Water sensitive communities: a systematic review with a complex adaptive systems perspective

There have been increasing calls for a paradigm shift in urban water management to a water sensitive cities (WSC) approach. Although it is well recognised that development of water sensitive communities is key to sustainable urban water transitions, there is no established definition for the “water sensitive community.” This study conducts a systematic review to understand how water sensitive communities are characterised in the literature and applies a complex adaptive systems perspective to the findings. The review identifies 16 attributes that define water sensitive communities, involving elements of participation, collaboration, liveability, shared ownership and responsibility in transition processes, and resilience. We add to this by linking WSC research with complex adaptive systems theory and propose a new definition of the water sensitive community as a complex adaptive system. This presents a realistic framework in which to study the complex interactions and dynamic aspects of a water sensitive community.


Introduction
There is a growing need for the transformation of urban water management (UWM) approaches to better integrate liveability, resiliency and sustainability (Wong and Brown 2009;Brown, Rogers, and Werbeloff 2018;Rogers, Dunn, et al. 2020).There is, thus, also a need to improve knowledge of pathways for transitions to sustainable futures.Within UWM, the "urban water transitions framework" developed by Brown, Keath, and Wong (2009) classifies cities according to six distinct transitional states, from least to most sustainable.The water sensitive cities (WSC) paradigm represents the final transitional state where UWM is liveable, resilient, sustainable and productive.The need for the transformation of UWM arose as the paradigm of conventional urban water management (CUWM) that has long dominated the field, fails to accommodate current societal needs and is unfit to respond to increasing, dynamic challenges.CUWM has a rigid structure, is heavily reliant on technological and physical problem solving and dominated by a linear and centralised treatment system.It is largely anchored in the engineering domain with approaches driven by technological efficiency and focal areas of management largely limited to water supply, pollution treatment, flood mitigation and public health protection (Bichai and Cabrera Flamini 2018;Daniels et al. 2012).Furthermore, conventional approaches function through the reduction and simplification of complexities and uncertainty.This has appeared desirable due to the creation of apparently clear boundaries, clearly defined problems and endpoints that are achievable.However, the over-simplification of complex issues presents its own challenges (Allan 2007).This is becoming increasingly apparent as the conventional system lacks the flexibility and adaptability to cope with the increasing uncertainty surrounding the impacts of climate change, population growth and urbanisation on water management (Pahl-Wostl, Sendzimir, and Jeffrey 2009).Comparatively, the interdisciplinary approach of WSCs gives equal consideration to social science research and recognises the importance of underpinning technological solutions with institutional capacity for advancing sustainable urban water management (SUWM), which bridges the social, institutional and governance aspects of UWM (Wong and Brown 2009).
Sociotechnical research and community are central to the WSC, with "cities comprising water sensitive communities," well recognised as being the third and final key pillar needed to underpin the development and practice of a WSC (Tawfik 2016;Bichai and Cabrera Flamini 2018).The fostering of water sensitive communities is therefore considered particularly important in transition research (Ramkissoon, Smith, and Kneebone 2015;Taylor 2009).Although research has shown a fundamental connection between integrating community into water management approaches and urban sustainability transitions in the water industry (Lindsay et al. 2019;Brodnik et al. 2018;Soedjono et al. 2018;Wong and Brown 2009), this concept is relatively new and has not reached mainstream water management.There are a number of challenges to water sensitive transitions, and the lack of a shared and comprehensive definition for "water sensitive community" adds to this.MacQueen et al. (2001MacQueen et al. ( , 1929) determined a common definition for "community" as: "A group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings."In natural resource management, the nature of community definitions may be geographical, relational or of interest (Stone and Nyaupane 2014).The increased emphasis on community in SUWM indicates the need for consensus regarding the definition of community within WSCs.Furthermore, use of the "community" concept in sustainability research is prominent.As Thomsen et al. (2009) and Meppem (2000) point out, "the community" is often conceived as an overarching pathway to finding solutions to sustainability issues, particularly as human behaviour is key to sustainability.However, the concept of community is abstract, with a long and complicated etymology in the English language, causing its use to frequently be ambiguous and unspecified.Boda (2018) notes that this can lead to issues of concept-object mismatch in scientific research, as well as conceptual vagueness.In SUWM, many definitions of water sensitive communities across the literature are vague, overly simplistic, and lack consistency between studies.Hence, a well-defined understanding of what is meant by "community" in the context of water sensitivity, is essential for avoiding these issues, for best practice, and for producing outcomes that are of high efficacy and applicability.
This study aims to develop the definition of a "water sensitive community" for improving the research and transitions to WSCs.Specifically, we conduct a systematic review of the scientific and grey literature on "water sensitive communities," to identify the core attributes used to describe this type of community, and the knowledge gaps within the scientific understanding of the concept, providing the first systematic review on the topic.We add to this by linking WSC research with complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory, to develop a definition of the water sensitive community as a complex adaptive system.This will contribute to the field by enhancing its current understanding of the topic and providing a realistic framework in which to study the complex interactions and dynamic aspects of a water sensitive community.

