Elgar Encyclopedia of Water Policy, Economics and Management (Elgar Encyclopedias in the Social Sciences series) 1802202935, 9781802202939

Citation preview

Elgar Encyclopedia of Water Policy, Economics and Management

ELGAR ENCYCLOPEDIAS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Elgar Encyclopedias in the Social Sciences serve as the definitive reference works to their fields. Each Encyclopedia is overseen by an editor internationally recognised as a leading name within the field, and contain a multitude of entries written by key scholars, providing an accessible and condensed overview of the key topics within a given subject area. Volumes in the series are commissioned across the breadth of the social sciences, and cover areas including, but not limited to, Political Science, Sociology, Human Geography, Development Studies, Social Policy, Public Management and Public Policy. Individual entries present a concise and logical overview of a given subject, together with a list of references for further study. Each Encyclopedia will serve as an invaluable resource for practitioners, academics, and students, and should form an essential part of any research journey. For a full list of Edward Elgar published titles, including the titles in this series, visit our website at www​.e​-elgar​.com.

Elgar Encyclopedia of Water Policy, Economics and Management

Edited by

Phoebe Koundouri Professor, Athens University of Economics and Business, Research Professor, Technical University of Denmark, President, European Association of Environmental Resource Economists, Chair, World Council of Environmental and Resource Economists Associations, Chair, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network Global Climate Hub

with Angelos Alamanos Editor, Nature Sustainability, formerly visiting scholar, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), Postdoctoral fellow, University of Waterloo, Canada, Policy Analyst, National Water Forum of Ireland

ELGAR ENCYCLOPEDIAS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Cheltenham, UK · Northampton, MA, USA

© Phoebe Koundouri 2024 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023949461 This book is available electronically in the Economics subject collection http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.4337​/9781802202946

ISBN 978 1 80220 293 9 (cased) ISBN 978 1 80220 294 6 (eBook)

EEP BoX

Dedication Professor Phoebe Koundouri

and Chrysi Koundouri for their unbounded love and support through my life, my husband Professor Nikitas Pittis, the best among the many renowned academics that I was blessed to be taught by, and our children Chrysilia, Billie and Athena, our joy, happiness and sustainability!

This encyclopaedia is the 15th book I edit/ co-author. As always my work is dedicated to my family, the people that defined me and continue to inspire me, while being my strength and resilience. My parents Christos

i

Contents About the editor List of contributors Preface Phoebe Koundouri and Angelos Alamanos

xi xii xvi

1. A Review of Water-Related LCA Indicators 1 Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis, Victor Kouloumpis, Antonia Vyrkou and George Arampatzis 2. Advances in Dynamical and Statistical Downscaling of Global Climate Change Projections at Local Catchment Scale 5 Prodromos Zanis, Aristeidis K. Georgoulias and Dimitris Akritidis 3. Advances in Limnological Research 12 José Galizia Tundisi 4. Agricultural Policies and Water Management 16 Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez and Alberto Garrido 5. Analysis and Evaluation of Post-Fire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques 20 George Papaioannou, Angelos Alamanos and Fotios Maris 6. Applications of Post-Fire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques 26 George Papaioannou, Angelos Alamanos and Fotios Maris 7. Approaches for Optimal Management of MarineProtected Areas 31 Angelos Alamanos and Phoebe Koundouri 8. ChatGPT and Water Management 37 Angelos Alamanos 9. Clean Water and Sanitation for All: SDG 6 Performance in Global, European and Regional Level 40 Phoebe Koundouri, Angelos Plataniotis and Angelos Alamanos

10. Communication of Climate Change–Driven Impacts on Water Resources in Wet Regions: The Example of Ireland Hammond Antwi Sarpong, Alec Rolston, Suzanne Linnane, David Getty and Angelos Alamanos 11. Computational Social Sciences in Human–Water Research Jan Sodoge and Mariana Madruga De Brito 12. Contemporary Drought Management Techniques to Reduce Crop Water Stress and Enhance Food Security in the Upper Blue Nile Region of Ethiopia Fahad Khan Khadim, Amvrossios C. Bagtzoglou, Emmanouil Anagnostou and Zoi Dokou 13. Cooperation in Transboundary River Basins: Challenges and Research (Modelling) Approaches Jianshi Zhao 14. Decisions for Water: The Crucial Role of Environmental Management Control Systems Edeltraud Guenther, Thomas Guenther and Samanthi Dijkstra-Silva 15. Environmental Economics for Efficient Marine Protection: The Example of the Baltic Sea Heini Ahtiainen and Antti Iho 16. EU Policies and Innovation Financing Related to Water Stella Tsani and Chrysoula Chitou

45

50

53

58

62

65

68

17. Flood Insurance: Economic, Psychological and Social Justice Perspectives 71 Paul Hudson 18. Freshwater Inflows to Bays and Estuaries 75 Paul A. Montagna iii

iv  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management 19. Full Cost of Water: Definition and Measurement Antonio Massarutto

80

20. Full Cost of Water: Recovery and Incentives Antonio Massarutto

83

21. Future Challenges of Water Resources Management Angelos Alamanos and Phoebe Koundouri 22. Gender and Water Security Vishal Narain 23. Governing Water in the Cities of Global South Gopa Samanta 24. Groundwater: Our Secret Treasure to be Secured for a Sustainable Future Andreas Panagopoulos 25. Hybrid Economic Models for Managing Integrated Water Resources Allocation as a Wicked Water Problem Márcia Ma. G. Alcoforado De Moraes, Gerald N. Souza Da Silva, Marcelo Pereira Da Cunha and Ignacio Tavares 26. Hydrological Hazards (The 4Ms: Modelling, Monitoring, Management and Mitigation) Lampros Vasiliades 27. Hydrology in Water Management Maria A. Mimikou

87

94

97

100

105

112 118

29. Ideology in National Water Policy 126 Richard Meissner and Jeroen Warner

31. Integrated and Sustainable Water Resources Management: A Systems Theory Approach Angelos Alamanos and Phoebe Koundouri

33. Integrated Water Resources Simulation and Management in Degrading Groundwater Systems in Mediterranean Rural Watersheds 142 Pantelis Sidiropoulos, Georgios A. Tziatzios, Aikaterini Lyra, Nikitas Mylopoulos and Athanasios Loukas 34. Integrating Experimental Economics and Living Labs in Water Resources Management Ebun Akinsete, Alina Velias and Phoebe Koundouri

147

35. Large Hydro-Wind-Photovoltaic Hybrid Generation Systems Pan Liu, Bo Ming and Qian Cheng

151

36. Management of Baltic Sea Eutrophication 159 Antti Iho and Heini Ahtiainen 37. Megadroughts and Challenges for Water Resources Management Angelos Alamanos

28. Hydro-Politics and HydroDiplomacy: The Case of South Asia 121 Tamanna Ashraf and Shlomi Dinar

30. Individual Decision-Making under Flood Risk Peter John Robinson and Wouter W. J. Botzen

32. Integrated and Sustainable Water Resources Management: Modeling 137 Angelos Alamanos and Phoebe Koundouri

129

133

38. Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Water Resources Management Phoebe Koundouri and Angelos Alamanos

164

168

39. Nexus Ecosystems: A New Concept Rooted in Management Science 171 Svetlana Klessova, Sebastian Engell and Amel Attour 40. On Identifying Innovative Planning and Management Decisions 176 Daniel P. Loucks 41. Optimal Control Approaches to Water Management: Discussing Model Uncertainty Phoebe Koundouri and Athanasios N. Yannacopoulos 42. Optimization Applications in Water Resources Management Angelos Alamanos and Jorge Andres Garcia

178

182

contents  v 43. Optimization in Water Resources Management Jorge Andres Garcia and Angelos Alamanos 44. Participation Lucie Baudoin and Dror Etzion 45. Policies and Investments for the Improvement of Water Pollution Control: The Example of China Dan Dai 46. Public Acceptability of Water Supply Innovations David Lewis Feldman

188

192

196

201

47. Public Communication of Water Scarcity from Water Supply Agencies 206 Hammond Antwi Sarpong, Alec Rolston, Suzanne Linnane, David Getty and Angelos Alamanos 48. Rainwater Harvesting 210 Carlos O. Galvão, Ronaldo L. R. Mendes and Rodolfo L. B. Nóbrega 49. Recurring Food and Energy Price Crises and the Growing Role of Water Claudia Ringler and Mark W. Rosegrant 50. Reservoir Sedimentation as an Off-Site Effect of Soil Erosion: Two Different Approaches for the Same Case Study Konstantinos Kaffas 51. Monitoring Sustainability through the Lens of Water Productivity, Resource Productivity and EcoInnovation in the EU-28 Nikos Chatzistamoulou and Phoebe Koundouri

213

218

55. Socioeconomic Consequences of Water Trading: Reviewing the Evidence for Water Markets in Australia 239 Céline Nauges and Sarah Ann Wheeler 56. Sociohydrology Giuliano Di Baldassarre

243

57. Stakeholder Engagement and Communication for Water Policy 246 Sadie Hundemer and Martha C. Monroe 58. Sustainable Provision of Drinking Water in the Context of the Circular Economy Guillermo Donoso, Eduardo Leiva, María Molinos-Senante, Pablo Pastén and Daniela Rivera 59. The Blue Acceleration in Human Use of the Ocean Jean Baptiste Jouffray and John Virdin 60. The Environmental Impacts of On-Site Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems: Evaluating Embodied and Operational Life Cycle Performance John Gallagher and Laurence Gill 61. The Evolving Economics of Agricultural Water in the Western United States Richard E. Howitt and Duncan Macewan

252

256

261

265

62. The Role of Groundwater in Adapting to Climate Crisis in Greece 271 Konstantinos Voudouris 224

63. The Water Commons Vishal Narain

52. Science-Supported Policies to Achieve Environmental Sustainability under Crises Angelos Alamanos and Phoebe Koundouri

230

64. The Water–Energy Nexus as a Sociotechnical System under Uncertainty 279 Andreas Efstratiadis and Georgia-Konstantina Sakki

53. Sediment Transport and Reservoir Sedimentation Vlassios Hrissanthou

234

54. Sharing of Transboundary Rivers and Making Peace Ashok Swain

237

65. Tradable Groundwater Permits in Agriculture Dionysis Latinopoulos

277

284

66. Transboundary Water Management 287 Robert G. Varady, Tamee R. Albrecht, Andrea K. Gerlak and Margaret O. Wilder

vi  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management 67. Understanding the WEFE Nexus Paradigm: Principles and Challenges 295 Patricia Marcos-Garcia, Marco Pastori and Cesar Carmona-Moreno 68. Unravelling the Unintended Consequences of Water Interventions: Challenges of Understanding Adoption within Human–Water Systems and a Way Forward Mohammad Faiz Alam, Dani Daniel, Soham Adla and Saket Pande

300

312

71. Water and the Water Framework Directive 315 Alfonso Expósito and Julio Berbel 72. Water Conservation in Agriculture: Economic and Policy Tools Eva Iglesias and Paloma Esteve 73. Water Crisis: Communication Technologies and Public Awareness Policies Elpida Kolokytha

319

323

74. Water Footprint and Its Monetization 327 Katherine L. Christ and Roger L. Burritt 75. Water Governance in Irrigated Farming through the SocialEcological Systems Framework: An Empirical Case in Ethiopia Debella Deressa Bayissa, Michele Moretti, Joost Dessein and Gianluca Brunori

330

335

77. Water Management and Armed Conflict 340 Gül Özerol and Juliane Schillinger 78. Water Management in Africa Ebun Akinsete, Labode Popoola and Femi Oyeniyi

69. Valuing European Biodiversity Ecosystems 305 Phoebe Koundouri, Conrad Landis and Angelos Plataniotis 70. Water and Cities: Natural Solutions to the Urban Challenges Zahra Kalantari, Carla Sofia Ferreira and Omid Rahmati

76. Water Innovation: Toward Smart and Resilient Water Systems and Services Christos Makropoulos

79. Water Markets in California: Punching Below Its Weight Kurt Schwabe and Mehdi Nemati 80. Water Markets: Institutions, Issues and Remedies Hao Zhao, David Porter and Stephen Rassenti

345

349

352

81. Water Policy in Water-Scarce Countries: Insights from the Middle East Mohamed Mostafa Mohamed and Mohamed Ibrahim Kizhisseri

357

82. Water Quality Forecasting to Support Decision-Making in the European Drinking Water Supply Sector Ricardo Marroquin Paiz, Eleanor Jennings and Valerie Mccarthy

366

83. Water Resources Management in Central Asia Stefanos Xenarios

371

84. Water Resources System Analysis for Addressing Growing Water Management Challenges Taher Kahil 85. Water Rights and Legal Pluralism Vishal Narain

375 379

86. Water Security in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region 382 Hamed Assaf Index

386

About the Editor Phoebe Koundouri is Professor in Economics and Director of the ReSEES Laboratory at the School of Economics of the Athens University of Economics and Business, parttime Research Professor at the Department of Technology, Management and Economics of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), and Director of the Sustainable Development Research Unit at ATHENA Information Technology Research Center. She holds an MPhil and a PhD in Economics from the University of Cambridge and has held academic positions at the University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Reading, and the London School of Economics. She is recognized as a pioneer in innovative, human-centric, and interdisciplinary systems for sustainable interaction between nature, society, and the economy. She has published 15 books and more than 500 scientific papers, co-edited a number of prestigious academic journals, organized numerous international scientific conferences, supervised more than 30 PhD students, and given keynote speeches and public lectures across the world.

is chair of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) Global Climate Hub and co-chair of SDSN Europe, with 2000 universities involved. She is elected member of Academia Europea, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the World Academy of Art and Science, and member of the InterAcademy Partnership Board. She is commissioner for the Lancet Commission on COVID-19 Recovery and invited member of the Program on Fraternal Economy of Integral and Sustainable Development of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In 2022, she received the prestigious European Research Council Synergy Grant, and in 2023, she was awarded the Academy of Athens Excellence in Science Award, awarded every four years. She is member of the Nominating Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. Angelos Alamanos studied Civil Engineering at the University of Thessaly, Greece. He holds a PhD in Water Resources Management from the same Department, on the application of hydro-economic models and multi-criteria analysis to develop integrated decision support systems under climate change. During his PhD, he was a visiting scholar at the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO), where he focused on agricultural water management optimization. Angelos worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Waterloo, Canada, focusing on Systems Analysis and Environmental Economics, and subsequently as a Policy Analyst in Water Services at the National Water Forum of Ireland. Since May 2022, Angelos has been an Associate Editor at Nature Sustainability.

In 2019, she was elected President of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), and she is now chairing the World Council of Environmental and Natural Resource Economists Associations (WCERE). She is the director of the Alliance of Excellence for Research and Innovation on AE4RIA, linking the research and innovation work of five research centers, five innovations accelerators, and numerous science-policy networks, with more than 200 researchers and 100 large interdisciplinary competitively funded projects involved. She

vii

Contributors Soham Adla, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

Wouter W. J. Botzen, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

Heini Ahtiainen, European Agency (ECHA), Finland

Gianluca Brunori, University of Pisa, Italy

Chemicals

Ebun Akinsete, ATHENA Research and Innovation Centre, Greece Dimitris Akritidis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Mohammad Faiz Alam, International Water Management Institute, India Angelos Alamanos, University of Thessaly, Greece & ATHENA Research and Innovation Center, Greece

Roger L. Burritt, Australian National University, Australia Cesar Carmona-Moreno, European Commission–Joint Research Centre, Italy Nikos Chatzistamoulou, Ioannina, Greece

University

of

Qian Cheng, Wuhan University, China Chrysoula Chitou, University of Ioannina, Greece

Tamee R. Albrecht, University of Arizona, USA

Katherine L. Christ, University of South Australia, Australia

Márcia Ma. G. Alcoforado De Moraes, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

Dan Dai, University of Florida, US

Emmanouil Anagnostou, University of Connecticut, USA Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis, University of Huddersfield, UK George Arampatzis, Technical University of Crete, Greece Tamanna Ashraf, University, USA

Florida

International

Hamed Assaf, American University of Ras Al Khaimah, U.A.E. Amel Attour, GREDEG – CNRS – University Côte d’Azur, France.

Dani Daniel, Department of Health Behavior, Environment, and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia Joost Dessein, Ghent University, Belgium Giuliano Di Baldassarre, University, Sweden

Uppsala

Samanthi Dijkstra-Silva, University of Dresden, Germany

Technical

Shlomi Dinar, University, USA

Florida

International

Zoi Dokou, California State University, USA

Amvrossios C. Bagtzoglou, University of Connecticut, USA

Guillermo Donoso, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Lucie Baudoin, Excelia la Rochelle, France

Andreas Efstratiadis, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Debella Deressa Bayissa, University of Pisa, Italy Julio Berbel, University of Cordoba, Spain Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez, Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

Universidad

Sebastian Engell, Technical University of Dortmund, Germany Paloma Esteve, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Dror Etzion, McGill University, Canada

viii

contributors  ix Alfonso Expósito, University of Malaga, Spain

Taher Kahil, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria

Carla Sofia Ferreira, Stockholm University, Sweden

Zahra Kalantari, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden

John Gallagher, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Fahad Khan Khadim, Connecticut, USA

Carlos O. Galvão, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Brazil

Mohamed Ibrahim Kizhisseri, United Arab Emirates University, UAE

Jorge Andres Garcia, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada

Svetlana Klessova, GREDEG – CNRS – University Côte d’Azur, France

Alberto Garrido, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

Elpida Kolokytha, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Aristeidis K. Georgoulias, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Victor Kouloumpis, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece

Andrea K. Gerlak, University of Arizona, USA

Phoebe Koundouri, Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece & Denmark Technical University, Denmark

David Getty, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland Laurence Gill, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Edeltraud Guenther, University, Germany

United

Nations

Thomas Guenther, Technical University of Dresden, Germany Richard E. Howitt, University of California, Davis, USA Vlassios Hrissanthou, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

University

of

Conrad Landis, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece Dionysis Latinopoulos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Eduardo Leiva, Pontificia Católica de Chile, Chile David Lewis Feldman, California, USA

Universidad

University

of

Suzanne Linnane, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland Pan Liu, Wuhan University, China

Paul Hudson, University of York, UK

Daniel P. Loucks, Cornell University, USA

Sadie Hundemer, University of Florida, USA

Athanasios Loukas, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Eva Iglesias, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

Aikaterini Lyra, University of Thessaly, Greece

Antti Iho, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Finland

Duncan Macewan, California, USA

Eleanor Jennings, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland

Mariana Madruga De Brito, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Germany

Jean Baptiste Jouffray, University of Sweden, Sweden

Christos Makropoulos, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Konstantinos Kaffas, University of Florence, Italy

Patricia Marcos-Garcia, European Commission–Joint Research Centre, Italy

ERA

Economics

x  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Fotios Maris, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece.

Saket Pande, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands

Ricardo Marroquin Paiz, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland

George Papaioannou, Democritus University of Thrace, Orestiada, Greece

Antonio Massarutto, University of Udine, Italy

Pablo Pastén, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Valerie Mccarthy, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland Richard Meissner, University of South Africa, South Africa Ronaldo L. R. Mendes, Universidade Federal do Pará, Brazil Maria A. Mimikou, National Technical University of Athens, Greece Bo Ming, Xi’an University of Technology, China Mohamed Mostafa Mohamed, United Arab Emirates University, UAE María Molinos-Senante, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Marco Pastori, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Italy Marcelo Pereira Da Cunha, State University of Campinas, Brazil Angelos Plataniotis, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Labode Popoola, University of Ibadan, Nigeria David Porter, Chapman University, USA Omid Rahmati, Kurdistan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Iran Stephen Rassenti, Chapman University, USA

Martha C. Monroe, University of Florida, USA

Claudia Ringler, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Canada

Paul A. Montagna, Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi, USA

Daniela Rivera, Pontificia Católica de Chile, Chile

Michele Moretti, University of Pisa, Italy

Peter John Robinson, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Nikitas Mylopoulos, University of Thessaly, Greece Vishal Narain, Management Development Institute Gurgaon, India Céline Nauges, Toulouse Economics, France

School

of

Mehdi Nemati, University of CaliforniaRiverside, USA

Universidad

Alec Rolston, Goyder Institute for Water Research, Australia Mark W. Rosegrant, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Canada Georgia-Konstantina Sakki, National Technical University of Athens, Greece Gopa Samanta, University of Burdwan, India

Rodolfo L. B. Nóbrega, University of Bristol, UK

Hammond Antwi Sarpong, Institute of Technology, Ireland

Femi Oyeniyi, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Juliane Schillinger, University of Twente, the Netherlands

Gül Özerol, University of Twente, the Netherlands Andreas Panagopoulos, Hellenic Agricultural Organization-Soil and Water Resources Institute, Greece

Dundalk

Kurt Schwabe, University of CaliforniaRiverside, USA Pantelis Sidiropoulos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

contributors  xi Jan Sodoge, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Germany

Konstantinos Voudouris, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Gerald N. Souza Da Silva, Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil

Antonia Vyrkou, University of Huddersfield, UK

Ashok Swain, Uppsala University, Sweden

Jeroen Warner, Wageningen University, the Netherlands

Ignacio Tavares, Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil Stella Tsani, University of Ioannina, Greece Jose Galizia Tundisi, International Institute of Ecology, São Carlos, Brazil.

Sarah Ann Wheeler, University of Adelaide, Australia Margaret O. Wilder, University of Arizona, USA

of

Stefanos Xenarios, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

Robert G. Varady, University of Arizona, USA

Athanasios N. Yannacopoulos, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece

Lampros Vasiliades, University of Thessaly, Greece

Prodromos Zanis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Alina Velias, Athens University of Business and Economics, Greece

Hao Zhao, Chapman University, USA

Georgios A. Tziatzios, Thessaly, Greece

University

John Virdin, Duke University, USA

Jianshi Zhao, Tsinghua University, China

Preface Phoebe Koundouri and Angelos Alamanos

During the last decades, multiple new challenges have emerged, and others have been intensified over the last few years: climate change, Covid-19, recession, wars, population movements, increased energy and resources demand. These challenges majorly affect several sectors such as energy, fuels, industry, agriculture, international relations and trade, economy, resources, including water, human and natural capital.1,2 The water management sector has to cope with these challenges, providing high quality services, achieving major and complex global sustainability targets,3 in addition to the existing issues of infrastructure, water scarcity, water quality deterioration, effects of climate change, and mismanagement in human, economic, institutional terms2. This situation requires integrated, serious and scientific solutions, able to address multiple issues in the short- and long-run and provide multiple benefits. Several fields of the broader water science are adapting to this situation by reconsidering theoretical and practical aspects, to name a few fields: disaster management, transboundary water management, resources allocation, water infrastructure sector, water quality management, socio-economic research, water policy and governance. Given all these emerging challenges and the need for interdisciplinary science and communication, the idea of creating a resource where the various fields would be able to see each other’s work and stimulate dialogue and further research, was born. In early 2021, we started developing the Encyclopedia of Water Management aiming to address such broad themes, shedding light on how interdisciplinary water science has the potential to influence policy, and reshape complex socio-technical systems involving water management. Eighty-six entries contribute to this task, covering several disciplines, such as Water Policy and Governance, Water-FoodEnergy Nexus, Hydrology, Systems Analysis, Sustainability and Resilience, Transboundary water management, Environmental and Ecological Economics, Agricultural Economics, Hydraulics, Hydro-diplomacy,

Stakeholder analysis, Water quality, Seas and Oceans, Agriculture, Climate science, Water treatment, Nature based Solutions, Communication of water issues, Biodiversity, Limnology and Water Security, among others. The book is a synthesis of: a) Theory, explaining basic concepts of water science to a wider audience, not necessarily water specialists; b) Short reviews providing concise summaries of the most relevant accumulated knowledge on the subjects explored; c) Overviews of water management issues and approaches in case studies of different scales; d) Examples and applications that provide useful context and background information on how experts approach various waterrelated issues. The field of Water Management is getting continuously broader, so it is very difficult to cover all its aspects in a single volume, however, this Encyclopedia sets the bases for a holistic approach giving an idea of its various technical, cross-disciplinary, socio-economic and policy extents. Water science experiences a transitional period, where it starts going beyond its traditional engineering and environmental limits, and becomes interdisciplinary, integrating social and economic science, as well as new technologies and behavioural science. Thus, it will be able to influence policy in a more efficient and holistic way, based on scientific evidence for a more sustainable world. A message of several entries of this Book is the need to consider sciencesupported policies, based on integrated data and robust models. Considering the above, we believe that this Encyclopedia can serve as a reference point where different disciplines can see each others’ research questions, approaches, building thus knowledge, dialogue, and facilitating inter-disciplinary cooperation. The Book is expected to be a useful resource for students, academics and researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers. A total of 144 authors cooperated to provide useful insights from their field of expertise, always having in mind to make the content accessible to a wider audience, and xii

preface  xiii providing useful insights for scientifically supported policies. Several of the contributors to this book are experienced in water education, and decision-making. Scholars from all the five continents have been involved in the book, achieving a balance between established senior and promising junior scholars, and also among female and male contributors. We would like to sincerely thank all the 144 contributors for their dedication and for having carried out their tasks with brilliant results. Athens February 28, 2023

Notes 1.

2.

3.

Liu, J., Hull, V., Godfray, H., Tilman, D., Gleick, P., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C., Xu, Z., Chung, M. G., Sun, J., & Li, S. (2018). Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 1(9), 466–476. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​- 018​ -0135-8 Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink, Citizen Science(2022–4). https://www​.iahr​.org​/ library​/infor​?pid​=22131 Bain, P.G., Kroonenberg, P.M., Johansson, LO. et  al. Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nat Sustain 2, 819–825 (2019). https://doi​.org ​/10​.1038​/s41893​ -019​- 0365-4

1. A Review of WaterRelated LCA Indicators

requirements for a given area, expressed in m3 m–2 month–1. Over the last 15 years, several indicators have been proposed based on the water stress index (WSI). The differences between the various versions and variations lie in the modeling and the values used as CFs. These indicators are mostly applied to the consumed water volume and assess only consumptive water use. Pfister et al. (2009) introduced a method that expresses the water deprivation, that is, the share of the consumptive water use that denies other users of fresh water. The WSI is estimated using the WTA. The method is modeled using a logistic function (S-curve) to fit the resulting indicator to values between 0.01 and 1 m3 deprived/m3 consumed. It can be used to assess both the midpoint and the endpoint impact of water deprivation. Boulay et al. (2011) proposed an endpoint indicator to assess the potential impact on human health due to the reduction in water availability. The CF is calculated as a function of the WSI based on the consumptive water use. However, the method also incorporates the impact of a loss of functionality for downstream users due to the lower quality of water discharged back into the environment. Hoekstra et  al. (2012) also defined a WSI based on the consumptive water use (the ‘blue water scarcity’), considering the water that is required to sustain certain critical ecological functions and incorporating the seasonality of water availability by using monthly rather than annual values for the calculation. In 2007, the water use in life cycle assessment (WULCA) was launched under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme/Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) life cycle initiative and became a worldwide group project on the assessment of the use and depletion of water resources. It focuses on providing practitioners, from both industry and academia, with a consensual and consistent framework to assess, compare and disclose the environmental performance of products and operations regarding freshwater use (Boulay et al., 2015, 2018; Frischknecht et al., 2016). WULCA recommended the available water remaining (AWARE) method for assessing water consumption impact, which was also endorsed in 2016 by the EU Joint Research Center. AWARE is a midpoint indicator referring to water use, which represents

Introduction Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic methodology that monitors, measures and evaluates the environmental performance of a system throughout its entire life cycle. This performance is quantitatively measured using midpoint (representing the impact on certain categories) or endpoint (representing the damage to human health, the ecosystem and resources) indicators. For the standardization of the process, ISO 14040:2006 presented the framework that needs to be followed for LCA studies, while ISO 14046:2014 formalized the water footprint framework. Despite the introduction of the standards, the specific methods that need to be applied are not explained in detail, and, for that reason, LCA practitioners who focus on water use apply several methods and approaches to assess the water quantity consumed or the water/wastewater quality.

Water quantity LCIA indicators and methods For an assessment of the water quantity life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators, the following values have been defined and used in calculating the corresponding characterization factors (CF): ●

●

●

●

Withdrawal to availability ratio (WTA) is defined as the ratio of the withdrawn water over the available water for a given system. Consumption to availability ratio (CTA) is defined as the ratio of the consumed water only (since part of the withdrawn water is returned to the water body) over the available water for a given system. Demand to availability ratio (DTA) is defined as the ratio of the water demand in an area over the available water. Availability minus the demand (AMD) is defined as the difference between the water availability minus the human water consumption and environmental water 1

2  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management the ‘relative available water remaining per area after meeting the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems’. The CF for the AWARE method is calculated as the inverted ratio of the AMD in the studied area over the global AMD average, estimated as 0.0136 m3 m–2 month–1. The value of the CF ranges from 0.1 to 100, with 1 corresponding to a region with the same amount of remaining water per area within a certain period as the world average (Boulay et al., 2018). Another recently introduced method is the water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE) method, which focuses only on blue water consumption and assesses a basin’s vulnerability to freshwater depletion, by introducing the water depletion index (WDI). The freshwater depletion is estimated by multiplying the water consumption in each basin with the appropriate WDI. The WDI is defined as a function of the regional CTA ratio. The novelty introduced with the WAVE method is that availability (A) now also includes surface water stocks, such as lakes, wetlands and dams, and groundwater stocks. Data for the surface water stocks are retrieved from WaterGAP2, a global water availability and water use model (http://www​.watergap​.de), while for the groundwater, adjustment factors are used based on the geological structure and the annual recharge (Berger et al., 2014). Water scarcity and availability-related indicators have also been incorporated in several LCA methods that do not necessarily focus explicitly on water. The ecological footprint methods (EF 2.0 and EF 3.0) include ‘water use’ as an indicator measured in m3 world equiv., implementing AWARE (Boulay et al., 2018). These methods assess the impact in terms of the deprived water quantity, while adopting only the country scale using default CFs averaged over space and time. It must be noted that AWARE does not characterize green water, rainwater, seawater or fossil water and CFs are recommended for blue water consumption only. In the ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 method the indicator ‘freshwater consumption’ is used. It is estimated by modeling the cause–effect chain of freshwater consumption on water resource depletion, with units of surplus cost to extract an additional cubic meter of water (Pfister et al., 2011). The Ecological Scarcity 2006 method (http://esu​-services​ .ch ​/projects​/ubp06/) incorporates ‘water resources’, expressed in EcoPoints (UBP), in the impact categories calculated. athanasios angelis-dimakis et al.

Other methods focus on water as a renewable resource. The environmental priority strategies (EPS) in product design use the indicator ‘Renewable resources: Water’ (IVL, 2015). It is measured in environmental load units (ELU), which represent an externality corresponding to the environmental damage cost equal to 1 euro. The LANCA v2.5 method uses the indicator ‘groundwater regeneration reduction potential’, which represents the ability of soil to regenerate groundwater resources, measured either in m3 or in m3 per annum (Bos et al., 2016). Standards-related methods also use indicators to assess water use. ISO 21930:2017 for sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works records the ‘use of net freshwater resources’ measured in m3. The European standard for the generation of environmental product declarations (EPF) for construction products (EN 15804 + A1 and EN 15804 + A2) considers the aforementioned indicator as well as the ‘water use’ measured in m3 world equiv. The environmental performance calculation (Stichting Bouwkwaliteit, 2019), which combines the SBK-Bepalingsmethode (determination method) with the Nationale Milieudatabase (NMD, Dutch national environmental database) to assess the environmental performance of buildings and infrastructure projects, incorporates the ‘use of net freshwater’ measured in m3.

Water quality LCIA indicators and methods In terms of changes in the quality of the water that is returned to the water basin, and the potential impact on humans and the environment, these aspects are dealt with by the widely used and less water-explicit LCIA methods. Ecotoxicity, acidification and eutrophication are the most used impact categories, with different levels of aggregation depending on the method employed. Table 1.1 presents the indicators used and the corresponding units of measurement for three of the most widely used assessment methods. Certain properties that are not normally included in the LCIA but could be potentially critical for certain water uses/ecosystems are the thermal content (e.g. in the case of cooling water) or the biological content (e.g. E. coli content of discharged wastewater) of discharged streams. These flows should be further studied and incorporated into the relevant

a review of water-related lca indicators  3 Table 1.1   Common midpoint impact indicators expressing water quality Method

Indicator (unit of measurement)

EF 3.0

Acidification (mole of H+eq.) Ecotoxicity, fresh water – total (CTUe) Ecotoxicity, freshwater inorganics (CTUe) Ecotoxicity, freshwater metals (CTUe) Ecotoxicity, freshwater organics (CTUe) Eutrophication, fresh water (kg P eq.) Eutrophication, marine (kg N eq.)

CML2001

Acidification potential (AP) (kg SO2 eq.) Eutrophication potential (EP) (kg phosphate eq.) Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP inf.) (kg DCB eq.) Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP inf.) (kg DCB eq.)

ReCiPe 2016

Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4 DB eq.) Freshwater eutrophication (kg P eq.) Marine ecotoxicity (kg 1,4-DB eq.) Marine eutrophication (kg N eq.)

Source:   SimaPro LCA software v.9.3.

impact categories or new categories should be proposed. Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis, Victor Kouloumpis, Antonia Vyrkou and George Arampatzis

References Berger, M., R. van der Ent, S. Eisner, V. Bach and M. Finkbeiner (2014), ‘Water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE): Considering atmospheric evaporation recycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water footprinting’, Environmental Science & Technology, 48 (8), 4521–8. https://doi​.org​/10​.1021​/ es404994t Bos U., R. Horn, T. Beck, J.P. Lindner and M. Fischer (2016), LANCAR® Characterization Factors for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, https://publica​-rest​.fraunhofer​.de​/server​/api​ /core​/ bitstreams​/8bfdf3c9​-50d8​- 47c2​-9cbe​ -7c5a6084559e​/content. Accessed 13 June 2022. Boulay, A.-M., J. Bare, L. Benini, M. Berger, M.J. Lathuillière, A. Manzardo, M. Margni, M. Motoshita, M. Núñez, A.V. Pastor, B. Ridoutt, T. Oki, S. Worbe and

S. Pfister (2018), ‘The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: Assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23 (2), 368–8. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11367​-017​ -1333-8 Boulay, A.-M., J. Bare, C. De Camillis, P. Döll, F. Gassert, D. Gerten, S. Humbert, A. Inaba, N. Itsubo, Y. Lemoine, M. Margni, M. Motoshita, M. Núñez, A.V. Pastor, B. Ridoutt, U. Schencker, N. Shirakawa, S. Vionnet, S. Worbe, S. Yoshikawa and S. Pfister (2015), ‘Consensus building on the development of a stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: Outcome of the expert workshops’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20 (5), 577–83. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11367​-015​-0869-8 Boulay, A.-M., C. Bulle, J.-B. Bayart, L. Deschênes and M. Margni (2011), ‘Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: Modeling direct impacts on human health’, Environmental Science & Technology, 45 (20), 8948–57. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1021​/es1030883 Frischknecht, R., P. Fantke, L. Tschümperlin, M. Niero, A. Antón, J. Bare, A.-M. Boulay, F. Cherubini, M.Z. Hauschild, A. Henderson, A. Levasseur, T.E. McKone, O. Michelsen, L.M. Canals, S. Pfister, B. Ridoutt, R.K. Rosenbaum, F. Verones, B. Vigon and O. Jolliet (2016), ‘Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: Progress and case study’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21 (3), 429–42. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11367​-015​-1025-1 Hoekstra, A. Y., M.M. Mekonnen, A.K. Chapagain, R.E. Mathews and B.D. Richter (2012), ‘Global monthly water scarcity: Blue water footprints versus blue water availability’, PLoS ONE, 7 (2), e32688. https://doi​ . org ​ / 10​ .1371​ / jour nal​ . pone​ .0032688 IVL. (2015), Environmental Priority Strategies (EPS). Swedish Environmental Institute. https://www​.ivl​.se​/english​/ivl​ /our​ - offer​ /our​ -focus​ - areas​ /consumption​ -and​ -production​ /environmental​ -priority​ -strategies​-eps​.html. Acessed 13 June 2022 Pfister, S., A. Koehler and S. Hellweg (2009), ‘Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA’, athanasios angelis-dimakis et al.

4  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Environmental Science & Technology, 43 (11), 4098–4104. https://doi​.org​/10​.1021​/ es802423e Pfister, S., D. Saner and A. Koehler (2011), ‘The environmental relevance of freshwater consumption in global power production’, The International Journal of Life Cycle

athanasios angelis-dimakis et al.

Assessment, 16 (6), 580–91. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1007​/s11367​-011​-0284-8 Stichting Bouwkwaliteit. (2019), SBK Verification Protocol Version 3.0. https:// milieudatabase​ . nl​ / wp​ - content​ / uploads​ /2020​/02​/ EN​-Verification​-Protocol​-version​ -3​.0​.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2022.

2. Advances in Dynamical and Statistical Downscaling of Global Climate Change Projections at Local Catchment Scale

catchment level is strongly dependent on the catchment characteristics, antecedent conditions and how atmospheric circulation systems respond to climate change. To quantify future change in the hydrological cycle, different modeling approaches such as global climate models (GCMs), regional climate models (RCMs) and hydrological models are commonly used. To reliably assess the hydrological impacts of climate change at the local catchment level, higher-resolution climate information is necessary, and methodologies such as statistical or dynamical downscaling are beneficial to enhance the regional information provided by GCMs. Figure  2.1 illustrates a schematic with the typical model types and chains used in regional climate modeling to assess the climate impact at the catchment level. Commonly, the most relevant meteorological variables for hydrological impact studies are precipitation and temperature, with precipitation being more difficult to model than temperature, mostly because of its high spatial and temporal variability and its non-linear nature (Kundzewicz et  al., 2018). During the last decades, extensive research on downscaling methods and applications has been carried out for hydrological studies at the catchment level.

Introduction The natural variability of water resources is influenced by weather, topography, geology and the environment, with anthropogenic pressures in water management steadily increasing and climate change aggravating the respective changes (Chokkavarapu and Mandla, 2019). Modifications of the Earth’s energy budget by anthropogenic radiative forces drive substantial and widespread changes in the global water cycle and they are projected to cause further substantial changes at both the global and regional scales under future warming (Douville et al., 2021). Global mean precipitation and evaporation increase with global warming, with the estimated rate being model dependent (in the range 1–3 percent per 1°C), while land use and land cover changes as well as water extraction for irrigation also drive regional water cycle changes through their influence on surface water and energy budgets (Douville et  al., 2021). Furthermore, water cycle variability and extremes are projected to increase faster than average changes in most regions of the world and under all future emissions scenarios; however, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns alter where and how often these extremes occur, with substantial regional differences and seasonal contrasts (Douville et al., 2021). Moreover, the land areas affected by increasing drought frequency and severity will expand with increasing global warming, stressing water availability in certain regions during dry seasons due to the overall increase in evapotranspiration (IPCC, 2021). Floods and droughts at the catchment level are a complex interplay of hydrology, climate and human management, with their relative role varying for different flood types and regions. The frequency of flooding at the

Global climate models GCMs, including state-of-the-art Earth system models, coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models and atmosphere-only general circulation models, are the primary tools for attributing past climate change to human activities, and for projecting future climate change under different anthropogenic emission scenarios. Global models derive climate information about past and future climates with a nominal horizontal resolution typically in the range of 100–200  km, and provide insights for the analysis of regional climate through the attribution or projection of forced changes or the quantification of the role of the internal variability. Regional climate projections using global models are affected by three main sources of uncertainty: unknown future external forcings; imperfect knowledge and implementation of the response of the climate system to external forcings; and internal variability (Lehner et  al., 2020). Although higher-resolution GCMs (at 50 km resolution or finer) are becoming increasingly available for climate change research (Held and Zhao, 2011), the majority of GCMs still 5

6  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:   Adapted with modifications from Figure 10.5 in Doblas-Reyes et al. (2021).

Figure 2.1   Schematic of the typical model types and chains used in modeling regional climate for a climate impact assessment at the catchment level

have a coarse horizontal resolution to resolve the effects of local- and regional-scale forcings on regional climate, such as topographic characteristics with complex mountain ranges, coastlines, peninsulas, small islands and lakes, as well as the land-use characteristics and chemical composition of short-lived species (e.g. aerosols, tropospheric ozone). Hydrological processes typically occur on finer scales than GCMs resolve, and precipitation is inherently difficult to model at local scales, as local topographic variables have a strong impact on the occurrence of precipitation (Kundzewicz et  al., 2018). Hence, to reliably assess the hydrological impact on climate change, higher-resolution information is required for the most relevant meteorological variables. A rapidly developing field for GCMs is the use of variable resolution global models, setting the finest resolution possible in the region of interest, while still

resolving the climate processes at the global scale with lower resolution (McGregor, 2015). Nevertheless, increasing the resolution by itself does not solve all performance limitations (Doblas-Reyes et  al., 2021). Improving the global model performance for regional scales is fundamental to increasing their usefulness as regional information sources. This is also important for improving the boundary conditions in RCMs for dynamical downscaling and the input for statistical downscaling approaches, especially when regional climate change is strongly influenced by large-scale circulation changes.

Dynamical downscaling with regional climate models RCMs have been developed for the application of dynamical downscaling methods to enhance the regional information provided by

prodromos zanis, aristeidis k. georgoulias and dimitris akritidis

advances in dynamical and statistical downscaling of projections  7 GCMs or by the large-scale reanalysis fields (Giorgi and Mearns, 1999). RCMs represent surface features (such as complex mountain topographies and coastlines as well as small islands and peninsulas) with a higher grid box resolution within a limited area of interest, thus resolving the atmospheric process in a finer scale than GCMs. Dynamical downscaling using RCMs adds value in representing many regional weather and climate phenomena, especially over regions of complex orography or with heterogeneous surface characteristics (Doblas-Reyes et  al., 2021). RCMs typically have a horizontal resolution between 10 and 50 km, but a much finer spatial resolution at the kilometer scale is also employed to fully resolve deep convection and represent subdaily precipitation extremes (Coppola et  al., 2020). They are typically one-way nested, so that there is no feedback from the RCM into the driving global model. Nevertheless, twoway nested global model–RCM simulations are also carried out to investigate the regional influence on large-scale climate (Junquas et  al., 2016). RCMs can inherit biases from the driving global model in addition to producing biases themselves (Dosio et al., 2015), while spectral nudging techniques are also employed to increase consistency with the driving model (Kanamaru and Kanamitsu, 2007). The coordinated regional climate downscaling experiment (CORDEX) initiative provides ensembles of high-resolution historical and future climate projections for various regions, with a large body of literature emerging (Jacob et al., 2014; Giorgi and Gutowski, 2015; Ruti et  al., 2016; Vautard et al., 2021; Coppola et al., 2021). RCMs typically do not include all possible Earth system processes, such as air–sea coupling or chemistry–climate interactions, which may influence regional climate. However, over the last two decades, several RCMs have been extended by coupling to additional components such as interactive oceans (Ruti et  al., 2016), rivers (Di Sante et al., 2019), glaciers (Kotlarski et al., 2010) and aerosols (Zakey et al., 2006; Zanis et al., 2012; Nabat et al., 2014).

Statistical downscaling, bias adjustment and weather generators Statistical downscaling, bias adjustment and weather generators are post-processing methods used to derive regional climate information, and are considered useful approaches

for improving the representation of regional climate from dynamical GCMs and RCMs. These methods require observational data for calibration and evaluation. Commonly, most methods are applied to temperature and precipitation, although some also represent wind, radiation and other variables with typical restrictions arising from the limited availability of high-quality and long observational records for such applications (Pryor and Hahmann, 2019). Statistical downscaling techniques are subdivided depending on whether the statistical model is fitted using observational data (known as perfect prognosis) or using data from a climate model itself (often referred to as model output statistics). In perfect-prognosis statistical downscaling, a statistical model linking large-scale predictors to local-scale predictands is calibrated to observed data and then applied to predictors simulated by climate models (Maraun and Widmann, 2018). Commonly, the statistical models use regression-like approaches (linear and stochastic), analogue methods and machine learning techniques. Recent developments include stochastic regression models to explicitly simulate the local variability, while the use of machine learning techniques has been reinvigorated, including deep and convolutional neural networks (Doblas-Reyes et al., 2021). Weather generators are statistical models that simulate a weather time series of arbitrary length. Typically, they require only observed predictands (although some are conditioned on observed predictors as well), and are calibrated to represent observed weather statistics, in particular daily or even sub-daily variability. Recent research has mainly focused on multi-site Richardson-type (Markov chain) weather generators, some explicitly modeling extremes and their spatial dependence (Doblas-Reyes et al., 2021). Bias adjustment is a statistical post-processing technique used to reduce the difference between the statistics of a climate model output and observations. An important issue for bias adjustment is the correct representation of the required spatial scale. Ideally, bias adjustment is calibrated against area-averaged data of the same spatial scale as the climate model output. Hence, high-quality observed gridded datasets with an effective resolution close to the nominal model resolution are required. Driven by the need to also generate regional-scale information in station-sparse

prodromos zanis, aristeidis k. georgoulias and dimitris akritidis

8  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management regions, researchers have considered derived datasets that blend in situ and remote-sensing data to produce high-resolution observations for use as predictands (Doblas-Reyes et  al., 2021). However, bias adjustment methods are often used as a simple statistical downscaling method by calibrating them between a coarse resolution (e.g. global) model output and finer observations (Maraun and Widmann, 2018). Bias corrections in a climate model output are recommended before using it as input in a hydrological model, as climate models have inherent systematic errors due to imperfect conceptualization (Chokkavarapu and Mandla, 2019). Nevertheless, bias adjustment cannot overcome all consequences of unresolved or strongly misrepresented physical processes such as large-scale circulation biases or local feedback. In the delta change approach, selected observations are modified according to corresponding changes derived from GCM and RCM simulations. The delta change approach makes the output of climate models useful for catchment scale analysis and hydrological modeling (Chokkavarapu and Mandla, 2019). Traditionally, only long-term means have been adjusted, but recently, approaches to modify temporal dependence and adjust quantiles of the observed distribution have been developed (Doblas-Reyes et al., 2021). Overall, methodologies such as statistical downscaling, bias adjustment and weather generators are beneficial as an interface between climate model projections and impact modeling and for realistically deriving many statistical aspects of present-day daily temperature and precipitation, but the performance of these techniques depends on that of the driving climate model (Doblas-Reyes et al., 2021).

