2016; Pittock et al., 2023; Wise et al., 2014). Studies of adaptive water
management in the MDB support the need for this shift and find that changes in water availability
because of climate change will require more than incremental adaptation, including a profound
change to current ‘protect and restore’ approaches in the Basin Plan (Gawne & Thompson, 2023).
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 63
Further, feasible but more severe climate change scenarios for the Basin underline the need for
transformational adaptation approaches by all sectors to achieve sustainable water use (Lesslie et
al., 2023). For example, the CSIRO Ag2050 report (CSIRO, 2024) finds that without whole-of-
system transformation, the challenges presented by known drivers of change could result in a
decline in profitability of up to 50% by 2050 in some areas.
Importantly, transformative adaptation involves systemic changes to societal paradigms of values,
rules and knowledge (Colloff et al., 2020), which can be especially difficult in regions with
contested resource uses and rights, diverse decision-making approaches and multiple and, at
times, incompatible stakeholder values (Abel et al., 2016). As noted in section 1.2, the rapid
expansion in extractive uses of Basin water last century was underpinned by an economic
rationalist paradigm that led to irrigation and economic interests dominating decision-making and
the relative marginalisation of other interests (Hartwig et al., 2022; Jackson et al., 2023). Measures
to rebalance water allocation in decision-making may aggravate tensions from those with vested
interests in the historic regime and raise issues of fairness and equity. Where historic interests
dominate political acceptability and governance, proposed adaptation measures can reflect path
dependency, reinforce the status quo and, subsequently, increase vulnerability to shocks
associated with climate change (Marshall & Alexandra, 2016; Wheeler et al., 2023). For example,
some of the irrigation infrastructure grant subsidies (noted in section 5.5.1) were high cost and
poorly implemented, with unclear environmental water outcomes. Indeed, one key study found
that those who received an irrigation infrastructure grant actually increased their water extraction
volumes and rates (by more than 20%) relative to other irrigators (Wheeler et al., 2020).
Barriers to climate change adaptation can thus arise from historic decision-making, from policy
settings that assume climate stationarity and from dominant cultural values, among other things.
Effective approaches to transformative climate change adaptation need to identify, understand
and address relevant barriers to adaptation as well as co-develop and robustly implement
adaptation pathways (Judd et al., 2023; Wise et al., 2014).
5.6 Knowledge gaps
Although communities and industries have been responding to and adapting to major changes
experienced in the MDB over recent decades, the literature on adaptation is fragmented, not
comprehensive and partial in its coverage. The major gaps in knowledge concern:
• Understanding and framing how adaptaon needs to prepare communies for long-term
climate change in conjuncon with impacts from climate variability and other drivers of
change. Many of the studies undertaken to date focus on water scarcity rather than wider
or future climates, and explore responses to specic intervenons (e.g., water markets) or
events. Adaptaon in the socio-ecological system in preparaon for systemic and ongoing
change has been lile researched.
• Understanding the sensivity of systems and values to a changing climate, parcularly
ecological thresholds and responses to ows, capacies for ecological communies to
persist under new and changing climate condions, the vulnerability of groundwater-
dependent ecosystems, and Basin-wide understanding of crical refuges for communies
and species of signicance.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 64
• Recognising that adaptaon opons may require trade-os between interests and values,
which will vary over me and have increasing risks. There is a growing urgency to beer
understand where such trade-os may occur, where maladaptaon risks exist in the
preferencing of a subset of values, and how adaptaon pathways can enhance the Basin’s
resilience and sustainability.
• Ensuring adaptaon for First Naons peoples, led by First Naons peoples, and idenfying
opportunies for adaptaon measures to enhance, in a more integrated way, the cultural,
social and environmental values of the Basin, and its long-term economic sustainability.
• Developing eecve approaches for governance and instuonal reform that enable robust
adaptaon pathways, and idenfying where and under which circumstances various
adaptaon measures should be incenvised or applied, the end-user needs for their
uptake, and what the social, environmental and economic condions for success may be.
Finally, although this chapter has predominantly focused on adaptation to climate change, as
reflected in the literature, the adaptation-oriented organisation of a resilient system (see section
3.3) has been little explored in the MDB.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 65
6.0 EMERGING INTEGRATIVE INSIGHTS ON RAD
It is evident through this synthesis of the literature on resilience, drivers of change and adaptation
that there are multiple interlinkages and complementarities between the concepts, and that many
of these interlinkages have not yet been robustly teased out or understood. In addition, the
contiguous application of these concepts that deals with the realities of cross-scale, inter- and
intra-place dynamics of a socio-ecological system generally, and more specifically to the MDB, are
limited. Efforts in understanding the diverse values of the MDB are emerging to support Basin
planning and monitoring, but, more broadly, the disciplinary framing of these values limits their
application to narrower questions of specified resilience. Conceptual development is needed for
scholarly consideration of how multiple values can be maintained within the dynamic socio-
ecological system.
Resilience concepts of thresholds are also central to value, and this report identifies examples of
environmental thresholds that, if exceeded, would see loss of values. Further, a combined focus
on the question of what perturbations should the MDB be resilient to, the existence of thresholds,
and an understanding of the operation and impact of drivers of change, foregrounds factors that
are adversely affecting values, resilience and management intervention. This report has further
included an appreciation of how the interacting impacts of direct and indirect drivers of change
can inform where and how adaptive capacity and adaptation measures need to be progressed. A
consideration of indirect drivers of change in the adaptation context can also bring a more
nuanced and insightful understanding of the factors that enable or constrain adaptation.
There are, however, major knowledge gaps in the conceptualisation and application of these
concepts in the MDB, many of which have been summarised in this report. Of note here is the
relative lack of research on resilience at the Basin-scale and within a dynamic socio-ecological
system. Most studies are at small catchment scales or focus on the functioning of a particular
value in a specified case. Overall, the literature synthesised in this report is wide but,
simultaneously, relatively shallow to cover the conceptual span. The aim of the report is to be
indicative of key issues and themes, but it is possible that not all such themes have been
sufficiently captured.
The literature synthesis also highlights the differing frames for resilience and adaptation concepts.
Whereas resilience as defined and applied in section 3 is a dynamic concept that relates to system
thinking and functioning, in section 5 resilience is understood more as a normative goal that is
important for climate change adaptation. Similarly, section 3 outlines adaptation or adaptation-
orientation as an attribute of resilience thinking that enables systems to cope with and respond to
perturbations. Somewhat distinct from this understanding, but also overlapping, the literature in
section 5 understands adaptation as a proactive approach that anticipates and contextually
responds to ongoing climate change. In our view, there are important insights from embracing
both specific and normative interpretations – in clarifying, for example, where specified resilience
transformations are undesirable and, at the same time, where transformations in social and
economic systems are necessary for climate change adaptation.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 66
Drawing on these insights, there is an opportunity to develop an integrative framework that
conceptualises the interlinkages between resilience, drivers of change and adaptation. Such a
framework could add substantial insights to further research on management interventions that
contribute to the sustainability of socio-ecological system. Importantly, the framework needs to
be both conceptually robust and applicable to broad scale socio-ecological system, such as the
MDB. It can build on the RAD indicators of June 2024 and design transparent, accountable and
salient adaptation pathways with a more nuanced understanding of how to utilise resilience to
achieve adaptation options in the MDB. This necessarily requires accounting for First Nations
people’s knowledge, which is currently absent in much of the literature. Tackling these issues
demands a concerted effort to fill existing knowledge gaps and integrate insights across multiple,
interacting drivers of change.