Data collection through systematic review
A systematic literature search using two peer-reviewed (Web of Science; SCOPUS) and one grey-literature database (CRCWSC resources) was conducted.As far as the authors are aware, this is the first study to review the literature at the intersection of water sensitivity and community.Therefore, it was appropriate for a wide range of types of publications to be reviewed, in order to understand the state of existing knowledge.The Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRCWSC) was an Australian research centre that operated from 2012 to 2021.It contributed significantly to the field and was the leading institution for WSC research.It thus serves as a valuable resource for this review.The review was limited to articles published between 2000 and 2021.Initial scoping of the research found that this represents a phase when research in UWM was focused on a paradigm shift towards a more adaptive and sustainable system of UWM.Hence, results prior to the year 2000 were not included.The search was restricted to the English language and the process was guided by the checklist of the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews (Liberati et al. 2009).Although it was originally developed for use in the health sciences, these reporting standards have been adapted to address social sciences research and interdisciplinary topics (Maki, Cohen, and Vandenbergh 2018).

Search strategy
Web of Science and Scopus were searched for the search term "water sensitive community" in addition to others that may be used to describe the same or a similar concept (water smart community; water sustainable community; water wise community).Due to the lack of research focusing on water sensitive communities, databases were also searched for the terms: water sensitive city, water sustainable city, water smart city and water wise city.The CRCWSC resources were searched using the sole search term "water sensitive community", as it was assumed that their publications would have a unified use of the term due to the nature of their research focus.Search terms were truncated where appropriate to guarantee that all relevant publications were highlighted.Through this search strategy, 318 records were initially identified, and 60 duplicates were removed.A full description of the search terms and strategy is available in Figure 1.

Screening and inclusion criteria
The resulting articles were screened by the primary author using information presented in the title, keywords, abstract and finally the whole text, against inclusion criteria: 1. Qualitative and quantitative research on the topic of "water sensitive communities."2. A key focus on the study of community within a water sensitive context.For the purposes of the selection criteria, a "water sensitive context" involves the following concepts: water sensitive cities, water wise cities, water smart cities, water sustainable cities, water sensitive urban design, and SUWM (particularly where community participation is involved in the method).3. Water sensitivity is a key focus of the publication.4. Publications in English. 5. Published after the year 2000.The exclusion criteria: 1. Publications that focus on water sensitive communities but do not include discussion of either their (1) definition, (2) characteristics, (3) further relevance to WSC, (4) boundary and/or (5) whom the community does or does not include.2. Community participation in UWM where the publication does not explicitly specify a water sensitive context (involving concepts stated in inclusion criteria 1). 3. Search results that are entire books (book chapters were included).4. CRCWSC search results that only provide a webpage without a downloadable publication.

Data extraction and analysis
Initial electronic searches identified 258 potentially relevant articles.After screening of the title, keywords and abstract 124 papers were excluded, and another 84 were excluded after assessing eligibility based on the full text.A total of 50 eligible papers were manually reviewed.The major topics reflecting key aspects of a water sensitive community (we call attributes) were summarised.These reflect the core attributes of how water sensitive communities are described in the literature and may be included in a comprehensive definition of a "water sensitive community."Data were extracted on the following aspects of each publication: (1) type of publication; (2) location of case studies and detailed examples used; (3) was community participation part of the method?; (4) which community sub-groups were included as participants?; (5) does the publication explicitly use the term "water sensitive communities" or similar terms?; and finally ( 6) is a distinct definition of "water sensitive community" provided?These aspects of each publication, as well as the key attributes of a water sensitive community, were determined by manually searching all publications for use of the terms, "community" and "communities."The sentence containing discussion of "community" as well as the immediately surrounding text was reviewed.This was how the key attributes that define a water sensitive community were determined using a systematic approach.The attributes were recorded in a cumulative manner as the full text of each publication was read.As each new attribute was recorded, the preceding publications were re-screened for each specific attribute to ensure the quality of this process.The authors reviewed these results to ensure they accurately represent the literature.The number of 16 attributes was found to be suitable, as it included all key concepts presented in the literature without a reduction in their meanings.
For the purposes of this study, "participation" was interpreted to include any form of participation presented in Pretty's (1995) typology of participation.The typology describes a spectrum defined by a shift from control by authorities to control by the people or community and suggests there are seven ways that the term "participation" can be interpreted (Cornwall 2008).In order of least to most empowering, these include manipulative participation, passive participation, participation by consultation, participation for material incentives, functional participation, interactive participation and self-mobilization.When determining whether a publication indicated community participation as part of the method, "method" refers to the research method in the case of peer-reviewed journal articles, and project method in the instance of grey literature.