Hydrological models for climate change impact studies at local catchment level Commonly, physical-based hydrological models are employed for climate change impact studies at the local catchment level, using as input data from GCMs and RCMs. Downscaling bridges the gap between coarseresolution climate models and fine-resolution hydrological models at the local scale. Hydrological models used to simulate floods at the catchment level are structurally diverse, often requiring extensive calibration since

sub-grid processes and land surface properties need to be parametrized, irrespective of the spatial resolutions (Krysanova et  al., 2017). The data used to drive and calibrate hydrological models are usually of a coarse resolution, necessitating the use of a wide variety of downscaling techniques, which adds uncertainty not only to the models but also to the reliability of the calibrations (Muerth et  al., 2013). Studies that use different regional hydrological models show a large spread in flood simulations (Krysanova et  al., 2017). Furthermore, flood simulations depend on the spatial scale, as flood processes are different for catchments of different sizes, and generally it is more difficult to reproduce flood processes for large basins, because water management and water use are often more complex for these basins. Regional hydrological models reproduce moderate and high flows reasonably well, but there are large biases for the most extreme flows, while global-scale hydrological models have difficulties in reproducing the magnitude of the flood hazard (Seneviratne et  al., 2021). The use of hydrological models for assessing changes in floods, especially for future projections, adds more uncertainty on top of the uncertainty in the driving climate model projections with both RCMs and GCMs (Krysanova et  al., 2017). At the catchment scale, the hydrological model uncertainty is higher than both GCM and downscaling uncertainty (Vidal et al., 2016). Recent studies highlight the importance of user-defined or user-relevant diagnostics to assess the performance of climate models to produce useful input data for impact models (Seneviratne et  al., 2021). In this view, the approach of comparing the observed impact at the catchment level to that simulated by an impact model with input from both observations and climate models has been used to evaluate the influence of statistical downscaling and bias adjustment on hydrological modeling (Rössler et al., 2019). Overall, projections of future floods at the catchment level with hydrological models are hampered by difficulties in simulating extreme flows and cascading uncertainties, including uncertainties in emissions scenarios and the climate models that generate inputs. Prodromos Zanis, Aristeidis K. Georgoulias and Dimitris Akritidis

prodromos zanis, aristeidis k. georgoulias and dimitris akritidis

advances in dynamical and statistical downscaling of projections  9

References Chokkavarapu, N. and V.R. Mandla (2019), ‘Comparative study of GCMs, RCMs, downscaling and hydrological models: A review toward future climate change impact estimation’, SN Applied Sciences, 1, 1698. doi:10.1007/s42452-019-1764-x Coppola, E., Nogherotto, R., Ciarlo, J. M., Giorgi, F., van Meijgaard, E., Kadygrov, N., Iles, C., Corre, L., Sandstad, M., Somot, S., Nabat, P., Vautard, R., Levavasseur, G., Schwingshackl, C., Sillmann, J., Kjellström, E., Nikulin, G., Aalbers, E., Lenderink, G., Ole B. Christensen, Fredrik Boberg, Silje Lund Sørland, Marie-Estelle Demory, Katharina Bülow, Claas Teichmann, Kirsten Warrach-Sagi, Wulfmeyer, V. (2021), ‘Assessment of the European climate projections as simulated by the large EURO-CORDEX regional and global climate model ensemble’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126 (4), e2019JD032356. https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​ /2019JD032356 Coppola, E., Stefan Sobolowski, E. Pichelli, F. Raffaele, B. Ahrens, I. Anders and N. Ban (2020). A first-of-its-kind multimodel convection permitting ensemble for investigating convective phenomena over Europe and the Mediterranean. Climate Dynamics, 55(1–2), 3–34. doi:10.1007/ s00382-018-4521-8. Di Sante, F., E. Coppola, R. Farneti, and F. Giorgi (2019). Indian summer monsoon as simulated by the regional earth system model RegCM-ES: The role of local air– sea interaction. Climate Dynamics, 53(1–2), 759–778. doi:10.1007/s00382-019-04612-8. Doblas-Reyes, F.J., A.A. Sörensson, M. Almazroui, A. Dosio, W.J. Gutowski, R. Haarsma, R. Hamdi, B. Hewitson, W.-T. Kwon, B.L. Lamptey, D. Maraun, T.S. Stephenson, I. Takayabu, L. Terray, A. Turner and Z. Zuo (2021), Linking global to regional climate change’, in V. MassonDelmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1363–512. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.012 Dosio, A., H.-J. Panitz, M. SchubertFrisius and D. Lüthi (2015), ‘Dynamical downscaling of CMIP5 global circulation models over CORDEX-Africa with COSMO-CLM: Evaluation over the present climate and analysis of the added value’, Climate Dynamics, 44 (9–10), 2637–61. doi:10.1007/s00382-014-2262-x Douville, H., K. Raghavan, J. Renwick, R.P. Allan, P.A. Arias, M. Barlow, R. CerezoMota, A. Cherchi, T.Y. Gan, J. Gergis, D. Jiang, A. Khan, W. Pokam Mba, D. Rosenfeld, J. Tierney and O. Zolina (2021), ‘Water cycle changes’, in V. MassonDelmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds) Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, pp. 1055–210. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.010 Giorgi, F. and L.O. Mearns (1999), ‘Introduction to special section: Regional climate modeling revisited’, Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 6335–52. Giorgi, F. and W.J. Gutowski (2015), ‘Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40 (1), 467– 90. doi:1​0.114​6/ann​urev-​envir​on-10​2014-​ 02121​7. Held, I. and M. Zhao (2011), ‘The response of tropical cyclone statistics to an increase in CO2 with fixed sea surface temperatures’, Journal of Climate, 24, 5353–5364. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00050.1 IPCC (2021), ‘Summary for policymakers’, in V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York,

prodromos zanis, aristeidis k. georgoulias and dimitris akritidis

10  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001 Jacob, D., Juliane Petersen, Bastian Eggert, Antoinette Alias, Ole Bøssing Christensen, Laurens M. Bouwer and Alain Braun (2014), ‘EURO-CORDEX: New highresolution climate change projections for European impact research’, Regional Environmental Change, 14 (2), 563–78. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0499-2 Junquas, C., L. Li, C.S. Vera, H. Le Treut and K. Takahashi (2016), ‘Influence of South America orography on summertime precipitation in Southeastern South America’, Climate Dynamics, 46 (11–12), 3941–63. doi:10.1007/ s00382-015-2814-8 Kanamaru, H. and M. Kanamitsu (2007), ‘Scale-selective bias correction in a downscaling of global analysis using a regional model’, Monthly Weather Review, 135 (2), 334–50. doi:10.1175/mwr3294.1. Kotlarski, S., D. Jacob, R. Podzun and F. Paul (2010), ‘Representing glaciers in a regional climate model’, Climate Dynamics, 34 (1), 27–46. doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0685-6 Krysanova, V., Tobias Vetter, Stephanie Eisner, Shaochun Huang, Ilias Pechlivanidis, Michael Strauch and Alexander Gelfan (2017), ‘Intercomparison of regional-scale hydrological models and climate change impacts projected for 12 large river basins worldwide: A synthesis’, Environmental Research Letters, 12 (10), 105002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8359. Kundzewicz, Z.W., I. Pin’skwar and G.R. Brakenridge (2018), ‘Changes in river flood hazard in Europe: A review’, Hydrology Research, 49 (2), 294–302. doi:10.2166/ nh.2017.016 Lehner, F., C. Deser, N. Maher, J. Marotzke, E.M. Fischer, L. Brunner, R. Knutti and E. Hawkins (2020), ‘Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6’, Earth System Dynamics, 11, 491–50. doi:10.5194/ esd-11-491-2020 Maraun, D. and M. Widmann (2018), Statistical Downscaling and Bias Correction for Climate Research, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781107588783 McGregor, J.L. (2015), ‘Recent developments in variable-resolution global climate modelling’, Climatic Change, 129 (3–4), 369–80. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0866-5

Muerth, M.J., B. Gauvin St-Denis, S. Ricard, J.A. Velázquez, J. Schmid, M. Minville, D. Caya, D . Chaumont, R. Ludwig and R. Turcotte (2013) ‘On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17 (3), 1189–204. doi:10.5194/ hess-17-1189-2013 Nabat, P., S. Somot, M. Mallet, A. SanchezLorenzo and M. Wild (2014), ‘Contribution of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols to the changing Euro-Mediterranean climate since 1980’, Geophysical Research Letters, 41 (15), 5605–11. doi:10.1002/2014gl060798 Pryor, S.C. and A.N. Hahmann (2019) ‘Downscaling wind’, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:1​0.109​3/ acr​efore​/9780​19022​8620.​013.7​30 Rössler, O., Sven Kotlarski, Andreas M. Fischer, Denise Keller, Mark Liniger, and Rolf Weingartner (2019), ‘Evaluating the added value of the new Swiss climate scenarios for hydrology: An example from the Thur catchment’, Climate Services, 13, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2019.01.001. Ruti, P.M., Samuel Somot, Filippo Giorgi, Clotilde Dubois, Emmanouil Flaounas, Anika Obermann and Alessandro Dell’Aquila (2016), MED-CORDEX initiative for Mediterranean climate studies’, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 97 (7), 1187–208. doi:10.1175/bams-d-14-00176.1. Seneviratne, S.I., X. Zhang, M. Adnan, W. Badi, C. Dereczynski, A. Di Luca, S. Ghosh, I. Iskandar, J. Kossin, S. Lewis, F. Otto, I. Pinto, M. Satoh, S.M. VicenteSerrano, M. Wehner, and B. Zhou (2021), ‘Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate’, in V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1513–766. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.013 Vautard, R., Kadygrov, N., Iles, C., Boberg, F., Buonomo, E., Bülow, K., Coppola, E.,

prodromos zanis, aristeidis k. georgoulias and dimitris akritidis

advances in dynamical and statistical downscaling of projections  11 Corre, L., van Meijgaard, E., Nogherotto, R., Sandstad, M., Schwingshackl, C., Somot, S., Aalbers, E., Christensen, O. B., Ciarlo, J. M., Demory, M.-E., Giorgi, F., Jacob, D., Richard G. Jones, Klaus Keuler, Erik Kjellström, Geert Lenderink, Guillaume Levavasseur, Grigory Nikulin, Jana Sillmann, Cosimo Solidoro, Silje Lund Sørland, Christian Steger, Claas Teichmann, Kirsten Warrach-Sagi, Wulfmeyer, V. (2021), ‘Evaluation of the large EURO-CORDEX regional climate model ensemble’, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 126 (17), e2019JD032344. https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​ /2019JD032344

Vidal, J.-P., B. Hingray, C. Magand, E. Sauquet, and A. Ducharne (2016), ‘Hierarchy of climate and hydrological uncertainties in transient low-flow projections’, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20 (9), 3651– 72. doi:10.5194/hess-20-3651-2016. Zakey, A.S., F. Solmon and F. Giorgi (2006), ‘Implementation and testing of a desert dust module in a regional climate model’, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 6 (12), 4687–704. doi:10.5194/acp-6-4687-2006 Zanis P., C. Ntogras, A. Zakey, I. Pytharoulis and T. Karacostas (2012), ‘Regional climate feedback of anthropogenic aerosols over Europe with RegCM3’, Climate Research, 52, 267–78. doi:10.3354/cr01070

prodromos zanis, aristeidis k. georgoulias and dimitris akritidis

3. Advances in Limnological Research

loss of fish biodiversity and loss of ecosystem services (Agostinho et al., 1999) stimulated a better evaluation of future reservoir impacts in the Amazon, Congo and Mekong basins (Winemiller et al., 2016). Another important conceptual development that enhanced and stimulated further studies in limnology was the contribution of Likens and Borman (1974) with their research of the hydrographic basin as a biogeophysiographical unit and the interactions of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Studies on the interaction of watersheds with inland waters were then expanded. Limnological research progressed further with a focus on a systemic approach to inland waters, experimental limnology, complex interactions between lakes and communities that included microbial communities, interactions in lake food webs, spatial heterogeneity and biodiversity (Carpenter, 1988). Descriptions of intensive studies in the freshwater lakes of temperate regions (Macan, 1970), tropical African lakes (Beadle, 1981), tropical limnology (Lewis, 1987, Talling & Lemoalle, 1998), the Amazon floodplain (Junk, 1997,2006) and in the Parana watershed (Metcalfe et al., 2020) contributed considerably to the knowledge of the ecological dynamics of temperate, tropical and subtropical rivers, reservoirs, lakes and wetlands. Studies on the community ecology of freshwater biodiversity and the impacts of invasive species on lakes, rivers and reservoirs were further developed in tropical and temperate regions (Martens, 2003). Efforts to understand the processes in lakes greatly contributed to improving knowledge of the functioning mechanisms of aquatic ecosystems (Lampert & Sommer, 1997). Special studies on phytoplankton dynamics succession, interactions with forcing functions, responses to climatological, chemical and biological forcing functions and regime shifts were extensively developed (Munawar & Talling, 1986; Reynolds, 1997; Munawar & I.F. Munawar, 2000). This and other research initiatives were an important contribution to ecological theory as stressed by Margalef (1997). The main contributions of limnology to theoretical ecology are

Limnology is the study of inland waters, lakes, rivers, wetlands, ponds and reservoirs. Over 120  years, it has progressed from a descriptive approach to a dynamic, systemic and process-oriented science. The conceptual basis of limnology is attributed to Forel (1892, 1895, 1904), who described the physical, hydrographical and geographical characteristics and the chemistry and biology of Lake Leman. Descriptions of the biophysical, biochemical and biological processes of lakes in the temperate regions of Europe and in the United States began in the first two decades of the twentieth century (Thienemann, 1921; Birge & Juday, 1922). The limnology of tropical lakes with comparative objectives was initially developed with studies of the lakes of Indonesia during the Sunda Expedition in 1928–1929 (Rutnner, 1931). Considerable advances were achieved when Vollenwieder (1968) presented the concept of nutrient loading from watersheds to inland waters, quantitatively describing the impacts of eutrophication, which was then extensively studied in the 1960s and 1970s with important contributions about the dynamic of this process and its impacts and consequences on lakes (Schindler, 2006). The construction of man-made lakes in the last 50  years of the twentieth century stimulated research into these ecosystems in several regions but especially in developing countries and emerging economies where this construction was a way to enhance regional development and infrastructure consolidation (Ackerman et al., 1973; Obeng, 1973). Initially focused on the physical components of reservoirs, further research was directed toward understanding the biodiversity, biogeochemical processes and the impacts upstream/downstream of dams (Petts, 1988, Tundisi & Straskraba, 1999). Further studies included an interdisciplinary approach with the integration of limnological research with social and economic sciences (WCD, 2000). Studies on the limnology of reservoirs, colonization and the determination of its impacts, the deterioration of water quality,

●

●

12

Community succession and the factors that control it (studies on phytoplankton, benthic and fish succession). Evolution of communities (studies on eutrophication and the recovery of aquatic ecosystems).

advances in limnological research  13 ●

●

●

●

Community diversity and spatial heterogeneity (studies on phytoplankton and periphyton communities, aquatic insects). Primary production and energy flow (phytoplankton and macrophyte productivity, physiological responses of phytoplankton to light intensities, seasonal cycle of production, microbiology). Distribution of organisms and factors that control dispersal and colonization mechanisms (studies on the vertical migration of zooplankton, colonization in reservoirs, studies on temporary waters). Evolution of ecosystems (studies on the eutrophication impacts of human activities on lakes and reservoirs).

By the end of the twentieth century it was clear to managers and decision-makers the importance of limnological studies as a scientific basis for the control, conservation and management of inland water ecosystems. At the start of the twenty-first century, two new areas of limnological research were rapidly expanding: (1) The monitoring and experimental research of the impacts of chemical pollution on the water quality of inland waters as a consequence of watershed deterioration. This includes the analysis of endocrine disruptors resulting from discharges from agriculture, industry, households, personal care products, pesticides, herbicides, disinfectants, pharmaceuticals and cyanobacteria toxins, which can have an impact on aquatic biota and human health (Chorus & Bartram, 1999; USEPA, 2006; WHO & UNESCO, 2008). This is a very important research area in limnology today. (2) A determination of the impacts of global climate change on freshwater ecosystems has shown increasing water temperatures, decreasing volumes as a consequence of extensive droughts, high evaporation, effects of extremes of precipitation, impacts on biodiversity, stronger stratification of the waters of lakes and reservoirs, changes in hydrodynamics, increases in the emission of greenhouse gases (Ometto et al., 2013) and changes in the food chain (Moss et al., 2017). These impacts are on a worldwide scale in every

natural and man-made inland freshwater ecosystem. Another important consequence of global climate change with harmful effects on inland waters is the extensive growth of cyanobacteria which increases turbidity and has toxic effects on aquatic plants and animals and human health. The connection between eutrophication, global warming and cyanobacteria expansion has been determined (Paerl & Paul, 2012) and is being intensively studied by several limnologists in many tropical and temperate regions (Padisak, 1997; Goldman et al., 2012).

New challenges in limnology in the twenty-first century Globally, approximately 4  billion people are living in urban or periurban areas, and the sustainable use of water resources in these urban regions is a priority. The water quality of surface water and groundwater, the deforestation of periurban watersheds and basic sanitation are relevant problems in several urban areas and regions around the world. Limnological studies can contribute with research, basic scientific data on urban rivers, lakes and reservoirs, and monitoring and promoting innovative solutions for the management of inland water ecosystems (Science Policy Report, 2017). Currently, there is a great need to manage watersheds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers and wetlands. Inland waters are under continuous threat, resulting in the deterioration and contamination of the water quality (Tundisi et  al., 2015), loss of biodiversity, sedimentation and a reduction in volume and eutrophication (Gonzales Rivas et al., 2020; Tundisi & Matsumura-Tundisi, 2022). Each continental aquatic ecosystem needs the application of advanced technologies for conservation and recovery using ecotechnologies or ecohydrological approaches (ERCE, 2016; Zalewski, 2014, 2020). Limnology is therefore an essential science, contributing to the management and technical advances of inland water ecosystems (Jorgensen et  al., 2013). Knowledge of the ecological dynamics of inland waters provides a consistent scientific basis for further action and projects. This requires technical solutions, education, capacity building and intensive international cooperation. José Galizia Tundisi josé galizia tundisi

14  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

References Ackerman, W. C., White, G. F., & Worthington, E. B. (Eds.). 1973. Man made lakes: Their problems and environmental effects. Geographical Monograph. American Geographical Union. Agostinho, A. A., Miranda, L. E., Bini, L. M., Gomes, L. C., Thomaz, S. M., & Suzuki, H. I. 1999. Patterns of colonization in neotropical reservoirs and prognose on aging. In J. G. Tundisi & M. Straskraba (Eds.), Theoretical Reservoir Ecology and Its Applications (pp. 227–265). Brazilian Academy of Sciences and Backhuys Publishers. Beadle, L. C. 1981. The Inland Waters of Tropical Africa: An Introduction to Tropical Limnology (2nd ed.). Longman. Birge, E. A., & Juday, C. 1922. The Inland Waters of Wisconsin: The Plankton, Its Quality and Chemical Composition, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin Mount Vernon, EUA. 64 Number 3. Carpenter, R. S. 1988. Complex Interactions in Lake Communities. Springer Verlag. Chorus, I., & Bartram, J. 1999. Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water. E.F. Spon. ERCE (European Centre for Ecohydrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences). 2016. Ecohydrology: Nature Based Solutions for Enhancement of Sustainability Potential. UNESCO, University of Lodz. Forel, F. A. 1892. Le Leman: Monografie limnologique. Tome1. Geographie, Hidrographie Geologie, Climatologie, Hydrologie. F. Rouge xiii. Forel, F. A. 1895. Le Leman: Monografie limnologique. Tome 2. Mechanique Chimie, Thermique, Optique, Acoustique. F. Rouge. Forel F. A. 1904. Le Leman :monographie limnologique. Tome 3. Biologie, histoire, Navegation, Peche. F. Rouge. Goldman, C. R., Kumagai, M., & Robarts, R. R. (Eds.). 2012. Climate Change and Global Warming of Inland Waters: Impacts and Mitigation for Ecosystems and Societies. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Gonzales Rivas, E. 2020. Eutrophication: A growing problem in the Americas and the Caribbean. Braz. J. Biol. 80(3), 688–689. Jorgensen, S. E., Tundisi, J. G., & MatsumuraTundisi, T. 2013. Handbook of Inland josé galizia tundisi

Aquatic Ecosystem Management. Taylor & Francis. Junk, W. J. (Ed.). 1997. The Central Amazon Floodplain: Ecology of a pulsating System. Springer. Junk, W. J. 2006. Flood pulsing and the linkages between terrestrial, aquatic and wetland systems. Verh. Internat. Verein Limnol. 11–38. Lampert, W., & Sommer, U. 1997. Limnoecology. Oxford University Press. Lewis, W. M. 1987. Tropical limnology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 158–184. Likens, G. E., & Borman, E. H. 1974. Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial systems. BioScience 24(8), 447–456. Macan, T. T. 1970. Biological Studies of the English Lakes. Longman. Margalef, R. 1997. Our biosphere: Institute of ecology. Excellence in Ecology. Martens, K. 2003. Developments in Hydrobiology: Aquatic Biodiversity. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Metcalfe, C. D. 2020. The Parana River Basin: Managing Water Resources to Sustain Ecosystem Services. Earthscan, Routledge. Moss, B., Kosten, S., Meerhoff, M., Battarbee, R. W., Jeppesen, E., Mazzeo, N., Havens, K., Lacerot, G., Liu, Z., De Meester, L., & Paerl, H. 2017. Allied attack: Climate change and eutrophication. Inland Water 101–105. Munawar, M., & Munawar, I. F. 2000. Phytoplankton Dynamics in the North American Great Lakes. Vol. 2. Backhuys Publishers. Munawar, M., & Talling, J. F. 1986. Seasonality of freshwater phytoplankton: A global perspective. Hydrobiologia 138, V–VI. Obeng, L. E. 1973. Man Made Lakes, the Accra Symposium. University of Accra. Ometto, J. P., Cimbleris, A. C., dos Santos, M. A., Rosa, L. P., Abe, D., Tundisi, J. G., & Roland, F. 2013. Carbon emission as a function of energy generation in hydroelectric reservoirs i the Brazilian tropical biome. Energy Policy 58, 108–116. Padisak, J. 1997. Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii (Woloszynka) Seenaya et SubaRagn, an expanding adaptive cyanobacterium: Worldwide distribution and review of its ecology. Arch. Hydrobil. Supl. 107, 563–593.

advances in limnological research  15 Paerl, H. W., & Valerie, J. P. 2012. Climate change: Links to the global expansion of harmful cyanobacteria. Water Res. 46, 1349–1363. Petts, G. E. 1988. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Reynolds, C. S. 1997. Vegetation processes in the pelagic: A model for ecosystem theory. Ecology Institute. Excellence in Ecology 9. Ruttner, F. 1931b. Hydrographishe und Hydrochemistry Beobachtungen auf Java, Sumatra und Bali. Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 8, 197–454. Schindler, D. W. 2006. Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnol. Ocean. 1(2), 353–362. Science Policy. 2017. Report - Perspectives on water management in urban regions. Brazilian Academy of Sciences. Leopoldina Nationale Akademie der Wissenchaften. Talling, J. E., & Lemoalle, J. 1998. Ecological Dynamics of Tropical Inland Waters. Cambridge University Press. Thienemann, A. 1921. Seetypen. Naturwissenchaften 18, 1–3. Tundisi, J. G., & Matsumura-Tundisi, T. 2022. Represas Artificiais: Ecologia, Limnologia, usos Multiplos, Gerenciamento. Editora Scienza. Tundisi, J. G., Matsumura-Tundisi, T. A. K. A. K. O., Ciminelli, V. S., & Barbosa, F. A. 2015. Water availability, water quality water governance. In Hydrological Sciences and

Water Security: Present, Past, Future 366, 75–79. Tundisi, J. G., & Straskraba, M. (Eds.). 1999. Theoretical Reservoir Ecology and its Applications. International Institute of Ecology, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Backhuys Publishers. USEPA. 2006. What Are Endocrine Disruptors? Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme Office of Science Coordination and Policy. Vollenweider, R. A. 1968. Scientific fundamentals of the eutrophication of lakes and flowing waters with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors in eutrophication. Technical Report. Environmental Directorate OECD, p. 154. WCD World Commission on Dams. 2000. Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making. Report. Earthscan Publications. WHO & UNESCO. 2008. Water Quality for Ecosystem and Human Health. UNEP, Gems Water. Winemiller, K. O. 2016. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in theAmazon, Congo and Mekong. Science351, 128–129. Zalewski, M. 2014. Water as the backbone of quality of life in the cities of future. Sustainable Development Applications Series 5/2015 (Water in the City). Zaleswski, M. 2020. Ecohydrology: An Integrative Sustainability Science. Intech Open, 1–35.

josé galizia tundisi

4. Agricultural Policies and Water Management

that rely heavily on small-scale agriculture for their livelihoods (IPCC, 2022). ●

The world’s population continues to grow, particularly in developing countries (subSaharan Africa and South Asia) where food security problems are more severe and water is scarcer in per capita terms. In addition, in low- and middle-income countries, rising incomes are contributing to a shift from diets based on staple foods to more diversified diets that include resource (water)-intensive foods such as fruit and vegetables and animal protein products (meat, eggs, milk, cheese). Estimates vary, but most studies indicate that to feed a larger, more urban and richer population, global food production must increase by 60 percent by 2050 (Van Dijk et al., 2021). This increment will require cropland expansion and intensification, resulting in the increased use of water for agriculture. Although the share of agricultural demand will decrease due to the rapid expansion of other water uses (domestic, industrial), agriculture will remain the largest user of water globally.

Context of irrigation water use Water is an essential resource for agriculture and food production. Irrigation techniques help crops grow when rainfall is insufficient, boosting the resilience and production of farming systems and improving economic returns. Irrigation has historically contributed to increasing both the productivity and profitability of agriculture and has played a key role in the development of arid and semiarid regions. Currently, irrigated agriculture covers only 20 percent of the total cultivated land (341  million  hectares) but provides 40 percent of the total food produced worldwide (FAO, 2022). Irrigated agriculture is the largest consumer of water globally. Irrigation systems make use of surface water, groundwater and non-conventional sources (treated water, desalinized water). In humid areas, surface water is the main source for irrigation. Water is abstracted from natural bodies (rivers, lakes, streams) or stored schemes (canals, reservoirs) and is applied to crops by furrow, sprinkler or drip irrigation systems. In sub-humid, semi-arid and arid areas, irrigation relies heavily on groundwater (springs or underground aquifers) and, increasingly, on treated water (desalination and reclamation processes).

●

Environmental degradation and pollution

The pollution of soil and water bodies by pesticides, fertilizers and chemicals used in intensive agriculture and facilitated by irrigation has become an increasingly global and local problem (FAO, 2022). Pollution endangers human health and ecosystems and limits agricultural and economic development. Continuous irrigation without the appropriate drainage provisions can also result in salinization and waterlogging problems. Moreover, irrigation runoff can erode topsoil and degrade lands and water by increasing turbidity and sedimentation. The excessive and unregulated extraction of water for irrigation is also a problem in many regions. The depletion of underground aquifers can lead to the drying-out of water courses and groundwater-fed wetlands, the destruction of habitats and biodiversity loss, smaller well yields and increased pumping costs, land subsidence and a deterioration of water quality (e.g. contamination from saltwater intrusion in coastal areas).

Main challenges and policy needs ●

Food security

Climate change

Changes in precipitation (in intensity and seasonal distribution), increases in global average temperatures and extreme weather events in response to global warming will significantly impact agriculture by limiting crop productivity, reducing water availability and increasing water demand. Climate change will exacerbate water stress, especially in areas with limited water resources where irrigation is most needed or has a comparative advantage. Its effects will be felt disproportionately by impoverished rural communities in developing countries

●

16

Infrastructure’s building, maintaining and financing

agricultural policies and water management  17 Historically, irrigation expansion has been dominated by large, centralized and costly irrigation projects, built by publicly run agencies using government capital grants. Some were multipurpose projects (hydropower, flood protection, urban water supply and irrigation). In many regions, this has been problematic and has led to unsustainable use patterns. Farmers had no incentive to use water properly, as they did not pay for it and were not involved in its management and decision-making. Nowadays, many of these projects are aging, underused, in need of modernization and have low productivity. Refurbishing irrigation projects is costly and urgently needed for thousands of projects around the world. In this context, small-scale and decentralized irrigation schemes have been suggested as an alternative approach to large irrigation projects, often to mitigate the severe environmental impacts of large infrastructures. In addition, the water sector is increasingly exploring the value of applying demand-side strategies (e.g. water pricing, water trade, advanced control technologies) to support water management. The implementation of these strategies is challenging and will require more flexible, adequate and dynamic water services and institutions, as well as full stakeholder participation and accountability.

Policy and management response options Physical and virtual reallocation of water Public agencies can stimulate the allocation of scarce water resources via mandates or statutes, prioritizing the most valuable crops. Physical allocation and reallocation rules are, in many cases, adopted through collective deliberation and can be easily accepted by farmers if they are based on sound social and economic reasons. The simplicity and implementation of allocation rules are at the root of their widespread use throughout the world. The virtual reallocation of water involves integrating into the equation the water used to produce traded goods. A country or region can ‘import’ water, virtually embodied in food commodities, and use the available resources for the most critical needs and products. The literature shows that many waterscarce regions rely heavily on the import of

water-intensive goods to offset insufficient food production. In the absence of a virtual water trade (of agricultural products), about 40–50  percent of the world’s population would live in countries unable to produce as much food as needed (Graham et al., 2020). A virtual water trade is not a policy per se, but trade policy should be mindful of its potential to address water scarcity via the import of water-demanding products. Economic instruments in water management For decades, the use of economic instruments has attracted the attention of politicians, organizations and academics. These include instituting water rights, water markets, water tariffs and a combination of them. Water rights are legally instituted in most countries, although they recognize and protect the use of water, not its property. Defining water rights, firm or more attenuated, is the first stage in controlling and allocating water use. In general, water rights are defined with respect to a theoretical allocation (in terms of volume per year or flow), but public authorities have the capacity to reduce this volume based on the availability in the basin or as usable recharge. In addition, the owners of water rights can sell their rights to use water, on a seasonal or permanent basis (e.g. in some parts of Australia, Chile, Spain and the United States). Water tariffs are instituted as levies to recover all or some of the supply costs (financial, economic and environmental or resource costs). Financial costs are associated with operation and management, conservation and amortization; economic costs are those related to the opportunity cost of the use of water; and environmental costs are associated with the impact on the environment and the natural resource base. Experience shows that, in general, only financial costs are levied on use, and in most circumstances the cost recovery is incomplete. In general, powerful economic instruments (e.g. charges and taxes, tradeable permit systems, subsidies and payments) encourage greener behavior by all water users. They play an essential role in internalizing environmental externalities (e.g. water depletion and pollution), contributing to the realization of environmental policy objectives. However, they are rarely used in most real contexts because governments are reluctant to increase the cost of irrigation to farmers.

irene blanco-gutiérrez and alberto garrido

18  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Improvements in water use efficiency Improving the efficiency of water use in agriculture has long been a central objective of water and agricultural policies. To achieve this objective, improvements in off-farm water supply systems are often combined with appropriate incentives for on-farm investments to enhance soil and water management. Technological developments offer a significant opportunity to respond to this challenge. New technologies (e.g. soil moisture sensors, satellite evapotranspiration measurements and innovative irrigation systems) are spreading rapidly to improve water efficiency and productivity in agriculture. Advances in information and communication technologies (ICT), remote sensing and big data provide effective solutions for multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder water management. However, in some cases, technological advancements have increased the cost of irrigation. Thus, care is needed to avoid a ‘digital divide’ among impoverished and vulnerable farmers. Technical solutions are unlikely to succeed without good and inclusive governance. Decentralized and demand-driven services with the increased participation of public-private partnerships can facilitate the development and adoption of water-efficient technologies. Wider uptake of sustainable management practices and nature-based solutions In recent years, nature-based solutions (NBS) have received increasing attention to reconcile agricultural production and ecosystem management. NBS are actions that are inspired and supported by nature to preserve, restore or rehabilitate ecosystems and are therefore rooted in the concepts of green growth and the circular economy (EEA, 2021). NBS for water can perform significant risk reduction functions and contribute to building overall system resilience. In many cases, natural forms of water storage (e.g. wetlands, aquifers) can be more sustainable and costeffective than traditional human-built or ‘gray’ infrastructure (e.g. artificial reservoirs, dams) (WWAP, 2018). Furthermore, NBS encompass a wide range of practices that can be deployed in conservation agriculture, organic agriculture and other ecosystem-friendly approaches, including agroecology and sustainable intensification. For example, improved soil and vegetation management in agricultural landscapes has

multiple sustainability benefits, contributing to reducing the pressure on water (e.g. by decreasing runoff, capturing and retaining pollutants and recycling nutrients), while enhancing the resilience of agriculture against climate pressures and benefiting biodiversity.

Concluding remarks Water use in agriculture responds to and is the result of national or regional policies (to increase food production or raise farmers’ productivity in rural areas), farmers’ incentives, agricultural markets, agricultural policies and even cultural traditions. Future perspectives suggest that there will always be incentives to use water for irrigation because it makes farmers’ lives easier and more productive. To promote sustainable water use in agriculture, it is necessary to analyze the broad system in which irrigated agriculture occurs. A partial perspective leads to inadequate policies. If agricultural policy stimulates production (via subsidies) and offers trade protection, then farmers’ water demand will increase. Uncoordinated policies result in inconsistent policy approaches. Likewise, stimulating the use of more efficient irrigation techniques is bound to increase water use, unless it is accompanied by reduced water allotments. Granting solid water rights, appurtenant to land, become assets for farmers and thus wealth. The use of economic instruments by themselves will not deter irrigation water demand unless water is made too expensive especially in arid and semi-arid areas, where water is very productive. Reality shows this is rarely done. We conclude by suggesting that the topic should be treated with more holistic and global approaches through systems thinking, and that all policies (agricultural, land use, energy, tax, trade, food, infrastructure and public works, water and environmental, and rural) should be brought in to design effective policies. Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez and Alberto Garrido

References EEA (European Environmental Agency). (2021). Water and agriculture: Towards sustainable solutions. EEA Report No 17/2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2800/73735.

irene blanco-gutiérrez and alberto garrido

agricultural policies and water management  19 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2022). The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture – Systems at breaking point. Main Report. Rome. DOI: 10.4060/cb9910en. Graham, N. T., Hejazi, M. I., Kim, S. H., Davies, E. G. R., Edmonds, J. A., & Miralles-Wilhelm, F. (2020). Future changes in the trading of virtual water. Nature Communications, 11, 3632. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17400-4. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to

the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L., & Saghai, Y. (2021). A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nature Food, 2, 494–501. DOI: 10.1038/ s43016-021-00322-9 WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. (2018). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water. Paris: UNESCO.

irene blanco-gutiérrez and alberto garrido

5. Analysis and Evaluation of PostFire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques

wildfire is correlated with the occurrence of many mass failures. In addition, the absence of organic litter and vegetation that work as a protective cover and barrier for sediment trapping severely affects hillside slopes and results in dry ravels (Roering & Gerber, 2005). Therefore, dry ravels can occur immediately after a wildfire event, and through dry ravel erosion, surface materials are transported from hillslopes into channels (Langhans et al., 2017; Stavi, 2019). Wildfires have a leading role in land degradation and soil erosion, and their role will be more important in the future due to the rising trend in the length of the fire weather season combined with land use and climate change (Jolly et al., 2015). Thus, after wildfires, the mitigation of areas prone to erosion due to an increase in the hydrological response is crucial in order to decrease the potential downstream risk from the burned areas and preserve the sustainability of the ecosystem (Girona-García et  al., 2021). Implementing several soil erosion mitigation treatments is a common practice following a wildfire. However, an evaluation of the effectiveness of these treatments is usually restricted to specific case studies on a regional or local scale, while the conditions of the study area (e.g. climate conditions and topography) may play an important role in the evaluation of the treatment (Girona-García et  al., 2021). Erosion after a wildfire is correlated with the absence of vegetation where the exposure of bare soil to climatic conditions results in roughness reduction, hydrological connectivity alteration and the formation of water-repellent soils that cause immediate runoff. In addition, in post-fire conditions the runoff affects the peak runoff volume, sediment transportation and deposition, and sediment discharge (Nasirzadehdizaji & Akyuz, 2022). Although there are several measures for flood protection and anti-erosion works, their evaluation and assessment are not consistent because site-specific factors (climate, terrain slopes, land uses, burn severity, costs, etc.) make the generalization of some works challenging. In this entry, we aim to present and provide guidance for such works in order to support students, practitioners, modelers and decision-makers in evaluating their appropriateness and efficiency based on their characteristics, according to the existing literature. An overview follows of the most common

Introduction Sustainable annual streamflow conditions and little sediment production can be achieved in watersheds with good hydrologic conditions, even if they receive enough rainfall (DeBano et  al., 1998). According to the research of Bailey et al. (1961), in watersheds with good hydrologic conditions (60–75  percent of the ground is covered with litter and plants), only 2  percent of the rainfall is transformed to surface runoff and erosion is low, while in watersheds with poor hydrologic conditions (10 percent of the ground is covered with litter and plants) more than 70  percent of the rainfall is transformed to surface runoff and erosion is two orders of magnitude bigger than erosion that occurs in good hydrologic conditions. The erosion of burned areas usually declines with the stabilization of the site in the succeeding years, while the erosion rates depend on the recovery of the vegetation and the burn severity (Robichaud et  al., 2000). Climate, fire frequency, soil type, geology, topography (especially slopes) and vegetation are the main factors contributing to the variability of fire-related sediment yields (Swanson, 1981). Many studies have provided evidence that the most severe sediment losses occur within the first year after a wildfire (Andreu et  al., 2001; Fernández et  al., 2011; Scott & van Wyk, 1990). Moreover, after a wildfire event, stream degradation and/or aggradation due to runoff and erosion are usually observed, especially in cases of heavy rainfall events and during post-fire debris flows (Santi et  al., 2008). The increase in peak flows after a wildfire leads to sediment transport from burned areas and occasionally debris flow that affects aquatic habitats and several infrastructures such as bridges, roads and buildings (Cheung & Giardino, 2023; Ebel et al., 2022). According to the work of DeBano et  al. (1998), soil water repellency following a 20

post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques  21 flood protection and anti-erosion treatments, categorized per treatment type, based on Napper (2006).

Land treatments Using several land treatments, stabilizing burned areas can be accomplished by providing soil cover (reducing erosion), trapping sediment (reducing sedimentation) and/or reducing water repellency (improving infiltration). These aim to speed up recovery while maintaining the functionality and integrity of the ecosystem by limiting the expansion of unwanted species. Land treatments can be cover based (working on land cover improvements, including seeding) or barrier based (installed barriers to trap sediments, reduce excess flow or slow runoff). Typical examples of land treatments are

Road and trail treatments Combined with the previous two types of treatments (land and channel), road and trail treatments can reduce the post-fire effect on the transportation infrastructure. They also protect life, safety and property, supporting critical natural and cultural resources. Typical examples of road and trail treatments are ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Hydromulch (from aerial or ground means) Straw mulch Slash spreading Erosion control mats Log erosion barriers Fiber rolls or wattles Branch barriers Silt fences Soil scarification, ploughing Seeding Invasive plants Polyacrylamides (PAM) and other polymers (chemical treatment)

Effectiveness of different treatment types and driving factors Although each of the treatments of the presented categories has case-specific factors and potentially different site suitability, we can draw a general conclusion regarding their effectiveness: ●

Channel treatments Channel treatments focus on mitigating the negative post-fire effects on water quality, loss of water control, lower water velocity, trapping sediment and preserving channel characteristics. As a result, they are highly beneficial for downstream areas, minimizing the hazardous impact of potential high flows and flooding, erosion, deposition and sediment transport. Typical examples of channel treatments are ● ● ● ● ● ●

Check dams In-channel tree felling Grade stabilizers Stream channel armoring Channel deflectors Debris basins

Outsloping roads Rolling dips/water bars Overflow structures Low-water stream crossings Culvert modification, upgrading Debris rack and deflectors Riser pipes Catchment-basin cleanout Storm inspection and response Trail stabilization Road decommissioning

●

Land treatments can generally reduce runoff and/or sediment yields during the first rainfall events. Still, their effectiveness depends on several factors, such as application rates (Girona-García et  al., 2021), proper installation (e.g. a log barrier installation is vital for the effectiveness of the treatment [Kastridis & Kamperidou, 2015]), post-fire climatological conditions (e.g. rainfall amount and intensity [Robichaud et  al., 2010])), slope length and steepness of the terrain gradient (Robichaud et al., 2010), make/ brand of tackifier (Robichaud et al., 2010) and the time (e.g. seeding does not provide an instant protective effect, especially in the first year) (Girona-García et al., 2021). Channel treatments seem more efficient in gentle gradients and areas of low or moderate flows, as the risk of failure is lower. Moreover, the effectiveness of channel treatments is highly correlated with the land treatments in the adjacent

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

22  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

●

areas since these areas supply the channels with water and sediments (Napper, 2006). However, specifically for check dams with finite storage capacity, their effectiveness is restricted due to their limited life expectancy (short-term sediment control solution) (Margiorou et al., 2022). Moreover, the effectiveness of channel treatments is usually a function of proper installation (e.g. the installation of log dams is essential for the effectiveness of the treatment [Kastridis & Kamperidou, 2015]), the appropriate positioning of the treatment (e.g. some channel treatments should be constructed in a series), their maintenance (e.g. debris basin maintenance) (Napper, 2006) and the post-fire climatological conditions (e.g. rainfall amount and intensity affect erosion, sediment transport and deposition processes). Road and trail treatments may benefit road facilities and deliver less sediment into channels. However, similar to the channel treatment, the effectiveness of these treatments can be limited due to poor installation and/or insufficient maintenance. On the other hand, there are limited data documenting their effectiveness (Foltz et al., 2009).

Overall, the effectiveness of all treatment types is subject to large uncertainties due to the difficulty in monitoring their actual effect and the multiple factors that can affect it. Even listing and documenting these factors is not easy, as it would be an attempt to generalize several site-specific cases. According to Robichaud et al. (2010) these factors can be divided into not fire dependent and fire dependent, as their combination determines the actual watershed response and, subsequently, the effectiveness of the post-fire treatments (Reid, 2010). These factors are discussed further in Table 5.1. The factors in Table 5.1 are the main and more generic ones but they are not the only factors relevant to the effectiveness of postfire treatments. Finally, we should keep in mind that all these factors are interrelated, resulting in more complex cause–effect relations in terms of watershed responses (damage, runoff, erosion, etc.) and more complex relations in terms of the treatment’s impact and effectiveness.

Conclusions and future research Wildfires are ecologically destructive, affecting multiple ecosystem services and processes. In such extreme cases, intervention to mitigate the consequences is mandatory and urgent. So, firstly, it is important to understand that the application of a post-fire treatment and/or a combination of treatments should be seen as a necessary action. Secondly, research should be conducted to investigate further the effectiveness and suitability of the different treatments and their combination to optimize the results of these actions. The majority of the examined land treatments can reduce post-fire erosion (Napper, 2006) and support natural recovery, while only cover-based (treatment that covers the area) and barrier-based (treatment that works as a barrier) treatments can reduce post-fire surface runoff (Girona-García et al., 2021). Concerning channel treatments and specifically the factor of leveling the structure durability, nearly all channel treatments participate, while concerning sediment trapping, velocity reduction and peak flow reduction, the treatment with check dams prevails (Napper, 2006). There are also indications of site suitability per treatment, but less is known about their effectiveness. Future research is expected to ●

●

●

●

●

Raise awareness and promote action through such treatments rather than doing nothing. Carry out more studies, extending the geographical scope beyond the United States, Spain and Portugal (GironaGarcía et  al., 2021) and exploring more diverse conditions, such as large-scale and other possible treatments (e.g. complex bioengineering works and naturebased solutions). Improve the assessment of the impact of post-wildfire erosion on soils and runoff, carbon release, air pollution, nutrient losses and soil loss (Shakesby, 2011). Improve the modelling tools for impact assessment at the watershed level, considering finer resolutions and scales. Integrate wildfire events and countermeasures into overall assessments for land degradation. George Papaioannou, Angelos Alamanos and Fotios Maris

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques  23 Table 5.1   An overview of some important factors affecting the effectiveness of post-fire treatments Factors

Description

1. Factors unrelated to fire: Rainfall characteristics,

High stream peak flows and substantial erosion episodes after wildfires have been linked to intense,

especially rainfall

short-duration storms with high rainfall intensity and low rainfall volumes. As expected, an increase in

intensity

runoff, erosion rates and streamflows means potentially the lower effectiveness of any treatment.

Topography

This factor has a similar effect to the previous one since erosion rates are generally higher for bigger slopes and hillslope lengths (flow path). Therefore, drainage patterns and topographies that enhance erosion and peak flow concentration are more challenging for post-fire treatments.

Land use and

In addition to natural elements such as rainfall and topography, the extent of a watershed’s reaction to a

management

hydrological event is also influenced by man-made activities such as road construction, fuel reduction and timber harvesting. The cumulative effect of these anthropogenic activities can lead to a rise in runoff severity and, by extension, erosion and flooding, posing important challenges for any treatment.

Treatment

The effectiveness of many post-fire treatments depends on the accuracy of the installation, the selected

implementation –

design type, the post-installation maintenance and the level of experience of the personnel used for the

installation and design

treatments (Girona-García et al., 2021; Kastridis & Kamperidou, 2015; Maris & Theofanous, 2012).

matters

With proper treatment implementation, we can avoid failures, improve its operation and increase its effectiveness over the long term.