Finally, this literature synthesis brings contemporary knowledge on resilience, drivers of change
and adaptation to the values of the MDB and to the water management planning of the MDBA. It
is anticipated that this knowledge will inform further work on understanding drivers of change,
cases of effective approaches to resilience and adaptation, and indicators to assess change in the
resilience of values important to the MDBA’s SRA and Outlook of the MDB. To achieve this, the
report will be ‘living’, updated throughout the project with new literature, and this section,
specifically, will grow to better reflect the learnings of applying RAD concepts to the MDB.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 67
REFERENCES
Abel, N., Wise, R. M., Colloff, M. J., Walker, B. H., Butler, J. R., Ryan, P., Norman, C., Langston, C.,
Anderies, J. M., Gorddard, R., Dunlop, M., & O’Connell, D. (2016). Building resilient pathways to
transformation when ‘no one is in charge’: Insights from Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin. Ecology
and Society, 21(2), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08422-210223
ABS. (2022). Gross value of irrigated agricultural production (GVIAP). Water Account 2020–21,
Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/environment/environmental-management/water-account-
australia/2020-21
Adamson, D., Loch, A., & Schwabe, K. (2017). Adaptation responses to increasing drought
frequency. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 61(3), 385–403.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12214
Adaptation Committee. (2021). Approaches to reviewing the overall progress made in achieving
the global goal on adaptation (Technical paper).
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ac2021_tp_gga.pdf
Aerts, J. C. J. H., Botzen, W., van der Veen, A., Krywkow, J., & Werners, S. (2008). Dealing with
uncertainty in flood management through diversification. Ecology and Society, 13(1), Article 41.
Alexandra, J. (2018). Evolving governance and contested water reforms in Australia’s Murray
Darling Basin. Water, 10(2), Article 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020113
Alexandra, J., & Rickards, L. (2021). The contested politics of drought, water security and climate
adaptation in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin. Water Alternatives, 14(3), 773–794.
Alston, M., Clarke, J., & Whittenbury, K. (2018). Limits to adaptation: Reducing irrigation water in
the Murray–Darling Basin dairy communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 58, 93–102.
Alston, M., & Mason, R. (2008). Who turns the taps off? Introducing social flow to the Australian
water debate. Rural Society, 18(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.5172/rsj.351.18.2.131
Alston, M., & Whittenbury, K. (2011). Climate change and water policy in Australia’s irrigation
areas: A lost opportunity for a partnership model of governance. Environmental Politics, 20(6),
899–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2011.617175
Alston, M., Whittenbury, K., Western, D., & Gosling, A. (2016). Water policy, trust and governance
in the Murray–Darling Basin. Australian Geographer, 47(1), 49–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2015.1091056
Arthington, A. H., Tickner, D., McCLain, M. E., Acreman, M. C., Anderson, E. P., Babu, S., Dickens, C.
W. S., Horne, A., Kaushal, N., Monk, W. A., O’Brien, G. C., Olden, J. D., Opperman, J. J., Owusu, A.
G., LeRoy Poff, N., Richter, B. D., Salinas-Rodriguez, A., Shamboko Mbale, B., Tharme, R. E., &
Yarnell, S. M. (2023). Accelerating environmental flow implementation to bend the curve of global
freshwater biodiversity loss. Environmental Reviews. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2022-0126
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 68
Asghari, A., Kuleshov, Y., Watkins, A. B., Bhardwaj, J., & Aitkenhead, I. (2021). Improving drought
resilience in Northern Murray–Darling Basin farming communities: Is forecast-based financing
suitable? Natural Hazards, 109(1), 1221–1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04876-6
Ayre, M. L., & Nettle, R. A. (2017). Enacting resilience for adaptive water governance: A case study
of irrigation modernization in an Australian catchment. Ecology and Society, 22(3), Article 1.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09256-220301
Baldwin, D. (2016). The potential impacts of climate change on water quality in the southern
Murray–Darling Basin (Final Report 139/2015). The Murray–Darling Freshwater Research Centre.
Baldwin, D. (2021). Water quality in the Murray–Darling Basin: The potential impacts of climate
change. In B. T. Hart, N. R. Bond, N. Byron, C. A. Pollino & M. J. Stewardson (Eds.), Murray–Darling
Basin, Australia (Vol. 1, pp. 137–159). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
818152 2.00007-3
Beavis, S. G., Wong, V. N., Mosley, L. M., Baldwin, D. S., Latimer, J. O., Lane, P., & Lal, A. (2023).
Water quality risks in the Murray–Darling Basin. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 27(1),
85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2022.2163475
Bell, S. (2022). The limits of federal state capacity in managing Australia’s Murray–Darling river
Basin. Water Alternatives, 15(1), 129–149.
Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2016). Panarchy and community resilience: Sustainability science and policy
implications. Environmental Science and Policy, 61, 185–193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.004
Berney, P., & Hosking, T. (2016). Opportunities and challenges for water-dependent protected
area management arising from water management reform in the Murray–Darling Basin: A case
study from the Macquarie Marshes in Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 26(S1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2639
Biggs, R., Clements, H., de Vos, A., Folke, C., Mayani, A., Maciejewski, K., Martín-López, B., Preiser,
R., Selomane, O., & Schlüter, M. (2021). What are social-ecological systems and social-ecological
systems research? In R. Biggs, A. de Vos, R. Preiser, H. Clements, K. Maciejewski & M. Schlüter
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems (pp. 3–26).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-1
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., & Schoon, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Principles for building resilience: sustaining
ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge University Press.
Bino, G., Brandis, K., Kingsford, R., & Porter, J. (2019). Waterbird expected outcomes modelling
analysis–priority scenarios for 2019 BWS update. Centre for Ecosystem Science.
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/27377
Bino, G., Brandis, K., Kingsford, R., & Porter, J. (2020). Waterbird synchrony across Australia’s
highly variable dryland rivers – Risks and opportunities for conservation. Biological Conservation,
243, Article 108497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108497
Bino, G., Brandis, K., Kingsford, R., & Porter, J. (2021). Shifting goalposts: Setting restoration
targets for waterbirds in the Murray–Darling Basin under climate change. Frontiers in
Environmental Science, 9, Article 785903. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.785903
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 69
BoM. (2020). Trends and historical conditions in the Murray–Darling Basin. Bureau of
Meteorology.
BoM. (2022). Australian water markets report 2020–21. Bureau of Meteorology.
Borrell, A., & Webster, R. (2019). Millewa intervention monitoring: Colonial waterbird nesting
2018–19. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Bowmer, K. H. (2014). Water resources in Australia: Deliberation on options for protection and
management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(3), 228–240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2014.913269
Brandis, K., Bino, G., Spencer, J., Ramp, D., & Kingsford, R. (2018). Decline in colonial waterbird
breeding highlights loss of Ramsar wetland function. Biological Conservation, 225, 22–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.022
Bureau of Rural Science. (2004). Land use mapping for the Murray Darling Basin: 1993, 1996, 1998,
2000 maps: Baseline land use profiles to support the implementation of the Basin Salinity
Management Strategy.
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/abares/aclump/documents/Web_LUMapping%
20for% 20the%20MDB.pdf
Caccamo, M., Pittino, D., & Tell, F. (2023). Boundary objects, knowledge integration, and
innovation management: A systematic review of the literature. Technovation, 122, Article 102645.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102645
Calderón-Contreras, R., & White, C. S. (2020). Access as the means for understanding social-
ecological resilience: Bridging analytical frameworks. Society and Natural Resources, 33(2), 205–
223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1597233
Capon, S., James, C., & Reid, M. (Eds.). (2016). Vegetation of Australian riverine landscapes:
Biology, ecology and management. CSIRO.