Rethinking "water sensitive communities" as complex adaptive systems
After completing the systematic review element of the methods detailed earlier, we drew on the gained understanding of water sensitive communities and integrated it with CAS theory to define water sensitive communities from a CAS perspective.In CAS theory, "complex" refers to systems' unpredictability and non-linearity, whereas "adaptive" describes how components learn to adapt to external forces through the continuous, organic interactions within and between systems (Liu, Tong, and Sinfield 2021;Turner and Baker 2019).CAS are characterised by complex non-linear dynamics, diversity, feedback loops, lack of predictability and have a large number of components that are self-organising, interactive and interdependent.Although, there are numerous representations for the core elements of CAS (Liu, Tong, and Sinfield 2021;Shi et al. 2021;Turner and Baker 2019;Pype et al. 2018;Honebein 2009;Holland 1992).We focused on examining the boundary, structure, processes, functions and resilience to endogenous and extrinsic stress in applying CAS theory to water sensitive communities.We defined each of these elements fundamental to social systems, based on CAS theory in Table 1 (Liu, Tong, and Sinfield 2021;Shi et al. 2021;Honebein 2009).

Study characteristics
Half the publications were peer-reviewed journal articles (n ¼ 25) (see Table 2).There were 12 reports and eight case studies by CRCWSC.There were three book chapters, and two conference papers.Not including book-chapters, eight of the publications fell into the category of non-empirical research, including literature review, narrative review, discussion paper, literature overview or a perspective piece.Despite a heavier theoretical focus, these publications did not necessarily provide more detailed descriptions of water sensitive community than others reviewed.This is likely because the focus of these publications related a greater extent to specific aspects of the community, The physical or conceptual organisation of components, flow, and feedback that produce the systems' functions.

Processes
The interrelated and interdependent elements of action and interaction that compose the system.Includes emergence where new properties are created, as the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.Self-organisation is key.Functions (goals) The underlying purpose of the system to create value.May evolve beyond the boundaries of the system.

Resilience
The absorptive, adaptive, and transformative features of the system that facilitate adaptation and preserve the system's ability to maintain its functions in the face of continuous and unpredictable disturbance.as in Supski and Lindsay's (2013) literature review of Australian domestic water cultures.Alternatively, they took a wider view of the topic from the city perspective, for instance, as in Caffoor's (2010) perspective piece on a vision of a low-carbon water sector in 2050.Meanwhile, empirical research included for review sometimes had a stronger focus on the topic of water sensitive community, while no review currently exists on the topic.Of the publications, eight were short pieces of grey literature that both involved community participation and explicitly used the term water sensitive community.Most publications involved the discussion or study of one or more specific locations (n ¼ 46).Of these, there were a total of 74 locations of varying scales referenced, and 50 of these were located in Australia (67.57% where n ¼ 74).The majority of publications also used a participatory method (n ¼ 32), with varying sub-groups of the community included in the participation.In addition to water sensitive communities, the publications involved a range of other foci, including stormwater management, water sensitive urban design, WSCs, water policy, community perspectives, transition theory, benchmarking, green infrastructure, water cultures and more.In some instances, the choice of participants represented whom the publication determined as "community," whereas in others it was due to the intentional focus on a specific subset of a more broadly defined community.Nineteen publications explicitly used the term "water sensitive community," while two used "water conscious community," one used the term "Water zero and water plus communities," and 28 did not use an explicit term for the concept.None of the publications used the terms "water wise-," "water sustainable-" or "water smart-" community.A total of ten studies provided a distinct definition (20% where n ¼ 50) of water sensitive communities or an interchangeable term.These definitions are presented in Table 3.
It can be seen in Table 3 that there is no established definition for a "water sensitive community."However, it is commonly recognised that "cities comprising water sensitive communities" constitutes the third pillar of the three principles for a WSC (Wong, Brown, and Deletic 2008;Wong and Brown 2009;Irvine et al. 2020;Beza, Zeunert, and Hanson 2019).Wong, Brown, and Deletic (2008, 56) provide the most extensive version of this: water sensitive communities exist where there is "socio-political capital for sustainability and water sensitive behaviours.i.e. a smart and sophisticated community living an ecologically sustainable lifestyle that is sensitive to the symbiotic co-existence of the built and natural environments."

Attributes and key characteristics of water sensitive communities
There were 16 attributes identified that characterise water sensitive communities across the literature.These involved elements of participation, collaboration, liveability and connection with water, shared ownership and responsibility in transition processes and resilience.How frequently each attribute was mentioned across all publications is presented in Figure 2.

Attribute 1: community participation in, and support for, water sensitivity
The majority of the articles featured some form of community participation (Rodrigues and Antunes 2021;Rogers, Dunn et al. 2020;Lindsay et al. 2019;Buurman and Padawangi 2018;Ellis et al. 2016) and support the view that there are various ways in which local communities can contribute to building WSCs and accelerating the adoption of SUWM (Rodrigues and Antunes 2021; Visconti 2017).While, in many instances, governments and NGOs typically play major roles in strategy implementation and decision-making, there is a need to include the impacted community in these processes (Barron et al. 2017).Without community participation and support, the development of WSCs is unlikely (Floyd et al. 2014).Not only does water management and governance stand to lose considerable benefits that community inclusion brings to projects, but without appropriate community consultation there is also a lack of sufficient knowledge of the social, community environment in which a project is implemented.
Community participation and support also help to garner public trust and confidence in transitional changes to management and governance, as well as improve self-regulation and compliance (Lindsay et al. 2019;Dillon et al. 2016).