2. Fire-dependent factors: Burn severity (also

Burn severity can be seen as a measure of the damage to ecosystem properties. It is usually expressed

referred to as ‘fire

by the degree of soil heating and/or vegetation mortality or precisely the degree of overstory plant

severity’)

mortality. In general, higher burn severity is translated into larger and quicker watershed responses to rainfall, and is thus more challenging for post-fire treatments.

Soil burn severity

Similar to burn severity, soil burn severity expresses the fire effects of soil heating and the soil’s organic material consumption. Thus, higher soil burn severity leads to an alteration in soil properties resulting in a reduction in soil infiltration and high soil erodibility. Both these effects lead to an increase in surface runoff, higher peak flows, flow concentration, sediment transport and erosion.

Amount of bare soil

A crucial factor for burn severity mapping positively related to post-fire erosion rates is the amount of bare soil. Land cover treatments, such as natural or straw mulching, can reduce post-fire erosion.

Soil water repellency

Post-fire soil water repellency is associated with soil burn severity and reduced infiltration. Although its effects vary over space, time and soil type, most relevant treatments aim to rewet the soil to minimize the soil water repellency and its negative consequences since it depends on soil moisture (it is reduced or absent following prolonged wet conditions).

Soil erodibility

The effectiveness of treatments is largely dependent on runoff, sediment transport and soil erosion. Moreover, soil texture, structure and organic matter content are important factors considering erosion resistance. Soil texture (namely its inorganic particles by size, such as sand, silt and clay) is ordinarily unaffected by fire. On the other hand, soil structure is affected by fire (namely, the arrangement of primary particles into aggregates). Therefore, soil structure can become disaggregated, making soil more erodible and reducing its infiltration capacity.

Time since fire

This factor refers to the ecosystem’s natural recovery (soil structure, vegetation, microclimate, etc.). For example, more significant and faster vegetation recovery means smaller instant surface runoff rates and reduced erosion rates. In addition, timely action with post-fire treatments, as discussed above, can improve the overall response of watersheds and avoid post-fire negative consequences.

Source:   All factors except ‘Treatment implementation – installation and design matters’ are based on the analysis of Robichaud et al. (2010) and references therein.

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

24  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

References Andreu, V., Imeson, A. C., & Rubio, J. L. (2001). Temporal changes in soil aggregates and water erosion after a wildfire in a Mediterranean pine forest. Catena (Vol. 44). www.elsevier.comrlocatercatena Bailey, R. W., Copeland, O. L., & Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (Ogden-Utah). (1961). Vegetation and Engineering Structures in Flood and Erosion Control. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. //cat​​alog.​​hathi​​trust​​ .org/​​Recor​​d ​/002​​​00521​7 Cheung, D. J., & Giardino, J. R. (2023). Debris flow occurrence under changing climate and wildfire regimes: A southern California perspective. Geomorphology, 422.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.geomorph​ .2022​.108538 DeBano, L. F., Neary, D. G., & Ffolliott, P. F. (1998). Fire Effects on Ecosystems (1st ed.). Wiley. Ebel, B. A., Wagenbrenner, J. W., Kinoshita, A. M., & Bladon, K. D. (2022). Hydrologic recovery after wildfire: A framework of approaches, metrics, criteria, trajectories, and timescales. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 70(4), 388–400. https:// doi​.org​/10​.2478​/johh​-2022​-0033 Fernández, C., Vega, J. A., Jiménez, E., & Fonturbel, T. (2011). Effectiveness of three post-fire treatments at reducing soil erosion in Galicia (NW Spain). International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20(1), 104–114. https://doi​.org​/10​.1071​/ WF09010 Foltz, R. B., Robichaud, P. R., & Rhee, H. (2009). A synthesis of postfire road treatments for BAER teams: Methods, treatment effectiveness, and decisionmaking tools for rehabilitation. Gen. Tech. Rep. MRS-GTR-228. https:// www​ . fs ​ . usda ​ . gov​ / research ​ / treesearch​ /32967 Girona-García, A., Vieira, D. C. S., Silva, J., Fernández, C., Robichaud, P. R., & Keizer, J. J. (2021). Effectiveness of post-fire soil erosion mitigation treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Earth-Science Reviews, 217(February). https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.earscirev​.2021​.103611 Jolly, W. M., Cochrane, M. A., Freeborn, P. H., Holden, Z. A., Brown, T. J., Williamson, G. J., & Bowman, D. M. J. S. (2015). Climate-induced variations in

global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nature Communications, 6. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1038​/ncomms8537 Kastridis, A., & Kamperidou, V. (2015). Evaluation of the post-fire erosion and flood control works in the area of Cassandra (Chalkidiki, North Greece). Journal of Forestry Research, 26(1), 209–217. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11676​-014​-0005-9 Langhans, C., Nyman, P., Noske, P. J., van der Sant, R. E., Lane, P. N. J., & Sheridan, G. J. (2017). Post-fire hillslope debris flows: Evidence of a distinct erosion process. Geomorphology, 295, 55–75. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.geomorph​.2017​.06​.008 Margiorou, S., Kastridis, A., & Sapountzis, M. (2022). Pre/post-fire soil erosion and evaluation of check-dams effectiveness in Mediterranean suburban catchments based on field measurements and modeling. Land, 11(10). https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ land11101705 Maris, F., & Theofanous, N. (2012). Τα κυριότερα προβλήματα κατά την κατασκευή των αντιδιαβρωτικών έργων μετά από δασική πυρκαγιά. Η περίπτωση της πυρκαγιάς στο νησί της Ρόδου τον Ιούλιο του 2008 [The main problems arising during the construction of antierosion works after a wildfire. The case study of Rhodes island forest fire occurred in July 2008]. In F. Maris (Ed.), Scientific Annals of the Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources - Democritus University of Thrace (Vol. 3). Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources - Democritus University of Thrace. Napper, C. (2006). Burned Area Emergency Response Treatments (BAER) Catalog. https://www​ . fs​ .usda​ .gov​ /eng​ / pubs​ / pdf​ / BAERCAT​/lo​_res​/06251801L​.pdf Nasirzadehdizaji, R., & Akyuz, D. E. (2022). Predicting the potential impact of forest fires on runoff and sediment loads using a distributed hydrological modeling approach. Ecological Modelling, 468. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ecolmodel​.2022​ .109959 Reid, L. M. (2010). Understanding and evaluating cumulative watershed impacts. In W. J. Elliot, I. S. Miller, & L. Audin (Eds.), Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques  25 (pp. 277–298). Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Robichaud, P. R., Ashmun, L. E., & Sims, B. D. (2010). Post-Fire Treatment Effectiveness for Hillslope Stabilization. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. https://doi​.org​/10​.2737​/rmrs​-gtr​-240 Robichaud, P. R., Beyers, J. L., & Neary, D. G. (2000). Evaluating the Effectiveness Of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments. https:// www​ . fs ​ . usda ​ . gov​ / research ​ / treesearch​ /23617 Roering, J. J., & Gerber, M. (2005). Fire and the evolution of steep, soil-mantled landscapes. Geology, 33(5), 349–352. https://doi​.org​/10​.1130​/G21260.1 Santi, P. M., deWolfe, V. G., Higgins, J. D., Cannon, S. H., & Gartner, J. E. (2008). Sources of debris flow material in burned areas. Geomorphology, 96(3–4), 310–321.

https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.geomorph​.2007​.02​ .022 Scott, D. F., & van Wyk, D. B. (1990). The effects of wildfire on soil wettability and hydrological behaviour of an afforested catchment. Journal of Hydrology, 121. Shakesby, R. A. (2011). Post-wildfire soil erosion in the Mediterranean: Review and future research directions. Earth-Science Reviews, 105(3–4), 71–100. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.earscirev​.2011​.01​.001 Stavi, I. (2019). Wildfires in grasslands and shrublands: A review of impacts on vegetation, soil, hydrology, and geomorphology. Water (Switzerland), 11(5). MDPI AG. https://doi​ .org​/10​.3390​/w11051042 Swanson, F. J. (1981). Fire and geomorphic processes. In H. Mooney, T. M. Bonnicksen, N. L. Christensen, J. E. Lotan, & W. A. Reiners (Eds.), Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties (pp. 410–420). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

6. Applications of PostFire Erosion and Flood Protection Techniques

categorize them, here we describe some case study applications to improve the understanding of the practical aspects of these techniques and indicate site-specific differences. The latter is particularly important, and this chapter aims to highlight and justify the lack of organized and overarching research guidelines for post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques, given the high dependence of their efficiency on local factors (topography, climate, etc.).

Introduction A watershed with satisfactory precipitation and generally good hydrologic conditions produces a small amount of sediments and the stream baseflow conditions are sustained for long periods or the entire year. Indicatively, in watersheds with satisfactory hydrologic conditions (litter and vegetation prevail with a ground cover of greater than 75 percent), the amount of rainfall that becomes surface runoff is only about 2  percent, and the erosion rates are low (Bailey & Copeland, 1961). Wildfires affect all watershed characteristics, including soil, vegetation and land cover, which are critical to functioning hydrologic processes such as runoff, streamflows and sediment transport. Burned areas, depending on the burn severity and, of course, its duration, can significantly reduce the litter and plants that cover the ground surface (even less than 10 percent of the ground), resulting in increased surface runoff of over 70  percent, and an increase in erosion by three orders of magnitude (Robichaud et al., 2000). When precipitation events occur in burned areas, these effects are obvious in the form of floods, peak flows, changes in the floor of the watersheds altering the infiltration processes, and sediment and ashes delivered to streams affecting habitats (Robichaud et al., 2000). There are also severe impacts on the water quality and channel stability, and soil erosion since soil particles move. Several practices have been developed to avoid and mitigate the above negative consequences, known as post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques. These can be cover based and include barriers, mulch or hydromulch, erosion control mats, slit fences, seeding or even in-channel treatments, such as check dams, grade stabilizers, in-channel tree felling, debris basins, channel deflectors and stream channel armoring. Road and trail or even chemical treatments can be used. While in our other chapter, we provide details on these techniques and

Example 1: Increasing ground cover to reduce soil erosion Fernández et al. (2011) investigated the effectiveness of three post-fire treatments (cutshrub barrier, straw mulch and woodchip mulch) on soil erosion reduction following the wildfire in Galicia, north-west Spain. Before burned, the entire area was dominated by shrubland. These types of work refer to cover changes and barriers to improve the soil and hydrologic conditions. The authors found that the application of straw mulch during the first year reduced sediment production by 66 percent compared with the control plots (previous conditions), while stabilization treatments such as erosion barriers (branches cut from shrubs) and woodchip mulch were ineffective against soil erosion compared to the untreated control. The effectiveness of straw mulch treatment in reducing post-fire soil erosion lies in the fact that it achieved an immediate increase in ground cover (by 80 percent).

Example 2: Mulching cover treatments Robichaud et al. (2013) investigated the effect of post-fire mulching treatments (wood strand mulch, wheat straw mulch and hydromulch) on runoff and erosion in four different burned sites in the Western United States. The most effective treatment for sediment yield reduction was the wood strand mulch, followed by the wheat straw mulch and hydromulch, which did not reduce sediment yields on either site tested. However, the authors underline that the results may vary significantly as the longevity of the different treatments differs, thereby affecting their performance in reducing the yield of sediments over a period of 4–7 years or less. 26

applications of post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques  27

Example 3: Soil stabilization treatments to reduce runoff and soil erosion Following a wildfire in Lietor in south-east Spain, Lucas-Borja et al. (2019) examined the impact of different combinations of salvage logging and (straw) mulching on post-fire soil erosion and runoff. The authors found that mulching in recent fire-affected mountainous terrains is an efficient treatment immediately after a wildfire, even though runoff was not affected by mulching either in not logged or logged plots.

Example 4: Seeding and mulching treatments Following a wildfire in north-west Spain, Fernández et  al. (2020) compared the effectiveness of different combinations of needle cast and mulching in reducing soil erosion. In particular, they applied combusted canopy and helimulching, combusted canopy and scorched canopy treatments. Their sediment yield results showed that the combusted canopy treatment areas had significantly higher soil erosion following the combusted canopy and helimulching and scorched canopy treatments where the soil erosion rates were similar. The findings are in line with the authors’ previous work (Example 1), where they underline the importance of immediately covering the burned ground. In this case, helimulching covered approximately 90 percent of the soil, whereas the burned soil was totally covered by fallen needles from scorched trees.

Example 5: Assessing ground cover and contour-felling treatments In this example, the case study is the post-fire area in the north-west of Loveland, Colorado. Wagenbrenner et al. (2006) investigated how effective three post-fire rehabilitation treatments are by comparing the sediment yields of untreated plots, straw mulching, seeding and contour felling over the period 2000–2003. The authors report that important variations in sediment yields were observed depending on the treatment used and were mostly correlated with the ground cover amount. Natural regrowth is a considerable positive factor, while seeding, in this case, did not

affect either sediment yields or the amount of ground cover. With mulching, sediment yields are significantly reduced (around 95 percent or more). Moreover, the authors report that trenches behind the contour-felled logs had higher infiltration rates than the disturbed areas until they were filled with sediments. Finally, contour-felling treatments largely depend on the installation quality, resulting in variable sediment storage capacities (e.g. they cannot reduce sediment yields from more intense and longer storms but could retain much of the generated sediment in an average year). Thus, it might not be the best treatment for areas with frequent storms of high intensity.

Example 6: Contour-felled log erosion barriers in different sites Robichaud et  al. (2008) evaluated the effectiveness of contour-felled log erosion barriers in reducing post-fire runoff and erosion in six, small, burned watersheds in the Western United States. The authors pointed out the relation between sediment yields and runoff and rainfall characteristics. As expected, they proved that, in general, higher intensity and longer duration rainfalls result in higher runoff and sediment yield. They underline the importance of the proper installation of contour-felled log erosion barriers to improve their effectiveness.

Example 7: Mixed check dams and bioengineering interventions In 2007, a large wildfire took hold in the Canary Islands, Spain. Lovreglio et al. (2020) investigated the effect of different treatments on the reduction of soil erosion and the reestablishment of vegetation. These treatments included traditional channel works, bioengineering interventions and a series of mixed check dams (stones with a core filled with forest residues and wooden elements) constructed in gullies created by surface runoff. The results showed that the selected bioengineering techniques reduced soil erosion rates, facilitated the germination of seedlings and allowed the restoration of the forest ecosystem. Finally, the advantages attributed by the authors to the specific mixed check dam are (a) noticeable sediment storage capacity composed of large material such as rocks or

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

28  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management vegetal debris; and (b) remarkable vegetation recovery and colonization, and the components used to the environment conditions.

Example 8: Different dam treatments from various case studies In this example, we provide a brief overview of post-fire case studies that used different kinds of dam treatments to reduce runoff and soil erosion. Robichaud et  al. (2019) used straw bale check dams after the 2010 Twitchell Canyon Fire in the Tushar Mountains of south-central Utah. They found that these dams trapped less than 50  percent of the total sedimentation, with efficiency decreasing over time. The application of this treatment may be justifiable in areas where rainfall intensity is expected to be lower and the soil is less erodible. Another example considering dam treatment to ‘block’ runoff and sediment yield is reported by Badía et al. (2015), who applied a hillslope log debris dam at a post-fire site in the Castejón Mountains of Ebro basin, Spain. The third year following the wildfire, which was the first year after the dam’s construction, a significant decrease in runoff and sediment yields was reported due to the combined effect of immediate mulching using branches and the overlapping logs damming effect. Considering the performance of the log dams for all study sites according to soil erosion and runoff, it was approximately 90  percent and 52 percent, respectively. The finding regarding the effectiveness of check dams in reducing soil erosion and runoff with decreasing performance over time is a common element in the above studies and is also in agreement with the finding of Quiñonero-Rubio et  al. (2016), who used check dams at Upper Taibilla and Rogativa catchments in southern Spain. They also found that check dams have a more significant impact on sediment yield control in a short time period. Other studies (in Spain and China) support that despite check dams having a short-lived effect, they can be efficient and valuable sediment control measures (Boix-Fayos et al., 2008; Shi et al., 2019).

Example 9: Seeding treatments The study mentioned above by QuiñoneroRubio et  al. (2016) also highlights that

reforestation has sustained and important long-term effects, sometimes with smaller economic cost than, for example, check-dams for large areas. The importance of achieving fast reforestation is crucial to avoid flood damage or other ecosystem degradation effects. Seeding has been used alone and in combination with other cover-based techniques, such as mulching, for reducing soil erosion, increasing vegetation cover and minimizing the establishment and spread of non-native plant species (Peppin et al., 2010). For example, Groen and Woods (2008) used aerial straw mulch and seeding to reduce post-wildfire erosion in north-western Montana (Fox Creek). Straw mulch was found to be more efficient than the seeds, mainly because of the seeding’s limited and slow increase in ground cover. The same finding is supported by the study of Díaz-Raviña et al. (2012), comparing the short-term efficiency of seeding and mulching treatments in a postfire area in north-west Spain (Laza). Concerning the broader ecosystem effects of seeding treatments and their longterm efficiency, there is little evidence: In a review of 94 relevant studies in the Western United States, Peppin et  al. (2010) conclude that post-wildfire seeding is an ineffective post-fire soil protection measure in the short term. Concerning the invasion of non-native species, the effect of seeding is ambiguous and it is possible to negatively affect native vegetation recovery. Finally, based on the analysis of Girona-García et al. (2021), despite seeding being frequently used as post-fire treatment, it is categorized as an ineffective measure, especially in the first year, because seeding does not have an instant protective effect. However, as presented in the work of Peppin et  al. (2010), more long-term studies should be conducted on the effectiveness of seeding, especially after the first years.

Example 10: Chemical treatments Chemical treatments can also be applied to modify the attributes of burned soils and ultimately improve their infiltration rate, runoff and soil erosion. The most commonly used practice is an anionic polyacrylamide (PAM) add-on, which is a dry, granular material. Prats et al. (2014) used PAM in north-central Portugal and compared its performance versus forest residue mulching. They found

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

applications of post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques  29 that chopped eucalyptus bark mulch reduced runoff and soil erosion, whereas PAM did not. Inbar et al. (2015) report that in the short term, considering the first rainstorm event, PAM can decrease soil loss and the infiltration rate and increase runoff. However, in subsequent rainstorm events where PAM is dissolved, the reduction in soil loss persists, but its effect on infiltration and runoff does not. The authors confirmed these findings in the post-burned Birya forest area of Israel.

Conclusions In sum, this brief overview of examples of post-fire erosion and flood protection techniques highlights the following: 1. There are many treatment techniques that mainly aim to improve ground cover or ‘cut’ the runoff and sediment movement passages, among other types of works. 2. They have varying efficiencies for reducing soil erosion and runoff that depend on a plethora of factors. The most important factors are ● the burn severity and extent, as they determine the damage caused; ● the climatic conditions, especially the rainfall intensity and duration, as they determine the risk; ● the slopes and, in general, the terrain morphology of the areas, as they affect the runoff and sediment movements, as well as accessibility for applying the treatments reviewed; ● the proper application – the installation of the works and their monitoring over time (e.g. annual time step) to ensure maximum efficiency; ● other site-specific factors, including social and behavioral aspects that define the response for human intervention and other criteria such as costs and rehabilitation efforts. 3. All treatments are efficient, although to different degrees, and they contribute to the improvement in hydrologic and soil conditions. Thus, they should be prioritized in burned areas because they can deliver multiple co-benefits by reducing the negative consequences of post-fire conditions. George Papaioannou, Angelos Alamanos and Fotios Maris

References Badía, D., Sánchez, C., Aznar, J. M., & Martí, C. (2015). Post-fire hillslope log debris dams for runoff and erosion mitigation in the semiarid Ebro Basin. Geoderma, 237, 298–307. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .geoderma​.2014​.09​.004 Bailey, R. W., & Copeland, O. L. (1961). Vegetation and engineering structures in flood and erosion control. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. //cat​​alog.​​hathi​​trust​​ .org/​​Recor​​d ​/002​​​00521​7 Boix-Fayos, C., de Vente, J., MartínezMena, M., Barberá, G. G., & Castillo, V. (2008). The impact of land use change and check-dams on catchment sediment yield. Hydrological Processes, 22(25), 4922– 4935. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/ hyp​.7115 Díaz-Raviña, M., Martín, A., Barreiro, A., Lombao, A., Iglesias, L., Díaz-Fierros, F., & Carballas, T. (2012). Mulching and seeding treatments for post-fire soil stabilisation in NW Spain: Short-term effects and effectiveness. Geoderma, 191, 31–39. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.geoderma​.2012​.01​.003 Fernández, C., Vega, J. A., & Fontúrbel, T. (2020). Comparison of the effectiveness of needle cast and straw helimulching for reducing soil erosion after wildfire in NW Spain. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 20(1), 535–541. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/ s11368​-019​-02419-y Fernández, C., Vega, J. A., Jiménez, E., & Fonturbel, T. (2011). Effectiveness of three post-fire treatments at reducing soil erosion in Galicia (NW Spain). International Journal of Wildland Fire, 20(1), 104–114. https://doi​.org​/10​.1071​/ WF09010 Girona-García, A., Vieira, D. C. S., Silva, J., Fernández, C., Robichaud, P. R., & Keizer, J. J. (2021). Effectiveness of post-fire soil erosion mitigation treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Earth-Science Reviews, 217(February). https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.earscirev​.2021​.103611 Groen, A. H., & Woods, S. W. (2008). Effectiveness of aerial seeding and straw mulch for reducing post-wildfire erosion, north-western Montana, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 17(5), 559–571. https://doi​.org​/10​.1071​/ WF07062 Inbar, A., Ben-Hur, M., Sternberg, M., & Lado, M. (2015). Using polyacrylamide to

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

30  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management mitigate post-fire soil erosion. Geoderma, 239, 107–114. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .geoderma​.2014​.09​.026 Lovreglio, R., Giadrossich, F., Scotti, R., Murgia, I., Tardío, G., Mickovski, S., & García-Rodríguez, J. L. (2020). Observations on different post-fire bioengineering interventions and vegetation response in a Pinus canariensis C. Sm. forest. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 45(1), 83–91. https://doi​.org​/10​.12899​/asr​ -2034 Lucas-Borja, M. E., González-Romero, J., Plaza-Álvarez, P. A., Sagra, J., Gómez, M. E., Moya, D., Cerdà, A., & de las Heras, J. (2019). The impact of straw mulching and salvage logging on post-fire runoff and soil erosion generation under Mediterranean climate conditions. Science of the Total Environment, 654, 441–451. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2018​.11​.161 Peppin, D., Fulé, P. Z., Sieg, C. H., Beyers, J. L., & Hunter, M. E. (2010). Post-wildfire seeding in forests of the western United States: An evidence-based review. Forest Ecology and Management, 260(5), 573– 586.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.foreco​.2010​ .06​.004 Prats, S. A., Martins, M. A. dos S., Malvar, M. C., Ben-Hur, M., & Keizer, J. J. (2014). Polyacrylamide application versus forest residue mulching for reducing post-fire runoff and soil erosion. Science of the Total Environment, 468–469, 464–474. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2013​.08​.066 Quiñonero-Rubio, J. M., Nadeu, E., BoixFayos, C., & de Vente, J. (2016). Evaluation of the effectiveness of forest restoration and check-dams to reduce catchment sediment yield. Land Degradation and Development, 27(4), 1018–1031. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1002​/ldr​.2331

Robichaud, P. R., Beyers, J. L., & Neary, D. G. (2000). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Treatments. https:// www​ . fs ​ . usda ​ . gov​ / research ​ / treesearch​ /23617 Robichaud, P. R., Lewis, S. A., Wagenbrenner, J. W., Ashmun, L. E., & Brown, R. E. (2013). Post-fire mulching for runoff and erosion mitigation. Part I: Effectiveness at reducing hillslope erosion rates. Catena, 105, 75–92. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.catena​ .2012​.11​.015 Robichaud, P. R., Storrar, K. A., & Wagenbrenner, J. W. (2019). Effectiveness of straw bale check dams at reducing post-fire sediment yields from steep ephemeral channels. Science of the Total Environment, 676, 721–731. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2019​.04​.246 Robichaud, P. R., Wagenbrenner, J. W., Brown, R. E., Wohlgemuth, P. M., & Beyers, J. L. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of contour-felled log erosion barriers as a postfire runoff and erosion mitigation treatment in the western United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 17(2), 255–273. https://doi​.org​/10​.1071​/ WF07032 Shi, P., Zhang, Y., Ren, Z., Yu, Y., Li, P., & Gong, J. (2019). Land-use changes and check dams reducing runoff and sediment yield on the Loess Plateau of China. Science of the Total Environment, 664, 984–994. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​ .2019​.01​.430 Wagenbrenner, J. W., MacDonald, L. H., & Rough, D. (2006). Effectiveness of tree post-fire rehabilitation treatments in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrological Processes, 20(14), 2989–3006. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1002​/ hyp​.6146

george papaioannou, angelos alamanos and fotios maris

7. Approaches for Optimal Management of Marine-Protected Areas

MPAs varies across the English, Welsh and Scottish MPAs examined, and it would be difficult to apply a unifying framework. Topdown approaches often do not fully capture the role of local communities, a major driving force in the management of MPAs. Important indicators of human welfare can be shaped by MPAs (food security, resource rights, employment, community organization and income), thus it is crucial to co-design with locals (Mascia et  al., 2010). These examples show the main weaknesses of (even well-established theoretically) top-down approaches, and the need to consider bottom-up initiatives and community management. In the United Kingdom, the initial processes by which the recommendations for marine conservation zones (MCZs) have been developed consider the provision of stakeholder participation (bottom-up approach). However, the main management approach comes from central government (top-down approach) (Jones, 2012). Rees et  al. (2013) identified the issues and options for managing the social impacts of MPAs on a small fishing community, and highlighted the importance of public participation. If locals do not participate, they will not be able to derive any or the maximum benefit associated with MPA management (Chirico et al., 2017). Conflicts are seen as the main obstacle for bottom-up approaches, for example, the fishing industry fears that more MPAs will lead to increasing restrictions, conservationists fear that MPAs will not be sufficiently protected and so on (Jones, 2012). Crawford et al. (2006) studied 24 villages in Indonesia to find the factors responsible for the failure of community-based managed MPAs. The main factors were the village complexity and different levels of development, the characteristics of community organizers and the degree of community organizers’ homophily relative to the community. In the study by Evans and Klinger (2008), a citizens advisory group led a two-year, highly participatory effort in San Juan County, Washington, to develop an ecosystem-based management plan, by incorporating social dimensions (sociocultural and biodiversity goals). Multiple obstacles hindered the implementation of this setting:

Introduction A marine-protected area (MPA) is usually an area of sea which may include the surrounding land, the seabed and subsoil under the sea, established by law for the preservation and maintenance of its ecosystem services (ES) and natural, economic and cultural resources. Human activities are subject to permitted and non-permitted uses (depending on each country’s laws) within predefined delineating zones in an MPA. Healthy MPAs support coastal communities and economies through opportunities for recreation and tourism, research, education and sometimes fishing. As one can imagine, MPAs face multiple challenges including pollution, over-exploitation of living resources, incidental by-catch, non-indigenous species, underwater noise, damage to the seabed, mismanagement of human activities, conflicts and so on, and multiple objectives need to be met such as fishing, coastal development, biodiversity, the impacts of climate change, tourism and local socioeconomic cultures and traditions (Saarman and Carr, 2013). Here, we examine different approaches for the optimal management of MPAs, and present successful and unsuccessful examples from the literature, to draw useful insights.

Obstacles for top-down and bottom-up management Top-down management approaches define a set of rules (usually at the country scale) that should be followed by all MPAs of that region/country. Unavoidably, this approach cannot take into account every site-specific condition, and in order to be independent of such, it is often highly generic in character. The political-economic perspective has attempted to put the objectives of MPAs under the umbrella of ES, which has been characterized as a fairly ambitious plan to designate, manage and actually measure their benefits (Hussain et  al., 2010). Similarly, Potts et  al. (2014) note that that the provision of ES for

●

31

Information deficits prevented the scientific assessment of the sociocultural targets.

32  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management ● ●

●

Issues of uncertainty. Practical constraints on stakeholder involvement (underinvestment in the transaction costs of planning). Multiple, potentially conflicting, objectives increased negotiation-related costs.

Besides the obstacles, the authors recognize that consideration of the social aspect is beneficial for MPA management. In practical terms, top-down approaches generally tend to dominate to avoid such obstacles; however, this does not mean that they cannot be combined with bottom-up approaches, even in the form of negotiated group proposals on existing regulations (Stratoudakis et  al., 2019). Oyanedel et  al. (2016) presented a successful and an unsuccessful example of Chile’s MPA management, by comparing two bottom-up managed MPAs. In several ‘unsuccessful examples’ from the literature, disagreements can arise among groups of different stakeholders when designing bottom-up MPA management (Helvey, 2004). Stakeholders can only agree on some principles, and this leads to the replacement of the bottom-up with top-down approaches. In such cases, the answer is to consider science-driven solutions and interpretations of a situation, especially for those objectives on which stakeholders do not agree.

Successful bottom-up and community management of MPAs The role of proper information, communication, education and scientific support is considered a stepping stone in MPA management, especially when stakeholders are involved (Alamanos, 2021; Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022). There are several examples to further justify this, as well as the role of leadership. Leisher et al. (2012) measured the benefits and costs of community education and outreach by carrying out sample surveys before and after education and outreach activities. A comparison of the results shows that education and outreach investment changed local knowledge, attitudes and, ultimately, behaviour. Bennett and Dearden (2014) find that education-related issues (e.g. misperception and no understanding of the benefits of MPAs) restrain locals from getting involved in the management of Thailand’s MPAs. Kusumawati and Huang (2015) explored two

MPAs in Indonesia: In the first case (centrally governed), participants consider their participation to be low and have lower trust in the government. In the second case (bottomup managed), all participants are familiar and aware of the benefits they receive from MPAs. The difference is the education/communication focus and the scientific research conducted on the resource. Diedrich et al. (2017) find that the key factors for developing perceptions of benefits from MPAs are related to social capital, particularly trust in leadership, and equity within communities. The role of community leaders is a major driver of the results of MPAs’ management and reflects the stakeholders involved to a degree (Gurney et  al., 2015; Gabela-Flores and Diedrich, 2021). The literature reports several factors that have assisted in the successful bottom-up management of MPAs (Beger et  al., 2004; Beaumont, 1997; Pollnac et  al., 2001; Fox et al., 2013; Mizuta and Vlachopoulou, 2017; Masud et  al., 2017), including consideration of the community’s population size; an external facilitating institution to the community (scientific support); aiming for high levels of participation in community decisionmaking; community empowerment; targeted knowledge-building activities (perceived socioeconomic and cultural impacts, benefits, motivation to be involved); surveillance and monitoring; setting tangible goals; strength­ ening project implementation and esuring harmonization with other established regulations (e.g. sustainable development goals).

The ‘mixed’ approach The ‘mixed’ approach refers to the combination of top-down and bottom-up management approaches, accompanied by the necessary scientific support, as an integrated and balanced way to manage MPAs. Also found in the literature as co-management, it is generally defined as an approach that involves the sharing of power and responsibility, usually between the government and the community, in the form of an equitable partnership to achieve goals in managing a resource or an area (Halik et al., 2018). Gerhardinger et al. (2009) describe such an approach for Brazilian MPAs, which follows the cooperation of top-down (more scienceand technical-driven actions) and bottomup (more locally efficient and responsible

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

approaches for optimal management of marine-protected areas  33 initiatives) approaches. The mindset is more oriented to ‘knowledge-building’ and ‘problem-solving’ processes instead of ‘knowledge-using’ and ‘decision-making’. Chile has made considerable progress in the designation of large-scale MPAs in its oceanic islands with varying degrees of top-down and bottom-up processes, scientific knowledge and interplay among institutions (Paredes et  al., 2019). California’s MPA management is presented as a balance of top-down and bottomup planning, including a science team, as it is impossible to control 124 MPAs with a onesided approach (Saarman and Carr, 2013). Transparency and two-way information feedback between communities and scientists are key (Gaymer et al., 2014). There are numerous examples in the literature (globally) supporting the ‘mixed approach’: Christie et  al. (2002) and Oracion et  al. (2005) promote the idea of MPA management in the Philippines. Qiu et al. (2009) also promote the mixed approach by explaining the challenges in developing MPAs in China. Solandt et  al. (2020) and Islam et  al. (2017) concluded a co-management approach for English and Malaysian MPAs, respectively. Furthermore, Jones et  al. (2013) outlined an empirical framework for MPAs, highlighting the importance of balancing bottom-up and top-down approaches. De Koning et  al. (2017) highlight the importance of formal mechanisms for power sharing, local ownership of resources, downward accountability, mechanisms for building trust and an adaptive approach to performance assessment and improvement. The example of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST) is also proof of how the ‘mixed approach’ could work. As a bottom-up initiative that achieved central support, COAST established collaboration within the community and with academics.

Decision support systems Scientific input in the MPA management process is crucial. Experience shows that a good and effective MPA is one that operates in a way that ensures its sustainability (long run) and at the same time that humans derive the maximum benefits from its ES (short run). From the systems analysis perspective, this can be approached as a spatial non-linear optimization problem where

the objective function would maximize the utility (e.g. social welfare), subject to the constraints imposed by natural-physical, biodiverse, economic and sociocultural expectations (Garcia and Alamanos, 2022). Such approaches allow the use of upper and lower bounds expressing the allowable limits of legislation, the input of environmental economics and stakeholder input. Although such approaches are mainly restricted by the data required, they are conceptually useful for complex problems. In the future, it is likely that such approaches will be studied further (Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022). Economists prefer objective functions maximizing social welfare from MPAs, but other approaches can be used to avoid data limitations arising from valuation dependence. The importance of having decision support systems (DSSs) incorporating spatial data and ecological, social and economic criteria is underlined by similar research (e.g. Fox et  al., 2013, 2019). DSS can be highly informative on the trade-offs between ecological and socioeconomic factors (Christensen et al., 2009). Recently, integrated and sophisticated approaches have been proposed, involving economic, social, areal, biodiverse, ecological and other variables in integrated optimization and forecasting contexts, for example, Albers and Ashworth (2022) and Sykora-Bodie et al. (2021). Angelos Alamanos and Phoebe Koundouri

References Alamanos, A. (2021). Public Policy to Support Environmental Sustainability and Circular Economy: Efforts towards integrated approaches. 2nd Symposium on Circular Economy and Sustainability, 14–16 July 2021. Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022a). Emerging Challenges and the Future of Water Resources Management. Hydrolink 2022(4), Citizen Science. https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131. Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022b). Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Water Management: Connecting Policy and Science. 10th Annual International Conference on Sustainable Development (ICSD). 10th Annual International Conference on Sustainable Development (ICSD), 19–20 September 2022.

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

34  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Albers, H.J., & Ashworth, M.F. (2022). Economics of Marine Protected Areas: Assessing the Literature for Marine Protected Area Network Expansions. Annual Review of Resource Economics, https://doi​.org​/10​.1146​/annurev​ 14(1). -resource​-111820​-024652. Beaumont, J. (1997). Community Participation in the Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Selected International Experience. South African Journal of Marine Science, 18(1), 333–340. https://doi​.org​/10​.2989​ /025776197784161009. Beger, M., Harborne, A.R., Dacles, T.P., Solandt, J.L., & Ledesma, G.L. (2004). A Framework of Lessons Learned From Community-Based Marine Reserves and Its Effectiveness in Guiding a New Coastal Management Initiative in the Philippines. Environmental Management, 34(6), 786– 801. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s00267​-004​ -0149​-z. Bennett, N.J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why Local People Do Not Support Conservation: Community Perceptions of Marine Protected Area Livelihood Impacts, Governance and Management in Thailand. Marine Policy, 44, 107–116. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.marpol​.2013​.08​.017. Chirico, A.D., McClanahan, T.R., & Eklöf, J.S. (2017). Community- and GovernmentManaged Marine Protected Areas Increase Fish Size, Biomass and Potential Value. PLoS One, 12(8), e0182342. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1371​/journal​.pone​.0182342. Christensen, V., Ferdaña, Z., & Steenbeek, J. (2009). Spatial Optimization of Protected Area Placement Incorporating Ecological, Social and Economical Criteria. Ecological Modelling, 220(19), 2583–2593. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.ecolmodel​.2009​.06​.029. Christie, P., White, A., & Deguit, E. (2002). Starting Point or Solution? CommunityBased Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Management, 66(4), 441–454. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1006​/jema​.2002​.0595. Crawford, B., Kasmidi, M., Korompis, F., & Pollnac, RB. (2006). Factors Influencing Progress in Establishing Community-Based Marine Protected Areas in Indonesia. Coastal Management, 34(1), 39–64. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/08920750500379300. De Koning, M., Nguyen, T., Lockwood, M., Sengchanthavong, S., & Phommasane,

S. (2017). Collaborative Governance of Protected Areas: Success Factors and Prospects for Hin-Nam-No National Protected Area, Central Laos. Conservation and Society, 15(1), 87–99. Diedrich, A., Stoeckl, N., Gurney, G., Esparon, M., & Pollnac, R. (2017). Social Capital as a Key Determinant of Perceived Benefits of Community-Based Marine Protected Areas. Conservation Biology, 31(2), 311–321. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/cobi​ .12808. Evans, K., & Klinger, T. (2008). Obstacles to Bottom-Up Implementation of Marine Ecosystem Management. Conservation Biology, 22(5), 1135–1143. Fox, A., Corne, D., Mayorga-Adame, C., Polton, J., Henry, L., & Roberts, J. (2019). An Efficient Multi-Objective Optimization Method for Use in the Design of Marine Protected Area Networks. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6. https://www​.frontiersin​ .org​/article​/10​.3389​/fmars​.2019​.00017. Fox, E., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Weber, M., Gleason, M., Kirlin, J., Caldwell, M., & Mastrup, S. (2013). Enabling Conditions to Support Marine Protected Area Network Planning: California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative as a Case Study. Ocean & Coastal Management, 74, 14–23. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ocecoaman​.2012​ .07​.005. Gabela-Flores, M., & Diedrich, A. (2021). Exploring Leadership Dynamics in Community-Based Marine Protected Areas. Marine Policy, 129, 104569. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.marpol​.2021​.104569. Garcia, J. A., & Alamanos, A. (2022). Integrated Modelling Approaches for Sustainable Agri-Economic Growth and Environmental Improvement: Examples From Greece, Canada and Ireland. Land, 11(9), Article 9. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ land11091548. Gaymer, C., Stadel, A., Ban, N., Cárcamo, P., Ierna, J., & Lieberknecht, L. (2014). Merging Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in Marine Protected Areas Planning: Experiences From Around the Globe. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(S2), 128–144. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/aqc​.2508. Gerhardinger, L., Godoy, E., & Jones, P. (2009). Local Ecological Knowledge and the Management of Marine Protected Areas in Brazil. Ocean & Coastal Management,

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

approaches for optimal management of marine-protected areas  35 52(3), 154–165. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .ocecoaman​.2008​.12​.007. Gurney, G., Pressey, R., Cinner, J., Pollnac, R., & Campbell, S. (2015). Integrated Conservation and Development: Evaluating a Community-Based Marine Protected Area Project for Equality of Socioeconomic Impacts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1681), 20140277. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1098​/rstb​.2014​.0277. Halik, A., Verweij, M., & Schlüter, A. (2018). How Marine Protected Areas Are Governed: A Cultural Theory Perspective. Sustainability, 10(1), 252. https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/su10010252. Helvey, M. (2004). Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas: Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged. Coastal Management, 32(2), 173–190. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/08920750490276236. Hussain, S., Winrow-Giffin, A., Moran, D., Robinson, L., Fofana, A., Paramor, O., & Frid, C. (2010). An Ex-Ante Ecological Economic Assessment of the Benefits Arising From Marine Protected Areas Designation in the UK. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 828–838. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.ecolecon​.2009​.10​.007. Islam, G., Tai, S., Kusairi, M., Ahmad, S., Aswani, F., Muhamad-Senan, M., & Ahmad, A. (2017). Community Perspectives of Governance for Effective Management of Marine Protected Areas in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 135, 34–42. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .ocecoaman​.2016​.11​.001. Jones, P. (2012). Marine Protected Areas in the UK: Challenges in Combining TopDown and Bottom-Up Approaches to Governance. Environmental Conservation, 39(3), 248–258. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/ S0376892912000136. Jones, P., De Santo, E., Qiu, W., & Vestergaard, O. (2013). Introduction: An Empirical Framework for Deconstructing the Realities of Governing Marine Protected Areas. Marine Policy, 41, 1–4. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.marpol​.2012​.12​.025. Kusumawati, I., & Huang, H. (2015). Key Factors for Successful Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Comparison of Stakeholders’ Perception of Two MPAs in Weh Island, Sabang, Aceh, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 51, 465–475. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.marpol​.2014​.09​.029.

Leisher, C., Mangubhai, S., Hess, S., Widodo, H., Soekirman, T., Tjoe, S., Wawiyai, S., Neil-Larsen, S., Rumetna, L., Halim, A., & Sanjayan, M. (2012). Measuring the Benefits and Costs of Community Education and Outreach in Marine Protected Areas. Marine Policy, 36(5), 1005–1011. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.marpol​.2012​.02​.022. Mascia, M., Claus, C., & Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on Fishing Communities. Conservation Biology, 24(5), 1424–1429. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1111​/j​.1523​-1739​.2010​.01523​.x. Masud, M., Aldakhil, A., Nassani, A., & Azam, M. (2017). Community-Based Ecotourism Management for Sustainable Development of Marine Protected Areas in Malaysia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 136, 104–112. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .ocecoaman​.2016​.11​.023. Mizuta, D., & Vlachopoulou, E. (2017). Satoumi Concept Illustrated by Sustainable Bottom-Up Initiatives of Japanese Fisheries Cooperative Associations. Marine Policy, 78, 143–149. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .marpol​.2017​.01​.020. Oracion, E., Miller, M., & Christie, P. (2005). Marine Protected Areas for Whom? Fisheries, Tourism, and Solidarity in a Philippine Community. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(3), 393–410. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.ocecoaman​.2005​.04​.013. Oyanedel, R., Marín, A., Castilla, J., & Gelcich, S. (2016). Establishing Marine Protected Areas Through Bottom-Up Processes: Insights From Two Contrasting Initiatives in Chile. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(1), 184–195. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/aqc​.2546. Paredes, F., Flores, D., Figueroa, A., Gaymer, C., & Aburto, J. (2019). Science, Capacity Building and Conservation Knowledge: The Empowerment of the Local Community for Marine Conservation in Rapa Nui. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(S2), 130–137. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1002​/aqc​.3114. Pollnac, R., Crawford, B., & Gorospe, M. (2001). Discovering Factors That Influence the Success of Community-Based Marine Protected Areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44(11), 683–710. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S0964​ -5691(01)00075-8. Potts, T., Burdon, D., Jackson, E., Atkins, J., Saunders, J., Hastings, E., & Langmead, O.

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

36  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management (2014). Do Marine Protected Areas Deliver Flows of Ecosystem Services to Support Human Welfare? Marine Policy, 44, 139– 148. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.marpol​.2013​ .08​.011. Qiu, W., Wang, B., Jones, P., & Axmacher, J. (2009). Challenges in Developing China’s Marine Protected Area System. Marine Policy, 33(4), 599–605. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.marpol​.2008​.12​.005. Rees, S., Rodwell, L., Searle, S., & Bell, A. (2013). Identifying the Issues and Options for Managing the Social Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on a Small Fishing Community. Fisheries Research, 146, 51– 58. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.fishres​.2013​.04​ .003. Saarman, E., & Carr, M. (2013). The California Marine Life Protection Act: A Balance of Top Down and Bottom Up Governance in MPA Planning. Marine Policy, 41, 41–49. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .marpol​.2013​.01​.004.

Solandt, J., Pikesley, S., Trundle, C., & Witt, M. (2020). Revisiting UK Marine Protected Areas Governance: A Case Study of a Collaborative Approach to Managing an English MPA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 30(9), 1829–1835. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/aqc​.3412. Stratoudakis, Y., Farrall, H., & Vasconcelos, L. (2019). Collaborative Lessons Towards Marine Sustainability: A Long-Term Collective Engagement. Sustainability Science, 14(4), 1147–1160. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1007​/s11625​-018​-0610​-1. Sykora-Bodie, S., Álvarez-Romero, J., Arata, J., Dunn, A., Hinke, J., Humphries, G., Jones, C., Skogrand, P., Teschke, K., Trathan, P., Welsford, D., Ban, N., Murray, G., & Gill, D. (2021). Using Forecasting Methods to Incorporate Social, Economic, and Political Considerations into Marine Protected Area Planning. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. https://www​.frontiersin​ .org​/article​/10​.3389​/fmars​.2021​.669135.

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

8. ChatGPT and Water Management

engaging in conversation. Besides OpenAI, other organizations have developed similar AI models including Google, Microsoft, IBM and Baidu. Similar models include generative pre-trained transformer 3 (GPT-3), bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), XLNet, robustly optimized BERT approach (RoBERTa) and a lite BERT (ALBERT). Despite the limitations, the rates of technological progress have convinced many people that ChatGPT will be a landmark for the way we work and that we are witnessing a revolution that will greatly affect productivity, the development of new methods and computational capabilities, and will help us overcome several problems often encountered in workflows. It is impossible to know what will happen in the future, and exactly what will be the implications for water science overall, or water management in particular. Currently, it is expected that ChatGPT will mostly affect computer-related issues (software, coding, writing papers), and education, in terms of providing more personalized information or for writing essays. Table 8.2 shows the answer that ChatGPT provided about its usefulness for water resources management. One can easily note that the answer is generic, mostly referring to the general use of AI models, rather than the ChatGPT tool, and of course it gives a very narrow view of water management problems. This is expected, given the training data used and their timespan. After a more thorough exploration of ChatGPT’s usefulness on more specific topics, we found that it can assist in several instances, but always with limitations. In particular: Data: It can be very useful for providing guidance on where to find water-related data. It provided links to webpages that have such data (physical properties, statistics, socioeconomics, climate, industry data, etc.), and sometimes it listed many different data sources, always with a brief explanation. More detailed questions on how to reach them and in what form were answered with steps that the user needs to follow. These were quite detailed, for example, ‘go to this link, press this tab, in the top right/ left click there and specify the X, Y parameter, and you will get a result of these datasets in that form’. It’s worth mentioning that the suggested procedures do not always work, as they are primarily subject to what is on the websites and in the data repositories, not to mention that ChatGPT has nothing to do with the quality of these data. It can be used at best as an assistant to give search tips.