Capon, S., Leigh, C., Hadwen, W. L., George, A., McMahon, J. M., Linke, S., Reis, V., Gould, L., &
Arthington, A. H. (2018). Transforming environmental water management to adapt to a changing
climate. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6, Article 80.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00080
Casey, S., Crimmins, G., Rodriguez Castro, L., & Holliday, P. (2022). We would be dead in the water
without our social media!: Women using entrepreneurial bricolage to mitigate drought impacts in
rural Australia. Community Development, 53(2), 196–213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1972017
Catelotti, K., Kingsford, R., Bino, G., & Bacon, P. (2015). Inundation requirements for persistence
and recovery of river red gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in semi-arid Australia. Biological
Conservation, 184, 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.014
Catford, J. A., & Jansson, R. (2014). Drowned, buried and carried away: Effects of plant traits on
the distribution of native and alien species in riparian ecosystems. New Phytologist, 204(1), 19–36.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12951
CEWH. (2024a). CEWH science programs. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/cewh/manage-
water/science-monitoring/science-programs
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 70
CEWH. (2024b). Working with First Nations. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/cewh/community-
partners/working-with-first-nations
CEWO. (2019). Commonwealth Environmental Water Office long term intervention monitoring
Project Gwydir River System selected area – Five year evaluation report.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/gwydir-ltim-five-year-evaluation-
report.pdf
Chan, K., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R.,
Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U.,
Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values
and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 113(6), 1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
Chen, Y., Colloff, M. J., Lukasiewicz, A., & Pittock, J. (2020). A trickle, not a flood: Environmental
watering in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 72(5), 601–619.
https://doi.org/10.1071/MF20172
Chiew, F. H. S., Zheng, H., Post, D. A., Robertson, D. E., & Rojas, R. (2022). Hydroclimate trends and
future projections in the Murray–Darling Basin (Technical Report). CSIRO.
Clarkson, C., Jacobs, Z., Marwick, B., Fullagar, R., Wallis, L., Smith, M., Roberts, R. G., Hayes, E.,
Lowe, K., Carah, X., Florin, S. A., McNeil, J., Cox, D., Arnold, L. J., Hua, Q., Huntley, J., Brand, H. E. A.,
Manne, T., Fairbairn, A., … Pardoe, C. (2017). Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000
years ago. Nature, 547(7663), 306–310. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22968
Clemens, R., Rogers, D. I., Hansen, B. D., Gosbell, K., Minton, C. D., Straw, P., Bamford, M.,
Woehler, E. J., Milton, D. A., Weston, M. A., Venables, B., Wellett, D., Hassell, C., Rutherford, B.,
Onton, K., Herrod, A., Studds, C. E., Choi, C. Y., Dhanjal-Adams, K. L., … Fuller, R. A. (2016).
Continental-scale decreases in shorebird populations in Australia. Emu – Austral Ornithology,
116(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU15056
Cocklin, C., Dibden, J., & Mautner, N. (2006). From market to multifunctionality? Land stewardship
in Australia. Geographical Journal, 172(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
4959.2006.00206.x
Colloff, M. J., & Pittock, J. (2019). Why we disagree about the Murray–Darling Basin plan: Water
reform, environmental knowledge and the science-policy decision context. Australasian Journal of
Water Resources, 23(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878
Colloff, M. J., Wise, R. M., Palomo, I., Lavorel, S., & Pascual, U. (2020). Nature’s contribution to
adaptation: Insights from examples of the transformation of social-ecological systems. Ecosystems
and People, 16(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020. 1754919
Conallin, J., McLoughlin, C. A., Campbell, J., Knight, R., Bright, T., & Fisher, I. (2018). Stakeholder
participation in freshwater monitoring and evaluation programs: Applying thresholds of potential
concern within environmental flows. Environmental Management, 61(3), 408–420.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0940-2
Copes-Gerbitz, K., Hagerman, S. M., & Daniels, L. D. (2021). Situating Indigenous knowledge for
resilience in fire-dependent social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 26(4), Article
25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12757-260425
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 71
Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2011). Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social
change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography, 36(4), 475–489.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708
Cox, P. A., Kostrzewa, R. M., & Guillemin, G. J. (2018). BMAA and neurodegenerative illness.
Neurotoxicity Research, 33(1), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12640-017-9753-6
Crase, L., Connor, J., Michaels, S., & Cooper, B. (2020). Australian water policy reform: Lessons
learned and potential transferability. Climate Policy, 20, 641–651.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1752614
Crausbay, S. D., Sofaer, H. R., Cravens, A. E., Chaffin, B. C., Clifford, K. R., Gross, J. E., Knapp, C. N.,
Lawrence, D. J., Magness, D. R., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Schuuman, G. W., & Stevens-Rumann, C. S.
(2022). A science agenda to inform natural resource management decisions in an era of ecological
transformation. BioScience, 72(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab102
CSIRO. (2008). Water availability in the Murray–Darling Basin. A report to the Australian
Government from the CSIRO Murray–Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=legacy:683anddsid=DS1
CSIRO. (2023). Values and vulnerability of the Murray–Darling Basin – Basin-wide rapid
assessment. MD-WERP Activity TK1.
CSIRO. (2024). Ag2050 scenarios report. https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-
us/services/consultancy-strategic-advice-services/csiro-futures/agriculture-and-food/ag2050-
scenarios-reimagining-australian-farming-systems
CSIRO & BoM (Bureau of Meteorology). (2015). Climate change in Australia: information for
Australia’s natural resource management regions. Technical report.
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/publications-library/technical-report/
Cutter, S. L. (2016). Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? The Geographical Journal, 182(2),
110–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12174
Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based
model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental
Change, 18(4), 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013
Davies, A. (2020, 14 July). Former NSW Water Minister defends exclusion of driest years from
sustainable water calculations. The Guardian Australia. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/jul/13/former-nsw-water-minister-defends-exclusion-of-driest-years-from-
sustainable-water-calculations
Davies, P., Harris, J., Hillman, T., & Walker, K. (2008). A report on the ecological health of rivers in
the Murray Darling Basin, 2004–2007 (16/08). Murray–Darling Basin Commission.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/archived/mdbc-sra-reports/1-
SRA_Report_1_tech_full.pdf
Davies, P., Stewardson, M., Hillman, T., Roberts, J., & Thoms, M. (2012). Sustainable Rivers Audit 2:
The ecological health of rivers in the Murray–Darling Basin at the end of the Millennium Drought
(2008–2010) (Vol. 1). Murray–Darling Basin Authority.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/SRA2-REPORT-VOL-1.pdf
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 72
Davies, P. M., Naiman, R. J., Warfe, D. M., Pettit, N. E., Arthington, A. H., & Bunn, S. E. (2013).
Flow–ecology relationships: Closing the loop on effective environmental flows. Marine and
Freshwater Research, 65(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF13110
Debaere, P., & Li, T. (2022). Water markets’ promise: the Murray–Darling Basin. Environmental
Research Letters, 17(12), 125003.