Attribute 2: greater inclusivity, cohesion and sense of community
Greater inclusivity, cohesion and sense of community directly relates to "social capital" which is a key concept related to water sensitive communities, as described by Wong and Brown (2009).It was also noted in the literature that the recognition of Indigenous water values and interests, as well as the involvement of Indigenous peoples in water governance, is important to developing an inclusive and equitable system (Rogers, Dunn et al. 2020).Social justice also relates to this attribute.

Attribute 3: high awareness and literacy of the urban water cycle
Water literacy can be defined as a composition of water-related knowledge, attitudes and normative behaviours relating to water (He 2018;Fielding, Karnadewi, and Newton 2015).Water literacy covers multiple knowledge bases that enable individuals to engage in vital community discussions, and to incorporate water conservation practices within their daily lives (Sammel and McMartin 2014).Therefore, "high" water literacy may be viewed as an understanding of water within economic, political, environmental, social and cultural aspects of local and global societies as it affects people's livelihoods, as well as the physical environment and ecosystems (Sammel and McMartin 2014;Muro and Jeffrey 2008).Good water literacy in the community is recognised as a foundation to fostering people-water relationships and developing water-sensitive citizens (Elmslie et al. 2018).

Attribute 4: positive cultural relationship with water
A positive cultural relationship with water is a distinguishing attribute of water sensitive communities.The term "water cultures" highlights how water is both a resource essential to human survival and is inherently cultural in the way that it is integrated into everyday lives.A cultural approach to understanding the interactions between water and community accounts for peoples' everyday water practices and the cultural and social values that underpin them.Through cultural innovation, new kinds of identities can be realised that offer more sustainable relationships with water (e.g."water sensitive citizens," "recyclers," "water savers," etc.) (Supski and Lindsay 2013).

Attribute 5: residents value and are connected to their water environments
Interconnections between water, people, infrastructure and the landscape are frequently discussed in the literature as being central to water sensitive communities.For example, Rogers and Gunn (2015) conducted a series of envisioning workshops drawing on transition planning processes, with 24 community members of the south-east Melbourne suburb of Elwood.The community's water sensitive vision was for: "a vibrant, connected and self-sufficient community that celebrates its healthy and beautiful environment, uses water and other resources efficiently, and is resilient to natural hazards" (Rogers and Gunn 2015, 14).Moreover, Rogers, Dunn et al. (2020) also state "connection to water" as an indicator for increased community capital.Fostering residents that value and are connected to their water environments is one of the goals of a community that is water sensitive.

Attribute 6: UWM promotes community well-being and liveability
It is well-recognised that the health status of the physical environment is connected with the health of the people living in it.People living in environments of higher quality and better condition, are likely to be healthier than those living in poor quality environments (Fitrinitia et al. 2019).However, key issues of conventional stormwater management stem from the disturbance of natural drainage processes, reduced quality of urban waterways and wider ecological impacts (Brodnik et al. 2018).A systemic shift in approaches to water management to a holistic, catchment-based view, can help to address healthrelated issues of CUWM (Wong et al. 2011).Furthermore, liveability has increasingly been seen by the water industry as an important function of the city and a role of UWM.This has been reflected in the work produced by the industry in recent years and represents a part of the shifting paradigm (Furlong et al. 2019;Melbourne Water 2019).

Attribute 7: community acceptance supports implementation of water sensitive technologies and practices
Community support for SUWM helps to achieve successful implementation of water sensitive technologies and practices.However, adopting these approaches requires a fundamental change in the relationship that citizens have with water (Buurman and Padawangi 2018).A lack of community acceptance also creates obstacles to implementation, such as: poor participation, poor organisational commitment, the lack of common social visions, poor community capacity, as well as undefined new roles and organisational responsibilities for social agents (Brown, Farrelly, Keath 2009).Water professionals must consider community acceptance and support as equally important to the technical aspects, or professionals may become frustrated when community concerns, backlash, political exploitation or misrepresentation in the media present challenges (Simpson 2011).

Attribute 8: community members have the capacity to utilise community-level water management
Source diversification in water security planning is a significant aspect of building a WSC in the face of increasingly pressing challenges.Creating a resilient UWM paradigm involves providing a system that can adapt to future changes, including access to a diversity of water sources that are underpinned by a diversity of both centralised and decentralised infrastructure (Wong and Brown 2009).The integration of decentralised water systems requires an emphasis on local solutions as well as a more flexible approach.Hence, it is inevitable that communities will become more directly affected and, thus, approaches that also support individuals and communities to become more directly involved in management are highly appropriate (Fletcher 2010).Sustainability of the greater system is, therefore, increased through diversification that includes community-level management.
3.2.9.Attribute 9: empowered citizens with a shared ownership of solutions One of the common outcomes of effective community participation is empowerment.It allows for the impacted communities to express their diverse needs and interests, meaning that these can be appropriately included within all phases of projects and initiatives.
Inclusive water management and governance supports empowered communities where members of the public are aware of, and act on, their responsibility for water.