OpenAI developed a chatbot called chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) (OpenAI, 2023). It launched at the end of November 2022 and is freely available to the public. It received phenomenal attention, gaining supporters highlighting its ability to provide detailed responses across many knowledge domains and less enthusiastic users arguing about its weaknesses, such as uneven factual accuracy and correctness (Milmo, 2023). ChatGPT interacts in a conversational way. It can assist with text writing, rephrasing, answering questions in a thorough way, guiding with issues of finding data, providing examples, creating simple codes, assisting in improving existing scripts in different programming languages and many more. It has the ability to remember what users said earlier in a conversation, allows follow-up corrections by the user and it is also trained to decline inappropriate requests (OpenAI, 2023). Table  8.1 shows the answer that ChatGPT provided about what it can do. There are also limitations: OpenAI acknowledged that ChatGPT ‘sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers’ (OpenAI, 2022) – optimizing language models for dialogue. Other weaknesses refer to ●

●

●

●

●

its limited contextual awareness and lack of emotional intelligence (every answer is just based on the information it was trained on); its biases and potential inaccuracies included in the large text amounts from the internet that were used for its training; it does not have the capacity for original thought or truly creative ideas; it is a language model, so it cannot generate pictures, diagrams or maps (there are, however, other AI models that specialize in image generation); its training data are until 2021, so the information and the answers provided are based on the knowledge that was on the internet up to 2021.

It is worth mentioning that ChatGPT is not unique, and there are many other similar tools answering questions, generating text and 37

38  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Table 8.1   ChatGPT’s answer to the question ‘What Are Your Capabilities?’ As an AI language model developed by OpenAI, I have been trained on a diverse range of internet text, so I can respond to a wide range of questions on a wide range of topics. I am capable of: • Answering factual questions: I can provide information on a wide range of topics including history, science, geography, and more. • Generating text: I can write descriptive paragraphs, summaries, poetry, and more. • Conversing: I can engage in conversation and respond to follow-up questions, hold a dialogue with users, and even tell jokes. • Translation: I can translate text from one language to another, although the quality of the translation may vary depending on the complexity of the text. • Coding: I can write and debug computer programs. Note that while I have been trained on a vast amount of text, I am not perfect and may sometimes make mistakes or provide incorrect information. If you think I made a mistake, please feel free to correct me!

Source:   Author’s own.

Table 8.2   ChatGPT’s answer to the question ‘How Can You Help Water Resources Management?’ 1. Predictive Modeling: AI models can be trained to predict water usage patterns, forecast water demand, and estimate water availability in real-time, which can help water managers make informed decisions about water allocation and conservation. 2. Monitoring and Surveillance: AI models can be integrated with sensors and monitoring systems to continuously collect data on water levels, flow rates, water quality, and other parameters, providing real-time information to help managers respond to potential problems quickly. 3. Optimization and Decision-making: AI models can be used to optimize water management strategies, such as identifying the most efficient use of water resources, reducing water loss and waste, and improving water distribution systems. 4. Drought Management: AI models can be trained to identify drought patterns and help water managers plan for and respond to water shortages, by optimizing water use and distribution during times of low availability. 5. Environmental Impact Assessment: AI models can help water managers assess the environmental impact of water use and disposal, providing information on water quality, soil health, and the impact of water use on wildlife and ecosystems. Overall, the integration of AI in water resources management has the potential to greatly enhance decision-making and improve the efficiency and sustainability of water use.

Source:   Author’s own.

Coding/software: In terms of software and coding, for various tasks, it was also useful for writing simple code examples in various languages and also explaining the codes. Moreover, it was impressively good at explaining errors, showing why they don’t work properly and suggesting corrections. The corrections were qualitative text descriptions, not corrected code lines. However, when requested, ChatGPT was able to provide script correcting some errors, again explaining the logic behind them. On the other hand, it seemed that it was not able to create a script for a problem described by the user in a way that would cover all management concerns, even after several question rounds. ChatGPT’s answers in such cases were more angelos alamanos

simplistic and the problems were formulated in a different way than a water analyst, following different logical sequences. This was observed in the optimization, prediction, impact assessment and simulation problems we tested. It is also important to note that tools (e.g. Copilot) are already available for similar purposes such as supporting programmers’ tasks (Github, 2022; Castelvecchi, 2022). Writing: Another big issue is ChatGPT’s use in writing, including education, and even exams. Its ability to write papers, rephrasing, providing texts on topics, even following conversations, raises the issue of originality, whether it can outperform students or experts in the field on specific questions, and even issues of having ChatGPT as a co-author

chatgpt and water management  39 in scientific papers (Stokel-Walker, 2023). ChatGPT was also tested on its ability to write realistic abstracts, not always with success (Bushard, 2023; Gao et  al., 2023). The papers generated by ChatGPT were ‘vaguer and had a formulaic way of writing’, although it was ‘surprisingly difficult’ to determine which ones were and were not real (Gao et al., 2022). It is expected that detection tools for AI-generated texts will become available; however, their efficiency will be a crucial factor in their use. For educational purposes, essays and student papers are a good way to test both knowledge and writing skills, so academics could respond by reworking written assessments to prioritize critical thinking or reasoning that ChatGPT can’t yet do (StokelWalker, 2022). This can encourage students to think more, deepening the questions in a way that would show an advanced degree of knowledge and critical thought. Educational institutions should adapt to AI, as they have adapted to previous technological advances (calculators, computers, internet, etc.). Integrating AI into classrooms and lectures could be a way to cultivate the perception of using technology to support critical thinking, rather than seeing it as a forbidden tool. AI can be seen as an opportunity to put more weight on critical thinking and problem-solving approaches, assuming that students have access to all tools as they would have in real life. This weight on critical thinking should be reflected both in teaching and evaluation/grading. The above findings reflect the current state of ChatGPT, as of January 2023. ChatGPT is mostly an informational tool without the ability to delve into (and solve) problems conceptually. While it can be a useful assistant for certain technical issues, its input can be exploited only by users with adequate expertise on the problems under examination and the necessary skills with respect to the software used for their description. It can assist in refining some details but not the core of an analysis (it was found that it is still not adequate to provide a description of a [complex] water management problem), thus it cannot replace decision-making and critical thinking, or develop new research questions. Currently, the key to the usefulness of ChatGPT is perhaps to consider that the mental effort needed to validate and correct its answers can outweigh the added value it can bring. Of course, these issues are not narrowed to water management, but are more

generic. For the future, it will be important to stay informed about technological advances, understanding the new potential and the limitations. Although the tools are useful if used appropriately, a clear message is the need to develop new skills and competencies. Continuous upskilling and reskilling should be sought by both employees and employers, in order to have control over new technological tools that will ensure their most efficient use. Angelos Alamanos

References Bushard, B. (2023). Fake scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT fooled scientists, study finds. Forbes. https://www​.forbes​ .com ​/sites​/ brianbushard ​/2023​/01​/10​/fake​ -scientific​ - abstracts​ -written​ - by​ - chatgpt​ -fooled​-scientists​-study​-finds/ Castelvecchi, D. (2022). Are ChatGPT and AlphaCode going to replace programmers? Nature. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/d41586​-022​ -04383-z Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022). Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers (p. 2022.12.23.521610). bioRxiv. https://doi​.org​/10​.1101​/2022​.12​.23​.521610 GitHub Copilot Your AI Pair Programmer. (2022). GitHub. https://github​.com​/features​ /copilot Milmo, D. (2023, February 2). ChatGPT reaches 100 million users two months after launch. The Guardian. https://www​ .theguardian​.com​/technology​/2023​/feb​/02​ /chatgpt​-100 ​-million​-users​-open​-ai​-fastest​ -growing​-app OpenAI. (2022). ChatGPT – Release notes. https://help​.openai​.com​/en​/articles​ /6825453​-chatgpt​-release​-notes OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue. OpenAI. https://openai​.com​/ blog​/chatgpt/ Stokel-Walker, C. (2022). AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays—Should professors worry? Nature. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/ d41586​-022​-04397-7 Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: Many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620– 621.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/d41586​- 023​ -00107-z angelos alamanos

9. Clean Water and Sanitation for All: SDG 6 Performance in Global, European and Regional Level

However, SDG  6 goes beyond drinking water, sanitation and hygiene to also address the quality and sustainability of water resources, which are critical to the survival of people and the planet. The Agenda  2030 recognizes the centrality of water resources to sustainable development and the vital role that improved drinking water, sanitation and hygiene play in advancing in other areas, including health, education, agriculture and food production, and poverty reduction (Libala, 2022; MovillaPateiro et al., 2021).

Introduction In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly came up with Agenda 2030. This plan calls for a world that is safe, free of poverty and hunger, with full and productive employment, access to quality education and universal health coverage, gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, and an end to environmental degradation. Agenda 2030 consists of 17 interconnected goals intended to serve as a ‘shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future’. These objectives are sometimes referred to as the 17  sustainable development goals (SDGs) (United Nation, 2015a).

Measurement of SDG 6 All countries have agreed to work toward achieving the SDGs. The results of SDG progress measurements are disclosed by the SDG Tracker (Ritchie, 2018), which presents data across all available indicators from the Our World in Data database, using official statistics from the UN and other international organizations. For SDG 6, the UN has defined 8 targets and 11  indicators (United Nations, 2018). Targets specify the goals and indicators represent the metrics by which the world aims to track whether these targets are achieved. The six ‘outcome-oriented targets’ include safe and affordable drinking water; ending open defecation and providing access to sanitation and hygiene; improving water quality, wastewater treatment and safe reuse; increasing water-use efficiency and ensuring freshwater supplies; implementing integrated water resources management (IWRM); and protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems. The two ‘means of achieving’ targets are to expand water and sanitation support to developing countries and to support local engagement in water and sanitation management (Ritchie, 2018).

Benefits of SDG 6 SDG 6 is primarily about ensuring access to water and sanitation for all. Access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene is the most basic human need for health and well-being, and is interconnected with multiple other ecosystem, environmental, social and economic factors (Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022; Garcia and Alamanos, 2022). Billions of people will lack access to these basic services in 2030 unless substantial progress is made (United Nation, 2015b). Every year, millions of people suffer and die from diseases resulting from inadequate water supply, sanitation and hygiene. Apart from pneumonia, diarrhea is the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age (Bryce, 2005). Having clean water and sanitation means being able to avoid exposure to countless diseases (Pal et al., 2018; Cissé, 2019). Proper water and sanitation are a key foundation for achieving the SDGs, including good health and gender equality (Sachs et al., 2019; White & Rautanen, 2017). Further, by managing our water sustainably, we are also able to better manage our production of food and energy and contribute to decent work and economic growth (Rasul, 2016; Alamanos & Zeng, 2021).

Progress toward achieving SDG 6 According to the latest development reports, the world is not on track to achieve this goal by 2030. It will cost approximately $114 billion a year between now and 2030 to achieve the goal (Sachs et al., 2022). Billions of people around the world still lack access to safe drinking water, safe sanitation and basic hygiene services, particularly in rural areas and the least developed nations. To reach the global goal of universal access by 2030, current rates of progress 40

clean water and sanitation for all  41 must be quadrupled. Globally, 44  percent of all household wastewater flows are not treated safely, meaning they are not treated by secondary or higher processes or with effluent discharges that meet applicable standards. In many regions of the world, total and industrial wastewater flows lack comparable data. It is difficult to assess global status and trends due to data gaps at the national and water basin levels, putting billions of people at risk despite the fact that 60 percent of the world’s monitored water bodies have good ambient water quality (UN-Water, 2021).1 Challenges remain, too, at the European level (Figure 9.1), mainly due to scarce water consumption embodied in imports and a population that has no access to a bath, a shower

or an indoor flushing toilet in their household (Figure 9.2) (Lafortune et al., 2022). While the EU has made further progress in terms of access to sanitation, trends in water quality have been mixed in recent years, with surface and groundwater pollutant concentrations on the rise. Due to the seasonal fluctuation of the equilibrium between water abstraction and renewable freshwater resources, it is not possible to evaluate the efficiency of water use (Bley et al., 2019). In 2022, Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UN SDSN) Greece, in collaboration with the Regional Policy Monitor and Data Consultants measured the performance of the 13 Greek regions (NUTS  2 level) with regard to the 17  SDGs

Source:   Lafortune et al. (2022).

Figure 9.1   SDG status in the European Union

Source:   Lafortune et al. (2022).

Figure 9.2   SDG 6 indicators scores in the European Union

phoebe koundouri, angelos plataniotis and angelos alamanos

42  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:  https://sdsn​.maps​.arcgis​.com/

Figure 9.3   Status of SDG 6 in Greek regions

Table 9.1   Indicators used for SDG 6 measurement at Greek NUTS 2 level Indicator description

Reference year

Data source

Comments

Ratio of bathroom inside the house/

2011

ELSTAT

Calculated ratio through a combination of ELSTAT

2011

ELSTAT

Calculated ratio through a combination of ELSTAT

total residential houses (%) Ratio of toilet or WC with hydraulic

data data

installation inside the house/total residential houses (%) Water use per capita

2019

Eurostat/ELSTAT

EUROSTAT data adjusted with population per region (census 2011 data)

Water abstraction per capita

2019

Eurostat/ELSTAT

EUROSTAT data adjusted with population per region (census 2011 data)

phoebe koundouri, angelos plataniotis and angelos alamanos

clean water and sanitation for all  43 (Koundouri et al., 2022), following the methodology of the SDSN (Lafortune et al., 2018) (Figure 9.3). The Global Sustainable Development Report 2022 (Sachs et  al., 2021) and the European Sustainable Development Report 2021 (Lafortune et  al., 2021) were used as references for the specification of indicators to be measured. Indicators that are meaningful at the regional (NUTS  2)2 level were retained. More specifically, the indicators used for SGD  6 progress measurement at the Greek NUTS 2 level are shown in Table 9.1.​ The results show that of the 13 Greek regions in total, only 1 (Western Macedonia) meets the objectives of SDG 6, 3 face minor challenges in addressing issues related to SDG  6 (Thessaly, the Ionian Islands and Central Macedonia), while the rest face either significant or major challenges. Phoebe Koundouri, Angelos Plataniotis and Angelos Alamanos

Notes 1. 2.

UN-Water (2021). Summary Progress Update 2021 – SDG  6 – water and sanitation for all. Version: July 2021. NUTS: Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics.

References Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink 2022(4), Citizen Science. https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131. Alamanos, A., & Zeng, Q. (2021). Managing scarce water resources for socially acceptable solutions, through hydrological and econometric modeling. Central Asian Journal of Water Research, 7, 84–101. https://doi​.org​/10​.29258​/CAJWR​/2021​-R1​ .v7​-1​/84​-101​.eng. Bley, S. J., Hametner, M., & Gebhard, F. (Eds.). (2019). Sustainable Development in the European Union: Monitoring Report on Progress Towards the SDGs in an EU Context. Publications Office of the European Union. Bryce, J., Boschi-Pinto, C., Shibuya, K., Black, R. E., & WHO Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group. (2005). WHO estimates

of the causes of death in children. The Lancet, 365(9465), 1147–1152. Cissé, G. (2019). Food-borne and water-borne diseases under climate change in low-and middle-income countries: Further efforts needed for reducing environmental health exposure risks. Acta Tropica, 194, 181–188. Garcia, J. A., & Alamanos, A. (2022). Integrated modelling approaches for sustainable agri-economic growth and environmental improvement: Examples from Greece, Canada and Ireland. Land, 11(9), Article 9. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ land11091548. Koundouri, P., Laspidou, C., Landis, C., Plataniotis, A., Kaptsikas, A., Kanellopoulou, T., Kasiolas, V., & Zacharatos, T. (2022). The progress of the Greek Regions in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainable Development Solutions Network – SDSN Greece. Lafortune, G., Cortés Puch, M., Mosnier, A., Fuller, G., Diaz, M., Riccaboni, A., Kloke-Lesch, A., Zachariadis, T., Carli, E., & Oger, A. (2021). Europe sustainable development report 2021: Transforming the European Union to achieve the sustainable development goals. In SDSN, SDSN Europe and IEEP. France: Paris. Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Bermont Diaz, L., Kloke-Lesch, A., Koundouri, P., & Riccaboni, A. (2022). Achieving the SDGs: Europe’s compass in a multipolar world. Europe Sustainable Development Report 2022. SDSN and SDSN Europe. France: Paris. Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Moreno, J., SchmidtTraub, G., & Kroll, C. (2018). SDG Index and Dashboards Detailed Methodological Paper. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Libala, N., Griffin, N., Nyingwa, A., & Dini, J. (2022). Freshwater ecosystems and interactions with the SDG 2030 Agenda: Implications for SDG implementation in South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 47(3), 353–368. Movilla-Pateiro, L., Mahou-Lago, X. M., Doval, M. I., & Simal-Gandara, J. (2021). Toward a sustainable metric and indicators for the goal of sustainability in agricultural and food production. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 61(7), 1108–1129.

phoebe koundouri, angelos plataniotis and angelos alamanos

44  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Pal, M., Ayele, Y., Hadush, M., Panigrahi, S., & Jadhav, V. J. (2018). Public health hazards due to unsafe drinking water. Air Water Borne Diseases, 7(1000138), 2. Rasul, G. (2016). Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the sustainable development goals in South Asia. Environmental Development, 18, 14–25. Ritchie, R., & Mispy, O.-O. (2018). Measuring progress towards the sustainable development goals. SDG​-Tracker​.or​g, website. Sachs, J., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2021). The Decade of Action for the Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Development Report 2021. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sachs, J., Lafortune, G., Kroll, C., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2022). From Crisis to Sustainable Development: The SDGs as Roadmap to 2030 and Beyond. Sustainable Development Report 2022. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814. United Nations. (2015a). General Assembly Resolution 70/1. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations. (2015b). Goal 6: Ensure access to water and sanitation for all. From UN Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations. (2018). Sustainable development goal 6. Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation. UN-Water. (2021). Summary progress update 2021-SDG 6-water and sanitation for all. Version: July 2021. White, P., & Rautanen, S. L. (2017). Operationalising the right to water and sanitation and gender equality via appropriate technology in rural Nepal. Human Rights and Technology, 2030, 217–240.

phoebe koundouri, angelos plataniotis and angelos alamanos

10. Communication of Climate Change– Driven Impacts on Water Resources in Wet Regions: The Example of Ireland

This is also because people hold different perspectives on what causes and constitutes climate change and adaptation approaches (Alamanos et  al., 2022). The perspective of state officials and senior media strategists also affects the public’s ability to understand the risk associated with climate change and their ability to take action through behavioural changes as identified in Ireland (Moser, 2010; Poortvliet et al., 2020; Robbins, 2020). Nonetheless, when climate change communication is done strategically, it can influence public awareness and encourage water conservation efforts towards protecting water resources from the impact of climate change. How the communication is framed herein is essential (Sanderson et  al., 2020). Framing in this context points to making some elements either noticeable or veiled when putting together content on climate change for public consumption (Vu et  al., 2019). The concept of framing, which emanates from Davis and Goffman (1975), describes how forming a message affects receivers’ responses. It points to the fact that the classification and presentation of information can significantly influence the understanding, reaction, choices and decisions that people make based on the available information. Framing can thus help envisage, for example, the extent to which the water supply can be impacted by drought and how best communication can be designed to enable the public to appreciate the impact and challenges that come with water supply during such drought periods (Badullovich et al., 2020). As a constructive concept, seminal contributions on climate framing, mainly its environmental, public health and economic impacts in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, have been on the rise since the early 1990s, but while different approaches exist in framing climate communication, its effectiveness is determined by a country’s political and socioeconomic standing (Vu et al., 2019; Badullovich et  al., 2020). Poortvliet et  al. (2020) suggest that climate change communication should therefore vary and be tailored to reach the public through categorizations and timing to track its effectiveness due to differences in perception, environment and belief about climate change impact. Although, the media serves as a link between the public and the scientific community by providing an interpretation of climate change and its resultant impact, nonetheless, this interpretation and information

Introduction Climate change is regarded as a global threat to humanity due to its cross-cutting effect on water resources, public health, economic growth and national security, and to a larger extent, religion and morality (Culloty et  al., 2019; Badullovich et  al., 2020; Larbey & Weitkamp, 2020; World Economic Forum, 2020). This has resulted in widespread communication as part of attempts to raise awareness and improve mitigation and adaptation while building resilience to the impact of climate change. Nevertheless, the best approach to communicating the impact and the content of what is communicated has become a matter of debate as emerging studies suggest that the purpose, scope, message, channel and effectiveness of climate change communication can be adversely affected if not aptly applied (Moser, 2010). Inadequate communication strategies also affect the public’s ability to understand the risk associated with climate change and the ability to take action through behavioural changes (Moser, 2010; Poortvliet et  al., 2020). In most instances, climate threats (susceptibility and severity) are communicated more than efficacy information (responses and self-efficacy) and this poses a challenge due to differences in beliefs and perceptions of climate-related risk (Poortvliet et al., 2020). This is also evident in the challenges water companies and organizations face in communicating water availability to consumers as part of good water management practices (VanDyke & King, 2020; Alamanos, 2021). A handbook on climate communication for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors further admits that there are uncertainties and challenges with communicating climate change to non-scientists primarily due to political polarization, unclear messages and complex statistics that define climate phenomena (Corner & Clarke, 2018). 45

46  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management dissemination is usually tied to some latent interests, as found in Ireland, where political influence drives communication about climate change (Badullovich et  al., 2020; Fox & Rau, 2016; Robbins, 2020). Wagner and Payne (2017) posit that most communication on climate change in the media is based on ideological settings and not necessarily on objectivity and scientific backing. A 2019 report from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland further affirms these assertions. It points out that, per European standards, climate change coverage is still low and considerably weak in Ireland (Culloty et al., 2019). This posture in framing climate change communication is nevertheless not limited to Ireland, as a recent study by Tavares et al. (2020) concludes that the press in Europe uses distant and outcome framing that focuses on climate change losses without much emphasis on resilient actions needed to mitigate its impact. In a study on communication during periods of drought, Antwi et  al. (2022) reveal that beyond the traditional television, newspaper and radio as channels of communication, social media has been gaining roots as a means of sharing information by utilities and identifying frames, trends and insights into public discussions and understanding on water resources and climate changes (Culloty et  al., 2019; Wagner & Payne, 2017). Yet, there are disparities in the channel of communication to raise awareness of drought events and water conservation efforts. The study by Antwi et al. focused on the Republic of Ireland, which has abundant rainfall and surface and groundwater, totalling about 4842 water bodies stretching over 70 273  km 2 (DHLGH, 2022). Although, the abundance of water resources makes Ireland a water-rich country, recurrent drought conditions have persistently threatened the water supply and availability with 2018 and 2020 drought events recorded as the severest in history (Antwi et  al., 2022; Alamanos & Linnane, 2021).

Means of communication To ascertain the means of communication during drought periods, a 2020 information and communications technology (ICT) household survey by the Central Statistical Office (CSO) indicates that 8 in every 10 people use the internet daily in Ireland (CSO, hammond antwi sarpong et al.

2020). Approximately 53  per  cent of these users access information from public agency websites or digital/mobile applications (apps). The CSO reports an upward trend in the number of users who watch videos from YouTube and TikTok. However, email maintains its spot as the most typical activity over the internet. Facebook also remains the popular social media platform in Ireland, with over 3.5 million users, of which approximately 24.8 per cent are between the ages of 25 and 34 (CSO, 2020; Tankovska, 2021). A 2019 online poll also reports that Facebook has 66 per cent of daily social media usage, followed by Instagram with 43 per cent, then LinkedIn and Twitter with 36  per  cent and 30 per cent, respectively (Norton, 2019). Data from 2020 StatCounter across all platforms (Figure 10.1) also show Facebook as leading in all social media share with 88.74 per cent, followed by Twitter with 5.71  per  cent (GlobalStats, 2020). Thus, Facebook and Twitter combined attract 90 per cent of social media users in Ireland (Figure 10.1). Despite the predominance of Facebook, the national water utility – Irish Water – communicates predominantly on Twitter, leaving behind consumers who are not Twitter users. Whereas this affects awareness creation, the overall sentiments, even in tweets by the utility despite some positivity, still have negative sentiments, thereby angering the public, especially when water conservation messages are communicated (Antwi et al., 2022). On newspaper reportage, the same study revealed that although the genuineness of newspaper reportage on climate change impacts on Ireland has been fraught with evidence of political and ideological settings, ecological modernization and communication complications (Fegan, 2020; Fox & Rau, 2016; Wagner & Payne, 2017). The increasing rate and severity of drought, as experienced in 2018 and 2020, has been influencing communication frames by newspapers regarding climate change events such as drought. The present framing in newspapers is assigned mainly to uncertainty and risk under which climate change is communicated as a threat to society. Stories under uncertainty and risk also include the impact of climate change on health and well-being, water supply challenges and conservation orders (Antwi et al., 2022). The economic impact of climate change on the water resources economic frame consisted of stories that focused primarily on

communication of climate change–driven impacts on water resources  47 2020-12 2020-11 2020-10 2020-09 2020-08 2020-07 2020-06 2020-05 2020-04 2020-03 2020-02 2020-01 2019-12 75%

Facebook Twier Instagram Pinterest YouTube Tumblr reddit LinkedIn Other

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

Source:   Authors’ construct (2020).

Figure 10.1   Social media statistics in Ireland by share of platform

the cost of extending the water supply, repair works and general investment in the water sector to make the sector resilient against extreme conditions such as drought. How climate change will also affect products and commodities such as agricultural produce and beer prices were also dominant (Antwi et al., 2022; Gardner, 2018). Under eco-hydrology framing, the stories considered were based on the measures and strategies being adopted to mitigate the impact of climate change on water quality, biodiversity, agriculture activities, flooding and drought, as well as policies such as common agricultural policy reforms and water conservation measures focused on both hydrology and ecology. A combination of both hydrology and ecology, the eco-hydrological frame is an emerging communication frame that offers great benefits in communicating the type and the extent to which environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, flooding, poor water quality and invasive species affect the environment and why certain decisions such as conservation orders are implemented together with calls for public action (DeGolia et al., 2019).

Conclusion Climate change communication is framed as a distant or present phenomenon that influences climate action. In general, communication is necessary among different research fields in order to reach optimal solutions (Alamanos

& Koundouri, 2022), while communication channels with the public also influence awareness and encourage specific actions (e.g. water conservation efforts towards protecting water resources from climate change phenomena such as drought, which significantly affects water availability and supply). The case study of drought events in Ireland revealed eco-hydrological framing, technical/policy, political and economic frames that highlight adaptation and mitigation strategies, the cost of infrastructural development, policy gaps and the role of politicians on environmental issues, as prevalent framings that newspapers use in communicating the effect of climate change on water resources. With the advent of social media, Facebook and Twitter are also common platforms for sharing water conservation and drought communication. Hammond Antwi Sarpong, Alec Rolston, Suzanne Linnane, David Getty, and Angelos Alamanos

References Alamanos, A. (2021). Simple hydro-economic tools for supporting small water supply agencies on sustainable irrigation water management. Water Supply, 22(2), 1810– 1819. https://doi​.org​/10​.2166​/ws​.2021​.318. Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink, hammond antwi sarpong et al.

48  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Citizen Science (2022–4). https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131. Alamanos, A., Koundouri, P., Papadaki, L., Pliakou, T., & Toli, E. (2022). Water for tomorrow: A living lab on the creation of the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Water, 14(18), Article 18. https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/w14182879. Alamanos, A., & Linnane, S. (2021). Drought monitoring, precipitation statistics, and water balance with freely available remote sensing data: Examples, advances, and limitations. Irish National Hydrology Conference. Irish National Hydrology Conference, November 16. Athlone, Ireland. Antwi, S. H., Rolston, A., Linnane, S., & Getty, D. (2022). Communicating water availability to improve awareness and implementation of water conservation: A study of the 2018 and 2020 drought events in the Republic of Ireland. Science of the Total Environment, 807, 150865. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/J​.SCITOTENV​.2021​.150865. Badullovich, N., Grant, W. J., & Colvin, R. M. (2020, December 1). Framing climate change for effective communication: A systematic map. Environmental Research Letters, 15. https://doi​.org​/10​.1088​/1748​ -9326​/aba4c7. Corner, A., & Clarke, J. (2018). Principles for Effective Communication and Public Engagement on Climate Change. Retrieved from www​.exp​lore​comm​unic​ations​.ca. CSO. (2020). Information Society Statistics - Households 2020. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://www​.cso​.ie​/en​/rel​ease​ sand​publ​ications​/ep​/p​-isshh​/inf​orma​t ion​ soci​etys​t atistics​-households2020​/int​rodu​ ctio​nand​keyf​i ndings/. Culloty, E., Smeaton, A., Suiter, J., Murphy, P., Brereton, P., Zhang, D., & Robbins, D. (2019). Climate Change in Irish Media. Retrieved from www​.epa​.ie. Davis, M. S., & Goffman, E. (1975). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Contemporary Sociology, 4(6), 599. https://doi​.org​/10​.2307​/2064021. DeGolia, A. H., Hiroyasu, E. H. T., & Anderson, S. E. (2019). Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management. PLoS One, 14(7), e0220320. https://doi​ . org ​ / 10​ .1371​ / jour nal​ . pone​ .0220320. hammond antwi sarpong et al.

DHLGH. (2022). Public Consultation on the draft River Basin Management Plan for Ireland 2022–2027. Retrieved from https:// www​.gov​.ie​/en​/consultation​/2bda0​-public​ -consultation​ - on​ - the​ - draft​ - river​ - basin​ -management​-plan​-for​-ireland​-2022​-2027/​ #documents. Fegan, J. (2020, October 10). Climate inaction is a communication problem. Irish Examiner. Retrieved from https://www​ .pressreader​.com ​/ireland ​/irish​- examiner​ -saturday​/20201010​/282218013256336. Fox, E., & Rau, H. (2016). Climate change communication in Ireland. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/acrefore​ /9780190228620​.013​.459. Gardner, T. (2018, October 16). Revealed: Trouble brewing for beer drinkers as climate change to double prices. Independent.Ie Environment. Retrieved from https://www​.independent​.ie​/news​/ environment​ / revealed​ - trouble​ - brewing​ -for​-beer​- drinkers​-as​- climate ​- change ​-to​ -double​-prices​-37424465​.html GlobalStats. (2020). Social Media Stats Ireland | StatCounter Global Stats. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from Social Media Stats Ireland Social Media Stats in Ireland December 2019– December 2020 website: https://gs​.statcounter​.com​/ social​-media​-stats​/all​/ireland. Larbey, R., & Weitkamp, E. (2020). Water scarcity communication in the UK: Learning from water company communications following the 2018 heatwave. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8, 578423. https:// doi​.org​/10​.3389​/fenvs​.2020​.578423. Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 31–53. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/wcc​.11. Norton, B. (2019). Ipsos MRBI Social Networking Tracker. Retrieved from https://www​.ipsos​.com​/sites​/default​/files​/ct​ /news​/documents​/2020​-01​/soc​_net​_dec​_19​ .pdf. Poortvliet, P. M., Niles, M. T., Veraart, J. A., Werners, S. E., Korporaal, F. C., & Mulder, B. C. (2020). Communicating climate change risk: A content analysis of IPCC’S summary for policymakers. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(12). https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/SU12124861.

communication of climate change–driven impacts on water resources  49 Robbins, D. (2020). Climate change frame production: Perspectives from government ministers and senior media strategists in Ireland. Environmental Communication, 14(4), 509–521. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /17524032​.2019​.1691620. Sanderson, M., Doyle, H., & Walsh, P. (2020). Developing and implementing a targeted health-focused climate communications campaign in Ontario—#MakeItBetter. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 111(6), 869–875. https://doi​.org​/10​.17269​/s41997​ -020​-00352​-z. Tankovska, H. (2021). Republic of Ireland: Monthly number of Facebook users 2018– 2020. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from Statista Website: https://www​.statista​.com​ /statistics​/1017375​/facebook​-users​-ireland/​ #statisticContainer. Tavares, A. O., Areia, N. P., Mellett, S., James, J., Intrigliolo, D. S., Couldrick, L. B., & Berthoumieu, J.-F. (2020). The European media portrayal of climate change: Implications for the social mobilization towards climate action. Sustainability,

12(20), 8300. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ su12208300. VanDyke, M. S., & King, A. J. (2020). Dialogic communication practices of water district officials: Insights from practitioner interviews. Environmental Communication, 14(2), 147–154. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/17524032​.2019​.1705365. Vu, H. T., Liu, Y., & Tran, D. V. (2019). Nationalizing a global phenomenon: A study of how the press in 45 countries and territories portrays climate change. Global Environmental Change, 58, 101942. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.gloenvcha​.2019​.101942. Wagner, P., & Payne, D. (2017). Trends, frames and discourse networks: Analysing the coverage of climate change in Irish newspapers. Irish Journal of Sociology, 25(1), 5–28. https://doi​.org​/10​.7227​/ijs​.0011. World Economic Forum. (2020). The Global Risks Report 2020 Insight Report 15th Edition. Retrieved from https://www​ .weforum​ . org​ / reports​ / the​ - global​ - risks​ -report​-2020.

hammond antwi sarpong et al.

11. Computational Social Sciences in Human– Water Research

is vastly expanding with blurred boundaries. Hence, the methods and data types described here are neither exhaustive nor complete. As such, this chapter should be understood more as a starting point rather than an exhaustive overview of the field. With regard to the data types used in CSS research applied to human–water research, we highlight the use of social media text and network data, phone records, large text corpora, images and videos. Often, web resources are automatically scraped to collect these data. For example, social media data have been leveraged to analyze and monitor water-related hazards such as droughts and floods (Lopez et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2017). Social media data can provide real-time information about flood events as they happen, can be collected and analyzed on a large scale and can provide valuable insights into how people respond to these events. Besides social media data, large amounts of conventional data sources are integrated into CSS research, too. These include, for instance, administrative records, surveys and historical archives. For instance, computational models developed by Linkola et al. (2013), Schwarz and Ernst (2009) and Yoon et  al. (2021) integrate various sources of conventional datasets, such as surveys, to model human behavioral patterns regarding water usage. The methods used in CSS for studying human–water relationships include various algorithms and models that support the analysis of complex social systems. Some of these are already established and have longtrack usage, including agent-based modeling (ABM) and social network analysis (SNA), while others, such as natural language processing (NLP) are currently emerging. Here, we reflect on ABM, SNA and NLP and their applicability to studying human–water relationships. We focus on these methods as we believe they illustrate diverse ways in which CSS is fruitful for water research. Under the umbrella term of NLP, a growing array of tools for computational text analysis has been proposed. These methods became feasible due to the reduced costs associated with processing and analyzing large amounts of text (Grimmer et  al., 2022). For research on human–water relationships, NLP has been applied to study policy documents (Cookey et al., 2017), public opinion (Li et al., 2021), hazard impacts (Sodoge et al., 2022) and conflicts (Herrera et al., 2019). Scholars have leveraged newspaper data, policy documents and

Computational social science (CSS) can be defined as an interdisciplinary discipline located at the intersection of the social sciences, statistics and computer science (Jarvis et  al., 2021). This new field applies computational methods and social science research designs to novel data types to gain insight into societal questions and real-world problems. As such, CSS studies how people behave (psychology), relate to each other (sociology), interact with the environment (environmental sociology), govern themselves (political sciences), handle wealth and material goods (economics) and operate in the geographical space (geography) using computational tools (Edelmann et al., 2020; Salganik, 2019). The increasing popularity of CSS is linked to its capability to collect and analyze data in innovative ways and volumes that were not previously feasible (Salganik, 2019). CSS methods have opened up opportunities for collecting and analyzing often underexplored data types (e.g. texts, online search, social media). Furthermore, the use of data mining algorithms together with new visualization tools allows the detection and depiction of yet hidden patterns in data. This enables researchers to conduct studies with a broad and extensive temporal or/and geographical coverage (Blumenstock et al., 2015). Owing to the rapid advancement in computational tools and the growing capacity to analyze large datasets, CSS has enabled unprecedented examination of human–water relationships. Here, scholars employ computational methods to analyze how humans interact with water resources. Such research covers, among others, risk management and policy (Smith et  al., 2017), water resource conflicts (Herrera et al., 2019) and the social influences on human interaction with water resources (Yoon et al., 2021). Shared among these researches is the focus on complex social-ecological systems. Throughout this chapter, we highlight methods and data types from CSS that can support research on human–water relationships. Since the field of CSS is undergoing rapid growth, the stream of methods, data and topics tackled in CSS 50

computational social sciences in human–water research  51 social media content. For example, ArtnerNehls et  al. (2022) used NLP to investigate how the agricultural press communicates farming practices concerning water pollution with farmers. The authors applied semantic network analyses to understand the relationships between individual words, which in this case, represent actors and their relationships. ABM is another method commonly used in CSS to study the behavior of individuals or agents within a social system. ABM describes the behavior of individual and autonomous agents interacting with each other. The agent’s behavior is described using a set of rules implemented by the researcher to fit the system under investigation. ABM can help to answer questions on how and why social systems composed of agents (‘social agents’ or ‘stakeholders’) react in response to different stimuli, compared to counterfactuals. ABM represents a well-established method for studying social-ecological systems in general (Schlüter et  al., 2021). For human–water relationships, for example, ABM can simulate the water usage behavior of individuals (Galán et  al., 2009; Linkola et al., 2013; Yoon et al., 2021). For instance, Galán et al. (2009) investigated domestic water demand using an agent-based model that reflects individual households. The authors used empirical data to parametrize the model for Valladolid (Spain). The model allowed the testing of different what-if scenarios concerning varying socioeconomic indicators and urban dynamics. SNA represents another commonly applied method from CSS for studying human–water relationships. Social networks describe the relationships of individuals through a set of nodes (individuals) and edges reflecting their connections (Scott, 2012). In particular, the increasing availability of digital data on people’s social networks on social media, by phone or in person has enabled novel research concerning complex, large-scale networks. Thinking through social networks allows researchers to understand and visualize how individuals are embedded and interact within groups. For human–water relationships, SNA involves studying the connections and relationships between different actors in the water sector, such as government agencies, water utilities and environmental organizations (Lienert et al., 2013; Stein et al., 2011). For example, Stein et  al. (2011) leveraged the social network approach to create a map of the collaborative social networks among

actors affecting the water flow in the Mkindo catchment in Tanzania. By evaluating the network patterns, the authors investigated how these structures affect water governance instead of evaluating the impact of individual actors. Their findings highlight the relevance of considering social network structures for interventions in water governance schemes. Increasingly, SNA is combined with other methods. For instance, overlaps between ABM and SNA have consequently emerged in simulation frameworks for social networks (e.g. stochastic actor-oriented models). Similarly, research on social network platforms combines network and text analysis to understand the interaction among individual users. For future research on human–water relationships, developing such research designs that integrate novel data types and SNA can lead to novel findings on water governance. Together with the promising opportunities created through CSS, multiple challenges persist or arise. Challenges exist for novel data types (e.g. social media or text data) concerning data quality, biases and research ethics. While web-based data are extensively available, they face limitations concerning the representation of the broader population (Palen & Anderson, 2016). Also, with the collection and analysis of large-scale datasets come concerns about the potential privacy implications. Such issues demand careful consideration to ensure ethical and transparent research practices (Woodfield, 2017). Concerning research methods, studying complex human–water relationships requires approaches capable of integrating diverse socioeconomic factors. Individually, each method comes with particular challenges. For instance, ABM faces challenges concerning validation and calibration with empirical data to obtain more meaningful results (Jarvis et al., 2021). A common thread among all methods is the required specialized knowledge which limits accessibility. Consequently, leading scholars call for increased collaboration between domain expert researchers and computational scientists (Lazer et al., 2020). In conclusion, the potential of using CSS for studying human–water relationships points to a promising future. By leveraging a range of data types, such as text or social media data, computational social scientists can gain valuable insights into how people interact with water. As the development of datasets and methods continues, CSS will become more

jan sodoge and mariana madruga de brito

52  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management relevant and prevalent in studying human– water relationships across disciplines. Jan Sodoge and Mariana Madruga De Brito

References Artner-Nehls, A., Uthes, S., Zscheischler, J., & Feindt, P. H. (2022). How the agricultural press addresses the slurry–Water nexus: A text mining analysis. Sustainability, 14(16), 10002. Blumenstock, J., Cadamuro, G., & On, R. (2015). Predicting poverty and wealth from mobile phone metadata. Science, 350(6264), 1073–1076. Cookey, P. E., Darnsawasdi, R., & Ratanachai, C. (2017). Text mining analysis of institutional fit of Lake Basin water governance. Ecological Indicators, 72, 640–658. Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne, D., & Bail, C. A. (2020). Computational social science and sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 61–81. Galán, J. M., López-Paredes, A., & Del Olmo, R. (2009). An agent-based model for domestic water management in Valladolid metropolitan area. Water Resources Research, 45(5), 1–17. Grimmer, J., Roberts, M. E., & Stewart, B. M. (2022). Text as Data: A New Framework for Machine Learning and the Social Sciences. Princeton University Press. Herrera, M., Candia, C., Rivera, D., Aitken, D., Brieba, D., Boettiger, C., Donoso, G., & Godoy-Faúndez, A. (2019). Understanding water disputes in Chile with text and data mining tools. Water International, 44(3), 302–320. Jarvis, B., Keuschnigg, M., & Hedström, P. (2021). Analytical sociology amidst a computational social science revolution. In Handbook of Computational Social Science, Vol. 1. Taylor & Francis. Lazer, D. M., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., Freelon, D., Gonzalez-Bailon, S., King, G., & Margetts, H. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060–1062. Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhang, X. (2021). Public attention and sentiment of recycled water: Evidence from social media text mining in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 303, 126814.

Lienert, J., Schnetzer, F., & Ingold, K. (2013). Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. Journal of Environmental Management, 125, 134–148. Linkola, L., Andrews, C. J., & Schuetze, T. (2013). An agent based model of household water use. Water, 5(3), 1082–1100. Lopez, B. E., Magliocca, N. R., & Crooks, A. T. (2019). Challenges and opportunities of social media data for socio-environmental systems research. Land, 8(7), 107. Palen, L., & Anderson, K. M. (2016). Crisis informatics—New data for extraordinary times. Science, 353(6296), 224–225. Salganik, M. J. (2019). Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press. Schlüter, M., Lindkvist, E., Wijermans, N., & Polhill, G. (2021). Agent-based modelling. In The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods for Social-Ecological Systems, Vol. 383. Taylor & Francis. Schwarz, N., & Ernst, A. (2009). Agent-based modeling of the diffusion of environmental innovations—An empirical approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 497–511. Scott, J. (2012). What is Social Network Analysis? Bloomsbury Academic. Smith, L., Liang, Q., James, P., & Lin, W. (2017). Assessing the utility of social media as a data source for flood risk management using a realtime modelling framework. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 10(3), 370–380. Sodoge, J., de Brito, M. M., & Kuhlicke, C. (2022). Automatized Drought Impact Detection From Newspaper Articles Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning. Copernicus Meetings. Stein, C., Ernstson, H., & Barron, J. (2011). A social network approach to analyzing water governance: The case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 36(14–15), 1085–1092. Woodfield, K. (2017). The Ethics of Online Research. Emerald Group Publishing. Yoon, J., Klassert, C., Selby, P., Lachaut, T., Knox, S., Avisse, N., Harou, J., Tilmant, A., Klauer, B., Mustafa, D., & Sigel, K. (2021). A coupled human–natural system analysis of freshwater security under climate and population change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2020431118.

jan sodoge and mariana madruga de brito

12. Contemporary Drought Management Techniques to Reduce Crop Water Stress and Enhance Food Security in the Upper Blue Nile Region of Ethiopia

Tana basin within the Gilgel-Abay basin of the UBN region of Ethiopia (Figure  12.1). The irrigation scheme, completed in 2011 (Mulugeta, 2019), is operated through nonoptimized guiding curves based on reservoir water level, volume and irrigable lands, where the end decision heavily depends on the operator’s judgment. With about a decade of operations, the irrigation scheme – either due to management or water availability issues – has typically reached less than 73.5% of design capacity (Birhanu et al., 2014). The Koga irrigation scheme allows water from the reservoir to be conveyed through a 19.7  km main canal, 12  lined secondary canals (52 km) supported by 11 night storage reservoirs (NSRs), 156 km of tertiary canals, 905  km of quaternary canals, followed by field canals (Lijalem, 2018). Figure 12.1 shows the location of the project area, the irrigation structures used in the model, existing geological landforms (Kebede, 2012) and the locations of several groundwater (GW) wells and soil moisture data collected as part of a citizen science initiative. The topography of the area was found to vary from 1829 to 2278  m  asl (above sea level). About 70–90% of the annual rainfall occurs in the JJAS months (Abiyu & Alamirew, 2015). Two severe droughts occurred in the area in 2009 and 2015 (Khadim et al., 2021), the first one before the construction of the Koga project in 2011.

Introduction Ethiopia has a traditionally rainfed-dominated agriculture that affects the livelihood of 85% of its population (Haile & Kasa, 2015). Currently, there is little to no rainfall during the dry season (February–May), which may be further exacerbated by climatic uncertainties in the future (McCartney & Girma, 2012). Ethiopia’s low rainfed irrigation coverage (Haile & Kasa, 2015) pushed its interest towards harnessing the potential of local irrigation schemes – mostly surface water based – to increase the dry season crop growth (Chebud & Melesse, 2009). However, droughts in recent years have challenged the upshots of these irrigation schemes, not only affecting local water and food security but also per capita water availability in general (Philip et al., 2018). Droughts are common in the Upper Blue Nile (UBN) region, and their occurrences have substantially impacted water and food security in the area. Improved water and crop management techniques often help reduce the disparity of droughts. In this chapter, we explore a few contemporary management techniques aiming to directly reduce crop water stress and eventually improve water and food security. Water stress is a situation in which a plant’s normal functions are interfered by the shortage of water transported and distributed through transpiration (Bal et  al., 2018). Improving water productivity in the dry season by alleviating crop water stress is a major concern in the UBN area (Alemayehu, 2014).