DEH. (2022). Healthy Coorong, healthy Basin. Coorong infrastructure investigations: Feasibility and
infrastructure directions. Government of South Australia.
https://cdn.environment.sa.gov.au/environment/docs/HCHB-CIIP-Feasibility-Future-Directions.pdf
DELWP. (2020). Achievement of environmental outcomes in northern Victoria's waterways: Report
to meet Murray–Darling Basin Plan Schedule 12 Matter 8 obligations. Victorian Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning.
https://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/510968/VIC-Basin-PlanMatter-8-
2020-Report.pdf
de Oliveira, A. G., Bailly, D., Cassemiro, F. A. S., do Couto, E. V., Bond, N., Gilligan, D., Rangel, T. F.,
Agostinho, A. A., & Kennard, M. J. (2019). Coupling environment and physiology to predict effects
of climate change on the taxonomic and functional diversity of fish assemblages in the Murray–
Darling Basin, Australia. PloS One, 14(11), Article e0225128.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225128
DeRose, R. C., Prosser, I. P., Weisse, M., & Hughes, A. O. (2003). Patterns of erosion and sediment
and nutrient transport in the Murray–Darling Basin (Technical Report 32/03). CSIRO Land and
Water.
Dinh, H., Daly, A., & Freyens, B. (2017). Farm adjustment strategies to water-related challenges in
the Murray–Darling Basin. Policy Studies, 38(5), 482–501.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1194386
Dinh, H., & Pearson, L. (2015). Specifying community economic resilience – A framework for
measurement. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 21(3), 278–302.
Doolan, J. (2016). The Australian water reform journey: An overview of three decades of policy,
management and institutional transformation. Australian Water Partnership.
Dornelles, A. Z., Boyd, E., Nunes, R. J., Asquith, M., Boonstra, W. J., Delabre, I., Denney, J. M.,
Grimm, V., Jentsch, A., Nicholas, K. A., Schröter, M., Seppelt, R., Settele, J., Shackelford, N.,
Standish, R. J., Yengoh, G. T., & Oliver, T. H. (2020). Towards a bridging concept for undesirable
resilience in social-ecological systems. Global Sustainability, 3, Article e20.
https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.15
EBC, RMCG, MJA, EconSearch, McLeod, G., Cummins, T., Roth, G., & Cornis, D. (2011). Community
impacts of the Guide to the proposed Murray–Darling Basin Plan. Murray–Darling Basin Authority.
Ellis, I., Bates, W. B., Martin, S., McCrabb, G., Koehn, J., Heath, P., & Hardman, D. (2022). How fish
kills affected traditional (Baakandji) and non-Traditional communities on the Lower Darling/Baaka
River. Marine and Freshwater Research, 73(2), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF20376
Epstein, G., Morrison, T. H., Lien, A., Gurney, G. G., Cole, D. H., Delaroche, M., Villamayor-Tomas,
S., Ban, N., & Cox, M. (2020). Advances in understanding the evolution of institutions in complex
social-ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 58–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.06.002
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 73
Ernst & Young. (2011). Economic contribution of recreational fishing in the Murray–Darling Basin.
https://www.fishhabitatnetwork.com.au/userfiles/EconomicContributionofRecFishingintheMDBFi
nalReport08_08_20112.pdf
Fernando, D. R., Fernando, A. E., Koerber, G. R., & Doody, T. M. (2021). Tree–soil interactions
through water release to a floodplain ecosystem: A case study of black box (Eucalyptus
largiflorens) on loamy sands. Wetlands, 41(1), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-021-
01419-4
Fielke, S. J., & Bardsley, D. K. (2014). The importance of farmer education in South Australia. Land
Use Policy, 39, 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.006
Finlayson, C. M., Capon, S. J., Rissik, D., Pittock, J., Fisk, G., Davidson, N. C., Bodmin, K. A., Papas, P.,
Robertson, H. A., Schallenberg, M., Saintilan, N., Edyvane, K., & Bino, G. (2017). Policy
considerations for managing wetlands under a changing climate. Marine and Freshwater Research,
68, 1803–1815. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF16244
Flack, A. L., Kiem, A. S., Vance, T. R., Tozer, C. R., & Roberts, J. L. (2020). Comparison of published
palaeoclimate records suitable for re-constructing annual to sub-decadal hydroclimatic variability
in eastern Australia: Implications for water resource management and planning. Hydrology and
Earth System Science, 24, 5699–5712. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-314
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004).
Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 557–581.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological
systems. Annual Review in Environmental Resources, 30, 441–473.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Fowler, K., Ballis, N., Horne, A., John, A., Nathan, R., & Peel, M. (2022). Integrated framework for
rapid climate stress testing on a monthly timestep. Environmental Modelling & Software, 150,
105339.
Gawne, B., & Thompson, R. (2023). Adaptive water management in response to climate change:
The case of the southern Murray–Darling Basin. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 27(2),
271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2023.2181844
GBRMPA. (2024). Reef 2050 policies. https://www2.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/reef-management-
strategies/reef-2050-policies
Gehrke, P. C., & Harris, J. H. (2001). Regional-scale effects of flow regulation on lowland riverine
fish communities in New South Wales, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management,
17(4–5), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.648
Gell, P. A., Reid, M. A., & Wilby, R. L. (2019). Management pathways for the floodplain wetlands of
the southern Murray–Darling Basin: Lessons from history. River Research and Applications, 35(8),
1291–1301. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3515
Gibson, L. (2008). ‘We don’t do dots – ours is lines’ – Asserting a Barkindji style. Oceania, 78(3),
280–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4461.2008.tb00042.x
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 74
Glenn, E. P., Nagler, P. L., Shafroth, P. B., & Jarchow, C. J. (2017). Effectiveness of environmental
flows for riparian restoration in arid regions: A tale of four rivers. Ecological Engineering, 106, 695–
703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.01.009
Goesch, T., Legg, P., & Donoghoe, M. (2020). Murray–Darling Basin water markets: Trends and
drivers 2002–03 to 2018–19 (ABARES Research Report 20.5). Commonwealth of Australia.
https://doi.org/10.25814/5e409ea3cb1fc
Golding, B., Brown, M., Foley, A., Smith, E., Campbell, C., Schulz, C., Angwin, J., & Grace, L. (2009).
Wicked learning: Reflecting on learning to be drier. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 49(3),
544–566.
Gonzalez, D., Dillon, P., Page, D., & Vanderzalm, J. (2020). The potential for water banking in
Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin to increase drought resilience. Water, 12(10), Article 2936.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102936
Grafton, R. Q., & Horne, J. (2014). Water markets in the Murray–Darling Basin. Agricultural Water
Management, 145(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.12.001
Green, J., & Moggridge, B. (2021). Australia state of the environment 2021: Inland water
(Independent Report). Commonwealth of Australia.
Gross, C., & Dumaresq, D. (2014). Taking the longer view: Timescales, fairness and a forgotten
story of irrigation in Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 2483–2492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.08.056
Groth, T. M., Curtis, A., Mendham, E., & Toman, E. (2017). Examining the agricultural producer
identity: Utilising the collective occupational identity construct to create a typology and profile of
rural landholders in Victoria, Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4),
628–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1165189
Growns, I. (2008). The influence of changes to river hydrology on freshwater fish in regulated
rivers of the Murray–Darling Basin. Hydrobiologia, 596, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-
007-9097-y
Hanigan, I. C., Butler, C. D., Kokic, P. N., & Hutchinson, M. F. (2012). Suicide and drought in New
South Wales, Australia, 1970–2007. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 109(35), 13950–13955. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112965109
Hanigan, I. C., Schirmer, J., & Niyonsenga, T. (2018). Drought and distress in southeastern
Australia. EcoHealth, 15(3), 642–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-018-1339-0
Haron, M., & Dragovich, D. (2010). Climatic influences on dryland salinity in central west New
South Wales, Australia. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(10), 1216–1224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2010.04.014
Hartwig, L. D., Jackson, S., Markham, F., & Osborne, N. (2022). Water colonialism and Indigenous
water justice in south-eastern Australia. International Journal of Water Resources Development,
38(1), 30–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1868980
Hawke, T., Kingsford, R. T., & Betteridge, B. (2022). Waterbird populations. In A. King, J. Mynott, N.