Attribute 10: residents engage in water-conscious behaviours
Water-conscious behaviours are another key aspect of what makes a water sensitive community, as highlighted by Wong and Brown's (2009, 673) original, third, key pillar of a WSC: "socio-political capital for sustainability and water sensitive behaviours."Water-conscious behaviours are those that are informed by an understanding of the impact that different actions have on the health of waterways in the context of the local geography.These may include, but are not limited to, the uptake of water-saving devices, adoption of water-saving behaviours and adoption of pollution-reduction behaviours (Dean, Fielding et al. 2016).

Attribute 11: community plays a role in increasing resilience to change
Resilience is often defined as the ability of settlements to withstand and recover from potential natural and man-made hazards.Although, system resilience is more than recovery or "bouncing back" to a prior state.It involves the built-in capacity to gain from a situation that otherwise causes damage, and "bounce forward" (Grinberger and Felsenstein 2014).Resilience of a city is based on the strength of its identity, its culture and its security of flexibility and adaptability to change (Bermejo-Mart ın and Rodr ıguez-Monroy 2019).Thus, communities and their residents play a crucial role in increasing resilience to change.Resilience is seen as a key aspect of a WSC's functioning, particularly regarding its general capacity to respond to future change, but also as being inherently built into the design of its institutions and infrastructure and the abilities of communities.This attribute specifically refers to the community's impact or function of influencing resilience and transition processes of the greater system external to the community itself.
3.2.12.Attribute 12: community is resilient and adaptable This attribute refers to the resilience of the community itself, which is discussed as a separate attribute in the literature.In water sensitive research it is common that studies address building resilience into the technological aspects of cities' water governance and management (Buurman and Padawangi 2018).Fewer studies express how cultivating community resilience is also essential to growing and maintaining WSCs and the corresponding communities (Lindsay et al. 2019;Fitzgerald 2018).Resilient communities help to minimise the effect of disasters, as community members can collectively respond more effectively and quickly.For water sensitive communities to prosper, they themselves need to be resilient and adaptable to change (Sañudo-Fontaneda and Robina-Ram ırez 2019; Fitzgerald 2018).

Attribute 13: community has a decisive role in determining the transition processes
This attribute refers to the unique, decisive role that community plays in determining the various processes in which transitioning to a WSC takes place (Lindsay et al. 2019;Floyd et al. 2014).The community is influential over transition processes in the ways in which they do or do not: participate, support, collaborate, connect, engage with, value, understand and use water as a community.Tawfik (2016) suggests that collaborative decision-making practices are essential to achieving sustainable transitions in water management.Community having a decisive role bestows greater legitimacy, support, and momentum for the significant directional shifts required in transitioning to WSCs (Rogers and Gunn 2015).

Attribute 14: community values and concerns are integrated into decision making
Low levels or ineffective forms of participation are not enough for community values and concerns to be appropriately heard.Typologies of participation such as that created by Arnstein (1969) and Pretty (1995), demonstrate that not all forms in which people participate in initiatives are productive or impactful.Transformative participation, as described by Nelson and Wright (1995) is a way for community values and concerns to be integrated into decision making, as well as to embrace participation as a mechanism for social change.Similarly, limiting community participation and collaboration in ways that prevent it from reaching decision making processes devalues community input (Brown et al. 2016).
3.2.15.Attribute 15: professionals and residents work collaboratively to deliver water sensitive outcomes Collaborative processes are gaining traction in water management and governance.
Collaboration, involving communication between different types of professionals, organisations and community members is highly desirable for SUWM (Floyd et al. 2014).In the WSC, collaboration may span fully across planning and implementation of SUWM.The affinity for collaboration was shared by many studies across the water sensitive literature (Winz, Brierley, and Trowsdale 2011;Dobbie, Farrelly, and Brown 2017).Innovative institutional arrangements are also discussed as vital for meaningful collaboration to take place; however, these should be tailored to the local context.Leadership from various levels of government, community groups and community champions is also necessary to reach agreement on effective solutions for delivering water sensitive outcomes (Lindsay et al. 2019;Floyd et al. 2014).
3.2.16.Attribute 16: community-based approaches present a different way of framing water management problems, emphasising societal adjustments to enhance environmental benefits Community-based approaches offer an opportunity to view water management problems from a more local and socioecological perspective.Local communities can provide valuable knowledge into the unique, local context throughout the process, which in turn creates a unique way of framing water management problems as well as their potential solutions (Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRCWSC) 2018a, 2018b).As Winz, Brierley, and Trowsdale (2011) point out, however, community-based projects can be controversial due to the high financial costs, either initially or ongoing, in addition to environmental benefits that can be difficult to measure in the short term.For community-based approaches to reveal new ways of considering issues, and presenting innovative, socioecological solutions that enhance the environmental benefits of SUWM, community must be appropriately valued within the water management industry.