Drought management approaches The UBN region often experiences issues of water resource mismanagement, on top of the limited knowledge on irrigation and GW management. To combat the impacts of droughts, we specifically explored three management techniques, namely, (a) irrigation canal management, (b) GW use and (c) adjusting crop choices. The first two techniques are analyzed in more quantitative detail in Khadim et  al. (2021), while the third technique is recommended based on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (FAO) typical crop water requirements (FAO, 1986) and our understanding from the field. Irrigation canal management Despite the detailed engineered layout, the scheme often fails to move irrigation water efficiently across all 12 command areas (CAs). One of the reasons understood at field level is the mismanagement of gates/structures that allow irrigation water to pass through the

Study area This chapter focuses on the Koga irrigation scheme (11.37oN and 37.12oE) located in the 53

54  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Figure 12.1  The Koga irrigation project area, located in the Gilgel-Abay basin of the UBN region

canals. From a management standpoint, it is a closed irrigation community, where water managers solely decide on canal operations based on estimates provided by agronomists ahead of the cropping season (typically December–May). Even though detailed information on the routines of canal operations is fahad khan khadim et al.

not properly known and is subjected to a high level of management uncertainty, we considered two irrigation management scenarios to highlight the contrasting aspects of water availability in an irrigated CA. The irrigation management scenarios discussed in this chapter are (a) non-regulated

contemporary drought management techniques  55 (NREG) – where we consider the gates of all irrigation canals to stay open during the entire irrigation season; and (b) regulated (REG) – where we consider a pseudo-optimized alternative for the frequency of the irrigation canal operations, which takes into account the ethnographic input from the field. Essentially, the difference between the NREG and REG scenarios is the distribution of irrigation flow. In the NREG scenario, more flow is allowed in the nearby CAs, leaving the farther CAs water deprived. This situation is more pronounced during drought years. Figure 12.2(a) shows the comparison of irrigation flows for the 2015–16 irrigation cycle (followed by the 2015 drought), entering the CA06 in the NREG and REG scenarios. The CA06 is located about halfway into the Koga irrigation scheme area (CA01 is the closest and CA12 is the farthest from the reservoir). Figure 12.2(a) shows that the CA06 received a better distribution of irrigation water during the REG scenario, which is more consistent with crop growing cycles. The NREG scenario received more water during peak months; however, during December and May no irrigation water at all flowed into the CA06. The other farther CAs (CA07–CA12) received very little irrigation water, except for the peak months. And in extreme dry years, they received no water under the NREG scenario. The REG scenario compromises water availability in the nearby CAs and makes sure that all CAs receive substantial amounts of water. With this management technique, which solely relied on how many weeks in a

month the canals are open on average, irrigation flow could be spatially distributed to all CAs, which also provided a better representation for the crop cycle. Therefore, crop water stress was reduced for the non-peak months of irrigation. Groundwater use The second technique is the use of GW as supplemental irrigation. In the UBN region, a number of modeling studies indicated a substantial amount of physically available GW resources (Khadim et al., 2020). Khadim et al. (2020) assessed shallow GW availability in the area, which has the potential to aid in supplementing irrigation during periods of low rainfall. Based on this, we explored the use of GW in the Koga irrigation CAs. In addition to the REG scenario discussed above, we added GW as a form of supplemental irrigation. Following the pumping of GW, which would be of equal amounts to compensate for the crop water stress, we conducted simulations with the numerical model MODFLOW to estimate GW levels. Figure 12.2(b) shows the variations in GW levels with (w) vs. without (w/o) pumping, with specific emphasis during irrigation months. To test this technique against a highly critical drought event, we considered a hypothetical consecutive occurrence of two extreme drought years, 2015 and 2009 (highlighted as 2009* in Figure 12.2[b]). The fundamental rationale for this technique was to explore whether it would be hydrologically sustainable to alleviate the effects of severe droughts on water and food security by

Source:   Author’s own.

Figure 12.2   (a) Distribution of the irrigation flow in the secondary canal of CA06, and (b) impact of pumping on GW levels

fahad khan khadim et al.

56  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management harnessing GW for supplemental irrigation. Figure  12.2(b) for CA06 shows that during extensive GW pumping, GW levels dropped by less than 5 m and, more importantly, GW was replenished to normal levels during the wet season in about two years. This observation is based on a MODFLOW simulation, which did not consider other significant GW stresses, mostly anthropogenic disturbances due to domestic GW use. However, from a natural resource conservation perspective, we were able to infer that GW in the UBN area has substantial potential to combat hydrological droughts, even during extreme cases (which in this case was portrayed by the consecutive occurrence of 2015 and 2009 droughts).

Table 12.1   Approximate values of seasonal crop water needs

Adjusting crop choices In contrast to the mitigation techniques discussed above, one sustainable adaptation technique could be the habitual efforts to switch crop interests during severe droughts. Different crops require different amounts of water for irrigation. Table  12.1 shows the FAO’s indicative approximate estimates on the seasonal water requirements for various crops. From our study area, maize was found to be among the more water requiring crops, which was cultivated more during the wet season. Wheat, on the other hand, was a primary irrigation crop due to requiring relatively less water among cereals. During hydrologically critical years, it is more sustainable to opt for less water-intensive crops. In the Koga irrigation area, more farmers have gradually shifted toward cultivating vegetables, in addition to high waterintensive cereals. With the crop water stress estimated through simulations from the crop model decision support system for agrotechnology transfer (DSSAT), in combination with the GW model (MODFLOW), we considered GW pumping for supplemental irrigation for a series of different crops and found that producing maize during drought years would be unsustainable and cause more crop water stress. Similarly, growing vegetables would experience less crop water stress and may, therefore, be considered a useful drought adaptation technique.

Conclusions In this chapter, we considered three contemporary drought management techniques and discussed how they could be implemented fahad khan khadim et al.

Crop

Crop water need (mm/total growing period)

Alfalfa

800–1600

Banana

1200–2200

Barley/oats/wheat

450–650

Bean

300–500

Cabbage

350–500

Citrus

900–1200

Cotton

700–1300

Maize

500–800

Melon

400–600

Onion

350–550

Peanut

500–700

Pea

350–500

Pepper

600–900

Potato

500–700

Rice (paddy)

450–700

Sorghum/millet

450–650

Soybean

450–700

Sugarbeet

550–750

Sugarcane

1500–2500

Sunflower

600–1000

Tomato

400–800

Source:  FAO (1986).

to specifically overcome the severe impacts on crop water stress in the UBN region of Ethiopia. These techniques have already been proposed and circulated among the local farmers within the study area, and some have already been partially implemented. In an area such as the UBN region, where knowledge limitation on the availability and use of GW resources has substantially stressed regional and local irrigation efforts, such approaches may be fruitful considerations.

Acknowledgments This chapter is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1545874. Fahad Khan Khadim, Amvrossios C. Bagtzoglou, Emmanouil Anagnostou and Zoi Dokou

contemporary drought management techniques  57

References Abiyu, A. & Alamirew, T. (2015). Assessment of Stage-Wise Deficit Furrow Irrigation Application on Maize Production at Koga Irrigation Scheme, Blue Nile River Basin, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 6, 21–29. Alemayehu, T. (2014). Smallholder Farmer’s Willingness to Pay for Improved Irrigation Water: A Contingent Valuation Study in Koga Irrigation Project, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 5(19), 5–16. Bal, S. K., Mukherjee, J., Choudhury, B. U. & Dhawan, A. K. (2018). Advances in Crop Environment Interaction. Singapore: Springer Nature Pte Ltd. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-981​-13​-1861-0 Birhanu, K., Alamirew, T., Dinka, M. O., Ayalew, S. & Aklog, D. (2014). Optimizing Reservoir Operation Policy Using Chance Constraint Nonlinear Programming for Koga Irrigation Dam, Ethiopia. Water Resources Management, 28(14), 4957–4970. Chebud, Y. A. & Melesse, A. M. (2009). Numerical Modeling of the Groundwater Flow System of the Gumera Sub‐Basin in Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 23(26), 3694–3704. FAO. (1986). Chapter 2: Crop Water Needs. In M. Brouwer and C. Heibloem (Ed.), Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Water Needs. FAO. Haile, G. G. & Kasa, A. K. (2015). Irrigation in Ethiopia: A Review. Academia Journal of Agricultural Research, 3(10), 264–269. Kebede, S. (2012). Groundwater in Ethiopia: Features, Numbers and Opportunities.

Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-642​-30391-3 Khadim, F. K., Dokou, Z., Bagtzoglou, A. C., Yang, M., Lijalem, G. A. & Anagnostou, E. (2021). A Numerical Framework to Advance Agricultural Water Management Under Hydrological Stress Conditions in a Data Scarce Environment. Agricultural Water Management, 254, 106947. https://​ doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.agwat​.2021​.106947 Khadim, F. K., Dokou, Z., Lazin, R., Moges, S., Bagtzoglou, A. C. & Anagnostou, E. (2020). Groundwater Modeling in Data Scarce Aquifers: The case of Gilgel-Abay, Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia. Journal of Hydrology, 590, 125214. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.jhydrol​.2020​.125214 Lijalem, G. A. (2018). Irrigation Performance Evaluation Using GIS and Remote Sensing, Case of Koga Irrigation Area, Upper Blue Nile Basin. Bahir Dar University. McCartney, M. P. & Girma, M. M. (2012). Evaluating the Downstream Implications of Planned Water Resource Development in the Ethiopian Portion of the Blue Nile River. Water International, 37(4), 362–379. Mulugeta, D. (2019). Dynamics of StateSociety Relations in Ethiopia: Paradoxes of Community Empowerment and Participation in Irrigation Management. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 13(4), 565–583. Philip, S., Kew, S. F., Jan van Oldenborgh, G., Otto, F., O’Keefe, S., Haustein, K., King, A., Zegeye, A., Eshetu, Z., Hailemariam, K. & Singh, R. (2018). Attribution Analysis of the Ethiopian Drought of 2015. Journal of Climate, 31(6), 2465–2486.

fahad khan khadim et al.

13. Cooperation in Transboundary River Basins: Challenges and Research (Modelling) Approaches

of upstream countries developed, deeper conflicts gave birth to the potential for cooperation. Although the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) was established in 1999, due to the lack of trust between the participating countries, the NBI did not play an important role in negotiations and was dissolved. Until 2010, most riparian countries joined the Nile initiative, marking the start of cooperation. However, good cooperation did not last long. Ethiopia’s unilateral Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam project once again triggered conflicts among Nile stakeholders. Research has shown that the dam would bring incremental benefits to stakeholders in the Nile River if the cooperative operation of upstream reservoirs was implemented. However, cooperation in the Nile River basin has since returned to conflict because of a lack of trust and a lack of benefit-sharing mechanisms (Basheer et  al., 2018). Although the NBI tried to encourage cooperation in the basin, an effective cooperation mechanism that includes successful benefit‐sharing schemes and betrayal punishment measures needs to be further negotiated (Wheeler et al., 2018). The Columbia River flows from Canada (upstream) to the United States (downstream) and is a transboundary river with regular flooding. Natural disasters drive changes in the benefits and losses between upstream stakeholders and downstream stakeholders, leading to potential conflicts and cooperation opportunities. In particular, following the flood that severely damaged the city of Vanport in Oregon in 1948, the 1964 USA– Canada Columbia River Treaty was signed, implying a transition from non-cooperation to cooperation. In this case, dams were constructed in upstream Canada to control floods and provide hydropower to the United States. Additionally, the United States compensated Canada for the construction of the dams by sharing their hydropower supply benefits. Both countries were better off. As cooperative efforts developed, upstream Canada sought more compensation, while downstream United States wanted Canada to play a more critical role in flood control and environmental protection. Therefore, challenges to further cooperation still exist. Generally, the primary objective of water resources systems management is to maximize water benefits and allocate them to all stakeholders in an equitable and efficient way. Many optimization and simulation methods

Globally, there are 310  transboundary river basins covering 47.1  percent of the Earth’s land surface and providing 60  percent of global freshwater resources (Wolf et al., 1999; McCracken & Wolf, 2019) (Figure 13.1). Transboundary river basins are crucial for the global economy and environment, serving 52 percent of the world’s total population and supporting numerous riparian and aquatic ecosystems.​ The most important feature of a transboundary river is that multiple riparian stakeholders from different countries share common water resources. These riparian stakeholders may have different economic, environmental, historical, political and cultural interests, thus placing diverse demands on transboundary rivers. This implies that their goals for river basin development may be inconsistent or even contradictory (Sadoff & Grey, 2002). Additionally, the overuse of water resources and the absence of trust can aggravate potential conflicts, leading to strategic counter-speculations over possible transboundary river management outcomes. Thus, the challenges of managing transboundary rivers are complicated by the diversity of riparian stakeholders, which can both lead to conflicts and provide opportunities for cooperation (Dinar et al., 2019). Here, we have two interesting cases. The Nile River is the longest river in the world. It is 6700 km in length and is shared by 11 riparian countries. Water conflicts over the Nile River have specific general characteristics, including water allocation and water resources development projects. In the early stage of the Nile River development, only Egypt carried out significant projects on the river, such as the Aswan High Dam, without consultation with upstream stakeholders. Thus, there was little potential for cooperation in the basin, because Egypt always had a large share of the Nile water. However, as the claims 58

Figure 13.1   International river basins of the world. There are 310 international river basins covering 47.1 percent of the Earth’s land surface

Source:  McCracken and Wolf (2019).

cooperation in transboundary river basins  59

jianshi zhao

60  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management have been developed for water resources systems analysis in transboundary river basins (Loucks & Beek, 2005; Labadie, 2004). These conventional water resources system modelling approaches can assess the economic and environmental benefits and losses to stakeholders under different scenarios. However, these approaches cannot provide convincing interpretations of stakeholders’ decisions, because every stakeholder has its own interests and goals, especially in transboundary river basins. Thus, game theory, as a mathematical tool for strategic action analysis, has been applied to study stakeholders’ behaviors and decisions in transboundary river basins (Madani & Hooshyar, 2014; Read et al., 2014). Both non-cooperative and cooperative game theory are relevant to particular water resources management problems. Furthermore, a repeated game model has been developed to analyze the evolutionary cooperation in transboundary river basins, where stakeholders’ behaviors gradually change from non-cooperative to cooperative (Yu et al., 2019). Thus, an analysis framework that couples the water resources system analysis models and game theory models is expected. The water resources system analysis models can be used to quantify the benefits and losses to stakeholders, while game theory models can be applied to analyze stakeholders’ behaviors and decisions. In this way, holistic policy recommendations can be explored for transboundary river basin management. Currently, a huge number of water resources infrastructures (dams, water diversion projects, etc.) have been planned or are under construction (Zarfl et  al., 2015). Most of these projects will be located in the developing and transboundary basins (De Stefano et  al., 2017). It has often been assumed that the conflicts between upstream and downstream countries or between human and ecosystem benefits in such transboundary basins could not be well addressed (Munia et al., 2016). Indeed, the development of these water resource infrastructures would pose a considerable threat to global river ecosystems if the projects were operated individually (Liu et al., 2018). Thus, more studies are expected to provide illustrations of excellent transboundary river basin management. The ultimate goals should include improving economic benefits, promoting social equity and mitigating environmental impacts, with considerations of political conditions, cultural jianshi zhao

traditions and future climate change, toward achieving economic-environmental sustainability in complex and contested transboundary river basins. Jianshi Zhao

References Basheer, M., Wheeler, K. G., Ribbe, L., Majdalawi, M., Abdo, G., & Zagona, E. A. (2018). Quantifying and evaluating the impacts of cooperation in transboundary river basins on the water‐energy‐food nexus: The Blue Nile Basin. Science of the Total Environment, 630, 1309–1323. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2018​.02​ .249. De Stefano, L., Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Sproles, E. A., Eynard, J. & Wolf, A. (2017). Assessment of transboundary river basins for potential hydro-political tensions. Global Environmental Change, 45, 35–46. Dinar, S., Katz, D., De Stefano, L., & Blankespoor, B. (2019). Do treaties matter? Climate change, water variability, and cooperation along transboundary river basins. Political Geography, 69, 162–172. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/ j​.polgeo​. 2018​.08​ .007. Labadie, J. (2004). Optimal operation of multireservoir systems: State-of-the-art review. Journal of Water Resource Planning Management, 93–111. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2004)130:2(93). Liu, J. G., Hull, V., Godfray, H. C. J., Tilman, D., Gleick, P., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C., Xu, Z., Chung, M. G., Sun, J., & Li, S. (2018). Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 1, 466–476. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​ -018​-0135​-8. Loucks, D. P., & van Beek, E. (2005). Water Resources Systems Planning and Management: An Introduction to Methods, Models and Applications. Paris: UNESCO. Madani, K., & Hooshyar, M. 2014. A game theory-reinforcement learning (GT-RL) method to develop optimal operation policies for multioperator reservoir systems. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 732–742. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jhydrol​.2014​.07​.061. McCracken, M., & Wolf, A. T. (2019). Updating the register of international river basins of the world. International Journal of Water Resources D, 35, 732–782. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/07900627​.2019​.1572497.

cooperation in transboundary river basins  61 Munia, H., Guillaume, J. H. A., Mirumachi, N., Porkka, M., Wada, Y., & Kummu, M. (2016). Water stress in global transboundary river basins: Significance of upstream water use on downstream stress. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 014002. Read, L., Madani, K., & Inanloo, B. 2014. Optimality versus stability in water resource allocation. Journal of Environmental Management, 133, 343–354. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.jenvman​.2013​.11​.045. Sadoff, C. W., & Grey, D. (2002). Beyond the river: The benefits of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy, 47, 91–96. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/s1366‐ 7017(02)00035‐1. Wheeler, K. G., Hall, J. W., Abdo, G. M., Dadson, S. J., Kasprzyk, J. R., Smith, R., & Zagona, E. A. (2018). Exploring cooperative

transboundary river management strategies for the Eastern Nile Basin. Water Resources Research, 54(11), 9224–9254. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1029​/2017WR022149. Wolf, A. T., Natharius, J. A., Danielson, J. J., Ward, B. S., & Pender, J. K. (1999). International river basins of the world. International Journal of Water Resources D, 15, 387–427. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /07900629948682. Yu, Y., Tang, P., Zhao, J., Liu, B., & Mclaughlin, D. (2019). Evolutionary cooperation in transboundary river basins. Water Resources Research, 55. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1029​/2019WR025608. Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., & Tockner, K. (2015). A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences, 77, 161–170.

jianshi zhao

14. Decisions for Water: The Crucial Role of Environmental Management Control Systems

and our management, control and accounting systems have not changed since the 1960s. Meanwhile, the lack of rainfall seen over the past years has noticeably impacted crop yields with monetary consequences for farmers and the whole food sector. Microplastics amass in wastewater and threaten the income of fisheries and the tourism sector. Nevertheless, water is not yet a central issue for decision-makers, especially as the after-effects of such happenings become apparent in the long term or in other regions. The not in my term of office (NIMTOF) effect describes the phenomenon of the so-called managerial opportunism assigned to decision-makers that orient themselves toward their incentive systems – which do not consider long-term environmental impacts. The time period in which companies act and the time period in which nature reacts are asynchronous. The not in my back yard (NIMBY) effect describes the phenomenon that communities disagree with solutions to environmental concerns if they impact them directly.

The vital role of water in decisionmaking for the economy From as early as the 1960s, economists such as Kenneth Boulding have asked the question of whether we correctly measure and subsequently make decisions for the prosperity of our economy: production and consumption are traditionally considered good per se, because an increase in them positively boosts the economy. But what are the resources behind production and consumption? The answer is simple, yet complex. We take resources such as water from nature and refine them with labor and capital, for example, via the application of technologies. During the production process, undesired output such as wastewater, also called conducts (from Latin conducere, meaning that the undesired output is generated together with the desired output), is incurred. And after their consumption at the end of their life cycle, the products are returned to nature: we dispose of both conducts and end-of-life products and most often leave the decisions and consequences to others outside the organization. When analyzing our management, control and accounting systems, natural resources such as access to water resources are most often invisible and only attract organizational attention once they have a price tag. However, the natural resources driving our economy are becoming unreliable with a consequent risk for the economy as our dependence on them becomes more obvious. In using the term ‘natural capital’, the International Integrated Reporting Council (2013) expresses the importance of air, water, soil, minerals, forests, biodiversity and healthy ecosystems for the continued existence of organizations. Images of waterrelated crises such as wildfires destroying forests worldwide, of children wading through flooded huts or of rivers dying from pollution caused by dyeing elicit momentary emotional responses, but these issues remain distant,

How environmental management, control and accounting can change behaviors toward water resources What starting points can the environmental management control kit offer to attract the attention of decision-makers? By investigating this question via a survey of Germany’s 2500 largest companies, 12 factors pertaining to environmental management systems, environmental management control systems and environmental management accounting can be identified. Environmental management systems have been shaped by international standards such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)  14001 (ISO 2021) which support organizations in designing, implementing and maintaining ‘a framework to protect the environment and respond to changing environmental conditions in balance with socio-economic needs’. ISO  14002-2 supports organizations in specifically addressing water resources in terms not only of water quantity and quality but also waterrelated events such as floods and droughts (ISO 2022). Moreover, the resource nexus of water and other environmental resources is addressed as well as the spatial and temporal dimension of water issues. Two factors can be identified as specifically relevant: First, predominantly interdisciplinary teams are able 62

decisions for water  63 to grasp the complexity of environmental resources. Companies with balanced teams can manage the nexus of environmental resources. Second, environmental information systems, the collecting, processing and storing of reliable data in environmental management systems are key to sound analyses of water dependency, and also of future threats and opportunities. Digital water activities are expected to significantly transform water management in organizations by making use of big data and complex water networks (International Water Association 2019). Environmental management control systems include interactive, diagnostic, action, personnel and cultural controls. Interactive controls cover strategic communication with decision-makers, managers and employees on short- and long-term water goals, that is, the necessary product or service changes reducing water needs due to a reduction in the availability of water in the region, such as changing crops in agriculture or fit-forpurpose water quality in industrial cooling processes. Institutionalized platforms for exchange, such as workshops, focus group discussions and stakeholder dialogues, are just as important. The complexity of the topic requires creative solutions, which are best developed jointly and in regular dialogue across disciplines, hierarchies and the entire supply and value chain. Diagnostic controls compare planned and actual performance on key indicators concerning water. The water quality standards of the World Health Organization (2001) can guide the development of organizational indicators. Action controls focus on the accountability of sound processes and internal guidelines, for example, for procurement to reduce water consumption or use wastewater or other unconventional water resources (Qadir et al. 2022). Personnel controls focus on selecting the right personnel and ensuring that new employees share the relevant values of the company. Choosing suitable employees, however, is only the first step. Regular training and personnel development as well as appropriate incentive schemes are indispensable to solidifying an organizational wateraware culture. Cultural controls develop over time and are linked to the values of the organization. A clear commitment from top management on the importance of water endorsed by an adequate mission statement is key. Developing these controls takes time

but creating a ubiquitous presence of the relevance of water as a natural resource, similar to energy use, will have long-lasting effects in terms of the company’s water management. As natural capital often cannot be measured monetarily, accounting for it usually draws on the physical information in life cycle assessments (LCAs). However, LCAs are only considered in decision-making if they are integrated into the organization, for example, in its accounting system. If external consultants are commissioned to prepare LCAs and use them exclusively for information purposes, the use and effect of these comprehensive analyses remain limited. Environmental management accounting for water resources covers approaches with different maturity levels. Resource flow analyses for water provide in-depth insights into the input, use and output of water. Manufacturing processes are often aimed at the main product but have undesirable outputs in terms of conducts. However, these conducts possess great potential for developing marketable products, which can be explored through targeted material flow cost analyses. Focusing on water in particular, circularity might be an applicable concept to reach zero wastewater. Potential circular considerations might be relevant to ensure that the quality of the input and output is similar (e.g. treatment of wastewater) and closed loop considerations of water use might limit the environmental impact. Considering water resources from the perspective of environmental costing might provide further insights when calculating a net effect by comparing the cost of action with the cost of inaction as elaborated in ISO 14007 (ISO 2019). Shared or shifted costs to consumers, suppliers, the state or insurances might influence the net effect significantly. Furthermore, resource budgeting, that is, establishing budgets for investments, such as establishing closed loop systems can support managing expectations of upfront costs to prevent the effects of the cost of inaction and to manage life cycle costs accordingly. Environmental assessments such as water footprint, LCAs and impact assessments provide necessary information for decision-making for both internal and external audiences. Last, key performance indicators can guide organizations in developing customized indicators, for example, based on the indicators of sustainable development goal (SDG) 6.

edeltraud guenther, thomas guenther and samanthi dijkstra-silva

64  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Conclusion Based on the arguments made above, we highlight that water is a central issue for society but has so far been neglected as a resource by core decision-makers. We propose environmental management control systems including environmental management and environmental accounting as tools to support decision-makers when addressing the issue of water. Edeltraud Guenther, Thomas Guenther and Samanthi Dijkstra-Silva

References International Integrated Reporting Council. (2013). Capitals, last accessed 31 July 2022; https://www​.integratedreporting​ .org ​ /wp​ -content​/uploads​/2013​/03​/ IR​-Background​ -Paper​-Capitals​.pdf. International Water Association. (2019). Digital Water: Industry leaders chart the transformation journey, last accessed 31 July 2022; https://iwa​-network​.org​/ wp ​- content ​/ uploads ​/ 2015​/12 ​/ IWA ​_ 2019​ _Digital​_Water​_Report​.pdf. ISO - International Standards Organization. (2019). ISO 14007:2019 - Environmental

management — Guidelines for determining environmental costs and benefits, last accessed 31 July 2022; https://www​.iso​.org​ /standard​/70139​.html. ISO - International Standards Organization. (2021). ISO 14001:2015 - Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use, last accessed 31 July 2022; https://www​.iso​.org​/standard​/60857​ .html. ISO - International Standards Organization. (2022). ISO/DIS 14002–2 - Environmental management systems – Guidelines for using ISO 14001 to address environmental aspects and conditions within an environmental topic area – Part 2: Water, last accessed 31 July 2022; https://www​.iso​ .org​/standard​/79165​.html. Qadir, M., Smakhtin, V., Koo-Oshima, S., & Guenther, E. (2022). Global water scarcity and unconventional water resources. In Unconventional Water Resources (pp. 3–17). Springer, Cham. World Health Organization. (2001). Water quality: Guidelines, standards and health, last accessed 31 July 2022; https://www​ .who​.int​/publications​/i​/item​/924154533X.

edeltraud guenther, thomas guenther and samanthi dijkstra-silva

15. Environmental Economics for Efficient Marine Protection: The Example of the Baltic Sea

We describe the institutional layers governing the protection of the Baltic Sea and discuss how the insights from environmental economics could be better used in policy design and implementation.

Institutions of Baltic Sea protection Baltic Sea protection comprises multiple policy and institutional layers from the regional and city level to EU regulations, directives and strategies (Iho et  al. 2015; Joas et  al. 2022; Gänzle et al. forthcoming). At the core of this web is the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) with ten contracting parties: the coastal countries1 and the EU. HELCOM oversees the agreement on the protection of the Baltic Sea (Helsinki Convention, HELCOM 2014) by agreeing on policy goals and measures that are implemented nationally. The goals are aligned with the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive  2008/56/ EC), which aims at achieving a good status for marine waters. HELCOM’s work is coordinated by a secretariat that supports the contracting parties in meeting their obligations. The main HELCOM policy document for environmental protection is the recently revised Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), which is a comprehensive plan that includes goals and objectives for biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances and litter, and sea-based activities, as well as measures and actions to achieve those objectives (HELCOM 2021a). Taking eutrophication as an example, the goal is a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication. To that end, the littoral countries have agreed on quantitative nutrient input ceilings for each country–basin combination (HELCOM 2021a). The ceilings are based on physical-biogeochemical modelling (HELCOM 2021b) that identifies the load reductions required to achieve a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication. Economic or social aspects have not been considered in target setting or the allocation of abatement efforts. The other core HELCOM tool is the recommendations on actions to tackle specific pollution sources or other areas of concern. Currently, there are over 100  valid recommendations. They address, for example, the treatment of municipal wastewaters, phosphorus in detergents and discharges from fish farming.

Introduction Marine protection aims at achieving a good environmental status for marine waters and ensuring the provision of ecosystem services for human well-being. Markets fail to account for pollution and environmental protection, justifying environmental regulation by the public sector (Pigou 1920). Economic efficiency is key for successful environmental protection. Efficiency means attaining the societally desirable level of environmental quality without wasting resources (Baumol and Oates 1988). Analyses and solutions to support efficient marine protection need to build on interdisciplinary science and account for the transboundary nature of environmental problems (Ribaudo et  al. 1999; Polasky et al. 2019). Further complexities are introduced in practical policy implementation. The structure of institutions influences the way scientific understanding is viewed and impacts the design and implementation of marine protection (Tynkkynen et al. 2014). Environmental protection should thus incorporate not only the requirements of ecology but also the driving forces and constraints on human society. At present, Baltic Sea marine policy is mainly based on the natural and social sciences, such as economics, and has limited impact on target setting and discussions on actions to improve the state of the environment. As an inherently interdisciplinary field of science, environmental economics provides tools and findings to support efficient marine protection, and can help determine the societally desirable level of environmental protection, dividing the burden between polluters in a cost-effective manner and selecting instruments to implement protection. Ollikainen et al. (2019) strongly promote the incorporation of economics into the very core of Baltic Sea protection by advocating the generation of a Baltic Sea socioeconomic action plan. 65

66  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Actions include both technical measures that have a direct impact on pressures or aim to the improvement of the state of the Baltic Sea, as well as information-related actions that provide background data for more concrete measures. The BSAP and recommendations include actions to be implemented jointly by HELCOM and actions implemented by the contracting parties through national legislation. Although the implementation of the BSAP and recommendations is monitored, both main instruments are nonbinding, meaning that their implementation rests on the will of countries to do so. HELCOM is an international political organization managing the common interests of nations. Representatives of all HELCOM groups are nationally nominated and safeguard the interests of their country. Within HELCOM, decisions are made by the heads of delegation, representing each contracting party. They are supported by eight working groups that merge national aspirations and scientific information into recommendations and policies. The working groups obtain scientific support from expert groups, each dedicated to a specific topic and working group. Many members of the expert groups are scientists and their contributions are mainly voluntary, unless funded by a HELCOM project. The expert groups work for the most part separately from each other, helping out with already isolated and narroweddown issues. The scientific information only comes together in the working groups, prohibiting interdisciplinary scientific endeavours at the expert group level. HELCOM projects rarely engage in rigorous interdisciplinary work. Merging disciplinary information to support policymaking is difficult in complex marine protection problems. With the current structure and approach, the know-how of the expert groups remains underutilized. Traditionally, ecological expertise has been emphasized and the joint work of natural and social scientists is scarce. Therefore, the utilization of interdisciplinary analyses and results in HELCOM policymaking is currently limited. In particular, the social sciences, which focus on the human–environment interface, are not able to fulfil their supporting role. This is a matter of learning: facilitating and managing interdisciplinary work is not easy. heini ahtiainen and antti iho

How to better incorporate economics into marine policy Incorporating environmental economics into Baltic Sea environmental management would require interdisciplinarity from the start of policy design. We suggest two ways to improve this: by altering the process of defining the objectives and quantitative targets of the BSAP and by small institutional changes. We use eutrophication as an example, but the insights are applicable to other areas as well: biodiversity, hazardous substances and litter, and sea-based activities. Assessments of pressures (such as nutrient loading) and the ecological status of the sea will always be at the core of policy design. For eutrophication, the ecologically derived load reductions are fed into a political process run by working groups, heads of delegation and eventually a ministerial meeting. The output is a politically negotiated abatement allocation for each country and sea basin. An alternative way would be to derive, with the joint effort of scientific disciplines, a larger set of abatement options that achieve the overall eutrophication goal. Environmental economics would provide estimates of the costs and benefits of the options for each country. These could show that ecologically optimal targets are economically inefficient or disproportionately costly for some countries, or that they are difficult to attain due to a perceived lack of fairness, which affects countries’ incentives to implement the required measures in practice. Countries that obtain larger benefits from eutrophication management could be willing to pay for measures implemented in other countries. For instance, Finland and Sweden could provide Poland with resources to generate faster and larger reductions in point source loading from municipal and industrial sources. The incorporation of economic considerations could lead to the achievement of a more likely or less costly ecologically determined target. Thus, before negotiations and decisions on nutrient input ceilings, allocation options should be generated and subjected to the same rigorous ecological and economic evaluation. This would allow the HELCOM groups to evaluate the acceptability and fairness of the alternatives which would lead to a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication.2 The current HELCOM structure and processes do not support such interdisciplinary

environmental economics for efficient marine protection  67 Gänzle, K., & Tynkkynen. Governing the Baltic Sea Region at critical junctures (1991–2021): How do transnational and intergovernmental organizations cope with external regional change? Journal of Baltic Studies, 2022, 1–22. HELCOM. 2014. Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992 (Helsinki Convention). https://helcom​.fi​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2019​ /06​/ Helsinki​-Convention​_ July​-2014​.pdf. HELCOM. 2021a. Baltic Sea action plan. 2021 update. https://helcom​.fi​/wp​-content​ /uploads​/2021​/10​/ Baltic​-Sea​-Action​-Plan​ -2021​-update​.pdf. HELCOM. 2021b. The revised nutrient input ceilings to the BSAP update. https://helcom​ .fi​/wp​- content​/uploads​/2021​/10​/ Nutrient​ -input​-ceilings​-2021​.pdf. Iho, A., Ribaudo, M., & Hyytiäinen, K. 2015. Water protection in the Baltic Sea and the Chesapeake Bay: Institutions, policies and efficiency. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Acknowledgments 93(1–2), 81–93. We are grateful for the comments provided by Joas, M., Ringbom, H., & Tynkkynen, N. 2022. Nina Tynkkynen. The Baltic Sea and global environmental change: Best-in-class governance? Disclaimer In Routledge Handbook of Marine Statements in this publication reflect the Governance and Global Environmental author’s professional views and opinions Change (pp. 195–205). Routledge. and should not be construed to represent Ollikainen, M., Hasler, B., Elofsson, K., Iho, A., any determination or policy of the European Andersen, H.E., Czajkowski, M., & Peterson, Chemicals Agency. K. 2019. Toward the Baltic Sea socioeconomic action plan. Ambio, 48(11), 1377–1388. Heini Ahtiainen and Antti Iho Pigou, A. C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan. Notes 1. Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Polasky, S., Kling, C. L., Levin, S. A., Carpenter, S. R., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. 2. As such, it would also be useful to be explicit about R., Heal, G. M., & Lubchenco, J. 2019. Role the human dimension of this goal (i.e. the way it of economics in analyzing the environment will be defined and scheduled). The definition and and sustainable development. Proceedings schedule of this goal are decided by humans. of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(12), 5233–5238. References Ribaudo, M., Horan, R. D., & Smith, M. Baumol, W. J., Oates, W. E., Bawa, V. S., E. 1999. Economics of water quality Bawa, W. S., Bradford, D. F., & Baumol, protection from nonpoint sources: Theory W. J. 1988. The Theory of Environmental and practice (No. 1473-2016-120718). Policy. Cambridge University Press. STAC. 2022. Who we are. Updated 2022. EC 2008. Marine Strategy Framework https://www​.chesapeake​.org​/stac​/who​-we​ Directive. Directive 2008/56/EC of the -are/ (Accessed 8 August 2022). European Parliament and of the Council Tynkkynen, N., Schönach, P., Pihlajamäki, of 17 June 2008 Establishing a Framework M., & Nechiporuk, D. 2014. The for Community Action in the Field of governance of the mitigation of the Marine Environmental Policy. https://eur​ Baltic Sea eutrophication: Exploring the -lex​.europa​.eu​/ legal​-content​/ EN​/ TXT/​?uri​ challenges of the formal governing system. =celex​%3A32008L0056. Ambio, 43(1), 105–114. scientific collaboration. Economics often remains a separate element of the assessments or is introduced as an afterthought. A concrete institutional way of integrating economics and ecological assessments would be the establishment of an independent and interdisciplinary scientific advisory body that would respond to requests from working groups but would also be able to design and implement its own assessments, similar to the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) at Chesapeake Bay in the United States (STAC 2022). This advisory body could serve as a link between the scientific community and HELCOM, allowing for more extensive cooperation with the various research institutions. It could also serve as a scientific body enabling interdisciplinary collaboration between current expert groups. This could be combined with added scientific freedom, well-defined duties and proper remuneration of the expert groups.

heini ahtiainen and antti iho

16. EU Policies and Innovation Financing Related to Water

that addresses multiple environmental, social and economic pressures on water bodies at the same time (Ludwig et  al., 2011; Voulvoulis et  al., 2017; European Commission, 2017). The EU WFD explicitly considers the humandriven pressures on water bodies and the need to recover the total economic cost of water use, whether financial, resource or environmental cost. In January 2021, the revised Drinking Water Directive, Directive (EU)  2020/2184, came into force, which defines basic quality standards for water for human consumption. The directive aims for improvements in access to safe drinking water according to the latest recommendations of the World Health Organization, an increase in transparency for consumers and a reduction in the use of plastic bottles for water. With regard to water reuse, Regulation (EU)  2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council in 2020, set to enter into force with minimum requirements in June 2023, establishes minimum water quality requirements for the safe reuse of treated water in agricultural irrigation. The key objectives are that reclaimed water is safe for agricultural irrigation, thus providing a high level of environmental protection, human and animal health, and promoting the circular economy. A further aim is to ensure that treated wastewater is used to limit abstraction from surface and groundwater. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, adopted in May 2020, aims for the restoration, protection and resilience of all European biodiversity and ecosystems by 2050. One objective of the biodiversity strategy is to restore freshwater ecosystems and the natural functions of rivers. Member states should examine water abstraction and impoundment permits to implement ecological flows to achieve good quality for all surface waters and a good status for all groundwater by 2027 at the latest. At the global level, the UN Agenda to 2030 and its 17 goals for sustainable development include two goals that refer explicitly to water: sustainable development goal (SDG)6: Clean Water and Sanitation and SDG14: Life below Water. Other goals indirectly relate to water use, pressures and the need to promote water-related innovation (Tsani et  al., 2020). For instance, the targets of SDG1, SDG2 and SDG8 aim for sustained per capita economic growth and the achievement of higher levels of economic productivity, global resource efficiency in consumption and production with the parallel decoupling of economic

Introduction Water resources have been the subject of policymaking at the EU level for several decades. Earlier directives have looked at specific water uses and quality measures (e.g. irrigation, wastewater treatment, quality of drinking water) while more recent directives and strategies, like the EU Water Framework Directive, the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy of the EU and global agendas like the UN Agenda to 2030, have brought forward the need to employ an integrated approach to water use. Bounded with sustainability and resilience imperatives, these developments call for innovative solutions to water management. Innovative solutions require investment capital and funding to be directed to research and development specific to the water sector. The identification of financing opportunities and tools linked to water is not always easy. This chapter briefly presents the EU policies and financing options linked to water. The following section summarizes the policies that call for an integrated approach and innovation deployment in the water sector, while the subsequent section presents the financing options that can support water-related innovation at the EU level.

EU water policies and strategies in call for water innovation Water management has been the focus of several EU directives and legislative measures over the last four decades. Since the 1980s and the Drinking Water Directive (Directive  80/68EEC), several directives have followed: Nitrates Directive (1991), Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (1991), Plant Protection Products Directive (1991), Directive for Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control (1996), Biocides Directive (1998), New Drinking Water Directive (1998) and Groundwater Directive (2006). While the latter addressed in a fragmented way the pressures on water bodies, the Water Framework Directive in 2000 (WFD, Directive 2000/60/ EC) introduces for the first time an integrated systematic approach to water management 68

eu policies and innovation financing related to water  69 growth from environmental degradation. While meeting these global targets is not directly linked to developments in the EU, they indirectly link to the pressures that water bodies in Europe must address for the eradication of poverty and hunger worldwide and an increase in living standards and per capita income. These developments may result in a higher demand for EU exports, with consequent higher economic activity in sectors such as agriculture, industry, services and energy. This can lead to higher sectoral pressures being put on the water bodies of Europe. Achieving the 17  SDGs necessitates the global and European economies supporting technological innovation and financing solutions that can contribute to sustainable resource management, including water. At the EU level, several initiatives and financing instruments address the need for financial support for water-related innovation. The following section provides a concise summary of the financing opportunities in the EU, with a focus on those related to the EU Green Deal, which can be directly and/or indirectly linked to water. The analysis goes beyond the EU indicating the actions and policies that are related to the Green Deal and EU policy goals and of relevance for non-EU countries as well (e.g. the Balkans and North Africa).

EU Green Deal, financing tools and frameworks in support of water innovation in Europe The EU Green Deal materializes the EU’s strategy on climate proofing, sustainable development efforts and its industrial strategy to address the challenges of the green and digital transformation. Policy frameworks linked to water include the Circular Economy Action Plan, Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy, Farm to Fork Strategy, Biodiversity Strategy, Zero pollution action and Chemicals Strategy. The sustainable finance regulation accompanying the Green Deal includes the EU green taxonomy for the classification of sustainable activities, updated financial standards, benchmarks and reporting requirements, and the mandate to include sustainability in credit ratings and market research (Janiak et al., 2021). Funding is projected to come from existing programs such as the Cohesion Fund, European Social Fund, European Regional Development Fund, Common Agricultural Policy, Horizon

Europe, LIFE Programme and Connecting Europe Facility, from the auction of allowances under the Emission Trading Scheme, from the dedicated guarantee scheme for private investments (InvestEU) and from the European Investment Bank (EIB) dedicated loan scheme for public investments. With the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), the EU is seeking to reinforce relations with neighboring countries to the East and South to promote prosperity, stability and security at its borders. Sixteen partner countries are included, namely: Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, the Republic of Moldova, Morocco, the occupied Palestinian territory, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine. In the 2021–2027 period, assistance to the partner countries will be financed through Neighborhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI). In total, the EU’s neighboring area will be granted at least EUR  19  million for the period 2021–2027, part of which may support water-related projects and initiatives. Beyond EU-wide initiatives and funding available for water-related innovations, investment capital can be raised through grants, bank lending, private equity and crowdfunding (Janiak et al., 2021). Grants come in the form of financial assistance by government or an organization to several beneficiaries and are awarded based on a submission made by an applying organization in response to a call for proposals and with specific eligibility criteria. This financial assistance is available for all stages, from the research and development of the concept, to testing and demonstration, large-scale validation and market entry. The most widely known granting schemes in the EU include Horizon Europe, EIC Accelerator, EIC Transition, EIC Pathfinder, Innovative Europe, the Eureka Network, PRIMA Foundation and LIFE+ program. While grants can offer access to considerable capital and innovation capacity, they have complex and long application processes and a heavy administrative workload. Bank lending comes in different forms and products. Core lenders for water-related projects in Europe are the European Investment Bank’s Natural Capital Financing Facility and the Dutch Sustainable Water Bank. Bank lending can be more attractive and easier to attain for larger water projects. Private equity can be in the form of venture capital stella tsani and chrysoula chitou

70  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management or growth capital. The main advantage of these options is that they can be tailored to meet the needs of innovators and businesses at different stages of development. The main drawback is related to the high competition that entrants face in raising funds through venture or growth capital. Last, the crowdfunding system can be adapted to businesses and individual investment initiatives at any phase of their life cycle through a participatory platform. Several platforms operating at the EU level enable crowdfunding: Ulule (France), FundedByMe (Sweden), Symbid (Netherlands), KissKissBankBank (France), Goteo (Spain), Booomerang (Denmark), Crowdfundme (Italy), Companisto (Germany), Invesdor (Finland) and Wemakeit​.​ch (Switzerland and Italy) (Janiak et al., 2021).

Concluding remarks Market failures (e.g. due to information asymmetries, externalities, etc.) can lead to inefficient water use and capital allocation to water-related innovations. Financing capital may be available, yet without reaching water-related innovation due to social costs/ benefits that exceed private costs/benefits in water-related investments, a long time horizon of returns on investments and so on. The brief discussion in the previous section shows that policies and available financing options are in place. Entities in need of capital should explore these alternatives keeping in mind the

stella tsani and chrysoula chitou

related costs (administrative, monitoring, etc.) and that one size does not fit all. Stella Tsani and Chrysoula Chitou

References European Commission. (2017). The EU water framework directive - Integrated river basin management for Europe. http://ec​.europa​ .eu​/environment​/water​/water​-framework​/ index​_en​.html. Janiak, P., Pasi, M. C., Bartoli, M. S., Suzenet, G., & Tsani, S. (2021). A review of financial instruments available to startups, scaleups in the water sector: Finding innovative solutions to water scarcity in Southern Europe. EIT Climate-KIC. Ludwig, R., Roson, R., Zografos, C., & Kallis, G. (2011). Towards an inter-disciplinary research agenda on climate change, water and security in southern Europe and neighboring countries. Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 794–803. Tsani, S., Koundouri, P., & Akinsete, E. (2020). Resource management and sustainable development: A review of the European water policies in accordance with the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Environmental Science and Policy, 114, 570–579. Voulvoulis, N., Arpon, K. D., & Giakoumis, T. (2017) The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 358–366.