Bond, R. Grieger, D. Hamilton, T. Hawke, J. Johnston-Bates, M. Kennard, G. King, R. Kingsford, M.
Klunzinger, S. Lewis, F. Sheldon, E. Silvester & P Zivec, Murray–Darling Basin 2023 Outlook:
Environmental Values (Technical Literature Report). Centre for Freshwater Ecosystems.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 75
Head, L., Klocker, N., Dun, O., & Aguirre-Bielschowsky, I. (2019). Cultivating engagements: Ethnic
minority migrants, agriculture, and environment in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Annals of
the American Association of Geographers, 109(6), 1903–1921.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2019.1587286
Head, L., Klocker, N., Dun, O., & Spaven, T. (2018). Irrigator relations with water in the Sunraysia
region, northwestern Victoria. Geographical Research, 56(1), 92–106.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12271.
Heagney, E. C., Rose, J. M., Ardeshiri, A., & Kovac, M. (2019). The economic value of tourism and
recreation across a large protected area network, Land Use Policy, 88, Article 104084.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104084
Hemming, S., Rigney, D., Bignall, S., Berg, S., & Rigney, G. (2019). Indigenous nation building for
environmental futures: Murrundi flows through Ngarrindjeri country. Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management, 26(3), 216–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2019.1651227
Hoekstra, A. Y., Bredenhoff-Bijlsma, R., & Krol, M. S. (2018). The control versus resilience rationale
for managing systems under uncertainty. Environmental research letters, 13(10), 103002.
Holley, C., & Sinclair, D. (2016). Governing water markets: Achievements, limitations and the need
for regulatory reform. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 33, 301–324.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics, 4, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In P. E. Schulze (Ed.),
Engineering within ecological constraints (pp. 31–44). National Academy Press.
Horne, A. C., Webb, J. A., Mussehl, M., John, A., Rumpff, L., Fowler, K., Lovell, D., & Poff, L. (2022).
Not just another assessment method: Reimagining environmental flows assessments in the face of
uncertainty. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, Article 808943.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.808943
Horne, J. (2017). The politics of water reform and environmental sustainability in the Murray–
Darling Basin. Water International, 42(8), 1000–1021.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2017.1412201
Howard, J. L. (2008). The future of the Murray River: Amenity re-considered? Geographical
Research, 46(3), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2008.00524.x
Howden, M., & Stokes, C. (2010). Introduction. In C. Stokes & M. Howden (Eds.), Adapting
agriculture to climate change: Preparing Australian agriculture, forestry and fisheries for the
future: (pp. 1-11). CSIRO.
Hughes, N., Lu, M., Soh, W. Y., & Lawson, K. (2022). Modelling the effects of climate change on the
profitability of Australian farms. Climatic Change, 172(1), Article 12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03356-5
IPBES. (2022). Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values
and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522392
IPCC. (2018). Annex I: Glossary. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea,
P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 76
Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor & T. Waterfield (Eds.), Global
Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and
efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_AnnexI_Glossary.pdf
Jackson, S. (2015). The cultural politics of environmental water management in Australia. Water
and Society III, 1, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.2495/ws150031
Jackson, S., Hatton MacDonald, D., & Bark, R. (2019). Public attitudes to inequality in water
distribution: Insights from preferences for water reallocation from irrigators to Aboriginal
Australians. Water Resources Research, 55(7), 6033–6048.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025011
Jackson, S., & Head, L. (2020). Australia’s mass fish kills as a crisis of modern water: Understanding
hydrosocial change in the Murray–Darling Basin. Geoforum, 109, 44–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.12.020
Jackson, S., & Nias, D. (2019). Watering country: Aboriginal partnerships with environmental water
managers of the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental
Management, 26(3), 287-303.
Jackson, S., Wyborn, C., & Annand-Jones, R. (2023). Relational values of the Murray–Darling Basin:
A literature review (Research Report). Griffith University and The Australian National University.
James, C., VanDerWal, J., Capon, S., Hodgson, L., Waltham, N., Ward, D., Anderson, B., & Pearson,
R. (2013). Identifying climate refuges for freshwater biodiversity across Australia (Final Report).
National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
Jerneck, A., & Olsson, L. (2015). Adaptation and the poor: Development, resilience and transition.
Climate Policy, 8(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2007.0434
Jiang, Q., & Grafton, R. Q. (2012). Economic effects of climate change in the Murray–Darling Basin,
Australia. Agricultural Systems, 110, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.009
Joehnk, K., Biswas, T., Anstee, J., Ford, P., Botha, E., Drayson, N., Kerrisk, G., & McInerney, P.
(2021). Lake Hume blue green algae monitoring and forecasting. CSIRO.
Johnson-Bates, J., Grieger, R., Zivec, P., Hunt, G., & Sheldon, F. (2022). Water-dependent
vegetation. In A. J. King, J. H. Mynott, N. Bond, R. Grieger, D. Hamilton, T. Hawke, J. Johnston-
Bates, M. Kennard, G. King, R. T. Kingsford, M. Klunzinger, S. Lewis, F. Sheldon, E. Silvester & P.
Zivec (Eds.), Murray–Darling Basin 2023 outlook: Environmental values: Technical literature
review. Centre for Freshwater Ecosystems.
Judd, M., Boese, M., Horne, A. C., & Bond, N. R. (2023). Perceptions of climate change adaptation
barriers in environmental water management. Ecology and Society, 28(1), Article 21.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13883-280121
Kahan, G., Colloff, M., & Pittock, J. (2021). Using an ecosystem services approach to re-frame the
management of flow constraints in a major regulated river Basin. Australasian Journal of Water
Resources, 25(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2020.1832723
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 77
Kerner, D. A., & Thomas, J. S. (2014). Resilience attributes of social-ecological systems: Framing
metrics for management. Resources, 3(4), 672–702. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3040672
King, A. (1995). Avoiding ecological surprise: Lessons from longstanding communities. Academy of
Management Review, 20(4), 961–985. https://doi.org/10.2307/258962
King, A. J., Mynott, J. H., Bond, N., Grieger, R., Hamilton, D., Hawke, T., Johnston-Bates, J.,
Kennard, M., King, G., Kingsford, R. T., Klunzinger, M., Lewis, S., Sheldon, F., Silvester, E., & Zivec,
P. (2022). Murray–Darling Basin 2023 outlook: Environmental values: Technical literature review.
Centre for Freshwater Ecosystems.
Kingsford, R., Bino, G., & Porter, J. L. (2017). Continental impacts of water development on
waterbirds, contrasting two Australian river basins: Global implications for sustainable water use.
Global Change Biology, 23(11), 4958–4969.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13743
Kirby, M., Bark, R., Connor, J., Qureshi, M. E., & Keyworth, S. (2014). Sustainable irrigation: How
did irrigated agriculture in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin adapt in the Millennium Drought?
Agricultural Water Management, 145, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.02.013
Klocker, N., Head, L., Dun, O., & Spaven, T. (2018). Experimenting with agricultural diversity:
Migrant knowledge as a resource for climate change adaptation. Journal of Rural Studies, 57, 13–
24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.10.006
Klunzinger, M., Grieger, R., King, G., Kennard, M., Bond, N., & O’Brien, M. (2022). Habitat
provision. In A. J. King, J. H. Mynott, N. Bond, R. Grieger, D. Hamilton, T. Hawke, J. Johnston-Bates,
M. Kennard, G. King, R. T. Kingsford, M. Klunzinger, S. Lewis, F. Sheldon, E. Silvester & P. Zivec
(Eds.), Murray–Darling Basin 2023 outlook: Environmental values: Technical literature review.