A CAS perspective
The definitions and characteristics provided by the literature revealed no clearly defined boundary for a water sensitive community.This presents a considerable gap to be addressed.The recognised principles of CAS theory, including complex non-linear dynamics, diversity, feedback loops, lacking predictability and having a large number of components that are self-organising, interactive and interdependent, have been mentioned across the literature and are evident in the 16 attributes of a water sensitive community.Aspects of structure, processes, functions and resilience are also evident across the identified attributes and shown in Table 4.

A New definition of a water sensitive community
The findings of this review reinforce that there is a need for the development and uptake of an established definition for water sensitive communities, to provide a shared understanding and avoid conceptual vagueness in future research.While 50 studies were reviewed, only ten distinct definitions were provided for a water sensitive community and the defining attributes included in these vary.Through the review of existing definitions and descriptions of water sensitive communities, we highlight what others have found to characterise them and present this in the form of 16 key attributes (as described in Section 3.2).The evaluation of the existing literature and integration with CAS theory indicates that the attributes of water sensitive communities clearly exhibit CAS principles.This is discussed further in Section 4.2.Based on the components of Table 4 and the 16 attributes, we suggest that a water sensitive community is a complex adaptive system with the functions of supporting sustainable interactions between water and community, fostering resilience and promoting liveability.A diverse range of actors participate in water management, including but not limited to, residents, Indigenous peoples, business owners, water professionals and government.
There is a high level of water literacy and value for water amongst the community.Shared ownership of solutions and inclusive collaboration between stakeholders provides an adaptive paradigm of water management that supports the implementation of water sensitive technologies and practices.We propose the following definition for a water sensitive community: A water sensitive community is a complex adaptive system with the function of supporting sustainable interactions between water and community and includes a diverse Table 4. How the 16 attributes of a water sensitive community make up a CAS.
Element Description Boundary Undefined.

Structure
The structure of a water sensitive community involves connections between groups that are inclusive, and support collaboration, group cohesiveness, and shared ownership of solutions, where a range of agents have a decisive role in the transition process.

Processes
The elements of action and inaction that compose the system and create the socio-political capital for sustainability, including but not limited to: high levels of community participation, acceptance, and support, high water literacy, community-level water management, water-conscious behaviours, integration of community values in decision making, and societal adjustments in order to enhance environmental benefits.

Functions (goals)
To support sustainable interactions between water and community, fostering resilience, and promoting liveability where residents are empowered and have positive connections with water.