17. Flood Insurance: Economic, Psychological and Social Justice Perspectives

4. Policyholder losses should be relatively uncorrelated. 5. Limited moral hazard/adverse selection. 6. Premiums charged allow for a mutually beneficial exchange. However, these criteria can be difficult to achieve for flooding, as flooding tends to be geographically concentrated creating demand hotspots. This limits the achievability of point (5) as only those at the highest risk tend to want insurance coverage. Moreover, it also prevents point (4), meaning that when losses are reported to insurers the occurrence and magnitude of those losses tend to be correlated across policyholders. Together, these factors greatly limit the possibility of achieving a suitable pool of policies and diversification.1 Consequently, this tends to increase the regulatory capital reserves required (e.g. Solvency II requirements of a 1/200 chance of insolvency), increasing business costs. These are complications that increase the costs of doing business. One potential consequence is an upward pressure on premiums to cover costs. However, people in floodplains tend to have low risk perceptions and behavioural heuristics, meaning that demand for insurance spikes after a disaster event, but gradually falls as peoples’ memory of a disaster falls (availability heuristics). This creates a highly volatile demand for insurance with a smaller overlap between the premium insurers must charge and the premiums people expect to be charged. Moreover, for point (3) to be met, extensive scientific research can be required as well as suitable investment in protective infrastructure, so that flooding is sufficiently rare and quantifiable to enable a market’s creation. Assuming insurability is achieved, insurance can discipline flood risk–generating behaviour by acting as a behavioural constraint. One avenue is through risk-based premiums, which are premiums in line with the policyholder’s risk level. Therefore, if policyholders proactively limit their risk, they receive premium discounts, which over time can outweigh the costs of undertaking protective actions [9]. For example, the US National Flood Insurance Program offers direct premium discounts for building elevation, or indirectly for improved collective risk management though the Community Rating System. Moreover, this avenue can also occur in areas where premiums are not connected to risk, for example, in France a community

Introduction Flooding causes billions of dollars in damage across the world, for example, a 2021 flood in Germany caused $54bn in damage [1], accounting for 40 per cent of all natural hazard losses between 1980 and 2018 [2]. A trend in increasing impacts is likely to continue [3]. Insurance as an adaptation tool for flooding works by converting an unpredictable large loss (flood impacts) into a smaller predictable and manageable impact (the premium). Not only does this help provide a degree of psychological stability, but insurance also provides an influx of resources to help kick-start the recovery process. In doing so, insurance works across multiple pillars of resilience [4]. Resilience is the ability to resist (e.g. lower damage), recover (e.g. return to the pre-event situation) and adapt (e.g. the ability to transform the system). Insurance improves resilience by acting as an institution to alter and constrain the behaviour creating flood risk and redirect behaviour into lowering flood impacts [5], getting back on their feet quickly [6] and transforming for better outcomes [4]. However, human behaviour also limits the ability of insurance to successfully increase resilience if people choose to be uninsured. This creates a protection gap where a significant proportion of losses are not compensated [7]. In this chapter, three different perspectives on how insurance and adaptation against flooding are discussed for a multi-perspective consideration.

Economic perspective From an economic perspective, Charpentier [8] defines six insurability criteria required for insurance to be a viable tool for manging flood risk: 1. Randomly occurring losses. 2. Insurers should be able to meet their solvency requirements. 3. Risk can be calculated, priced and should not be too large. 71

72  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management gains access to more generous insurance conditions (e.g. lower deductibles) if they produce plans on how the community will proactively reduce risk [10]. However, there can be significant transaction and monitoring costs, which means that the effort required to maintain a system of individualized risk management rewards outweighs the benefits, which may be why such incentives are relatively rare in mass application. Insurance can also be useful for governments, through instruments such as the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) and African Risk Capacity (ARC). These are parametric insurance companies to help countries in the Caribbean and Africa access affordable disaster loss financing through resource pooling. For instance, the ARC requires that potential members undertake a planning process that develops actionable and implementable risk management plans, thereby proving an incentive to proactively manage risk to gain access to resources that would otherwise not be available.

Psychological perspective The use of insurance as an adaptation tool requires that policyholders purchase insurance (when coverage is not mandated). From an economic perspective, only the risk averse consider purchasing insurance, based on expected utility theory. This is because insurance must charge a surcharge on the premium offered to cover both the expected loss faced (e.g. the probability weight average loss) and the costs of doing business. This is only viable because risk-averse people are willing to pay more than the expected loss. Therefore, insurance is only viable due to a psychological quirk. However, this behavioural basis needs to be extended. For instance, consider moral hazard which implies policyholders change their behaviour once insured in a way that leads to higher risk, which the insurer doesn’t know about, in turn threatening the longterm sustainability of the industry. There is an argument that disaster insurance coverage should lead to moral hazard. This is because we should see disincentives for protective actions by the policyholder when there is not a strong link between proactive policyholder risk management and their insurance conditions [11], which tends to be relatively common [4,12]. However, this simple economic perspective doesn’t capture the complexities paul hudson

of actual behaviour. For example, Einav, Finkelstein [13] find that the presence of moral hazard depends on the market construction and individual traits, as does Dionne and Eeckhoudt [14] regarding the degree of policyholder risk aversion. Therefore, understanding human behaviour has become much more important [15], going beyond expected utility theory and into theories such as bounded rationality (e.g. limited information gathering because of transaction costs) or prospect theory (e.g. where losses and gains are valued differently where expected utility considers them equal). In the psychology behind adaptation, one of the main avenues of exploration has been in the use of protection motivation theory (PMT) to explain why people undertake adaptive behaviours, and in turn has been the basis of many extensions and later theories. PMT is a conceptually simple framework that groups many different rationales for behaviour into threat appraisal, perceived probability and expected impacts of a flood (i.e. is flooding a big enough threat that I should buy insurance?); coping capacity consisting of three sub-elements: self-efficacy (the perceived ability to employ a strategy, i.e. can I buy insurance?), response efficacy (the perceived ability of the measure to usefully manage risk, i.e. will insurance cover my losses reliably and quickly, will I make back my ‘investment’?) and response cost (the perceived cost and affordability of the measure, i.e. is insurance affordable?). Different theories mix and match, focus and extend various other elements. For example, the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) [16] can be considered to greatly expand the PMT’s set of behavioural drivers for the employment of a measure or not. Moreover, many different theories can be recast and interconnected into/ with these four broad conceptual areas. For example, social capital increases the interconnections between people and groups, which allows experiences to be vicariously transmitted, or enhances the transmission of information and learning [17, 18]. This could also be the creation of a social norm to be insured, where insurance coverage is expected.

Social justice perspective The final perspective to consider is social justice within disaster risk management. The heart of this discussion asks if insurance is

flood insurance  73 a social good upon which responsibility to manage flood risk predominately rests with the state or is it a private good upon which the responsibility is placed on those at risk of flooding. Where the line meets between these two ends of the insurance spectrum has significant impacts on how an insurance market will be designed to constrain behaviour. This is fundamentally a public policy choice [19]. A common social justice concern across both conceptualizations is access to affordable insurance [20–22]. This is because if insurance is to send the strongest signal of risk, it must fully reflect the risk faced which can rapidly become unaffordable especially considering climate change. An example from the United Kingdom reflects this challenge [23]: without suitable constraint for how this may develop, social housing might be constructed at above average rates in English and Welsh floodplains. This is supported by modelling results that indicate rising flood losses may create reverse-gentrification forces, where lower income households are forced to remain in flood-prone areas, while higher income households can leave [24]. This can create an inability to afford riskreflective premiums, limiting the commercial attractiveness of these areas. This leaves insurance as a viable mechanism only for the most well-off households who may also face a lower flood risk overall as they are able to move to relatively safer locations with relatively lower premiums. Therefore, traditional models and approaches assume that people have access, which can clash with the way they are expected to have greater private responsibility, and that this needs to be justified and corrected. However, this requires a metric of affordability, which has no universally accepted definition. There are nontrivial differences regarding unaffordability when different definitions are used [20].

Conclusion The success of flood insurance as an adaptation tool must consider economic, psychological and social justice perspectives, as well as their interactions, to develop a strategy that is effective both objectively and normatively. This observation allows for insurance’s great potential as an adaptation tool. However, this in turn renders flood insurance a rather complex instrument to use and develop. The final version is the result of public policy choices

and ongoing conversations about the purpose of disaster insurance, where the responsibility to act against flooding lies and what are the acceptable trade-offs that can be made. These stakeholders cannot be left alone once this conversation has been completed, the ongoing relationships must be part of a continuing partnership. A platform to manage this ongoing interaction needs to be constructed in such a way that the different stakeholder groups can hold each other to account if they do not live up to their end of the bargain. This is because unless every node of the chain generating flood risk considers how their behaviour contributes towards or reduces overall flood risk, insurance may become unsustainable in the future. Paul Hudson

Note 1.

This can be minimized through large geographical coverage, which is easier in large countries (e.g. the United States) versus smaller countries (e.g. Belgium).

References 1. Munich Re. Hurricanes, Cold Waves, Tornadoes: Weather Disasters in USA Dominate Natural Disaster Losses in 2021. [Webpage] 2022 2022.01.10 [cited 2022 2022.02.09]; Available from: https://www​.munichre​.com ​/en ​/company​ /media​-relations​/media​-information​-and​ -corporate​ - news​ / media​ - information​ /2022 ​ / natural ​ - disaster ​ - losses ​ - 2021​ .html#:~​ : text​ = More​ %20than​ %20220​ %20people​ % 20were​ , density​ % 20for​ %20flooding​%20in​%20Germany. 2. Munich Re. Extreme Storms, Wildfires and Droughts Cause Heavy Nat Cat Losses in 2018. 2019 [cited 2019 24.05.2019]; Available from: https:// www​.munichre​.com​/en​/media​-relations​/ publications​/press​-releases​/2019​/2019​- 01​ -08​-press​-release​/index​.html. 3. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 2022, In Press: Cambridge University Press. 4. Hudson, P., De Ruig, L.T., De Ruiter, M.C., Kuik, O.J., Botzen, W.W., Le Den, X., Persson, M., Benoist, A. and Nielsen, C.N., Best practices of extreme weather insurance in Europe and directions for a more resilient society. Environmental Hazards, 2020. 19(3): 301–321. paul hudson

74  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management 5. Kunreuther, H., Encouraging adaptation to flood risk: The role of the national flood insurance program, in Wharton Working Papers. 2017, Wharton, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia. 6. Botzen, W.J.W., Managing Extreme Climate Change Risks Through Insurance. 2013, New York: Cambridge University Press. 7. Swiss Re, Indexing Resilience: A Primer for Insurance Markets and Economics. 2019, Swiss Re Institute. 8. Charpentier, A., Insurability of climate risks. The Geneva Papers, 2008. 33: 91–109. 9. Hudson, P., Botzen, W.W., Feyen, L. and Aerts, J.C. Incentivising flood risk adaptation through risk based insurance premiums: Trade-offs between affordability and risk reduction. Ecological Economics, 2016. 125: 1–13. 10. Poussin, J.K., Botzen, W.J.W. and Aerts, J.C.J.H. Stimulating flood damage mitigation through insurance: An assessment of the French CatNat system. Environmental Hazards, 2013. 12: 258–277. 11. Ehrlich, I. and Becker, G.S. Market insurance, self-selection, and selfprotection. Journal of Political Economy, 1972. 80(4): 623–648. 12. Surminski, S., Aerts, J.C., Botzen, W.J., Hudson, P., Mysiak, J. and Pérez-Blanco, C.D. Reflection on the current debate on how to link flood insurance and disaster risk reduction in the European Union. Natural Hazards, 2015. 79(3): 1451–1479. 13. Einav, L., Finkelstein, A., Ryan, S.P., Schrimpf, P. and Cullen, M.R. Selection on moral hazard in health insurance. American Economic Review, 2013. 103(1): 178–219. 14. Dionne, G. and Eeckhoudt, L. Selfinsurance, self-protection, and increased risk aversion. Economic Letters, 1985. 17(1–2): 39–42. 15. Kuhlicke, C., Seebauer, S., Hudson, P., Begg, C., Bubeck, P., Dittmer, C., Grothmann, T., Heidenreich, A., Kreibich, H., Lorenz, D. and Masson, T. The behavioural turn in flood disaster risk management and its implication for future

paul hudson

research and policy. WIREs Water, 2020. e1418. 16. Lindell, M.K. and Perry, R.W. The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 2012. 32(4): 616–632. 17. Hudson, P., Hagedoorn, L. and Bubeck, P. Potential linkages between social capital, flood risk perceptions, and self-efficacy. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2020. 11: 251–262. 18. Babcicky, P. and Seebauer, S. Unpacking protection motivation theory: Evidence for a separate protective and nonprotective route in private flood mitigation behavior. Journal of Risk Research, 2019: 1–18. 19. Surminski, S. Fit for purpose and fit for the future? An evaluation of the UK’s new flood reinsurance pool. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 2018. 21(1): 33–72. 20. Hudson, P. A comparison of definitions of affordability for flood risk adaption measures: A case study of current and future risk-based flood insurance premiums in Europe. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2018. 23(7): 1019–1038. 21. Dixon, L., Clancy, N., Miller, B.M., Hoegberg, S., Lewis, M.M., Bender, B., Ebinger, S., Hodges, M., Syck, G.M., Nagy, C. and Choquette, S.R. The Cost and Affordability of Flood Insurance in New York City, 2017. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. 22. Shively, D. Flood risk management in the USA: Implications of National Flood Insurance Program changes for social justice. Regional Environmental Change, 2017. 17(6): 1663–1672. 23. Rözer, V. and Surminski, S. Current and future flood risk of new build homes across different socio-economic neighbourhoods in England and Wales. Environmental Research Letters, 2021. 16(5): 054021. 24. de Koning, K. and Filatova, T. Repetitive floods intensify outmigration and climate gentrification in coastal cities. Environmental Research Letters, 2020. 15(3): 034008.

18. Freshwater Inflows to Bays and Estuaries

landscapes and seascapes; and (3) tidal regimes causing differences in the degree of mixing and the elevation of the mixing zone. Because each of these three physical drivers can vary in a large number of ways, it is easy to imagine how the various combinations of these forces can combine to create a vast array of estuarine typologies. Further variability in estuarine typology is caused by the interactions of these physical drivers.

Introduction Nothing is more fundamental to the structure and function of an estuary than the freshwater inflow regime (Montagna et al. 2002). Fresh water flowing from a watershed transports nutrients and sediments to bays and estuaries, and fresh water dilutes seawater (Figure 18.1). Nutrients fuel the base of the primary production food web. Sediments build wetland habitats. The gradient from fresh to saline creates salinity zone habitats, which is why most coastal species have an estuarine-dependent life cycle. Estuaries are transition zones between the land and the sea. There are several ways to define estuaries. An estuary is a semienclosed coastal body of water, which has a free connection with the open sea and within which seawater is measurably diluted with fresh water from land drainage (Pritchard 1967). However, some consider tidal streams estuary habitat and state that ‘an estuary is an inlet of the sea reaching into a river valley as far as the upper limit of tidal rise’ (Fairbridge 1980) and large basins. Others argue that brackish seas, such as the Baltic Sea, and non-tidal areas of large seas connected to river mouths, such as the Mediterranean Sea, are also estuaries (McCluskey 1999). Clearly, there is a need to define the estuary continuum for science and management purposes (Elliot and McLuskey 2002). The focus here is on the hydrological connection of freshwater inflow and not tidal connections. Most estuaries have a series of landscape subcomponents: a river (or freshwater) source, a tidal-estuarine segment, wetlands (marshes or mangroves depending on latitude), bays and a pass (or inlet) to the sea (Montagna et  al. 2013). However, all estuaries are quite different; the landscape of each subcomponent can vary, combinations and connections of these subcomponents can vary, some subcomponents can be missing or other components can be added. The interaction of three primary natural forces causes estuaries to be unique and different: (1) climate causing variability in the freshwater runoff and evaporation regimes; (2) continental geology causing variability in elevation, drainage patterns,

Estuary hydrology Fresh water flows into the coastal zone from rivers, creeks, streams, point source return flow discharges, non-point source runoff, direct precipitation onto water areas and groundwater discharge. Here, the focus is on surface flows. The hydrological regime is driven by climatic conditions because inflows vary with rain events or storms, seasons and interannual variability (such as flood and drought periods). Inflow is rarely continuous and typically varies over time. Thus, inflow events vary in four characteristics: frequency, timing, quantity and the extent or duration. The water balance is a defining characteristic of estuaries (Montagna et al. 2013). The freshwater inflow balance is simply the sum of the water sources minus the sum of the water losses. While there are many sources of fresh water there are fewer mechanisms for freshwater losses including evaporation and freshwater diversions for human use. Pritchard (1952) recognized three classes of estuaries based on natural hydrological processes: (1) positive estuaries where freshwater input from rain, runoff, rivers and groundwater exceeds evaporation; (2) neutral estuaries where the sources and sinks are in balance; and (3) negative or inverse estuaries where evaporation exceeds the combined sources of fresh water. Depending on the climate, some systems change seasonally, being positive during rainy seasons and negative during dry seasons. Many estuaries around the world have strong year-to-year variability caused by interannual climatic variability. The water balance is strongly dependent on the water cycle. Two dominant water cycle processes that affect the water balance are evapotranspiration and precipitation. Rain over large areas interacts with land elevation to form drainage patterns and familiar landscapes, for example, tributaries, streams, rivers and wetlands. These drainage systems are watersheds (or catchments). If the watershed 75

76  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:   SSEC (2014).

Figure 18.1   Sediment plumes from freshwater inflow following a flood (6 November 2002) along the central Texas coast (map center is 28.245, –96.801)

is adjacent to the coastal zone, then the ultimate drainage basin is the estuary where fresh water mixes with seawater. Humans, however, alter the water cycle through many different pathways (USGS 2022). Rivers have been dammed to develop hydroelectric power or create reservoirs for water storage. Altering watercourses alters riparian, wetland and estuarine habitats. In addition, it is possible for a warming climate to increase evaporation rates due to higher temperatures. The net effect is altered inflows. A water budget is one tool that can be used to estimate and manage inflow to estuaries. The two easiest inputs to measure are direct rainfall and river flow to estuaries. However, these are not always sufficient to calculate total inflow to estuaries. Fresh water can also enter estuaries via runoff from land and through groundwater seepage. The amounts from these other sources are difficult or impossible to measure and must be modeled. Runoff and groundwater seepage are often thought as small, particularly in arid basins where groundwater flux to a bay can be 50 times larger than a river source paul a. montagna

(Brier and Edmonds 2007). Total inflow estimates can be inaccurate when large groundwater inputs are ignored. Evapotranspiration is water loss from direct evaporation of the water surface and water lost through plants. Water loss due to evapotranspiration must also be measured or modeled, especially in hot, dry or windy areas where the losses can be large. Evaporation can be measured directly by placing water in a pan and measuring the volume lost daily. Total water loss from a bay can be calculated as the product of the evaporation rate and the surface area of the water body. Human water use and reuse must also be accounted for. Water authorities usually record the amount of water diverted for human use; thus it should be relatively easy to obtain this information over a long period of time. Water is also returned to the environment after use, which is termed return flow. This is usually in the form of wastewater, agricultural runoff or industrial cooling water. These quantities should also be easy to account for to determine total inflows to estuaries.

freshwater inflows to bays and estuaries  77 Table 18.1   Salinity modifiers used in a salinity classification system Coastal modifiersa

Inland modifiersb

Salinity (‰ or psu)

Specific conductance (µMhos at 25°C)

Hyperhaline

Hypersaline

>40.0

>60 000

Euhaline

Eusaline

30.0–40.0

45 000–60 000

Mixohaline (brackish)

Mixosaline

0.5–30.0

800–45 000

Polyhaline

Polysaline

18.0–30.0

30 000–45 000

Mesohaline

Mesosaline

5.0–18.0

8 000–30 000

Oligohaline

Oligosaline

0.5–5.0

800–8 000

Fresh (limnetic)

Freshwater (limnetic)

 0, are revealed by such explicitly solvable models. The case of discrete time models can be treated in terms of similar dynamic programming techniques (see e.g. Krishnamurthy, 2017). The above model can be extended in the case of multiple aquifers, possibly interacting, as well as in the case of spatial effects, introducing interesting features related to the spatiotemporal interaction of dynamics and uncertainty. For example, the case of multiple aquifers and their spatial interaction can be treated (see e.g. Athanassoglou et  al., 2012; Brozović et  al., 2006) for a coupled deterministic problem that can be extended for the stochastic case in the presence of model uncertainty using the methodological framework in Brock et  al. (2014a, 2014b); Baltas et  al.’s (2019) more sophisticated model involving pricing effects, multiple uses for water and so on can be provided in the spirit of Tsur (2009) and extended in the case of model uncertainty using the aforementioned methodology; realistic effects combined with detailed econometric studies regarding water demand and pricing issues can be introduced in the spirit of, for example, Groom et  al. (2005) and Koundouri and Christou (2006); and sustainability issues can be introduced by the appropriate choice of utility functions or discounting mechanisms (see e.g. Koundouri et al., 2022; Groom et al., 2007 and references therein). Phoebe Koundouri and Athanasios N. Yannacopoulos

Note 1.

More elaborate diffusion equations can be used for P but this suffices for illustration purposes here.

References Athanassoglou, S., G. Sheriff, T. Siegfried, and W. T. Huh (2012). Optimal mechanisms for heterogeneous multi-cell aquifers. Environmental and Resource Economics 52 (2), 265–291. Baltas, I., A. Xepapadeas, and A. N. Yannacopoulos (2019). Robust control of

phoebe koundouri and athanasios n. yannacopoulos

optimal control approaches to water management  181 parabolic stochastic partial differential equations under model uncertainty. European Journal of Control 46, 1–13. Brock, W., A. Xepapadeas, and A. N. Yannacopoulos (2014a). Robust control and hot spots in spatiotemporal economic systems. Dynamic Games and Applications 4 (3), 257–289. Brock, W. A., A. Xepapadeas, and A. Yannacopoulos (2014b). Optimal control in space and time and the management of environmental resources. Annual Review of Resource Economics 6 (1), 33–68. Brozovi´c, N., D. Sunding, and D. Zilberman (2006). Optimal management of groundwater over space and time. In Frontiers in Water Resource Economics, pp. 109–135. Springer. Castelletti, A., F. Pianosi, and R. SonciniSessa (2008). Integration, participation and optimal control in water resources planning and management. Applied Mathematics and Computation 206 (1), 21–33. Gilboa, I. and D. Schmeidler (2004). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. In Uncertainty in Economic Theory, pp. 141– 151. Routledge. Groom, B., P. Koundouri, E. Panopoulou, and T. Pantelidis (2007). Discounting the distant future: How much does model selection affect the certainty equivalent rate? Journal of Applied Econometrics 22 (3), 641–656. Groom, B., P. Koundouri, and T. Swanson (2005). 14.  cost–benefit analysis and efficient water allocation in Cyprus. Cost– Benefit Analysis and Water Resources Management 315. Hansen, L. P. and T. J. Sargent (2011). Robustness. In Robustness. Princeton University Press. Kartala, X.-I., N. Englezos, and A. N. Yannacopoulos (2020). Future expectations modeling, random coefficient forward– backward stochastic differential equations, and stochastic viscosity solutions. Mathematics of Operations Research 45 (2), 403–433. Koundouri, P. (2004). Current issues in the economics of groundwater resource management. Journal of Economic Surveys 18 (5), 703–740.

Koundouri, P. and C. Christou (2006). Dynamic adaptation to resource scarcity and backstop availability: Theory and application to groundwater. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 50 (2), 227–245. Koundouri, P., C. Roseta-Palma and N. Englezos. (2017). Out of sight, not out of mind: Developments in economic models of groundwater management. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 11 (1), 55–96. Koundouri, P., G. I. Papayiannis and A. Yannacopoulos. (2022). Optimal control approaches to sustainability under uncertainty. Technical report, Athens University of Economics and Business. Krishnamurthy, C. K. B. (2017). Optimal management of groundwater under uncertainty: A unified approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 67 (2), 351–377. Maccheroni, F., M. Marinacci and A. Rustichini (2006). Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74 (6), 1447–1498. Marinacci, M. (2015). Model uncertainty. Journal of the European Economic Association 13 (6), 1022–1100. Mays, L. W. (2018). Optimal control of hydrosystems. CRC Press. Petracou, E. V., A. Xepapadeas and A. N. Yannacopoulos (2022). Decision making under model uncertainty: Fr´echet-wasserstein mean preferences. Management Science 68 (2), 1195–1211. Roseta-Palma, C. and A. Xepapadeas (2004). Robust control in water management. Journal of Risk and uncertainty 29 (1), 21–34. Sears, L. and C.-Y. C. L. Lawell (2018). Water management and economics. In The Routledge handbook of agricultural economics, pp. 269–284. Routledge. Tsur, Y. (2009). On the economics of water allocation and pricing. Annual Review of Resource Economics 1 (1), 513–536. Yannacopoulos, A. N. (2008). Rational expectations models: An approach using forward–backward stochastic differential equations. Journal of Mathematical Economics 44 (3–4), 251–276.

phoebe koundouri and athanasios n. yannacopoulos

42. Optimization Applications in Water Resources Management Water resources management (WRM) involves all measures and actions that can be taken to convert or improve the status of water resources (surface water, groundwater, fresh water and seawater) and cover the multiple needs of societies and ecosystems (Aalami et al., 2020; Alamanos et al., 2017). In terms of management, this process is closely related to an optimization approach. Optimization formulates problems in a structured way, setting an objective goal and constraints (natural, social, economic, regulatory, etc.), and the solution provides optimal sets of variables’ values. Optimization has found many applications in several different WRM problems, and this chapter provides an overview of such applications, categorizing them per research area.

Water resources allocation The optimal water allocation of surface water and/or groundwater resources has been studied for numerous catchments in countries around the world, whether they face water scarcity or they are trying to use their resources as efficiently as possible (Ramadan et  al., 2021). Covering the water demand of competitive users with limited and deteriorating water resources under the constraints of natural water availability and the water demand of different users is the core of this problem. Other constraints may be water quality requirements (Martinsen et al., 2019), costs of different measures, users’ welfare and priorities (Farrokhzadeh et  al., 2020) and so on. The most recent applications consider multi-objective optimization setups and issues of hydrological uncertainty, among others (Musa, 2021; Fu et al., 2018).

Water infrastructure Optimizing the design and operation of water infrastructure assets is one of the fields that numerous techniques have explored for a variety of problems. Water infrastructure includes the design, monitoring, operation

and performance of water supplies, drainage and sewage networks, irrigation networks, dams and reservoirs, hydropower works and so on, involving their natural system, engineering, economic and social aspects (Ahmad et al., 2014; Steele et al., 2016). New cutting-edge methods are being developed to optimize water supply networks, their design and monitoring (Sitzenfrei et al., 2020), including leakage minimization, and their energy efficiency (Luna et  al., 2019). Multilevel planning and decision-making approaches are used for water use efficiency, pumping optimization, energy and cost minimization of irrigation networks, including spatial information (Jiang et  al., 2019). Different optimization algorithms can address the problem of the optimal operation of multi-objective reservoirs (Wang et  al., 2021), and artificial intelligence methods have proved helpful to capture the highly stochastic nature of hydrological parameters (Allawi et al., 2018).

Hydrology and hydraulics Optimization has been an extremely useful approach for the parameter estimation of hydrological and hydraulic models, their calibration and control of their uncertainties (Althoff and Rodriguez, 2021; de Lavenne et al., 2019; Silva Ursulino et al., 2019). The components of the hydrological cycle and the parameters affecting them, as well as the hydraulic estimations of water flow often create complex and computationally demanding optimization problems (Gholami et al., 2018). In those areas, engineering design and scenario analysis involve forecasts (e.g. precipitation or streamflow forecasts under different conditions), and optimization has also been used for such problems (Ibrahim et al., 2022; Stellingwerfet al., 2021).

Disaster analysis and management The previous paragraph is also the basis for the analysis and management of hydrometeorological disasters, such as floods, droughts and even extreme pollution events (Papaioannou et al., 2021; Qiu et al., 2018; Napolitano and Sechi, 2020). For example, optimization has been used for flood routing and flood management considering the cost-effective space optimization of nature-based solutions for water retention or other land use and green infrastructure strategies (Jayasooriya et al., 2020;

182

optimization applications in water resources management  183 Norouzi and Bazargan, 2020; Singh et  al., 2020). Optimization techniques have also been used for drought monitoring, forecasting and optimal response strategies (Nabipour et al., 2020), and for pollution monitoring and management (Shishegar et al., 2018; Tsaboula et al., 2019).

Water quality management The optimum planning for point and nonpoint pollution control, management practices mainly for agricultural pollutants and other uses (e.g. industrial, stormwater management) are common research topics (Alamanos et al., 2022a; Adedoja et al., 2018; Shishegar et al., 2018). Management models based on environmental simulations using scenario analysis and/or best management practices (including the optimal planning of nature-based solutions) or decision support systems (DSS) often use optimization to improve the systems’ performance through pollution control, and to evaluate the different alternatives (Huang et al., 2022; Geng and Sharpley, 2019; Zhang et al., 2019).

Transboundary water management The optimal allocation of transboundary water resources, their use and pollution share across different countries and users have been studied extensively from the optimization perspective (Vinca et  al., 2021). The distribution of costs and benefits from the different pressures and activities has also been explored, and often it is conceived as a game theory problem with conflict resolution implications (Englezos et  al., 2022; Zeng et  al., 2019; Fu et  al., 2021). Issues of uncertainty (hydrological, hydrometeorological, management, etc.) also arise and a big portion of the literature has presented insightful applications (Kryston et al., 2022).

Policy, governance and development studies This wide category covers the field of broader watershed management, where planning and implementing relevant measures strongly focus on the social, economic and even institutional aspects of WRM (Al-Jawad et  al., 2019; Porse et al., 2018). Conflict resolution, behavioral dynamics, environmental economics, welfare economics

and optimal investment decisions frame the different policies, and optimization is often used in the context of utility maximization, social acceptance or optimal community management schemes (Hatamkhani and Moridi, 2021; Alamanos et al., 2022b; Burek et al., 2020). This area has many applications, including oceans and marine management, given their multiple socioeconomic functions (Ye, 2020; Ye et al., 2019), and land and landscape management decisions (Sahoo et  al., 2006; Parhi, 2021).

Water–energy–food (WEF) nexus Complex agricultural problems with conflicting economic production and environmental objectives are becoming increasingly topical. The WEF nexus (including climate and socioeconomic components) is a huge area of WRM where optimization approaches have been proposed. Agriculture consumes environmental resources (soil, water, raw materials) and energy, emits pollution (fertilizers, pesticides, greenhouse gases [GHGs]), has high production expectations (yields, production, profits), and all these are accompanied by costs (Garcia and Alamanos, 2022). The optimal way to cover the economic demand, achieve low-cost and efficient use of resources and control emissions is a challenging multiobjective optimization problem (Li et  al., 2019; Davis et al., 2017; Næss et al., 2021).

Hydro-economics Most elements of the above-mentioned approaches can also be found in other research areas of WRM, especially cross-disciplinary areas such as hydro-economics. Such applications usually combine economic objectives (benefits maximization or cost minimization) under hydrological and other environmental constraints, or aim to select the optimal WRM strategies (Hashmi et al., 2019; Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022; Mirchi et al., 2018; Maneta et al., 2020). Other fields of WRM use optimization routines as part of various applications: water stewardship and indicator evaluation studies assume simple optimization approaches (Pascual et  al., 2022); optimization submodels can be incorporated into sociohydrological models (Abadie et  al., 2019); eco-hydrology uses optimization approaches on ecosystem service values, indicators and land use planning to achieve improved

angelos alamanos and jorge andres garcia

184  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management ecological functions (Pastor et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2020). Angelos Alamanos and Jorge Andres Garcia

References Aalami, M. T., Nourani, V., & Fazaeli, H. (2020). Developing a surface water resources allocation model under risk conditions with a multi-objective optimization approach. Water Supply, 20(4), 1167–1177. https://doi​.org​/10​.2166​/ ws​.2020​.025 Abadie, L. M., Markandya, A., & Neumann, M. B. (2019). Accounting for economic factors in socio-hydrology: Optimization under uncertainty and climate change. Water, 11(10), 2073. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​ /w11102073 Adedoja, O. S., Hamam, Y., Khalaf, B., & Sadiku, R. (2018). Towards development of an optimization model to identify contamination source in a water distribution network. Water, 10(5), 579. https://doi​.org​ /10​.3390​/w10050579 Ahmad, A., El-Shafie, A., Razali, S. F. M., & Mohamad, Z. S. (2014). Reservoir optimization in water resources: A review. Water Resources Management, 28(11), 3391–3405. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11269​ -014​-0700-5 Alamanos, A., Garcia, J., Linnane, S., & McGrath, T. (2022a). Integrated modelling for the optimal resource use, productioneconomic outputs, and emissions control: A goal programming model for Irish agriculture. In 39th IAHR World Congress, Granada, Spain, 19 June 2022. Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink, 2022(4), Citizen Science. https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131 Alamanos, A., Koundouri, P., Papadaki, L., Pliakou, T., & Toli, E. (2022b). Water for tomorrow: A living lab on the creation of the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Water, 14(18), Article 18. https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/w14182879 Alamanos, A., Xenarios, S., Mylopoulos, N., & Stålnacke, P. (2017). Integrated water resources management in agro-economy using linear programming: The case of Lake Karla Basin, Greece. European Water, 60, 41–47.

Al-Jawad, J. Y., Alsaffar, H. M., Bertram, D., & Kalin, R. M. (2019). A comprehensive optimum integrated water resources management approach for multidisciplinary water resources management problems. Journal of Environmental Management, 239, 211–224. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .jenvman​.2019​.03​.045 Allawi, M. F., Jaafar, O., Mohamad Hamzah, F., Abdullah, S. M. S., & El-shafie, A. (2018). Review on applications of artificial intelligence methods for dam and reservoirhydro-environment models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(14), https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/ 13446–13469. s11356​-018​-1867-8 Althoff, D., & Rodrigues, L. N. (2021). Goodness-of-fit criteria for hydrological models: Model calibration and performance assessment. Journal of Hydrology, 600, 126674. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jhydrol​ .2021​.126674 Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Kahil, T., Tang, T., Greve, P., Smilovic, M., Guillaumot, L., Zhao, F., & Wada, Y. (2020). Development of the community water model (CWatM v1.04) – A high-resolution hydrological model for global and regional assessment of integrated water resources management. Geoscientific Model Development, 13(7), 3267–3298. https://doi​.org​/10​.5194​/gmd​-13​ -3267​-2020 Davis, K. F., Rulli, M. C., Seveso, A., & D’Odorico, P. (2017). Increased food production and reduced water use through optimized crop distribution. Nature Geoscience, 10(12), 919–924. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1038​/s41561​-017​-0004-5 de Lavenne, A., Andréassian, V., Thirel, G., Ramos, M. H., & Perrin, C. (2019). A regularization approach to improve the sequential calibration of a semidistributed hydrological model. Water Resources Research, 55(11), 8821–8839. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1029​/2018WR024266 Englezos, N., Kartala, X., Koundouri, P., Tsionas, M., & Alamanos, A. (2022). A novel hydroeconomic—econometric approach for integrated transboundary water management under uncertainty. Environmental and Resource Economics. Advance online publication. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1007​/s10640​-022​-00744-4 Farrokhzadeh, S., Hashemi Monfared, S. A., Azizyan, G., Sardar Shahraki, A., Ertsen, M. W., & Abraham, E. (2020). Sustainable

angelos alamanos and jorge andres garcia

optimization applications in water resources management  185 water resources management in an arid area using a coupled optimization-simulation modeling. Water, 12(3), 885. https://doi​.org​ /10​.3390​/w12030885 Fu, J., Zhong, P. A., Xu, B., Zhu, F., Chen, J., & Li, J. (2021). Comparison of transboundary water resources allocation models based on game theory and multi-objective optimization. Water, 13(10), 1421. https:// doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w13101421 Fu, Q., Li, T., Cui, S., Liu, D., & Lu, X. (2018). Agricultural multi-water source allocation model based on interval twostage stochastic robust programming under uncertainty. Water Resources Management, 32(4), 1261–1274. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/s11269​-017​-1868-2 Garcia, J. A., & Alamanos, A. (2022). Integrated modelling approaches for sustainable agri-economic growth and environmental improvement: Examples from Greece, Canada and Ireland. Land, 11(9), Article 9. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ land11091548 Geng, R., & Sharpley, A. N. (2019). A novel spatial optimization model for achieve the trad-offs placement of best management practices for agricultural non-point source pollution control at multi-spatial scales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 1023– 1032. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jclepro​.2019​ .06​.277 Gholami, A., Bonakdari, H., Ebtehaj, I., Mohammadian, M., Gharabaghi, B., & Khodashenas, S. R. (2018). Uncertainty analysis of intelligent model of hybrid genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization with ANFIS to predict threshold bank profile shape based on digital laser approach sensing. Measurement, 121, 294–303. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.measurement​.2018​.02​.070 Hashmi, A. H. A., Ahmed, S. A. S., & Hassan, I. H. I. (2019). Optimizing Pakistan’s water economy using hydro-economic modeling: Optimizing Pakistan’s water economy using hydro-economic modeling. Journal of Business & Economics (JBE), 11(2), 111–124. Hatamkhani, A., & Moridi, A. (2021). Optimal development of agricultural sectors in the basin based on economic efficiency and social equality. Water Resources Management, 35(3), 917–932. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/s11269​-020​-02754-7 Huang, Y. K., Bawa, R., Mullen, J., Hoghooghi, N., Kalin, L., & Dwivedi, P.

(2022). Designing watersheds for integrated development (DWID): A stochastic dynamic optimization approach for understanding expected land use changes to meet potential water quality regulations. Agricultural Water Management, 271, 107799. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.agwat​ .2022​.107799 Ibrahim, K. S. M. H., Huang, Y. F., Ahmed, A. N., Koo, C. H., & El-Shafie, A. (2022). A review of the hybrid artificial intelligence and optimization modelling of hydrological streamflow forecasting. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 61(1), 279–303. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.aej​.2021​ .04​.100 Jayasooriya, V. M., Ng, A. W. M., Muthukumaran, S., & Perera, C. B. J. (2020). Optimization of green infrastructure practices in industrial areas for runoff management: A review on issues, challenges and opportunities. Water, 12(4), 1024. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w12041024 Jiang, Y., Xiong, L., Yao, F., & Xu, Z. (2019). Optimizing regional irrigation water allocation for multi-stage pumping-water irrigation system based on multi-level optimization-coordination model. Journal of Hydrology X, 4, 100038. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.hydroa​.2019​.100038 Kryston, A., Müller, M. F., Penny, G., Bolster, D., Tank, J. L., & Mondal, M. S. (2022). Addressing climate uncertainty and incomplete information in transboundary river treaties: A scenario-neutral dimensionality reduction approach. Journal of Hydrology, 612, 128004. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jhydrol​.2022​.128004 Li, M., Fu, Q., Singh, V. P., Liu, D., & Li, T. (2019). Stochastic multi-objective modeling for optimization of water-food-energy nexus of irrigated agriculture. Advances in Water Resources, 127, 209–224. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.advwatres​.2019​.03​.015 Luna, T., Ribau, J., Figueiredo, D., & Alves, R. (2019). Improving energy efficiency in water supply systems with pump scheduling optimization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 342–356. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jclepro​.2018​.12​.190 Maneta, M. P., Cobourn, K., Kimball, J. S., He, M., Silverman, N. L., Chaffin, B. C., Ewing, S., Ji, X., & Maxwell, B. (2020). A satellite-driven hydro-economic model to support agricultural water resources management. Environmental Modelling &

angelos alamanos and jorge andres garcia

186  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Software, 134, 104836. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.envsoft​.2020​.104836 Martinsen, G., Liu, S., Mo, X., & BauerGottwein, P. (2019). Joint optimization of water allocation and water quality management in Haihe River basin. Science of the Total Environment, 654, 72–84. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2018​.11​ .036 Mirchi, A., Watkins, D. W., Engel, V., Sukop, M. C., Czajkowski, J., Bhat, M., Rehage, J., Letson, D., Takatsuka, Y., & Weisskoff, R. (2018). A hydro-economic model of South Florida water resources system. Science of the Total Environment, 628–629, 1531– https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​ 1541. .2018​.02​.111 Musa, A. A. (2021). Goal programming model for optimal water allocation of limited resources under increasing demands. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 5956–5984. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10668​-020​-00856-1 Nabipour, N., Dehghani, M., Mosavi, A., & Shamshirband, S. (2020). Short-term hydrological drought forecasting based on different nature-inspired optimization algorithms hybridized with artificial neural networks. IEEE Access, 8, 15210–15222. https://doi​ . org​ / 10​ .1109​ /ACCESS​ . 2020​ .2964584 Næss, J. S., Cavalett, O., & Cherubini, F. (2021). The land–energy–water nexus of global bioenergy potentials from abandoned cropland. Nature Sustainability, 4(6), 525– 536. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​-020​ -00680-5 Napolitano, J., & Sechi, G. M. (2020). Scenario optimization of complex water supply systems for energy saving and drought-risk management. In Y. D. Sergeyev & D. E. Kvasov (Eds.), Numerical computations: Theory and algorithms (pp. 557–569). Springer International Publishing. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-030​-39081​-5​_48 Norouzi, H., & Bazargan, J. (2020). Flood routing by linear Muskingum method using two basic floods data using particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm. Water Supply, 20(5), 1897–1908. https://doi​ .org​/10​.2166​/ws​.2020​.099 Papaioannou, G., Vasiliades, L., Loukas, A., Alamanos, A., Efstratiadis, A., Koukouvinos, A., Tsoukalas, I., & Kossieris, P. (2021). A flood inundation modeling approach for urban and rural

areas in lake and large-scale river basins. Water, 13(9), 1264. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ w13091264 Parhi, P. K. (2021). Optimal use of land and water resources of a river basin: Case study. In B. B. Das, S. Barbhuiya, R. Gupta, & P. Saha (Eds.), Recent developments in sustainable infrastructure (pp. 991–999). Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-981​ -15​- 4577​-1​_83 Pascual, A., Giardina, C. P., Povak, N. A., Hessburg, P. F., Heider, C., Salminen, E., & Asner, G. P. (2022). Optimizing invasive species management using mathematical programming to support stewardship of water and carbon-based ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 113803. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.jenvman​.2021​.113803 Pastor, A. V., Tzoraki, O., Bruno, D., Kaletová, T., Mendoza-Lera, C., Alamanos, A., Brummer, M., Datry, T., De Girolamo, A. M., Jakubínský, J., Logar, I., Loures, L., Ilhéu, M., Koundouri, P., Nunes, J. P., Quintas-Soriano, C., Sykes, T., Truchy, A., Tsani, S., & Jorda-Capdevila, D. (2022). Rethinking ecosystem service indicators for their application to intermittent rivers. Ecological Indicators, 137, 108693. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ecolind​.2022​.108693 Porse, E., Mika, K. B., Litvak, E., Manago, K. F., Hogue, T. S., Gold, M., Pataki, D. E., & Pincetl, S. (2018). The economic value of local water supplies in Los Angeles. Nature Sustainability, 1(6), 289–297. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1038​/s41893​-018​-0068-2 Qiu, J., Shen, Z., Wei, G., Wang, G., Xie, H., & Lv, G. (2018). A systematic assessment of watershed-scale nonpoint source pollution during rainfall-runoff events in the Miyun Reservoir watershed. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(7), 6514–6531. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11356​ -017​-0946-6 Ramadan, E. M., Abdelwahab, H. F., Vranayova, Z., Zelenakova, M., & Negm, A. M. (2021). Optimization-based proposed solution for water shortage problems: A case study in the Ismailia Canal, East Nile Delta, Egypt. Water, 13(18), 2481. https:// doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w13182481 Sahoo, B., Lohani, A. K., & Sahu, R. K. (2006). Fuzzy multiobjective and linear programming based management models for optimal land-water-crop system planning. Water Resources Management,

angelos alamanos and jorge andres garcia

optimization applications in water resources management  187 20(6), 931–948. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/ s11269​-005​-9015-x Shishegar, S., Duchesne, S., & Pelletier, G. (2018). Optimization methods applied to stormwater management problems: A review. Urban Water Journal, 15(3), 276–286. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/1573062X​ .2018​.1439976 Silva Ursulino, B., Lima Montenegro, S. M. G., Paiva Coutinho, A., Hugo Rabelo Coelho, V., Cezar dos Santos Araújo, D., Cláudia Villar Gusmão, A., Martins dos Santos Neto, S., Lassabatere, L., & AnguloJaramillo, R. (2019). Modelling soil water dynamics from soil hydraulic parameters estimated by an alternative method in a tropical experimental basin. Water, 11(5), 1007. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w11051007 Singh, A., Sarma, A. K., & Hack, J. (2020). Cost-effective optimization of naturebased solutions for reducing urban floods considering limited space availability. Environmental Processes, 7(1), 297– 319. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s40710​-019​ -00420-8 Sitzenfrei, R., Wang, Q., Kapelan, Z., & Savić, D. (2020). Using complex network analysis for optimization of water distribution networks. Water Resources Research, 56(8), e2020. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1029​/2020WR027929 Steele, J. C., Mahoney, K., Karovic, O., & Mays, L. W. (2016). Heuristic optimization model for the optimal layout and pipe design of sewer systems. Water Resources Management, 30(5), 1605–1620. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/s11269​-015​-1191-8 Stellingwerf, S., Riddle, E., Hopson, T. M., Knievel, J. C., Brown, B., & Gebremichael, M. (2021). Optimizing precipitation forecasts for hydrological catchments in Ethiopia using statistical bias correction and multi-modeling. Earth and Space Science, 8(6), e2019. https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​ /2019EA000933 Tsaboula, A., Menexes, G., Papadakis, E.-N., Vryzas, Z., Kotopoulou, A., Kintzikoglou, K., & Papadopoulou-Mourkidou, E. (2019). Assessment and management of pesticide pollution at a river basin level part II: Optimization of pesticide monitoring networks on surface aquatic ecosystems by data analysis methods.