Centre for Freshwater Ecosystems.
Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J.
(2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems.
Ecology and Society, 11(1), 1–21.
Leblanc, M., Tweed, S., Van Dijk, A., & Timbal, B. (2012). A review of historic and future
hydrological changes in the Murray–Darling Basin. Global and Planetary Change, 80–81, 226–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.10.012
Lesslie, E., Colloff, M. J., & Pittock, J. (2023). Walking back from the edge: Thresholds of change
reveal options for adaptation to water scarcity under climate change in the Murray–Darling Basin,
Australia. Regional Environmental Change, 23(4), Article 154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-
02146-8
Li, T., Dong, Y., & Liu, Z. (2020). A review of social-ecological system resilience: Mechanism,
assessment and management. Science of the Total Environment, 723, Article 138113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138113
Lindsay, J., Rogers, B. C., Church, E., Gunn, A., Hammer, K., Dean, A. J., & Fielding, K. (2019). The
role of community champions in long-term sustainable urban water planning. Water, 11(3), Article
476. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030476
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 78
Loch, A., Wheeler, S., Bjornlund, H., Beecham, S., Edwards, J., Zuo, A., & Shanahan, M. (2013). The
role of water markets in climate change adaptation (Final Report). National Climate Change
Adaptation Research Facility.
Lovell, D., & Casanelia, S. (2021). Science into action: How monitoring informs Goulburn River
flows and use of water for the environment. Lower Goulburn Quarterly Outcomes Newsletter, 9,
1–14. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/lower-goulburn-quarterly-
outcomes-newsletter-sept-2021.pdf.
Lukasiewicz, A. (2014). Fair water distribution [Paper presentation]. Australia New Zealand Society
for Ecological Economics 2013 Conference, The University of Canberra and Australia New Zealand
Society for Ecological Economics, Canberra, Australia.
https://anzsee.org.au/download/anzsee_2013_conference_proceedings/08_Lukasiewicz.pdf
Lukasiewicz, A., & Baldwin, C. (2017). Voice, power, and history: Ensuring social justice for all
stakeholders in water decision-making. Local Environment, 22(9), 1042–1060.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.942261
MacKinnon, D., & Derickson, K. D. (2012). From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of
resilience policy and activism. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), 253–270.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512454775
Mac Nally, R., Cunningham, S. C., Baker, P. J., Horner, G. J., & Thomson, J. R. (2011). Dynamics of
Murray–Darling floodplain forests under multiple stressors: The past, present, and future of an
Australian icon. Water Resources Research, 47(12), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010383
Manzini, E., & Tassinari, V. (2013). Sustainable qualities: Powerful drivers of social change. In R.
Crocker & S. Lehmann (Eds.), Motivating change: Sustainable design and behaviour in the built
environment (pp. 217–232). Routledge.
Marshall, G. R., & Alexandra, J. (2016). Institutional path dependence and environmental water
recovery in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin. Water Alternatives, 9(3), 679–703.
Marshall, G. R., & Lobry de Bruyn, L. A. (2021). Water policy reform for sustainable development in
the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia: insights from resilience thinking. In J. Baird & R. Plummer
(Eds.), Water resilience: Management and governance in times of change (pp. 65–89). Springer.
Martin, P., & Holley, C. (2024). Resilience, rivers and governance: Learning from experience. In M.
Thoms & I. Fuller (Eds). Resilience and riverine landscapes (pp. 319–339). Elsevier.
Matin, N., Forrester, J., & Ensor, J. (2018). What is equitable resilience? World Development, 109,
197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.04.020
McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Dokken, D. J., Leary, N. A., & White, K. S. (Eds.). (2001). Climate
Change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. IPCC.
McLean, J., Lonsdale, A., Hammersley, L., O’Gorman, E., & Miller, F. (2018). Shadow waters:
Making Australian water cultures visible. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
43(4), 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12248
MDBA. (2019). Climate change and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan: MDBA discussion paper.
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-900581195/view
MDBA. (2020a). Native fish recovery strategy: Working together for the future of native fish.
Murray Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/node/5971/
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 79
MDBA. (2020b). The 2020 Basin Plan Evaluation. Murray Darling Basin Authority.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/bp-eval-2020-full-report.pdf
MDBA. (2022). Progress on water recovery. Murray Darling Basin Authority.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/progress-water-recovery
MDBA. (2023a). Stories of First Nations delivering benefits to Country and communities. Murray
Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/publications-and-data/publications/stories-
first-nations-delivering-benefits-country-and
MDBA. (2023b). Why the Murray–Darling Basin matters. Murray Darling Basin Authority.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/basin/why-murray-darling-basin-matters/our-reliance-basin-water
MDBA. (2024). Irrigation trends – choosing what to grow. Murray Darling Basin Authority.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/water-use/trends-use/irrigation-trends-choosing-what-grow
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
Mendham, E., & Curtis, A. (2018). Local stakeholder judgements of the social acceptability of
applying environmental water in the Gunbower Island Forest on the Murray River, Australia.
Water Policy, 20(2), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2018.170
Milkoreit, M., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J., Benessaiah, K., Calderón-Contreras, R., Donges, J. F., Mathias,
J. D., Rocha, J. C., Schoon, M., & Werners, S. E. (2018). Defining tipping points for social-ecological
systems scholarship—an interdisciplinary literature review. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3),
Article 033005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa75
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for
assessment. Island Press.
Morse, S., & McNamara, N. (2013). Sustainable livelihood approach: A critique of theory and
practice. Springer Science and Business Media.
Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations. (2007). Echuca Declaration.
https://www.mldrin.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Echuca-Declaration-Final-PDF.pdf
Mynott, J., King, A., Kennard, M., & Ringwood, G. (2022). Native fish populations. In A. J. King, J. H.
Mynott, N. Bond, R. Grieger, D. Hamilton, T. Hawke, J. Johnston-Bates, M. Kennard, G. King, R. T.
Kingsford, M. Klunzinger, S. Lewis, F. Sheldon, E. Silvester & P. Zivec (Eds.), Murray–Darling Basin
2023 outlook: Environmental values: Technical literature review. Centre for Freshwater
Ecosystems.
National Water Commission. (2012). Impacts of water trading in the Southern Murray–Darling
Basin between 2006–07 and 2010–11. National Water Commission.
Nelson, R., Godden, L., & Lindsay, B. (2018). A pathway to cultural flows in Australia. Murray Lower
Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations, Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations & North Australian
Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/a-pathway-to-cultural-flows-in-
australia_1.pdf
Nielson, D., Gehrig, S., & Bond, N. (2017). How will declining water availability as a consequence of
climate change affect habitat and species distributions in the Murray–Darling Basin? (Final
Report). The Murray–Darling Freshwater Research Centre.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 80
Noble, L. H., Guillaume, J. H. A., Wyborn, C., & Jakeman, A. J. (2023). How can management of
uncertainty in sustainable diversion limits be advanced in the review of the Murray–Darling Basin
Plan? Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 27(2), 241–256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2023.2211357
Olsson, P., & Moore, M. L. (2024). Transformations, agency and positive tipping points: A
resilience-based approach. In J. D. Tàbara, A. Flamos, D. Mangalagiu & S. Michas (Eds.), Positive
tipping points towards sustainability: Understanding the conditions and strategies for fast
decarbonization in regions (pp. 59–77). Springer International Publishing.