Resilience
The features of the system that facilitate adaptation and preserve the system's ability to maintain its functions in the face of continuous and unpredictable disturbance.The community itself is resilient and adaptable, and plays a role in increasing resilience to detrimental impacts.
range of actors promoting the implementation of water sensitive technologies, practices, and norms.
The definition presented is concise, with the potential to become established and widely used.It also clearly presents the functions of the system and its inherent resilience, while acknowledging the complex interactions between interrelated and interdependent elements that are core to the processes and structure of a CAS.For a more comprehensive understanding of water sensitive communities, this definition may be accompanied by the 16 attributes presented in Section 3.2, as well as the definitions of structure, processes, functions and resilience displayed in Table 4.
The attributes presented by this review reflect the defining features of water sensitive communities that are highlighted across the literature.Community participation and support as critical to water sensitive communities was overwhelmingly the most cited attribute (86% where n ¼ 50).As Tawfik (2016) points out, CUWM sees communities as consumers who can provide minimal input in governing and management processes.This creates a disconnect between practitioners and communities which leads to management being unable to incorporate or reflect socio-political realities (Farrelly and Brown 2014).High community participation is, thus, in distinct contrast to conventional approaches and is viewed in sustainability research as foundational to developing sustainable solutions (Meppem 2000).It is, therefore, reasonable that this is the most widely recognised attribute of a water sensitive community.Furthermore, while the results of this study accepted publications using any form of participation as an indication that a participatory method was used, not all levels of participation are equally effective.Survey questionnaires and interviews were two of the most frequently used forms of participation by studies included for review, however these represent low levels of participation according to Arnstein (1969) and Pretty (1995).This is juxtaposed by the high level of participation and empowerment cited by a large majority of the literature as key to water sensitive communities.
For community participation to foster development of water sensitive communities, participation must be supported by the attributes of high-water literacy, inclusivity, connectedness with local environment, collaboration and empowerment.This must be accompanied by the acknowledgement that the 16 attributes are highly interconnected as they make up the water sensitive community.For instance, high participation from only a small subset of a community, who lack water-literacy and diversity, will not yield the same beneficial results as participation that includes other attributes of water sensitive community.Similarly, higher water literacy is also positively associated with a greater uptake of water sensitive behaviours (Fielding, Karnadewi, and Newton 2015), and it can be through these behaviours, participation and collaboration that citizens become empowered and are able to take ownership of solutions.This demonstrates how the attributes are complex, interactive and all important in defining water sensitive communities; the study of which, requires a framework suitable for the analysis of highly complex interactions.
To develop the list of 16 attributes, a systematic approach was employed.This means that no pre-determined criteria were used to control what classified as an attribute or restricted the number identified.The 16 attributes identified by this research are, thus, based on observation of the literature and their distinctions are based on existing, published knowledge.It should be recognised, however, that there is a great wealth of knowledge held by various stakeholders that is not published in the literature, particularly as this field is relatively new.This presents an opportunity for future research to gather the knowledge and perceptions of key stakeholders, by conducting participatory research including experts and other community members.
A key challenge in defining "community" consistently within areas of scientific research relates to the core components of the definition.In general, definitions of community can be categorised according to demographics, shared situations or experiences, or geography (Ragin et al. 2008).Specific communities are often initially defined by researchers who are external to communities.Resulting definitions are, therefore, frequently related to the nature of the research activity (e.g.does it involve a particular geographical area or demographic group?) (Molyneux and Bull 2013).This may indicate why the "water sensitive community" was given an overtly simplistic definition by some of the publications analysed in this review.As "community" relates to the WSC concept, it is easy to consider the water sensitive community as a community of place when viewing the WSC as a physical city rather than an alternative paradigm of UWM.This approach results in the simplistic definition of a water sensitive community as "the community of a WSC."An issue with this definition is that it requires the city to have transitioned to a WSC state for the community to exist as water sensitive.Additionally, it is both difficult and problematic to compare studies investigating water sensitive communities when who is meant by "community" is either not defined, applied differently, includes only select sub-groups, or is not consistent.A broad study of community should include a diverse sample of participants and understanding of the concept, whereas a focus on a specific subset of community should specify whom that includes.However, this is not always seen across the literature.
The coining of the term WSC and development of the water sensitive communities concept originated in Australia (Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 2004; Brown, Keath, Wong 2009).Moreover, 68% of case study locations described by the publications reviewed were within Australia.While these results could be influenced by the use of differing names internationally for the same concept, the search strategy for the review intentionally incorporated a range of possible, alternative names.This suggests that, for publications in the English language, dissemination and uptake of research in the area remains poor outside of Australia.Studies of locations in other countries, however, have shown potential universal validity of the water sensitive communities' concept with only some refinements for specific cultural and geographic contexts needed (Rodrigues and Antunes 2021;Rogers, Dunn et al. 2020).
Prior to this study, there has been no established definition, set of attributes or framework in which to study water sensitive communities.The lack of this has led to a variety of characterisations, where sometimes the diverse range of attributes was limited.Resilience of both the community and their role in increasing resilience of the city to change has particularly been underrecognised by the literature.Community playing a role in increasing resilience was the least cited attribute of a water sensitive community, mentioned by only 8% of publications.Community resilience was cited slightly more frequently, at 14%.The articles that cited a larger number of attributes presented more accurate descriptions of water sensitive communities and support the application of a CAS perspective.