Science of the Total Environment, 653, 1612–1622. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .scitotenv​.2018​.10​.270 Vinca, A., Parkinson, S., Riahi, K., Byers, E., Siddiqi, A., Muhammad, A., Ilyas, A., Yogeswaran, N., Willaarts, B., Magnuszewski, P., Awais, M., Rowe, A., & Djilali, N. (2021). Transboundary cooperation a potential route to sustainable development in the Indus basin. Nature Sustainability, 4(4), 331–339. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1038​/s41893​-020​-00654-7 Wang, W., Jia, B., Simonovic, S. P., Wu, S., Fan, Z., & Ren, L. (2021). Comparison of representative heuristic algorithms for multi-objective reservoir optimal operation. Water Resources Management, 35(9), 2741–2762. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/ s11269​-021​-02864-w Wu, C., Chen, B., Huang, X., & Dennis Wei, Y. H. (2020). Effect of land-use change and optimization on the ecosystem service values of Jiangsu province, China. Ecological Indicators, 117, 106507. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ecolind​.2020​.106507 Ye, C. (2020). Study on the distribution of marine industry around Bohai sea under the background of ocean economic adjustment and optimization. Journal of Coastal Research, 115(SI), 163–165. https://doi​.org​ /10​.2112​/JCR​-SI115​-050.1 Ye, X., Chen, B., Li, P., Jing, L., & Zeng, G. (2019). A simulation-based multi-agent particle swarm optimization approach for supporting dynamic decision making in marine oil spill responses. Ocean & Coastal Management, 172, 128–136. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ocecoaman​.2019​ .02​.003 Zeng, Y., Li, J., Cai, Y., Tan, Q., & Dai, C. (2019). A hybrid game theory and mathematical programming model for solving trans-boundary water conflicts. Journal of Hydrology, 570, 666–681. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jhydrol​. 2018​.12​ .053 Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Shi, W., & Fu, Y. (2019). Quantitative evaluation and optimized utilization of water resources-water environment carrying capacity based on nature-based solutions. Journal of Hydrology, 568, 96–107. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.jhydrol​.2018​.10​.059

angelos alamanos and jorge andres garcia

43. Optimization in Water Resources Management

in the best possible way, satisfying many (often conflicting) objectives. The solutions to such problems are not evident, so optimization formulates the problems in a structured way and helps us solve them while quantifying the impacts of these solutions (Ahmad et al., 2014).

Introduction The field of water resources management (WRM) involves all measures and actions that are applied to water resources (surface water, groundwater, fresh water and seawater) to improve their status and cover the multiple needs of societies and ecosystems (Aalami et al., 2020; Alamanos et al., 2017; Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022). In any given WRM problem, theoretically there are infinite ways to manage water resources, including different supply and demand components for different users, considering various external threats (e.g. extreme phenomena), as well as the respective institutional and regulatory actions (Piscopo et al., 2021). All these infinite ways to manage water resources systems represent a space of solutions, namely different alternatives that can express single actions or a combination of actions. This ‘space’ is created by the various constraints imposed by the natural, social, economic and regulatory aspects of the problem (e.g. a Euclidean space defined by such functions). To give a simple example, if we have a number of drilling wells that are operating to pump water for different uses (e.g. domestic, agricultural, industrial), there are infinite combinations of a cubic meter of water that we can allocate to each user; however, these are constrained by the availability of natural water, its quality, the costs of pumping and distribution and the demand of each user over time. The process described is in essence an optimization problem approach that aims to find the optimum solution(s) under certain constraints. The nature of many WRM problems has made optimization one of the most common approaches in the field, with numerous applications worldwide to a variety of problems. In this chapter, we first explain optimization and then we give examples of how it has been used in different WRM applications.

Optimization Optimization is a mathematical representation of a problem that we want to solve

Optimization logic An objective (goal) is selected for our problem and the optimal solution to the problem will result from its minimization or maximization (e.g. maximum water supply, minimum costs). This is described mathematically by an objective function. The objective function is subject to the constraints of the problem, which as mentioned express the physical, technical, economic, environmental or regulatory restrictions of the problem. Each one of these constraints is expressed as a function, and all should be met. The variables in all these functions express the decision parameters under our control. The optimal solution will provide the minimum or maximum value of the objective function having met all the constraints of the problem. Depending on the relations of the variables and constraints involved and the mathematical form of the functions used, there are many different optimization techniques (some of them are briefly described below). Limitations The application of a selected optimization technique is not always easy in every type of problem. Its success depends on the proper formulation of the problem by the analyst, the data availability and robustness and the validity of the (often unavoidable) simplifying assumptions considered. The data often play a crucial role, as optimization needs accurate data from various disciplines and/ or models that are not usually easily available in reality, or they are subject to different units, time or space scales and other differences. Optimizations techniques allow stakeholder input and use it to reach solutions, and others that do not. In any case, optimization provides an optimal solution, and while everybody may agree that, for example, maximizing or minimizing our objective function is a desirable objective, not everyone, if indeed anyone, will likely agree on how best to distribute the necessary action (including

188

optimization in water resources management  189 costs, benefits and behavioral changes) to reach the optimum results. Of course, models alone are not enough for the application of WRM strategies; however, they are useful to inform and support decisions (Alamanos and Zeng, 2021). Optimization techniques An optimization process using linear programming (LP) assumes a linear objective function (Z) set as a goal for the maximization (or minimization), under linear constraints, of all functions of the decision variables: max ( or min ) Z = f ( x1, x2 ,¼, xn ) (43.1) where x1, x2 ,¼, xn are the decision variables, the system’s data. In addition, it must satisfy a set of constraints, the acceptable range of values:

ui ( x1, x2 ,¼, xn ) £ ai ,

"i (43.2)

where ai are known values. The optimum solution of the system must meet all the constraints and the objective function. This practically provides a useful setup for several problems, because an objective (goal) can be maximized or minimized while exploiting the optimum levels of the other parameters of the system (controlled as constraints), all depending on the decision variables (Dantzig and Thapa, 1997). This describes the idea of the general optimization logic. The different techniques are building on this logic, by following necessary modifications. In the case of non-LP, the relations of Equations  43.1 or 43.2 are described by non-linear functions. These problems are, in general, computationally harder to solve; however, optimality can be guaranteed when certain conditions are met by the problem (Alamanos and Garcia, 2021; Garcia and Alamanos, 2022). Dynamic optimization uses differential and algebraic relations that consider the changing nature of the variables over time, by breaking the problem into smaller and simpler sub-problems, so spanning several points in time. The optimum solutions can involve parameter estimation, and are also found on the basis of predictions of future outcomes (Huang et al., 2022).

Goal programming (GP) is another technique that can be applied to a variety of decision problems involving multiple objectives (Charnes and Cooper, 1961). It attempts to minimize the set of deviations from multiple prespecified (desirable) goals that are considered simultaneously. The analyst or stakeholder assigns weights to those goals according to their importance. The weights play the role of penalizing deviations from the goals (so that lower-order goals are considered only after higher-order goals). The general GP model is based on LP where the positive (exceedance) and negative (underperformance) deviations from our predefined goals are minimized, following the prioritization imposed by the weights (penalties) (Musa, 2021). Genetic algorithms (GAs), another widely used technique, is based on a search to provide optimal solutions for the evaluation (fitness) function of an optimization problem. GAs deal simultaneously with multiple solutions and use only fitness function values. GAs can also be applied in cases of finding multiple optimum solutions (Nouiri, 2014). The idea is based on Darwin’s evolution theory, and reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals (solutions) are selected for reproduction in order to produce the offspring of the next generation of solutions, until a stopping criterion is met (Reddy and Kumar, 2020). Depending on the nature of the problems and the mathematical expressions that better describe the relationships among the functions and variables used, there are many more techniques, for example, integer programming, quadratic programming, stochastic optimization and unconstraint optimization (Li et al., 2019; Zomorodian et al., 2018). Software Numerous optimization software are available, as well as routines, often incorporated into more general engineering and management software, and custom-made applications that can be used to solve optimization problems. Two that are commonly used are LINDO Systems software for integer programming, LP, non-LP, stochastic programming and global optimization (LINDO, 2022; Ramadan et al., 2021; Parhi, 2021); and General Algebraic Modeling Systems (GAMS), which is free and is designed for

jorge andres garcia and angelos alamanos

190  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management LP, non-linear, integer and mixed optimization problems (Rosenthal, 1998; Steele et al., 2016; Macian-Sorribes and Pulido-Velazquez, 2019). Also, various web-based applications exist, and different programming languages (e.g. Python and Matlab) have been widely used to develop and solve optimization problems; they allow faster analyses with bigger datasets (Kruk, 2018; Garcia and Alamanos, 2022; Hojjati et al., 2018). Jorge Andres Garcia and Angelos Alamanos

References Aalami, M. T., Nourani, V., & Fazaeli, H. (2020). Developing a surface water resources allocation model under risk conditions with a multi-objective optimization approach. Water Supply, 20(4), 1167–1177. https://doi​.org​/10​.2166​/ ws​.2020​.025 Ahmad, A., El-Shafie, A., Razali, S. F. M., & Mohamad, Z. S. (2014). Reservoir optimization in water resources: A review. Water Resources Management, 28(11), 3391–3405. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11269​ -014​-0700-5 Alamanos, A., & Garcia, J. A. (2021). Balancing phosphorus runoff reduction and farmers’ utility: An optimization for Lake Erie. In IAGLR, 64th Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research, Winnipeg, 19 May 2021. Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink 2022(4), Citizen Science. https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131 Alamanos, A., Xenarios, S., Mylopoulos, N., & Stålnacke, P. (2017). Integrated water resources management in agro-economy using linear programming: The case of Lake Karla Basin, Greece. European Water, 60 (2017), 41–47. Alamanos, A., & Zeng, Q. (2021). Managing scarce water resources for socially acceptable solutions, through hydrological and econometric modeling. Central Asian Journal of Water Research, 7, 84–101. https://doi​.org​/10​.29258​/CAJWR​/2021​-R1​ .v7​-1​/84​-101​.eng Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1961). Management models and industrial applications of linear programming (1st Edition). John Wiley.

Dantzig, G. B., & Thapa, M. N. (Eds.). (1997). The linear programming problem. In Linear programming: 1: Introduction (pp. 1–33). Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/0​ -387​-22633​-8_1 Garcia, J. A., & Alamanos, A. (2022). Integrated modelling approaches for sustainable agri-economic growth and environmental improvement: Examples from Greece, Canada and Ireland. Land, 11(9), Article 9. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ land11091548 Hojjati, A., Monadi, M., Faridhosseini, A., & Mohammadi, M. (2018). Application and comparison of NSGA-II and MOPSO in multi-objective optimization of water resources systems. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 66(3), 323–329. https://doi​.org​/10​.2478​/johh​-2018​-0006 Huang, Y. K., Bawa, R., Mullen, J., Hoghooghi, N., Kalin, L., & Dwivedi, P. (2022). Designing watersheds for integrated development (DWID): A stochastic dynamic optimization approach for understanding expected land use changes to meet potential water quality regulations. Agricultural Water Management, 271, 107799. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.agwat​ .2022​.107799 Kruk, S. (2018). Practical python AI projects: Mathematical models of optimization problems with Google OR-tools. Apress. Li, M., Fu, Q., Singh, V. P., Liu, D., & Li, T. (2019). Stochastic multi-objective modeling for optimization of water-food-energy nexus of irrigated agriculture. Advances in Water Resources, 127, 209–224. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.advwatres​.2019​.03​.015 LINDO. (2022). HOME. LINDO Software Systems for Optimization. https://www​ .lindo​.com/ Macian-Sorribes, H. and Pulido-Velazquez, M. (2019). A DSS tool for stochastic optimization of large-scale water resource systems. In Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of European Water Resources Association (EWRA) on Water Resources and Environment: Managing Water Resources for a Sustainable Future, EWRA, Madrid, Spain. Musa, A. A. (2021). Goal programming model for optimal water allocation of limited resources under increasing demands. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 5956–5984. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10668​-020​-00856-1

jorge andres garcia and angelos alamanos

optimization in water resources management  191 Nouiri, I. (2014). Multi-objective tool to optimize the water resources management using genetic algorithm and the Pareto optimality concept. Water Resources Management, 28(10), 2885–2901. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11269​-014​-0643-x Parhi, P. K. (2021). Optimal use of land and water resources of a river basin: Case study. In B. B. Das, S. Barbhuiya, R. Gupta, & P. Saha (Eds.), Recent developments in sustainable infrastructure (pp. 991–999). Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-981​ -15​- 4577​-1​_83 Piscopo, A. N., Weaver, C. C., & Detenbeck, N. E. (2021). Using multiobjective optimization to inform green infrastructure decisions as part of robust integrated water resources management plans. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 147(6), 1–12. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0001369 Ramadan, E. M., Abdelwahab, H. F., Vranayova, Z., Zelenakova, M., & Negm, A. M. (2021). Optimization-based proposed solution for water shortage problems: A case study in the Ismailia Canal, East Nile

Delta, Egypt. Water, 13(18), 2481. https:// doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w13182481 Reddy, M. J., & Kumar, D. N. (2020). Evolutionary algorithms, swarm intelligence methods, and their applications in water resources engineering: A state-ofthe-art review. H2Open Journal, 3(1), 135– 188. https://doi​.org​/10​.2166​/ h2oj​.2020​.128 Rosenthal, R. E. (1998). A gams tutorial. Washington, DC: GAMS Development Corporation. Steele, J. C., Mahoney, K., Karovic, O., & Mays, L. W. (2016). Heuristic optimization model for the optimal layout and pipe design of sewer systems. Water Resources Management, 30(5), 1605–1620. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/s11269​-015​-1191-8 Zomorodian, M., Lai, S. H., Homayounfar, M., Ibrahim, S., Fatemi, S. E., & El-Shafie, A. (2018). The state-of-the-art system dynamics application in integrated water resources modeling. Journal of Environmental Management, 227, 294– 304. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jenvman​.2018​ .08​.097

jorge andres garcia and angelos alamanos

44. Participation Participation can be defined as ‘a process where individuals, groups and organizations choose to take an active role in making decisions that affect them’ (Reed, 2008, p. 2418). Participatory approaches to water policy and management have been extensively developed in the last decades to supplement topdown centralized water governance. In fact, the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) themselves set as targets within the water and sanitation goal to develop integrated water resources management and to ‘support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management’ (UN, 2021, p.8).1 Understanding participatory processes in water management is not only necessary but also increasingly urgent in the face of climate change. Indeed, climate disruptions will destabilize water systems in the coming decades, threatening the quantity and quality of the water resources available and leading to ever more droughts and floods (Bates et  al., 2008; Gao et  al., 2019). Participatory processes will be crucial to manage the increased likelihood of conflicts among actors of freshwater systems, but the efficacy of these processes will also depend on their capacity to adapt and react to rapid changes in the biophysical environment (Dietz et al., 2003). To contribute to such research efforts, this chapter provides a brief overview of why researchers and practitioners alike frequently call for participation in water policy and management, what shape this participation can take and some of the key challenges that necessitate additional research.

The rationale behind the rise of participation in water policy and management The rise of participatory processes is not unique to water issues, but is part of a common evolution of environmental management more generally (e.g. Folke et al., 2005). Participation is important in water governance because freshwater resources are common pool resources. Specifically, their usage is rivalrous, while the excludability of users is difficult, both on ethical and technical grounds. As a result, freshwater resources

are prone to over-exploitation and conflicts. Collective approaches are expected to help prevent such issues (Ostrom, 1990). Beyond their economic value, freshwater systems are the keystones of ecosystems and landscapes, and are often imbued with cultural or spiritual significance.2 Past research shows how water conflicts are also conflicts of values and frame more than simple conflicts of competition for resources (e.g. Fan & Zietsma, 2017). Therefore, water conflicts are often considered to be wicked problems (Heikkila, 2017). In such situations, participation enables different views on water – and notably the views of indigenous and other under-represented populations – to be expressed and integrated. When conducted effectively, meaningful participation creates a space for divergent viewpoints to expand deliberation to more than a narrow focus on resource allocation. In addition to normative arguments – that is, concerns for the rights of local actors to be involved in governance processes – several instrumental arguments also support the involvement and participation of a broad diversity of actors in the governance of water resources (Reed, 2008). Instrumental approaches consider participation as a means to an end, meaning as a way to achieve more sustainable water governance. Freshwater systems can be geographically large, hard to monitor and can have complex and unpredictable socio-ecological dynamics, limiting the effectiveness of centralized monitoring and command-and-control approaches (Fraser et  al., 2006; Schlager & Heikkila, 2011). Thus, involving actors in water governance processes can help gather better information on freshwater systems and the social systems that rely on them, which can yield higherquality decisions (Beierle, 2002). Further, decisions can be more easily implemented as they would have legitimacy among local actors and be more aligned with their needs and expectations (Newig et al., 2018). Finally, if designed well, participatory processes can lead to social learning among local communities, allowing the emergence of governance structures more adaptive to emergent ecological issues (Pahl-Wostl, 2006).

Different forms of participation Participation in the processes of water governance or management can take many forms. It can emerge from the bottom up in the form

192

participation  193 of collective action, or it can be mandated, akin to collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008). In the latter case, three important criteria have been identified to compare mandated participatory processes: the scope of the actors represented (key selected stakeholders or open to the broad public), the nature of the communication between actors (one-way presentation or deliberation and negotiation) and the power delegated to the actors (pure consultation or co-governance) (Fung, 2006). Further, participation can play a role at various stages of water governance and management, from data collection and monitoring (with citizen science) to decision-making processes, or even later on with participatory on-the-ground implementation. Finally, participation can take place at different geographical scales, as water institutions tend to be nested in multilevel governance networks.3 Regarding the geographical boundaries of participation in water governance, to ensure a fit between ecological and institutional systems, the literature has oftentimes recommended the inclusion of all actors at the scale of a watershed or water body. Yet, this approach is not totally unquestioned (Warner et al., 2008) or devoid of challenges, particularly when water systems are large or transnational, and when both surface water and groundwater systems need to be accounted for. In practice, participation in water policy and management takes many forms, from the consultation of citizens on a local river restoration project, to the long-term involvement of selected economic actors in watershed councils tasked with drafting river basin management plans. Common to all these initiatives is that actors are not purely passive witnesses of water policy decisions, but play a role in the crafting and implementing of these decisions. Nonetheless, behind the word ‘participation’ stands numerous complex questions of who gets to be in the room, when and under what conditions. Like any governance process, to be representative and effective, participation needs to be tailored to account for the specificities of each social-ecological context. A participatory format that is successful in one context might not be fit for another, and onesize-fits-all approaches or ‘best practices’ are not necessarily advisable (Etzion, 2018). Poor participatory processes can fail to provide the expected benefits, or yield counterproductive results (Bodin, 2017).

Key challenges and questions left open Even though well-designed and well-governed participatory processes are likely to be crucial for water management, they are no panacea and can face many challenges. These challenges become more apparent and can be better analyzed if researchers study participation processes as dynamic and ongoing (Reed, 2008). Indeed, research should not focus only on the existence or not of participatory processes in water governance, or on the institutional rules that guide them. Longitudinal research can tackle two puzzles which are particularly critical for effective participation: What role does individual agency play in participatory dynamics? How do participatory processes interact with the ecosystem dynamics of freshwater systems? First, we need to do more to understand the role of individual agency in supporting participatory processes (Cockburn et  al., 2019). The question of the capacity and motivation of individuals to participate in water governance is not trivial. Regarding capacity, participating in these processes requires time, not only to attend meetings, but also to travel there and back and to prepare for them. Although local knowledge is of course important, water issues are often quite technical. To participate meaningfully, actors must be able to dedicate time to grasp all the necessary information to understand water issues. But this capacity to participate is unevenly distributed among actors, and entails issues of power asymmetry, inclusion and representativity (Behagel & Arts, 2014; Leach, 2006). Beyond capacity, participating in processes of water governance requires motivation from individuals, which might be lacking when water issues are not salient enough to them. Populations threatened by issues of water quantity, quality or flooding are not necessarily sufficiently informed or aware of them, and are even less informed or aware of climate change–induced trends that the future will bring. If governance designs fail to account for individuals’ constraints and motivations to participate, they risk reproducing pre-existing power imbalances, wealth disparities, gender inequalities and minority underrepresentation, depending on the social context. A crucial topic for research is how to design participation in contexts where individuals lack the necessary time, resources, lucie baudoin and dror etzion

194  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management motivation or social and cultural capital to participate. Finally, we need research on how participation, as an organizational phenomenon, is influenced by and – in its turn – impacts ecosystem dynamics (Boons, 2013), and especially so in the context of water policy and management. Freshwater issues are eminently contextual, embedded in distinct social-ecological systems with specific dynamics. Regarding the influence of ecosystem dynamics on participation, certain biophysical issues – particularly large-scale and long-term issues – might be particularly challenging for participatory processes to tackle if they are hard to monitor and if they increase the degree of uncertainty and the complexity of discussions (e.g. see Baudoin & Gittins, 2021 for diffuse water pollution). More research is needed to understand how to adapt the design of participatory processes to such contexts. Further, most research focuses on the regulatory outputs or social outcomes of participatory processes, eliding ecological outcomes (Koontz & Thomas, 2006). Yet, ecological outcomes are not necessarily highly correlated with social outcomes, at least in the short term. Additionally, freshwater systems are complex and can react in unexpected ways to regulatory outputs, which calls for a trial-and-error approach to governance in interaction with evolving ecological conditions (Rice, 2013). Therefore, acknowledging ecological outcomes is necessary to develop a holistic understanding of participation in water policy and management. As it is, the instrumental argument for participation mentioned earlier still lacks support from empirical evidence on ecological outcomes (Scott, 2015). Overall, one can still wonder today: When and how does participation lead to significant improvements in the ecological conditions of freshwater systems? Lucie Baudoin and Dror Etzion

Notes 1. 2. 3.

For a historical overview of the emergence of participation in water policy worldwide, see Razzaque (2009). A clear example of the spiritual value of freshwater systems are the sacred rivers of Hinduism, of which the Ganges is a preeminent example. See Reed (2008) for an overview of typologies of participation.

lucie baudoin and dror etzion

References Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1093​/jopart​/mum032 Bates, B., Kundzewicz, Z. W., & Palutikof, J. P. (Eds.). (2008). Climate change and water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC Secretariat. Baudoin, L., & Gittins, J. R. (2021). The ecological outcomes of collaborative governance in large river basins: Who is in the room and does it matter? Journal of Environmental Management, 281, 111836. https://doi​ .org​ /10​ .1016​ / j​ .jenvman​ . 2020​ .111836 Behagel, J. H., & Arts, B. (2014). Democratic governance and political rationalities in the implementation of the water framework directive in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 92(2), 291–306. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/padm​.12059 Beierle, T. C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder‐based decisions. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 739–749. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/0272​ -4332​.00065 Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1126​/science​.aan1114 Boons, F. (2013). Organizing within dynamic ecosystems: Conceptualizing socioecological mechanisms. Organization & Environment, 26(3), 281–297. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1177​/1086026613498755 Cockburn, J., Cundill, G., Shackleton, S., Rouget, M., Zwinkels, M., Cornelius, S. (Ancia), Metcalfe, L., & van den Broeck, D. (2019). Collaborative stewardship in multifunctional landscapes: Toward relational, pluralistic approaches. Ecology and Society, 24(4), art32. https://doi​.org​/10​ .5751​/ ES​-11085​-240432 Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1126​/science​.1091015 Etzion, D. (2018). Management for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 1(12), 744–749.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​ -018​-0184-z

participation  195 Fan, G. H., & Zietsma, C. (2017). Constructing a shared governance logic: The role of emotions in enabling dually embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2321–2351. https://doi​.org​/10​.5465​/ amj​.2015​.0402 Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441– 473. https://doi​.org​/10​.1146​/annurev​.energy​ .30​.050504​.144511 Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114– 127. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jenvman​.2005​ .04​.009 Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 66–75. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1111​/j​.1540​-6210​.2006​.00667.x Gao, L., Tao, B., Miao, Y., Zhang, L., Song, X., Ren, W., He, L., & Xu, X. (2019). A global data set for economic losses of extreme hydrological events during 1960–2014. Water Resources Research, 55(6), 5165–5175. https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​ /2019WR025135 Heikkila, T. (2017). Evidence for tackling the complexities of water governance. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 17–20. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.12679 Koontz, T. M., & Thomas, C. W. (2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 111–121. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1111​/j​.1540​-6210​.2006​.00671.x Leach, W. D. (2006). Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 100–110. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1540​ -6210​.2006​.00670.x Newig, J., Challies, E., Jager, N. W., Kochskaemper, E., & Adzersen, A. (2018). The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: A framework of causal

mechanisms: Environmental performance of participation. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 269–297. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/psj​ .12209 Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49–62. Razzaque, J. (2009) Public participation in water governance. In: Dellapenna, J. W., & Gupta, J. (Eds.), The evolution of the law and politics of water. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-1​- 4020​-9867​ -3​_21 Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​ /j​.biocon​.2008​.07​.014 Rice, J. (2013). Controlled flooding in the Grand Canyon: Drifting between instrumental and ecological rationality in water management. Organization & Environment, 26(4), 412–430. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1177​/1086026613509250 Schlager, E., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Left high and dry? Climate change, commonpool resource theory, and the adaptability of western water compacts. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 461–470. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1540​- 6210​.2011​ .02367.x Scott, T. (2015). Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governance to environmental outcomes: Does collaboration make any difference? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(3), 537–566. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1002​/pam​.21836 UN. (2021). Global indicator framework for the sustainable development goals and targets of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https:// unstats​ . un​ . org​ /sdgs​ / indicators​ / Global​ %20Indicator​ %20Framework​ %20after​ %202021​%20refinement​_Eng​.pdf Warner, J., Wester, P., & Bolding, A. (2008). Going with the flow: River basins as the natural units for water management? Water Policy, 10(S2), 121. https://doi​.org​/10​.2166​/ wp​.2008​.210

lucie baudoin and dror etzion

45. Policies and Investments for the Improvement of Water Pollution Control: The Example of China

Trends in major pollutants discharges

Great efforts for water pollution control in China since 2003 As the world’s most populous country, China’s surface water pollution has been a concern at home and abroad (Huang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2020; Tong et al., 2017). Over the past decades, poor water quality has not met the basic needs of the water use sectors; it has restricted water availability, induced economic output losses and hindered improved living standards (Li et  al., 2022; Ma et  al., 2020). Since 2006, about 42  relevant laws, plans and guidelines targeting water pollution control have been issued by the China State Council, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Ecology Environment and the Ministry of Water Resources, China, to address the water pollution crisis and promote water ecological restoration (Table 45.1). From 2003 to 2017, the Chinese national government invested almost 519.3  billion  CNY1 and 198.9  billion  CNY in the control of domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, respectively (Figure 45.1a) (Dai et al., 2023). These efforts are reflected in the rapid increase in wastewater treatment capacity and treatment ratios in urban regions (Figure 45.1b). Before 2009, the annual treatment capacity of sewage in urban regions could not meet the demand for wastewater discharge with a treatment ratio lower than 80  percent. In 2020, the annual treatment capacity of wastewater in urban regions reached 70.3 billion m3, with a treatment ratio of 97.5 percent (Figure 45.1b), and the treatment capacity of wastewater treatment plants still has a large surplus. This work aims to investigate the effectiveness of past efforts to improve China’s river water quality as it is essential to identify water pollution control and water quality improvement policies and practices, and finally enhance China’s water security and sustainability.

Taking chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia nitrogen as an example, results (Figure  45.2a) show that COD and ammonia nitrogen loadings from wastewater declined during the period 2003–20, especially after 2015. This is mainly due to the action plan for water pollution controls in China implemented in 2015. Compared with domestic wastewater pollution discharge, COD loadings from industrial wastewater went from 5118.1  thousand tons in 2003 to 497.3  thousand tons in 2020, while ammonia nitrogen (Figure  45.2b) went from 403.6 thousand tons in 2003 to 21.2 thousand tons in 2020, both decreasing by 9.3 and 18.0 folds, respectively, indicating the great success of China’s cleaner production technology. However, the slow decline trend in domestic pollution loadings is mainly due to China’s rapid urbanization and urban population growth.

The proportion of river water quality levels Due to the considerable progress in wastewater treatment capacity, remarkable improvements in river water quality occurred from 2003 to 2020. Overall, the annual percentage of river water quality at Grades I  +  II  +  III increased notably by 1.18  percent per year (Figure 45.2c). The annual percentage of river water quality worse than Grade  V decreased by 0.96  percent per year (Figure  45.2c). In 2020, rivers with a water quality better than Grade  VI accounted for 83.8  percent of the total evaluated river length, and worse than Grade  VI only accounted for 3.4  percent (Figure 45.2c). In addition, the positive correlation between industrial and domestic pollutant discharges, the percentage of river water quality at Grades I + II + III and the negative correlation between the percentage of river water quality at Grades VI + VI indicate that reductions in the discharge of major pollutants have led to significant improvements in river water quality at the national level (Figure 45.3). These findings provide further evidence of the effectiveness of environmental investments in reducing water pollution across China.

Implications for China’s future water policy The recent decreases in major pollutants loadings and the improvement in river water

196

policies and investments for improvement of water pollution control in china  197 Table 45.1   Recent laws, plans, guidelines and regulations related to improving china’s water quality Date of issuance

Name of laws, plans, guidelines and regulations

30/10/2022

Yellow River Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China

19/9/2022

Action plan for the crucial battle to protect and restore the Yangtze River

28/3/2022

Implementation plan for the battle against black and smelly water bodies in cities

26/12/2020

Yangtze River Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China

20/11/2017

Guidelines on the lake chief system

11/12/2016

Guidelines on the river chief system

16/3/2016

Program of national surface water quality monitoring network in the Thirteenth Five-Year Plan (2016–20)

9/7/2015

Rules for funding management of water pollution control

16/6/2015

Measures for special funds management of substitute subsidies with rewards for urban sewage treatment facilities supporting piped network construction

16/4/2015

Action plan for water pollution controls in China

4/2/2015

Regulations on pollution control from large-scale livestock breeding

26/9/2014

Ecological overall planning for lakes with good water quality in China (2013–20)

16/6/2014

Guidelines on how to improve rural sanitation and the living environment

25/4/2014

Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China

26/3/2014

Guidelines on further strengthening the environmental impact assessment of water conservancy facilities

11/12/2013

Guidelines on funding for the ecological environmental protection of rivers and lakes in China

11/11/2013

Guidelines for the construction and investment of rural domestic sewage treatment facilities

11/11/2013

Guidelines for the construction of facilities treating rural domestic waste

11/11/2013

Guidelines for the construction of facilities to protect rural drinking water sources

11/11/2013

Guidelines for the construction of facilities to control pollution from rural scatter-farming

18/10/2013

Regulation on Urban Drainage and Sewage Treatment

17/7/2013

Guidelines on funding the ecological environmental protection of rivers and lakes

17/2/2013

Twelfth Five-Year Plan of the national environmental protection standard in China (2011–15)

24/1/2013

Statistics and monitoring on the reduction of major water pollutant emissions in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2011–15)

16/5/2012

Pollution control plan in the main watersheds of China (2011–15)

22/12/2011

Accounting rules for the reduction of major pollutants in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2011–15)

21/12/2011

12th Five-Year Plan for environmental protection in China

8/12/2011

Guidelines on strengthening the special funds management of rural environmental protection in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2011–15)

16/9/2011

Management regulations of Taihu basin

12/9/2011

Water pollution prevention and control plans for the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River (2011–15)

17/4/2011

Measures for fund management of medium- and small-sized rivers in China

30/12/2010

Guidelines for the prevention and control of pollution from livestock and poultry breeding

8/2/2010

Guidelines for the prevention and control of domestic pollution in rural regions

26/8/2009

Special fund management measures for sewage treatment and related facilities in urban regions

15/7/2009

Guidelines to manage the funding of environmental protection in rural areas

30/8/2008

Major science and technology program for water pollution control and treatment, Ministry of Ecology and Environment (Continued)

dan dai

198  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Table 45.1  (Continued) Date of issuance

Name of laws, plans, guidelines and regulations

22/1/2008

Guidelines on strengthening water environmental protection for critical lakes

29/2/2008

Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution

26/11/2007

Eleventh Five-Year Plan of national environmental protection in China (2006–10)

21/11/2007

Guidelines on strengthening rural environmental protection

15/7/2007

Guidelines to manage the reduction of main pollutants funded by the central government

14/1/2005

Key special plans for ecological improvement and environmental protection of the Tenth National Five-Year Plan (2001–2005)

Source:   This table is supplemented based on the work of Huang et al. (2019) and Tong et al. (2017).

Figure 45.1  The national investment (100 million CNY) in facilities for domestic and industrial wastewater treatment (a) and the municipal wastewater discharge treatment capacity (100 million m3) and treatment ratios (%) by wastewater treatment plant (b)

quality indicate the effectiveness of China’s water pollution control measures. However, it must be kept in mind that it will be a long time before the quality of China’s surface water reaches a good state, such as Grade III, the target for current water quality management. The results suggest that China currently needs more flexible regional water management strategies to cope with non-point source pollution as point source pollutants are well controlled. The ongoing strategies of China’s

dan dai

Water Pollution Prevention and Control should focus on best management practices (BMPs) (Huang et  al., 2021; Liu et  al., 2018) to mitigate non-point source pollutants and further restore rivers in the agricultural region. It is also imperative to adjust the local economic structure and develop low-pollution and water-saving industries to alleviate the water quality–induced water crisis, especially in regions with water shortages. Dan Dai

policies and investments for improvement of water pollution control in china  199

Figure 45.2  The national COD (a) and ammonia nitrogen (b) loadings (103 ton) and the evaluation results (c) of river water quality according to an evaluation of river length during 2003– 2020. (Quality standards for surface water in China are divided into five grades [MEP, 2002]. The highest Grades I and II denote very good and good water quality, respectively, suitable for national nature reserve areas and as drinking water sources. Grade III poses no risk to aquatic life or human health [Jiao et al., 2016] and is usually recommended as the target for current regional water quality management. Grade IV reflects poor quality, where water is useable for general industrial water applications, but is harmful to human health when there is direct contact. Grade V is very poor and the river water can only be used for landscaping, while a grade worse than Grade V means that it cannot be used at all)

Figure 45.3   Quantitative relationships between pollutant loadings from wastewater discharges and the corresponding river water quality

dan dai

200  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Note 1.

1 CNY equals 0.137 USD.

References Dai, D., Alamanos, A., Cai, W., Sun, Q., & Ren, L. (2023). Assessing water sustainability in Northwest China: Analysis of water quantity, water quality, socioeconomic development and policy impacts. Sustainability, 15, 11017. https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/su151411017 Huang, J., Zhang, Y., Arhonditsis, G. B., Gao, J., Chen, Q., Wu, N., & Shi, W. (2019). How successful are the restoration efforts of China’s lakes and reservoirs? Environment International, 123, 96–103. Huang, J., Zhang, Y., Bing, H., Peng, J., Dong, F., Gao, J., & Arhonditsis, G. B. (2021). Characterizing the river water quality in China: Recent progress and on-going challenges. Water Research, 201, 117309. Jiao, D., Yuan, J., Qi, L., Hou, Z., Liao, J., Lan, F., & Peng, Q. (2016). Influences of the land use pattern on water quality in low-order streams of the Dongjiang River basin, China: A multi-scale analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 551–552, 205–216. Li, J., Yang, J., Liu, M., Ma, Z., Fang, W., & Bi, J. (2022). Quality matters: Pollution

dan dai

exacerbates water scarcity and sectoral output risks in China. Water Research, 224, 119059. Liu, Y., Engel, B. A., Flanagan, D. C., Gitau, M. W., McMillan, S. K., Chaubey, I., & Singh, S. (2018). Modeling framework for representing long-term effectiveness of best management practices in addressing hydrology and water quality problems: Framework development and demonstration using a Bayesian method. Journal of Hydrology, 560, 530–545. Ma, T., Zhao, N., Ni, Y., Yi, J., Wilson, J. P., He, L., & Cheng, W. (2020). China’s improving inland surface water quality since 2003. Science Advances, 6(1), eaau3798. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau3798 MEP. (2002). Ministry of environmental protection of China, technical specifications requirements for monitoring of surface water and waste water (4th ed.). Beijing: Ministry of Environmental Protection of China. Tong, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, X., Couture, R.M., Larssen, T., Zhao, Y., & Bu, X. (2017). Decline in Chinese lake phosphorus concentration accompanied by shift in sources since 2006. Nature Geoscience, 10(7), 507–511.

46. Public Acceptability of Water Supply Innovations Drought, climate change and growing demands have led to the adoption of various water supply innovations including desalination, wastewater reuse and rainwater harvesting. In general, the degree of penetration of these innovations depends less on technical constraints and more on assurances that they are safe, secure, affordable and responsibly managed. Concerns over potential impacts on public and environmental health and wellbeing are raised wherever innovations are introduced. Proponents are called upon to address end-user costs and energy consumption (particularly salient for desalination), as well as social equity in siting. Assurance that those who manage these innovations are competent and trustworthy is also essential (Asano and Bahri, 2011; Dolnicar et al., 2011, Fielding et al., 2019). Public acceptance is determined by a constellation of factors. For instance, anxiety over recycled wastewater use varies by age, income, degree of environmental concern, views about water scarcity and trust in the process by which adoption decisions are made (Ross et al., 2014; Ormerod and Scott, 2012). Three major factors in determining acceptability are trust and confidence, public contact with the water innovations, and governance (Adewumi et al., 2014; Menegaki et al., 2007; Rogers et al., 2016). Trust and confidence hinge in part on messaging: the benefits of an innovation must be articulated in publicly accessible language. Case studies suggest that supporters must articulate the practical economic and community development benefits of indirect potable reuse. Good messaging also requires actions that validate the message. Competence displayed by managers, coupled with public perceptions regarding assurances of water security, help validate positive messaging (Harris-Lovett, 2015). Messages conveyed by decision-makers regarding the safety and security of water innovations are more likely to positively influence public perceptions if reinforced by family, peers and colleagues deemed trustworthy, and whose familiarity with certain technologies are

viewed positively. Public engagement efforts in Orange County, California, Melbourne, Australia, Crete and Israel illustrate this. In Orange County, messages regarding the safety of potable reuse conveyed by the local water district were reinforced by community groups and public health as well as local government agencies. In Melbourne, citizen engagement processes designed by local water agencies enabled residents to deliberate and discuss the pros and cons of various innovations. In Crete, confidence in wastewater reuse by local farmers led to wider social acceptance over time. In Israel, farmers and consumers embrace fruits and vegetables irrigated with reclaimed water, despite very small risks from minute amounts of pharmaceuticals. Messaging also reinforces the economic, water-saving and environmental benefits of reuse (Menegaki et al., 2007; Dolnicar et al., 2011; Friedler et al., 2006; Paltiel et al., 2016). Concerns regarding public contact are especially challenging. Some observers argue that psychological explanations for public support of water innovations too often assume that differences between expert and lay views of reclaimed water (or other innovations) are synonymous with ‘real versus perceived risk’ or ‘objective versus subjective risk’. Such distinctions are misguided responses by decision-makers intended to bring public opinion in line with expert judgment. Instead, the distinction may reinforce distrust by ignoring the difference between public confidence in a technology per se and trust in the process that leads to its adoption (Ormerod and Scott, 2012). Building confidence in direct contact with water generated by innovations requires trust in decisions, something best generated by public engagement. Case studies from Tucson, Arizona, Queensland, Australia and elsewhere illustrate this. Greater levels of trust in public authorities charged with basic community services are also associated with lower perceptions of risk. Conversely, risk perceptions tend to be amplified by distrust in agencies (Ross et  al., 2014; Pidgeon and Henwood, 2010; Mehan, 2019; Mosher and Vartanian, 2015). End uses entailing direct means of contact such as ingestion, bathing, swimming or other bodily interactions with water can generate serious apprehensions when the water source is recycled effluent. By contrast, end uses for recycled wastewater entailing indirect contact (e.g. landscape and crop irrigation) may

201

202  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management also generate concerns, but are generally viewed as more publicly acceptable (Alcon et al., 2010). Moreover, the documented presence of pathogens in reclaimed wastewater generates legitimate concerns and points to the need for rigorous risk assessment, strong regulation, a clear demonstration that recycled wastewater is safe chemically and microbiologically, and – most of all – the provision of buffers between treated wastewater and end users. The latter can be done through injecting treated wastewater into groundwater basins, thereby permitting a spatial and temporal distance between treatment and consumption (Fawell et al., 2005; Saldot and Huertas, 2006). Direct contact issues also arise for desalination and harvested storm water but tend to be less serious. Two explanations for this comparatively lower level of concern may be conjectured for desalination. First, the levels of contaminants potentially present are closely monitored and the quality of desalinated product water can be fairly easily adjusted. Second, other public acceptance concerns, such as ecological and aesthetic impacts, partially obscure other concerns (Voutchkov, 2013). The comparatively lower levels of concern over storm water contact may be attributable to the perception that it poses less direct risk to users. In most applications, storm water undergoes treatment before potable and non-potable uses. Wetlands and bio-retention systems that filter water through soil or sandbased media can remove sediment, nutrients and heavy metals. However, contact-related concerns are more often expressed by public health officials rather than by the general public (Grant et al., 2013). For all water innovations, governance – which encompasses law, regulation and stakeholder–public official relations – is essential for public acceptance. Governance tends to reflect power relationships shaped by demographic influences. For example, higher levels of income and education are positively associated with acceptance of recycled water – unsurprisingly, since better educated and wealthier people often have a greater voice in community decisions over its adoption. People of color, on the other hand, have lower levels of acceptance as do persons having lower income and education levels. While education can play a role in changing perceptions, some factors deterring acceptability are more difficult to overcome. david lewis feldman

In places that have traditionally relied on fresh water, a higher resistance to recycled water including rainwater may arise (Goonetilleke et  al., 2017; Tortajada and Ong, 2016). The acceptance of recycled water is also influenced by age (younger people are generally better educated and thus more accepting), while low levels of trust in government officials’ ability to mediate potential risks can negatively impact acceptability (Ross et  al., 2014; Fielding et al., 2019). Disadvantaged communities remain disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects and environmental degradation. Because these communities have a large proportion of people of low income, high unemployment, low levels of home ownership, high rent burdens, sensitive health and low levels of educational attainment, they also face distinct governance disadvantages with respect to innovation adoption. These include legacies of environmental injustice and mistreatment strongly connected to the race, income and education levels of a community. The ability of these groups to attend public meetings or procedural hearings is low, as is their efficacy in bringing compelling counter-arguments to bear when decisions to establish a desalination plant or wastewater reuse facility are being weighed. Studies of the role of under-represented communities in the context of drinking water safety have documented this phenomenon: exemplified by the Flint, Michigan, lead contamination crisis (Shonkoff et  al., 2009; Olson, 2016; Sze et  al., 2009). Underrepresented group disparities are exacerbated, further affecting the acceptability of innovations, when decision-makers adopt policies designed to ‘streamline’ or expedite permitting, licensing and/or approval of new water infrastructure (Farrelly and Brown 2011; Keremane et al., 2011). In sum, the social acceptability of water innovations is ‘socially constructed’. Public perceptions of a community’s – and a society’s – water needs, problems and appropriate solutions are filtered through citizens’ views of the causes and severity of water problems. These views limit what constitute appropriate remedies. In addition, citizens’ collective aspirations toward the type of society they find desirable shape how water needs, problems and appropriate solutions – including water innovations – are perceived. These attitudes also constrain

public acceptability of water supply innovations  203 Table 46.1   Achieving public acceptance of desalination, wastewater reuse and rainwater harvesting Principal objectives

How to strengthen legitimacy

Prescribed activity – desalination (1) Pilot test technologies

Provide public outreach opportunity

Display advantages compared to other sources

Environmental assessment

Opportunity for public scoping

Leads to partnership with community; develops trust

reports

meetings to identify concerns

Invite community members

Assuage environmental impact

Conform the project to community aspirations; minimize

to participate in planning,

concerns, effects on community

injustice

implementation

growth

Prescribed activity – wastewater reuse (2) Conduct planning and

Involve key stakeholders; facilitate

Situate reuse into discussion of water supply and quality,

values-based decision-

dialog, social learning

and health concerns

Conduct opinion surveys

Demonstrate underlying fears of

Demonstrate economic, environmental and household

of reuse and its sources of

drought and water shortages, public

security advantages of reuse

public support

confidence in technology

Conduct public outreach

Increase confidence and support

making at the community level

program

Gain experience in effective outreach throughout project life

Prescribed activity – rainwater harvesting (3) Introduce projects on a

Demonstrate feasibility

Demonstrate appropriate application

small scale

Aguilera-Klink, F., E. Perez-Moriana and J. Sanchez-Garcia. 2000. “The social construction of scarcity. The case of water in Tenerife (Canary Islands),” Ecological Economics 34 (2): 233–245. https:// EconPapers​.repec​.org​/ RePEc​:eee​:ecolec​:v​ :34​:y​:2000​:i​:2​:p​:233​-245 Alcon, F., F. Pedrero, J. Martin Ortega, N. Arcas, J.J. Alarcon, M.D. Miguel. 2010. “The non-market value of reclaimed wastewater for use in agriculture: A contingent valuation approach,” Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 8 (S2): S187–S196. ISSN 1695-971-X Asano, T. and A. Bahri. 2011. Global Challenges to Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, On the Water Front, January. References Buchs, A. 2010. “Water crisis and water Adewumi, J.R., A.A. Ilemobade and J.E. Van scarcity as social constructions. The Zyl. 2014. “Factors predicting the intention case of water use in Almeria (Andalusia, to accept treated wastewater reuse for Spain),” Options Méditerranéennes 207– non-potable uses amongst domestic and 211: halshs-00565223. non-domestic respondents,” Journal of Dolnicar, S., A. Hurlimann and B. Grün. 2011. the South African Institution of Civil What affects public acceptance of recycled Engineering 56 (1) April. https://journals​ and desalinated water? Water Research 45: .co​.za ​/doi​/abs​/10​.10520​/ EJC154143 933–943 doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.09.030.