Orlove, B. (2022). The concept of adaptation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47(1),
535–581. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112320-095719
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.
Science, 325(5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science. 1172133
Owens, K. (2022). Governing climate related systemic risks in the Murray–Darling Basin in
Australia. Utrecht Law Review, 18(2), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.826
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2015). Water governance in the face of global change: From understanding to
transformation. Springer.
Pearson, L. J., & Dare, M. (2021). Farmer pathways to sustainability in the face of water
scarcity. Environmental Science and Policy, 124, 186–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.06.016
Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change, 133,
113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0
Pittock, J. (2013). Lessons from adaptation to sustain freshwater environments in the Murray–
Darling Basin, Australia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), 429–438.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.230
Pittock, J. (2019). Are we there yet? The Murray–Darling Basin and sustainable water
management. Thesis Eleven, 150(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513618821970
Pittock, J., Corbett, S., Colloff, M. J., Wyrwoll, P., Alexandra, J., Beavis, S., Chipperfield, K., Croke,
B., Lane, P., Ross, A., & Williams, J. (2023). A review of the risks to shared water resources in the
Murray–Darling Basin. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 27(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2023.2190493
Pittock, J., & Finlayson, C. M. (2013). Climate change adaptation in the Murray–Darling Basin:
Reducing resilience of wetlands with engineering. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 17(2),
161–169. https://doi.org/10.7158/W13-021.2013.17.2
Pittock, J., Williams, J., & Grafton, R. Q. (2015). The Murray–Darling Basin plan fails to deal
adequately with climate change. Water, 42(6), 26–30.
Plummer, R., Crona, B., Armitage, D. R., Olsson, P., Tengö, M., & Yudina, O. (2012). Adaptive co-
management: A systematic review and analysis. Ecology and Society, 17(3), Article 11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952-170311
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 81
Preiser, R., Biggs, R., de Vos, A., & Folke, C. (2018). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive
systems: organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecology and
Society, 23(4), Article 46. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446
Prosser, I., Chiew, F. H., & Stafford Smith, M. (2021). Adapting water management to climate
change in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Water, 13(18), Article 2504.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13182504
Prosser, I., Crossman, N., Mahoney, J., Rustomji, P., Chen, Y., Brown, A., Robson, B., Sherman, B.,
Sims, N., & Jolly, I. (2012). Assessment of the ecological and economic benefits of environmental
water in the Murray–Darling Basin (Final Report). CSIRO.
Quiggin, J., Adamson, D., Chambers, S., & Schrobback, P. (2010). Climate change, uncertainty, and
adaptation: The case of irrigated agriculture in the Murray–Darling Basin in Australia. Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
7976.2010.01200.x
Quinlan, A. E., Berbés-Blázquez, M., Haider, L. J., & Peterson, G. (2016). Measuring and assessing
resilience in practice: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), 677–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12550
Qureshi, E., & Whitten, S. M. (2014). Regional impact of climate variability and adaptation options
in the southern Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resources and Economics, 5, 67–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2013.12.002
Rawluk, A., & Curtis, A. (2016). Reconciling contradictory narratives of landscape change using the
adaptive cycle: A case study from southeastern Australia. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08245-210117
Robertson, D. E., Zheng, H., Chiew, F. H. S., & Post, D. E. (2023). Inflow scaling factors for MDB
Outlook. CSIRO.
Robinson, C. J., Margerum, R. D., Koontz, T. M., Moseley, C., & and Lurie, S. (2011). Policy-Level
Collaboratives for Environmental Management at the Regional Scale: Lessons and Challenges from
Australia and the United States. Society and Natural Resources, 24(8), 849–859.
https://doi:10.1080/08941920.2010.487848
Robinson, C. J., Bark, R. H., Garrick, D., & Pollino, C. A. (2015). Sustaining local values through river
basin governance: community-based initiatives in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 58(12), 2212–2227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.976699
Rose, A. (2007). Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: Multidisciplinary origins
and contextual dimensions. Environmental Hazards, 7(4), 383–398.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.10.001
Rothenburg, D. (2021). Too much water: How salinisation transformed Australia’s food bowl,
1945–2017. International Review of Environmental History, 7(2), 145–168.
https://doi.org/10.22459/IREH.07.02.2021.06
Ryan, A., Colloff, M. J., & Pittock, J. (2021). Flow to nowhere: the disconnect between
environmental watering and the conservation of threatened species in the Murray–Darling Basin,
Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 72(10), 1408–1429. https://doi.org/10.1071/Mf21057
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 82
Ryan, K., Doshi, A., & Fleeting, G. (2023). Viability assessment of the Menindee Native Fish
Hatchery. Alluvium. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/viability-
assessment-menindee-native-fish-hatchery-2023.pdf
Samnakay, N., Alexandra, J., Wyborn, C. A., & Bender, I. (2024). Climate adaptive water policy in
Australia’s Murray Darling Basin: Soft options or hard commitments? Ecology and Society, 29(1),
Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14578-290101
Schirmer, J., Cheesman, J., & Maclachlan, S. (2023). Basin community values. Report 1 – Defining
and measuring community values in the Basin. University of Canberra & Marsden Jacob Associates.
Schirmer, J., Dare, L., & Mylek, M. (2019). Wellbeing, resilience and adaptive capacity: A review of
current knowledge of social conditions in the Murray–Darling Basin. University of Canberra.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/uc-wellbeing-resilience-adaptive-
capacity.pdf
Schirmer, J., & Mylek, M. (2020). Thriving, surviving, or declining communities: Socio-economic
change in Murray–Darling Basin communities. University of Canberra.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/uc-socio-economic-change-mdb-
communities.pdf
Scown, M. W., Craig, R. K., Allen, C. R., Gunderson, L., Angeler, D. G., Garcia, J. H., & Garmestani, A.
(2023). Towards a global sustainable development agenda built on social–ecological
resilience. Global Sustainability, 6, Article e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.8
Sefton, R., Peterson, D., Woods, R., Kassebaum, A., McKenzie, D., Simpson, B., & Ramsay, M.
(2019). Independent assessment of social and economic conditions in the Murray–Darling Basin
(Progress Report). Panel for Independent Assessment of Social and Economic Conditions in the
Murray–Darling Basin.
Sefton, R., Peterson, D., Woods, R., Kassebaum, A., McKenzie, D., Simpson, B., & Ramsay, M.
(2020). Independent assessment of social and economic conditions in the Murray–Darling Basin
(Final Report). Panel for Independent Assessment of Social and Economic Conditions in the
Murray–Darling Basin.
Seidl, C., Wheeler, S. A., & Zuo, A. (2020). Treating water markets like stock markets: Key water
reform lessons in the Murray–Darling Basin, Journal of Hydrology, 581, Article 124399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124399
Seidl, C., Wheeler, S. A., & Zuo, A. (2021). The drivers associated with Murray–Darling Basin
irrigators’ future farm adaptation strategies. Journal of Rural Studies, 83, 187–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.048
Sheldon, F., King, G., Klunzinger, M., Grieger, R., & O’Brien, M. (2022). Hydrological connectivity. In
A. J. King, J. H. Mynott, N. Bond, R. Grieger, D. Hamilton, T. Hawke, J. Johnston-Bates, M. Kennard,
G. King, R. T. Kingsford, M. Klunzinger, S. Lewis, F. Sheldon, E. Silvester & P. Zivec, (Eds.), Murray–
Darling Basin 2023 outlook: Environmental values: Technical literature review. Centre for
Freshwater Ecosystems.
Sherval, M., Askland, H. H., Askew, M., Hanley, J., Farrugia, D., Threadgold, S., & Coffey, J. (2018).