An integration with CAS theory
It is evident that water sensitive communities are CASs.As challenges to the community arise, the components adapt themselves and self-organisation strengthens community's critical role in the resilience and sustainability of the city.Qiu (2018) highlights how a CAS designs and builds resilience into cities, suggesting that CAS theory would assist in the planning and construction of all components of a resilient city, including communities.Additionally, the water sensitive community attribute of inclusivity and adoption of an inclusive definition of "community," corresponds with the incorporation of CAS theory as a non-reductionist method of studying social systems.Recognition of water sensitive communities as CAS with multiple elements makes way for an improved understanding of the complex interactions between parts, as well as the existence of emergence.Emergence is a distinctive CAS phenomenon that occurs due to how CASs are composed of independent, interacting agents.It describes the emergence of new properties or behaviours (Rhodes 2008).Water sensitive communities display emergence in multiple ways, from facilitating the emergence of new transition pathways, through to complex cultural innovations leading to the emergence of new water conscious behaviours and the associated water sensitive identities of citizens.
CAS theory reflects "real-life complexity," providing a realistic framework for study (deMattos, Miller, and Park 2012).As one of the major development directions in the field of urban planning and community-building is the recognition of, and adaptation to, complexity (Shen and Gao 2020), adoption of a CAS definition for water sensitive communities is highly beneficial.Holland (2006) describes CASs as systems involving many components that adapt or learn as they interact.Pivotal characteristics of CASs are exhibited in the ways in which knowledge is dispersed throughout the community via interacting heterogenous components that continually contribute to the evolving structure through dynamic feedback.This corresponds with the high water literacy levels of water sensitive communities, in addition to the processes that reinforce them.The reorganisation of water management systems to better involve various subgroups of community beyond industry and professionals also exhibits the evolving, complex structure common to CASs (Holland 1992).
The inherent complexity of water sensitive communities is well documented across the literature (Dobbie, Farrelly, and Brown 2017;Supski and Lindsay 2013;Wong 2006).Research by Winz, Brierley, and Trowsdale (2011) highlights the complexity of feedback loops in SUWM and interactions between system components.However, there is also acknowledgement of a need to better recognise increasing complexity as cities transition to WSCs.Water sensitive communities experience increasing complexity, as they are part of a paradigm that involves a non-reductionist, holistic view of the urban water cycle, in addition to SUWM incorporating a growing number of roles in comparison to conventional approaches.For example, liveability has increasingly been seen by the water industry of various countries in the global north as an important function of the city (Furlong et al. 2019;Melbourne Water 2019).
CAS theory suggests that the systems of water sensitive communities' exhibit nonlinear relationships among variables, and that the future behaviour of the systems is dependent on their subsequent histories and starting points (Boal and Schultz 2007).In line with CAS theory, the interactions between community and their environment can give rise to feedback that, in turn, leads to their co-evolution (Strathern and McGlade 2014).For instance, residents who value their water environments may be more likely to demonstrate water-wise behaviours, which can, in turn, lead to healthier environments that are more likely to be valued by residents.Furthermore, Kast and Rosenzweig (1972) suggest that social systems have multiple goals or functions (such as defined in Table 4).In CASs, these may evolve beyond system boundaries, lack predictability, and be non-linear (Turner and Baker 2019).As shown in Table 4, however, there was a clear lacking in the concept of 'boundary' applied to water sensitive communities.
A CAS framework and, similarly, complex systems analysis, has been used to understand the interacting systems of various aspects of water cycles and management in the past (Giacomoni, Kanta, and Zechman 2013;Kanta and Zechman 2014;Barry and Coombes 2018).Pahl-Wostl, Kabat, and M€ oltgen (2008) for instance, highlight how integrated and adaptive water management regimes recognise that the systems they managed are CASs.What our research offers that is new, is the application of CAS theory to water sensitive communities, to improve understanding and enhance future research, as we connect the findings of the extensive record of CAS research with the findings of our systematic review.Our proposal to view water sensitive communities as CASs that are boundary spanning provides a framework for understanding the interaction patterns within these systems.This presents an opportunity for future studies to determine how the system boundary of a water sensitive community may be best defined.Overall, linking WSC research with CAS theory demonstrates the presence of CAS principles in water sensitive communities as they are described by the literature.
The application of CAS theory offers a new perspective not previously explored.It provides a new way of understanding the complex and adaptive nature of water sensitive communities and opens pathways for future research to improve knowledge by providing a framework within which to explore interactions.No previously existing definition for the water sensitive community accurately encompasses all characterising attributes.Continued use of the third key pillar for a WSC as the substitute for a full definition also presents challenges when it has not been updated to represent recent research and advancements in knowledge.

Conclusion
This systematic review has collated the core elements that are consistently used throughout the literature to define and characterise water sensitive communities and presented them in the form of 16 attributes.A new, definition for the water sensitive community is proposed that incorporates both knowledge from the literature and CAS theory.The attributes that define water sensitive communities are complex and interactive and display non-linear dynamics, diversity, feedback loops, lack predictability, and have a large number of components that are self-organising, interactive, and interdependent; the study of which benefits from the perspective of CAS theory.However, it should be acknowledged that the findings of this review are solely based on a systematic analysis of the literature and, therefore, can only portray perspectives that have been published in the English language.Further research is required to investigate whether the attributes and definition proposed by this review are consistent with the perspectives of key stakeholders, such as industry professionals and residents.The redefining of water sensitive communities as CAS offers considerable opportunities for future research by providing a realistic framework in which to explore interactions, thus improving research and transitions to WSCs.Therefore, a future research direction should be the development of a CAS approach for studying water sensitive communities.This could draw on our research and the extensive CAS literature to highlight the specific CAS principles of water sensitive community and model the interacting agents and components.The modelling of a water sensitive community CAS presents an opportunity to better understand, predict outcomes, and mitigate problems.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.PRISMA flow diagram: systematic search identifying studies relevant to defining the concept of water sensitive community.

Table 2 .
Characteristics of studies included in systematic review (n for extensive version.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Number of publications that mention each of the 16 attributes of water sensitive communities identified in this systematic review (n¼50).

Table 1 .
Defining elements of a CAS.

Table 3 .
Definition used to describe a 'water sensitive community' or an interchangeable term.Zero and Water þ communities' water management paradigm starts with the acknowledgement of the scarcity of potable water: Rainwater is no longer overlooked as a primary water source.All the water that can be caught on clean surfaces is harvested and stored.Water falling on streets and other impermeable surfaces does not run-off downstream to join other communities' stormwater in the city's sewage system.Run-off water stays in appropriate spaces where it can infiltrate naturally into the aquifers before it gets polluted while travelling through miles of streets down to the sewage." a "Water