Farmers as modern-day stewards and the rise of new rural citizenship in the battle over land use.
Local Environment, 23(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1389868
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 83
Shi, Z., Watanabe, S., Ogawa, K., & Kubo, H. (2018). Reviews of resilience theories and
mathematical generalization. Structural Resilience in Sewer Reconstruction, 17.
https://doi.1016/B978-0-12-811552-7.00002-X
Sims, N. C., Chariton, A. A., Jin, H. D., & Colloff, M. J. (2012). A classification of floodplains and
wetlands of the Murray–Darling Basin based on changes in flows following water resource
development. Wetlands, 32(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0231-2
Sjöstedt, M. (2015). Resilience revisited: Taking institutional theory seriously. Ecology and
Society, 20(4), Article 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08034-200423
Skinner, W., Bardsley, D. K., & Drew, G. (2024). Post crisis management: Water, community and
adaptation in a South Australian irrigation district. Ecology and Society, 29(1), Article 10.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14789-290110
Skinner, W., Drew, G., & Bardsley, D. K. (2023). Half a flood’s no good: Flooding, viticulture and
hydrosocial terroir in a South Australian wine region. Agriculture and Human Values, 40, 549–564.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10355-w
Talubo, J. P., Morse, S., & Saroj, D. (2022). Whose resilience matters? A socio-ecological systems
approach to defining and assessing disaster resilience for small islands. Environmental
Challenges, 7, Article 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100511
Tan, P. L. (2012). “Localism” as an approach to community participation in Australian water
planning. Sustainable Irrigation and Drainage IV: Management, Technologies and Policies, 168, 63.
Taylor, K. S., Moggridge, B. J., & Poelina, A. (2017). Australian indigenous water policy and the
impacts of the ever-changing political cycle. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 20(2), 132–
147.
Thompson, R. M., Cunningham, S. C., Thomson, J. R., & Mac Nally, R. (2024). Drought, disturbance
and river resilience in the southern Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. In M. Thoms & I Fuller (Eds.),
Resilience and Riverine Landscapes (pp. 135–155). Elsevier.
Ticehurst, J. L., & Curtis, A. L. (2015). Can existing practices expected to lead to improved on-farm
water use efficiency enable irrigators to effectively respond to reduced water entitlements in the
Murray–Darling Basin? Journal of Hydrology, 528, 613–620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.055
Tickner, D., Opperman, J. J., Abell, R., Acreman, M., Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., et al. 2020.
Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: an emergency recovery plan. BioScience,
70(4), 330–342. https://doi:10.1093/biosci/biaa002.
Tzanopoulos, J., Mouttet, R., Letourneau, A., Vogiatzakis, I. N., Potts, S. G., Henle, K., Mathevet, R.,
& Marty, P. (2013). Scale sensitivity of drivers of environmental change across Europe. Global
Environmental Change, 23(1), 167–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.09.002
Van den Bergh, J. C. M. (2008). Optimal diversity: Increasing returns versus recombinant
innovation. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 68(3–4), 565–580.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.09.003
VEWH. (2023). Seasonal watering plan 2023–24. Victorian Environmental Water Holder.
Walker, B. (2019). Murray–Darling Basin Royal Commission Report. South Australian Government.
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 84
Walker, B., Abel, N., Anderies, J. M., & Ryan, P. (2009). Resilience, adaptability, and
transformability in the Goulburn–Broken catchment. Ecology and Society, 14(1), Article 12.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02824-140112
Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S., & Shultz, L. (2006). A handful of
heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology
and Society, 11(1), Article 13.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), Article 5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205
Walker, B., Pearson, L., Harris, M., Maler, K. G., Li, C. Z., Biggs, R., & Baynes, T. (2010).
Incorporating resilience in the assessment of inclusive wealth: An example from South East
Australia. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45, 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-
009-9311-7
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing
world. Island Press.
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2012). Resilience practice: Building capacity to absorb disturbance and
maintain function. Island press.
Wallace, T. A., Gehrig, S. L., Doody, T. M., Davies, M. J., Walsh, R., Fulton, C., Cullen, R., & Nolan,
M. (2021). A multiple-lines-of-evidence approach for prioritising environmental watering of
wetland and floodplain trees. Ecohydrology, 14(3), Article e2272.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2272
Weichselgartner, J., & Kelman, I. (2015). Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities
of a descriptive concept. Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 249–267.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513518834
Weise, H., Auge, H., Baessler, C., Bärlund, I., Bennett, E. M., Berger, U., Bohn, F., Bonn, A.,
Borchardt, D., Brand, F., Chatzinotas, A., Corstanje, R., De Laender, F., Dietrich, P., Dunker, S.,
Durka, W., Fazey, I., Groeneveld, J., Guilbaud, C. S. E., … Grimm, V. (2020). Resilience trinity:
Safeguarding ecosystem functioning and services across three different time horizons and decision
contexts. Oikos, 129(4), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.07213
West, J. M., Julius, S. H., Kareiva, P., Enquist, C., Lawler, J. J., Petersen, B., Johnson, A. E., & Shaw,
M. R. (2009). U.S. natural resources and climate change: Concepts and approaches for
management adaptation. Environmental Management, 44, 1001–1021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9345-1
Wheeler, S. A. (2022). Debunking Murray-Darling Basin water trade myths. Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 66(4), 797-821.
Wheeler, S. A., Carmody, E., Grafton, Q. R., Kingsford, R. T., & Zuo, A. (2020). The rebound effect
on water extraction from subsidising irrigation infrastructure in Australia. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 159, Article 104755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104755
Wheeler, S. A., Hatton MacDonald, D., & Boxall, P. (2017). Water policy debate in Australia:
Understanding the tenets of stakeholders’ social trust. Land Use Policy, 63, 246–254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.035
Resilience, Adaptation and Drivers of Change in the Murray–Darling Basin: | June 2024 85
Wheeler, S. A., Xu, Y., Zuo, A., Haensch, J., & Seidl, C. (2023). Identifying the water-related
economic values of the Murray–Darling Basin and rating the quality of water economic studies.
The University of Adelaide. https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/mdb-
outlook-economic-literature-review2.pdf
Wheeler, S. A., & Zuo, A. (2017). The impact of drought and water scarcity on irrigator farm exit
intentions in the Murray–Darling Basin. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 61(3), 404–421, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12218
Whittle, L., Galeano, D., Hughes, N., Gupta, M., Legg, P., Westwood, T., Jackson, T., & Hartfield-
Dodds, S. (2020). Economic effects of water recovery in the Murray–Darling Basin. Australian
Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/products/insights/economic-effects-of-water-recovery-in-
murray-darling-basin
Williams, J. (2017, January). Water reform in the Murray–Darling Basin: A challenge in complexity
in balancing social, economic and environmental perspectives. Journal and Proceedings of the
Royal Society of New South Wales, 150(463/464), 68–92.
Wise, R. M., Fazey, I., Smith, M. S., Park, S. E., Eakin, H. C., Van Garderen, E. A., & Campbell, B.
(2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and
response. Global Environmental Change, 28, 325–336.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002
Zhang, L., Zheng, H. X., Teng, J., Chiew, F. H. S., & Post, D. A. (2020). Plausible hydroclimate futures
for the Murray–Darling Basin. CSIRO.
https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/bp-eval-2020-plausible-climate-
futures.pdf
Zhou, S., Huang, Y., Wei, Y., & Wang, G. (2015). Socio-hydrological water balance for water
allocation between human and environmental purposes in catchments. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences, 19(8), 3715–3726. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3715-2015