the choices decision-makers are able to make with regard to the levels of financial or other risk considered appropriate for an innovation’s adoption; what constitutes acceptable solutions to chronic drought or water shortages; and what makes a set of options appropriate to ensure water security (Buchs, 2010; AguileraKlink et  al., 2000; Kalof, 1997; Lukasiewicz et al., 2013; Liberatore, 1995). Public acceptability requires that innovations resonate with a society’s shared belief systems, ethical standards and cultural norms. As Table  46.1 suggests, different measures must be utilized to ensure this resonance. David Lewis Feldman

david lewis feldman

204  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Farrelly, M. K. and R. Brown 2011. “Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a way forward?” Global Environmental Change 21: 721–732. Fawell, J., L. Fewtrell, O. Hydes, J. Watkins, P. WynJones. 2005. A Protocol for Developing Water Reuse Criteria with Reference to Drinking Water Supplies. London, UK: UK Water Industry Research Limited. Report ref. No.5/WR/29/1/ https:// www​ .waterboards​ .ca​ .gov​ / water​ _ issues​ / programs​/grants​_ loans​/water​_ recycling ​/ research​/02​_011​.pdf Fielding, K.S., S. Dolnicar & T. Schultz 2019. “Public acceptance of recycled water,” International Journal of Water Resources Development 35 (4): 551–586. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/07900627​.2017​.1419125 Friedler, E., O. Lahava, H. Jizhakib, T. Lahavc. 2006. “Study of urban population attitudes towards various wastewater reuse options: Israel as a case study,” Journal of Environmental Management 81 (2006): 360–370. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jenvman​ .2005​.11​.013 Goonetilleke, A., A. Liu, S. Managi, C. Wilson, T. Gardner, E.R. Bandala, L. Walker, J. Holden, M.A. Wibowo, S. Suripin, H. Joshi, D.M. Bonotto, D. Rajapaksa. 2017. “Stormwater reuse, a viable option: Fact or fiction?” Economic Analysis and Policy 56: 14–17. ISSN 0313-5926. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.eap​.2017​.08​.001. Grant, S.B., T.D. Fletcher, D. Feldman, J.D. Saphores, P.L. Cook, M. Stewardson, K. Low, K. Burry, A.J. Hamilton. 2013. “Adapting urban water systems to a changing climate: Lessons from the millennium drought in southeast Australia,” Environmental Science and Technology Oct 1; 47(19): 10727–10734. https://doi​.org​/10​.1021​/es400618z. Harris-Lovett, S.R., C. Binz, D.L. Sedlak, M. Kiparsky and B. Truffer. 2015. “Beyond user acceptance: A legitimacy framework for potable water reuse in California,” Environmental Science & Technology 49: 7552–7561. https://doi​.org​/10​.1021​/acs​.est​ .5b00504. Kalof, L. 1997. “Understanding the social construction of environmental concern,” Human Ecology Review 4 (2): 101–105. http://www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/24707033. Keremane, G., J. McKay and Z. Wu. 2011. “Not stormwater in my teacup: An internet david lewis feldman

survey of residents in three Australian cities,” Water (April), 118–124. Liberatore, A. 1995. “The social construction of environmental problems, pp. 59–83, in P. Glasbergen and A. Blowers (eds.), Environmental Policy in an International Context, volume 1. ButterworthHeinemann. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S1874​ -7043(06)80006-5. Lukasiewicz, A., P. Davidson, G.J. Syme and K.H. Bowmer. 2013. “How the social construction of the environment affects people’s reactions to water policy,” Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 20 (3): 179–192. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/14486563​.2013​.816641 Mehan III, G.T. 2019. “Found water: Reuse and the deconstruction of ‘Wastewater,’” Water Finance & Management December 10. https://waterfm​.com ​/found​-water​-reuse​ -and​-the​-deconstruction​-of​-wastewater/ Menegaki, A.N., N. Hanley and K. Tsagarakis. 2007. “The social acceptability and valuation of recycled water in Crete: A study of consumers’ and farmers’ attitudes,” Ecological Economics 62(1): 7–18. https://EconPapers​.repec​.org​/ RePEc​ :eee​:ecolec​:v​:62​:y​:2007​:i​:1​:p​:7​-18 Mosher, J.J. and G.M. Vartanian, editors. 2015. Framework for Direct Potable Reuse. Alexandria, VA: WateReuse Research Foundation. Olson, T. 2016. “The science behind the Flint water crisis: Corrosion of pipes, erosion of trust,” The Conversation, January 28. https://theconversation​ .com​ / the​ - science​ -behind​-the​-flint​-water​-crisis​-corrosion​-of​ -pipes​-erosion​-of​-trust​-53776 Ormerod, K.J. and C.A. Scott. 2012. “Drinking wastewater: Public trust in potable reuse,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 1–23. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0162243912444736. http://sthv​.sagepub​.com Paltiel, O., G. Fedorova, G. Tadmor, G. Kleinstern, Y. Maor and B. Chefetz. 2016. “Human exposure to wastewater-derived pharmaceuticals in fresh produce: A randomized controlled trial focusing on carbamazepine,” Environmental Science & Technology 50 (8): 4476–4482 https://doi​ .org​/10​.1021​/acs​.est​.5b06256 Pidgeon, N. and K. Henwood. 2010. “The social amplification of risk framework (SARF): Theory, critiques, and policy implications,” pp. 53–68, in P. Bennett,

public acceptability of water supply innovations  205 K. Calman, S. Curtis, and D. FischbacherSmith (eds.) Risk Communication and Public Health. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 97801​99562​84810​.1093​/ acpr​of:os​o/978​01995​62848​.003.​04. Ross, V.L., K.S. Fielding and W.R. Louis. 2014. “Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: Testing a social-psychological model,” Journal of Environmental Management 137: 61–68. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jenvman​.2014​.01​ .039 Rogers, S., J. Barnett, M. Webber, B. Finlayson and M. Wang. 2016. “Governmentality and the conduct of water: China’s South–North Water Transfer Project,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41 (4): 429–441. Saldot, M. and E. Huertas. 2006. Integrated Concepts for Reuse of Upgraded Wastewater: Guidelines for Water Reuse in Europe. AQUAREC EVK1-CT-2002-00130 Work package 2 Deliverable D15, May. https://www​

.susana​.org/​_ resources​/documents​/default​ /2​-550​-salgot​-huertas​-2006​-d15​-integrated​ -reuse​-aquarec​-en​.pdf Shonkoff, S.B., R. Morello-Frosch, M. Pastor and J. Sadd. 2009. “Minding the climate gap: Environmental health and equity implications of climate change mitigation policies in California,” Environmental Justice 2. https://doi​.org​/10​.1089​=env​.2009​ .0030. Sze, et  al. 2009. “Defining and contesting environmental justice: Socio‐natures and the Politics of Scale in the Delta,” Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography. September. https://onlinelibrary​.wiley​.com​/ doi​/abs​/10​.1111​/j​.1467​-8330​.2009​.00698.x Tortajada, C. and C.N. Ong. 2016. “Reused water policies for potable use,” International Journal of Water Resources Development 32 (4): 500–502. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/07900627​.2016​.1179177 Voutchkov, N. 2013. Desalination Engineering Planning and Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

david lewis feldman

47. Public Communication of Water Scarcity from Water Supply Agencies Introduction

the public perception of factors that impact water supply and services. A broad review of the literature indicates that a communication approach that involves a detailed understanding of consumers’ behaviour and attitude (Addo et al., 2019) and their social norms and identity (Lede et al., 2019) is central in designing and delivering effective risk communication on water scarcity and demand solutions. This perceptive can influence public water consumption attitude. It triggers water users to undertake actions leading to water conservation and demand reduction. The following section discusses behavioural changes and social norms and their relevance to effective communication amid uncertainties such as drought that greatly impact water availability and supply among countries.

Water resources are constrained worldwide due to significant pressures from population growth, demographic changes and climate change phenomena. These factors affect water availability, especially for domestic usage, and also increase the cost of treating water for supply (Alamanos et al., 2018). Water availability in the future is uncertain under such conditions, posing a significant Behavioural changes risk to the water sector (Du et  al., 2021; Okello et  al., 2015). As a result, water utili- The Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) model ties have been redesigning and adjusting their has three distinct behaviour conditions: capacommunication approaches to improve water bility, opportunity and motivation, commonly conservation efforts to ensure that water users referred to as the COM-B system (Michie make effective and efficient use of the supply et  al., 2011). Critics of the model assert that (Alamanos and Zeng, 2021; Alamanos, 2021). the BCW misses an essential element in The aim is to meet growing water demand ‘want’ and ‘need’ (Marks, 2020). According and avert the potential risk of water scarcity to Marks (2020), ‘want’ helps to remove the intention–behaviour gap in justifying why from a limited supply and high demand. The communication processes around people do or not do things for their own surwater availability and usage should be clear, vival, while ‘need’ justifies the mental state concise and embedded in risk communication that encourages people towards a desirable tenets. According to Mercer (2017), risk com- goal for their own benefit. Despite this permunication in the water sector is the process of ceived shortfall, the framework has been revealing the good and bad outcomes of a par- applied in various fields, including public ticular phenomenon that threatens water avail- health (Barker et al., 2016), design processes ability and supply. Risk communication also (Direito et al., 2017), physical activity appliconsiders the associated benefits, opportuni- cations (Truelove et  al., 2020), food waste ties and potential risks to the public through reduction initiatives (Mattsson, 2020) and their acceptance and involvement, listening to water conservation efforts (Addo et al., 2019). their specific concerns and being honest, open A meta-analysis of household water use and and plain-spoken. While risk communication conservation indicates that motivation, capacis ideal during emergencies, efforts to regu- ity and opportunity are the crux of behavlarly communicate non-emergency issues to ioural changes regarding water conservation consumers and decision-makers on the water (Addo et  al., 2018). The nature of conservasector’s challenges are indispensable. Regular tion messages may also trigger households’ communication of the risk to the water sec- capacity to take action on water scarcity and tors, the factors that threaten the quality of the conservation measures (Addo et  al., 2019). water supply and the progress made in resolv- Findings from Addo et al. (2018, 2019) affirm ing such challenges also helps to build trust, the role that the BCW can play in influenccredibility and acceptance of subsequent con- ing consumers’ reaction towards adherence servation messages (Mercer, 2017; Alamanos to a utility’s guidelines during a period of water scarcity and the behavioural changes and Koundouri, 2022). There is no specific or effective approach to needed to conserve water. Arguably, the longcommunicating water scarcity or improving term advantages of behavioural change are 206

public communication of water scarcity from water supply agencies  207 enormous when compared to other measures such as conservation orders (hosepipe bans), water pricing, tariffs, minimizing shower times, individual metering and the use of water-efficient devices and rain harvesting (Addo et al., 2019; Moglia et al., 2018).

Social norms and social identity Social norms and identity are also essential factors that can shape communication around water conservation because providing information to a targeted group or within a specific context can lead to changes in behaviour (Turner et  al., 1987). There is, therefore, an advantage in communicating along the lines of social identity and norms because as people identify with a group (e.g. farmers or pub owners) or a specific county or locality (e.g. Dubliner, Galwegian, Kumerican), they find it easier to alter their behaviour as the communication influences their psychological sense of belonging (Lede et  al., 2019; Seyranian et  al., 2015). A study of four water-scarce regions in England reveals that water conservation communication that appeals to a group’s norms and influence has more impact than just a piece of information on conservation (Lede et  al., 2019). Thus, social normbased communication encourages people of different backgrounds, group membership and identities to adapt their behaviour to suit water conservation measures. Some authors have recognized the perception of family and friends, attitudes and perceived behavioural control. Subjective norms can shape the perception of others on water conservation, which can also help in addressing the tension that usually erupts between consumers and utility companies, especially when they have to change their attitude and behaviour over a short period to help conserve water and promote water scarcity measures and efficiency (Barnett et  al., 2020; Warner et al., 2020). An experimental test of voluntary strategies towards promoting urban water demand management further reveals that social norm-based intervention and communication approaches such as personalized feedback on consumption reduction encourages people to take action faster on water conservation. However, it is difficult to personalize water consumption information to all individual consumers in Ireland due to challenges with domestic metering and the tracking of consumption. The ability to

personalize water consumption feedback to consumers based on demographic characteristics, type of dwelling and location in addition to information on how others are doing via either postal mail or web-based distribution, can motivate consumers to adopt conservation measures that are communicated with ease as compared to situations where raw information is thrown at consumers (Schultz et al., 2016). Addo et al. (2019) further suggest that personalizing messages on specific conservation measures directly impacts households’ water use behaviour.

Sample approach Effective communication that combines behavioural changes, social norms and social identity, as expanded earlier, is considerably effective, particularly during drought events. Table  47.1 shows a sample communication approach and how the concerns of water users can be addressed as part of an effort to improve public awareness and engagement. This approach is particularly important before, during and after a drought to ensure an adequate water supply and adherence to conservation measures. This sample communication approach could improve risk communication, which helps create discussions between stakeholders and promotes engagement, public participation and trust while clarifying misunderstandings and perceived thoughts on factors that impact water availability. The values, ethics and perspectives of different stakeholders could also be brought to bear through this approach, which leads not only to the acceptance of communication on conservation but also an improvement in the public reputation of a utility agency, its online presence and the willingness of consumers to act on the utility agency’s communique, especially during periods of drought (Antwi et al., 2022; VanDyke and King, 2020; Alamanos et  al., 2022). Also, given the importance of water conservation and the fact that drought conditions have become a recurrent global problem, communication strategies framed to ensure lasting behavioural changes with consideration of social norms and identity are essential in improving household involvement and commitment to water conservation during and after drought conditions. Through such a communication approach, the public could also be awakened to the realities of the hammond antwi sarpong et al.

208  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Table 47.1   Communication approach towards meeting customers’ concerns Customer concerns

Communication approach

Customers consider the frequency and

• Timely and effective communication with customers when drought and other

duration of supply interruptions are acceptable

interruptions are expected • Effective water resource and efficiency messaging and campaign communication before, during and after droughts • Commissioned research and scientific studies into water resource management and changing hydrological cycles to inform the long-term plans of the utility

Customers consider the appearance,

• Better information in publications and through the website

taste and smell of their water are

• Good relationships with other stakeholders and local authorities

acceptable

• Timely customer, stakeholder and media relations to explain repair and leakage

Customers consider the level of leakage

• Compelling information, footage and campaign materials

is acceptable

• Work alongside city councils, authorities and

works, boil-water notices and conservation orders

• stakeholders in developing awareness and understanding • Timely customer and media relations to show the progress of work, responses and investment Customers consider their direct

• Improve the water utility’s brand, make it more appealing, dynamic and consistent

interaction experience to be positive

• Improve customer engagement on social media and traditional media • Upskill communication development of employees on good communications and customer relations

Customers consider water services to be affordable

• Better information and transparency across all communication channels to make prices, metering and tariffs clear • Events and open days to meet with customers and stakeholders to exhibit works done by the utility, existing challenges and vision for the future

impact of climate externalities like drought on a common resource like water and subsequently act accordingly on water conservation measures by water utilities. Hammond Antwi Sarpong, Alec Rolston, Suzanne Linnane, David Getty and Angelos Alamanos

management. Water Supply, 22(2), 1810– 1819. https://doi​.org​/10​.2166​/ws​.2021​.318 Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink, 2022(4), Citizen Science. https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131 Alamanos, A., & Zeng, Q. (2021). Managing Scarce water resources for socially References acceptable solutions, through hydrological Addo, I. B., Thoms, M. C., & Parsons, M. and econometric modeling. Central Asian (2019). The influence of water-conservation Journal of Water Research, 7, 84–101. messages on reducing household water use. https://doi​.org​/10​.29258​/CAJWR​/2021​-R1​ Applied Water Science, 9(5), 3. https://doi​ .v7​-1​/84​-101​.eng .org​/10​.1007​/s13201​-019​-1002-0 Alamanos, A., Koundouri, P., Papadaki, L., Addo, I. B., Thoms, M. C., & Parsons, Pliakou, T., & Toli, E. (2022). Water for M. (2018). Household water use and tomorrow: A living lab on the creation of conservation behavior: A meta‐analysis. the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Water Resources Research, 54(10), Water, 14(18), 18. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ 8381–8400. https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​ w14182879 /2018WR023306 Alamanos, A., Mylopoulos, N., Vasiliades, Alamanos, A. (2021). Simple hydro-economic L., & Loukas, A. (2018). Climate change tools for supporting small water supply effects on the availability of water agencies on sustainable irrigation water resources of Lake Karla watershed for hammond antwi sarpong et al.

public communication of water scarcity from water supply agencies  209 irrigation and Volos city urban water use. PRE XIV - Protection and Restoration of the Environment (PRE) Conference. July 4, Thessaloniki, Greece. Antwi, S. H., Rolston, A., Linnane, S., & Getty, D. (2022). Communicating water availability to improve awareness and implementation of water conservation: A study of the 2018 and 2020 drought events in the Republic of Ireland. Science of the Total Environment, 807, 150865. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/J​.SCITOTENV​.2021​.150865 Barker, F., Atkins, L., & De Lusignan, S. (2016). International Journal of Audiology Applying the COM-B behaviour model and behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention to improve hearing-aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation. https://doi​ .org​/10​.3109​/14992027​.2015​.1120894 Barnett, M. J., Jackson-Smith, D., EndterWada, J., & Haeffner, M. (2020). A multilevel analysis of the drivers of household water consumption in a semi-arid region. Science of the Total Environment, 712, 136489. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2019​.136489 Direito, A., Michie, S., Lefevre, C. E., & Collins, E. I. M. (2017). Application of the behaviour change wheel framework to the development of interventions within the City4Age project. 2017 25th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks, SoftCOM 2017. https://doi​.org​ /10​.23919​/SOFTCOM​.2017​.8115507 Du, P., Xu, M., & Li, R. (2021). Impacts of climate change on water resources in the major countries along the Belt and Road. https://doi​.org​/10​.7717​/peerj​.12201 Lede, E., Meleady, R., & Seger, C. R. (2019). Optimizing the influence of social norms interventions: Applying social identity insights to motivate residential water conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 105–114. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.jenvp​.2019​.02​.011 Marks, D. F. (2020). The COM-B system of behaviour change: Properties, problems and prospects. Qeios. https://doi​.org​/10​ .32388​/u5mttb.2 Mattsson, G. (2020). Applying the behaviour change wheel to design and evaluate a food waste reducing prototype for workplace kitchens. Retrieved from https://www​ .diva​-portal​.org​/smash​/get​/diva2​:1459699​/ FULLTEXT01​.pdf

Mercer, K. L. (2017). On water & works: Risk communication. Journal: American Water Works Association, 109(12), 2–2. https:// doi​.org​/10​.5942​/jawwa​.2017​.109​.0157 Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1186​/1748​-5908​-6​- 42 Moglia, M., Cook, S., & Tapsuwan, S. (2018). Promoting water conservation: Where to from here? Water, 10(11), 1510. https://doi​ .org​/10​.3390​/w10111510 Okello, C., Tomasello, B., Greggio, N., Wambiji, N., & Antonellini, M. (2015). Impact of population growth and climate change on the freshwater resources of Lamu Island, Kenya. Water 7, 1264–1290. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ W7031264 Schultz, P. W., Messina, A., Tronu, G., Limas, E. F., Gupta, R., & Estrada, M. (2016). Personalized normative feedback and the moderating role of personal norms. Environment and Behavior, 48(5), 686–710. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0013916514553835 Seyranian, V., Sinatra, G. M., & Polikoff, M. S. (2015). Comparing communication strategies for reducing residential water consumption. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 81–90. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.jenvp​.2014​.11​.009 Truelove, S., Vanderloo, L. M., Tucker, P., Di Sebastiano, K. M., & Faulkner, G. (2020). The use of the behaviour change wheel in the development of ParticipACTION’s physical activity app. Preventive Medicine Reports, 20, 101224. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​ /j​.pmedr​.2020​.101224 Turner, J., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., & Reicher, S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Retrieved from https://psycnet​.apa​.org​/record​/1987​-98657​ -000 VanDyke, M. S., & King, A. J. (2020). Dialogic communication practices of water district officials: Insights from practitioner interviews. Environmental Communication, 14(2), 147–154. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/17524032​.2019​.1705365 Warner, L. A., Turner, S., & Lundy, L. (2020). Comparing linkages between descriptive norms and current and intended outdoor water conservation. Journal of Extension, 58(6), 1–9. hammond antwi sarpong et al.

48. Rainwater Harvesting Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is a worldwide practice used for diverse purposes, such as human consumption, agricultural production and flood control. An RWH system is conceived when rainfall is intercepted and diverted with minimal water losses for specific uses. Although considered simple, RWH systems can present relatively high complexity in design, implementation, operation and maintenance, and so can the frameworks that encompass their regulation, standards and management. RWH is regulated and institutionalized as public policy in several countries (Eslamian & Eslamian, 2021; Espíndola et  al., 2020; Zhu et  al., 2015). Funding for these systems has been through individual initiatives, governments, international bodies, nongovernmental organizations, tax incentives and subsidies. Large national and regional projects have been promoted, such as the Brazilian One Million Cisterns Program (Gnadlinger, 2020), the One Million Cisterns for the Sahel Initiative (FAO, 2018) and the RWH Program in Gansu province in China (Gould et al., 2014). RWH systems bring human synergy to the water production process for family and communal use. The involvement of users in this process, such as families, communities and schools, has shown gains in active conservation for water and the environment. The use of rainwater is related to several sustainable development goals (SDGs): no poverty (SDG  1), zero hunger (SDG  2), good health and well-being (SDG 3), gender equality (SDG 5), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), climate action (SDG  13) and life on land (SDG 15).

Applications Human usage The most known activity in the use of RWH is certainly human consumption. RWH has been widely used to supply households, both for potable and non-potable purposes. The greater the difficulty in accessing water, the more rainwater is used.

Agricultural and industrial supply RWH is also used in agriculture and industry of various types (Zhu et al., 2015). In industry, it is mainly used in the non-potable production process. The most common use in agriculture is for irrigation, followed by livestock farming. In agriculture, the use of rainwater through in situ storage uses the soil instead of tanks; the soil tillage is prepared so that it optimizes the harvesting and storage of water for plants. Aquifer recharge RWH is also a source of water for managed aquifer recharge (Dillon et  al., 2018). The catchment areas are roofs or land surface. The harvested water is then diverted to injection wells or infiltration ponds. Alternatively, storage tanks are used to manage the timing of recharge. Such techniques can be implemented in both urban and rural areas, require no or low energy consumption and can be associated with other recharge techniques. Disaster risk reduction RWH can minimize severe damage when extreme events occur, for example, floods, landslides and droughts (UNDRR, 2021). In the case of floods and landslides, this implies storing the maximum possible volume of rainwater to reduce the impact of heavy rainfalls. Storage must consider the characteristics of each drainage basin and can be carried out by the greatest possible number of reservoirs built on a small or large scale. In the case of droughts, it is possible to guarantee some part of the supply of water for human use. In cases of disasters that cause disruption to the conventional supply system, RWH systems are an off-grid emergency alternative. Community-level RWH RWH in communities and remote areas occurs especially due to the absence of conventional infrastructure for supplying water from other sources, the low water availability and even the pollution of the water available in these locations (Mekdaschi & Liniger, 2013). RWH requires relatively low-cost infrastructure, does not consume electricity, naturally occurs with quality that is close to the potable condition, has a low risk of contamination and making it potable requires simplified procedures. RWH provides safe water, reducing illnesses and infant and elderly mortality, and increasing life expectancy and quality. In

210

rainwater harvesting  211 several remote areas, it is common for women and children to look for water and carry it in buckets from sources to households. The availability of the RWH system in the household itself has reduced the workload of these family members, as well as the incidence of illnesses resulting from physical overload and, in the case of homes inhabited by the elderly, guaranteed autonomous water supply. By guaranteeing access to safe water, RWH promotes community and political empowerment (Carter, 2014). Urban infrastructure RWH is also part of the urban infrastructure, for watering urban green spaces and washing streets and public sidewalks, also reducing overflow due to surface runoff. The infrastructure consists of the roofs of public and private buildings and storage is in underground or surface reservoirs. This is an infrastructure that can contribute to increasing the non-potable supply of water in urban areas, given the need to save drinking water (Suleiman et al., 2020).

Design, maintenance and operation Catchment areas, conduits and storage tanks comply with local resources and characteristics. Historically, systems have incorporated technological innovations and cultural changes in water use. The types of systems essentially depend on the building materials and equipment used locally, as well as the water usage. The use of materials and devices that are easy and cheap to acquire, maintain and replace is very important, particularly in individual systems. Complementary components of RWH systems have been increasingly adopted in new RWH projects, such as first flush diverters and pumps. The former diverts the initial rainfall captured from the catchment area from entering the reservoir. The first flush of rainwater carries most of the impurities that were deposited on the catchment area following a previous rain event. The pumps are used to transfer water out of the storage reservoir. The RWH system’s design usually focuses on optimizing the amount of water collected and demanded. Mass curve methods that compute the balance between water inflow (i.e. rainwater harvested) and outflow (i.e. projected rainwater consumption) over time are widely used to design components of the

system such as the catchment area, pipes and storage capacity. Inter- and intra-annual rainfall variability greatly impacts the design of systems. On the one hand, in regions with a medium-to-high seasonal rainfall pattern these systems’ resilience relies on their capability to provide water during dry months. On the other hand, in regions with well-distributed rainfall rates throughout the year, there is less demand for storage capacity, but an insufficient catchment area can cause frequent disruptions to the water supply. In fact, the sizing of each RWH system’s component requires consideration of the specific system’s characteristics. First flush diverters, filters and disinfection devices are sized considering the quality of the atmospheric air, the exposure of the catchment area to pollution and the quality of the stored water. Pumps are sized according to the dimensions of the tank and the abstracted discharge. The operation and maintenance of RWH systems depend on the technological complexity of the infrastructure and the water use. They are carried out by the users themselves, in individual systems, or by specialized professionals, depending on the technology and the size of the system. The most frequent maintenance procedures include cleaning the three main devices: the catchment area, the conduits and the water storage tank. Less frequently, the replacement or repair of failed devices. Maintenance must necessarily be precautionary and continuous. Periods with low precipitation and low stored volumes are more suitable for maintenance. Accessory devices, such as bypasses and filters, also require maintenance. The design, maintenance, operation and monitoring of RWH systems are formalized as technical standards or guidelines in many countries or regions, such as the European Standard EN 16941-1:2018, ISO 46001:2019, the Australian NCC Vol 3 Part B6 and the Brazilian NBR 15527:2019. Carlos O. Galvão, Ronaldo L. R. Mendes and Rodolfo L. B. Nóbrega

References Carter, R. (2014). Editorial: rainwater harvesting (special issue). Waterlines, 33(2), 97–98. Dillon, P., Stuyfzand, P., Grischek, T., Lluria, M., Pyne, R. D. G., Jain, R. C., Bear, J., Schwarz, J., Wang, W., Fernandez, E.,

carlos o. galvão, ronaldo l. r. mendes and rodolfo l. b. nóbrega

212  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Stefan, C., Pettenati, M., van der Gun, J., Sprenger, C., Massmann, G., Scanlon, B. R., Xanke, J., Jokela, P., Zheng, Y., Rossetto, R., . . . & Sapiano, M. (2018). Sixty years of global progress in managed aquifer recharge. Hydrogeology Journal, 27(1), 1–30. Eslamian, S., & Eslamian, F. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of Water Harvesting and Conservation: Basic Concepts and Fundamentals. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Espíndola, J. A. G., Flores, C. A. C., PachecoVega, R., & Montes, M. R. P. (Eds.). (2020). International Rainwater Catchment Systems Experiences: Towards Water Security. London: IWA Publishing. FAO (2018). One Million Cisterns for the Sahel Initiative. Rome: FAO. Gnadlinger, J. (2020). Smart rainwater management and its impacts on drought resilience by Rural Semi-Arid communities: A case study of Northeast Brazil. In: Espíndola et  al. International Rainwater Catchment Systems Experiences: Towards

Water Security, 207–219. London: IWA Publishing. Gould, J., Qiang, Z., & Yuanhong, L. (2014). Using every last drop: Rainwater harvesting and utilization in Gansu Province, China. Waterlines, 33(2), 107–119. Mekdaschi, R., & Liniger, H. (2013). Water Harvesting: Guidelines to Good Practice. Bern: Centre for Development and Environment. Suleiman, L., Olofsson, B., Saurí, D., & Palau-Rof, L. (2020). A breakthrough in urban rain-harvesting schemes through planning for urban greening: Case studies from Stockholm and Barcelona. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 51, 126678. UNDRR (2021). Words into Action: Nature-based Solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UNDRR. Zhu, Q., Gould, J., Li, Y., & Ma, C. (Eds.). (2015). Rainwater Harvesting for Agriculture and Water Supply. Singapore: Springer.

carlos o. galvão, ronaldo l. r. mendes and rodolfo l. b. nóbrega

49. Recurring Food and Energy Price Crises and the Growing Role of Water Introduction It seems that joint food and energy crises have become the norm: three have now occurred in just the last 15 years, driven by poor bioenergy policies, climate extremes and restrictive agricultural trade policies. The 2021–22 crisis was exacerbated by Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. All three crises dramatically pushed up food, fuel and fertilizer prices (Figure  49.1), leading to an increase in the number of undernourished people worldwide. Water cannot be easily added to the chart presented in Figure 49.1, because it is not traded globally, but water scarcity and variability have clearly been crises multipliers and their contribution to food price shocks is growing. While impacts from the often poor responses to the food and energy price crises are worsening water outcomes, interventions in the water space can reduce food and energy prices.

Why water is worsening food and energy price crises Unlike foods whose varieties are continually expanding and energy sources that also continually evolve, water has remained a quasifixed resource. At the same time, demands on water resources continue to grow because of population and economic growth, with domestic-industrial demands outpacing those for growing food. There are also increasing demands to preserve some environmental uses of water (Rosegrant et al., 2002; Hanjra and Qureshi, 2010; Chen and Olden, 2017). Water, food, energy and environmental systems are intrinsically interlinked and with the growing scarcity of natural resources, actions in one sector increasingly affect outcomes in other sectors (Ringler et al., 2013). Plants and livestock cannot survive without water, and energy in its various forms plays important roles in food security, be it as fertilizers or pesticides, or as fuel or electricity for lifting water, harvesting, transporting and storing produce, and for preparing and consuming

food. Food is increasingly converted into bioenergy, and this process has been identified as a key contributor to the 2007/2008 (Elliott, 2008) and 2010/11 food and energy price crises. Finally, all energy sources require some amount of water (McMahon and Price, 2011). Second, adverse climate change impacts are rapidly increasing, including on the water, energy and food sectors (Bates et  al., 2008; van Vliet et  al., 2016). In fact, most climate change impacts manifest themselves through water resources. As an example, the extreme heat stress of May 2022 in Pakistan (and parts of India) was followed by severe flooding, with about 10 percent of Pakistan flooded. The heatwave and ensuing floods were two systemic, interlinked extreme events, with the hotter air earlier in the year holding more moisture and together with melting glaciers foreshadowing the floods. In response to the climate extreme events, India, the world’s largest rice exporter, banned exports of broken rice on 9 September 2022,1 and added export taxes on other rice varieties, affecting food prices that were already hit by a series of trade shocks associated with the Covid-19 pandemic and the war on Ukraine. A second example of the growing impact of water variability and shortages on food and energy prices are the food, water and energy implications of the megadrought in the South-Western United States in 2000–21, which has been identified as the driest 22-year period over the last 1200 years in this region (Williams et  al., 2022). Figure  49.2 presents the correlation of the California Water Price Index with drought conditions from January 2013 to October 2022. During this period, the water price index increased during conditions of extreme and exceptional drought, with the most recent increase suggesting water prices of US$1.00 per cubic meter, up from the more recent price of US$0.20 per cubic meter. While these water fees are barely affordable by poorer communities in California that need to buy water on the open market to keep their taps running, they are even less affordable for irrigators, most of whose allowances have been drastically cut in the face of the lasting drought and recent legislation aimed at reining in large-scale groundwater depletion in the state. This reduction in water availability for agriculture is particularly important because the state accounts for up to half of the US fruit and nut production and a third of US

213

214  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:  Headey and Hirvonen (2022).

Figure 49.1   Food, fuel and fertilizer price indexes and GDP growth for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

vegetable production. Extreme climate events related to water scarcity have also led to a substantial reduction in renewable energy production in California. In 2019, hydroelectricity accounted for 19 percent of energy production. In 2021, when up to 90 percent of the state experienced extreme drought conditions, monthly production was 48  percent below average.2 While this is not a global picture, the situation in California is representative of many other water-scarce, food- and hydroelectricity-producing areas. For example, in Sri Lanka, the 2019 drought cut hydropower generation in half to 15 percent of the nation’s total electricity production as the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) sought to save water for household and irrigation requirements.3 There are other indications that the main future crisis driver might be water. The global water storage gap, which includes groundwater, appears to be widening due to a lack of investment, poor policy and climate change (GWP, 2021; McCartney et  al., 2021). With inadequate storage, climate change and weather shocks will likely continue to boost energy and food price increases and variability (Rosegrant et  al., 2014a). Growing water pollution levels are yet a further contributor to higher food, energy and water prices, with claudia ringler and mark w. rosegrant

polluted water unsuitable for drinking and some food production and utilities spending large shares of their operating budgets on electricity for treating water sources.

Measures to break water’s impacts on food and energy price crises We propose five actions that can reduce water’s growing impact on joint energy and food crises. The first proposed solution focuses on increasing water storage to reduce climate change’s impact on energy and food prices. Specifically, we propose to apply a water storage diagnostic and assess the impacts of various water storage expansion options, such as changes in soil moisture, managed aquifer research and the revival of natural wetlands, among others (see e.g. McCartney et al., 2013), on changes in energy and food prices. The second proposed measure is improved governance and management of water resources, particularly groundwater resources given the growing reliance of irrigators on this source and its role in buffering extreme climate events. Successful groundwater management needs both regulatory and incentivebased tools. Regulation includes limiting new

Figure 49.2   Correlation between the Nasdaq Veles California Water Index (US$/AF) and California drought conditions

Source:  https://www​.nasdaq​.com​/solutions​/nasdaq​-veles​-water​-index

recurring food and energy price crises and the growing role of water  215

claudia ringler and mark w. rosegrant

216  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management wells or irrigated acreage, permitting pumping rights that cap usage and metering wells. Incentive-based tools include water pricing, land retirement payments, trading of groundwater storage credits or use permits, and costsharing to provide farmers with incentives to adopt improved technologies and management practices (Rosegrant, 2020). Moreover, strengthening the community understanding of groundwater systems and insights on measures to conserve resources (e.g. Meinzen-Dick et al., 2018) can improve groundwater governance. Appropriate groundwater institutions are also needed as solar pumps are increasingly replacing manual as well as diesel and petrol pumps for groundwater extraction. With the variable costs of pumping removed, the risk of groundwater degradation and depletion increases, potentially negating early reductions in food and water prices. Given that agriculture continues to consume the majority of withdrawn freshwater resources, much more research for development must occur in the agricultural water sector to break water’s growing role as a crisis multiplier. Key measures include additional investment in and dissemination of precision agricultural tools, such as soil moisture sensors and soil health data. It will be particularly important to invest in more affordable and accessible tools that smallholder farmers can apply. It also includes continued investment in seed technologies to increase the nutrient use efficiency as well as the transpiration efficiency of key food crops, particularly the main irrigation water consumers of rice and wheat (Rosegrant et  al., 2014b). In addition, to reduce water use in agriculture and encourage diversification from rice to higher-valued crops, irrigation systems should be selectively modernized, including investments in physical infrastructures, such as canal delivery structures and land leveling; in systems that efficiently control water application timing and depth, such as remote sensing; and in the application of information technology, remote sensing and databases to support water monitoring and accounting and real-time management of irrigation. All of these measures should be assessed using a systems approach; and those measures that encourage social inclusion and equity, such as low-cost precision agricultural technologies and affordable water, energy and

claudia ringler and mark w. rosegrant

yield-maximizing seeds, should be prioritized, as the rural poor are most affected by recurring food, energy and water crises.

Acknowledgment This chapter was written with support from the CGIAR NEXUS Gains Initiative. Claudia Ringler and Mark W. Rosegrant

Notes 1. 2. 3.

https://www​.cnbc​ .com ​ / 2022 ​ / 09​ /19​ / philippines​ -indonesia​- countries​-most​-vulnerable ​- to ​-indias​ -rice​-export​-ban​-nomura​.html https://www​.eia ​.gov​/todayinenergy​/detail​.php​?id​ =51839 https://asian ​ - power​ .com ​ / power​ - utility​ / news ​ /sri​ -lanka​ - cuts​- hydropower​-generation​ -15 ​ - drought​ -slashes​-output

References Bates, B. C., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Wu, S., & Palutikof, J. P. (Eds). (2008). Climate change and water. Geneva: Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, 210 pp. Chen, W. & Olden, J. D. (2017). Designing flows to resolve human and environmental water needs in a dam-regulated river. Nature Communication 8, 2158. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1038​/s41467​-017​-02226-4 Elliott, K. A. (2008). Biofuels and the food price crisis: A survey of the issues. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 151. https://ssrn​.com​/abstract​=1221668 or https://doi​.org​/10​.2139​/ssrn​.1221668 GWP (Global Water Partnership). (2021). Storing water. A new integrated approach for resilient development. Global Water Partnership. https://www​.gwp​.org​/ globalassets​/global​/toolbox​/publications​/ perspective​-papers​/perspectives​-paper​- on​ -water​-storage​.pdf Hanjra, M. A. & Qureshi M. E. (2010). Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy 35(5), 365–377. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.foodpol​ .2010​.05​.006 Headey, D. D. & Hirvonen, K. (2022). Food inflation, poverty, and urbanization in the short run. IFPRI Discussion Paper 2133. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https:// doi​.org​/10​.2499​/p15738coll2​.136356

recurring food and energy price crises and the growing role of water  217 McCartney, M., Rebelo, L.-M., Xenarios, S. & Smakhtin, V. (2013). Agricultural water storage in an era of climate change: Assessing need and effectiveness in Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 37p. https:// doi​.org​/10​.5337​/2013​.207 McMahon, J. E. & Price, S. K. (2011). Water and energy interactions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36(1), 163–191. https://www​.annualreviews​.org​ /doi​/abs​/10​.1146​/annurev​- environ​- 061110​ -103827 Meinzen-Dick, R. S., Janssen, M. A., Kandikuppa, S., Chaturvedi, R., Rao, K. & Theis, S. 2018. Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India. World Development 107, 40–53. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.worlddev​.2018​.02​.006 Ringler, C., Bhaduri, A. & R. Lawford. (2013). The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): Potential for improved resource use efficiency? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(6), 617–624. Rosegrant, M. W. (2020). Water management for sustainable irrigated and rainfed agriculture: Opportunities, challenges, impacts and the way forward. Background paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2020. Overcoming Water Challenges in Agriculture, Rome. Washington, DC: FAO.

Rosegrant, M. W., Cai, X. & Cline, S. (2002). World water and food to 2025: Dealing with scarcity. Washington, DC: IFPRI. https://ebrary​.ifpri​.org​/utils​/getfile​/ collection ​/p15738coll2​/id ​/92523​/filename​ /92524​.pdf Rosegrant, M. W., Ringler, C. & Zhu, T. (2014a). Water markets as an adaptive response to climate change. In K. W., Easter & Q. Huang (Eds.), Water markets for the 21st century: What have we learned?, Global Issues in Water Policy 11, 35–65. Rosegrant, M. W., Koo, J., Cenacchi, N., Ringler, C., Robertson, R., Fisher, M., Cox, C. M., Garrett, K., Perez, N. D. & Sabbagh, P. (2014b). Food security in a world of natural resource scarcity: The role of agricultural technologies. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://www​.ifpri​.org​/sites​/default​/ files​/publications​/oc76​.pdf van Vliet, M., Wiberg, D., Leduc, S. et  al. (2016). Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources. Nature Climate Change 6, 375–380. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1038​/nclimate2903 Williams, A. P., Cook, B. I. & Smerdon, J. E. (2022). Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020–2021. Nature Climate Change 12, 232–234. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1038​/s41558​-022​-01290-z

claudia ringler and mark w. rosegrant

50. Reservoir Sedimentation as an Off-Site Effect of Soil Erosion: Two Different Approaches for the Same Case Study Introduction Reservoir sedimentation is a characteristic off-site effect of soil erosion and a major issue for dam managers worldwide, especially when hydropower, and hence profit, is involved. According to the Status of the World’s Soil Resources (FAO and ITPS, 2015), the global erosion rates are distributed to different erosion agents as follows: water erosion 20–30  Gt  yr–1, tillage erosion 5 Gt yr–1, while wind erosion – though there is no clear indication – is estimated to be 2 Gt yr1 only on arable land. The largest portion of these sediment yields is translocated and deposited to downstream areas of the soil surface. However, a large part reaches the stream networks and from there the inlet of reservoirs where it is trapped. This leads to loss of storage capacity due to sedimentation, which effectively impedes and in extreme cases catalyzes the multiple purposes (e.g. energy production, flood and debris control, water supply, irrigation and fire protection) that a dam may serve. Further, implications downstream of dams are associated with an increase in sediment release operations in order to regain storage capacity. From an ecological perspective, the flushing of large amounts of sediment in a very short period of time can have dire consequences on river ecosystems (fish, macroinvertebrates, etc.) (Folegot et  al., 2021; Pisaturo et  al., 2021). River morphology is also affected, with excessive erosion (Kondolf, 1997) or excessive deposition (sediment release). It is estimated that reservoir sedimentation worldwide costs $21 billion annually (ICOLD, 2009). In most cases, the problem of excessive reservoir sedimentation originated before the establishment of dams due to failed sediment discharge prediction prior to construction of a dam (Annandale et al., 2016; Kaffas et al.,

2019a). This highlights the importance of accurately predicting and validating reservoir sedimentation rates, which essentially means the computation of sediment yields at the inlet of a reservoir. To compute the sediment budget at a given point throughout a basin or in a stream, one must consider all the different sediment sources that can contribute to that point. Based on site-specific physiographic and topographic characteristics, the main related processes can be rill and interrill erosion (commonly, soil erosion), gully erosion, sediment mobilization due to landslides, snowmelt or avalanches, streambed erosion and sediment transport or a combination of these. Further, and since the aforementioned are rainfall or water-induced phenomena, there is also wind erosion which can mobilize considerable amounts of sediment especially in large open areas with sparse vegetation. However, and as far as sediment derived from the soil surface is concerned, modelers have made greater efforts to study these processes as hydrologically driven phenomena (Kaffas et  al., 2019a; Borrelli et  al., 2021). Nevertheless, and though sediment yield is a product of all sediment producing processes (de Vente and Poesen, 2005), simulating all the processes going on in a basin is practically impossible and models that try to do this often become too complex to be reliably applied in real cases (Brambilla et al., 2011). The objective of this chapter is to present two different approaches, as simulated processes, to calculate sediment yields and reservoir sedimentation rates, given the availability of data. The two applications regard the same case study and are presented in the following sections.

A USLE-SDR model for long-term reservoir sedimentation rates in the Alps The Rio di Pusteria dam is located in the north-eastern part of South Tyrol, in north Italy. At an altitude of 704 m, it drains an area of 233.6 km2 delimited by two dams, Rio di Pusteria (downstream, outlet) and Kniepass (upstream, inlet) which cuts off the sediment continuity from upstream (Figure 50.1). It is a typical Alpine basin with high altitudes (721– 3235 m) and steep topography (0–85°). The sedimentation rates of the Rio di Pusteria reservoir due to soil erosion and

218

reservoir sedimentation as an off-site effect of soil erosion  219

Source:  Kaffas et al. (2021).

Figure 50.1   Study area

sediment yields were calculated between two consecutive sediment flushing operations, in June 2014 and May 2019. A gridded sevenfactor universal soil loss equation (USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965, 1978) with a modified LS factor was used in the calculation of soil erosion due to rainfall:

A = R·K ·LS·C·P·FCFRG (50.1)

where A is the soil loss per unit area (t  ha–1  yr–1); R is the rainfall erosivity factor (MJ mm ha–1 h–1 yr–1); K is the soil erodibility factor (t  h  MJ–1  mm–1); L is the slope length factor (dimensionless); S is the slope steepness factor (dimensionless); C is the cover and management factor (dimensionless); P is the support practice factor (dimensionless); and FCFRG is the coarse fragment factor. The rainfall erosivity factor was first determined using 43 years of rainfall records, thus representing the precipitation regime of the

study area, and second using the rainfall data of each year separately, representing the specific rainfall conditions of the study period. The Alpine environment is rocky and the percentage of rock increases with altitude. Hence, a seventh factor (FCFRG) is added to the conventional six-factor USLE to account for the nonerodible part of the surface. This renders the application ideal for upper lands and mountain areas. The sediment yields that reach downstream areas and the reservoir were calculated using a sediment delivery ratio (SDR) module which takes into account the different characteristics of the basin. The application was conducted in a high-resolution (2.5 m) geographic information system (GIS) environment and the results were compared with sediment yields derived from high-resolution (0.25  m) bathymetric analyses after the 2014 sediment flushing and before the 2019 sediment flushing. The volumetric difference between the pre- and post-flushing bathymetries enabled the determination of the trapped sediment konstantinos kaffas

220  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:  Kaffas et al. (2021).

Figure 50.2   R-factor, soil erosion and sediment yield calculated by the gridded USLE-SDR application for the Rio di Pusteria basin (clockwise: R-factor, soil erosion, sediment yield)

yield during the study period which amounted to 452,683 tons. The topographic factor (LS) was adjusted to the Alpine terrain by means of a fitting threshold of 100 m to the slope length factor (L). The five-year reservoir sedimentation rates were calculated at 439 279.2  tons and 589 520.5 tons, with deviations from the measured sediment yield from bathymetric analyses of 3.3  percent and –25.5  percent, respectively. The results for the R-factor, soil erosion and sediment yields are summarized in Figure 50.2. The results show that the methodology can be efficiently applied in the Alpine environment for the estimation of reservoir sedimentation rates. The success of this application primarily lies in the fact that an empirical soil erosion model for agricultural areas was modified and applied, combined with an SDR module, to an Alpine basin, and hence sets the grounds for the successful application of USLE in mountain areas.

Reservoir sedimentation rates in the Alps due to soil erosion and sediment transport In this section, an altogether different approach is presented for the calculation of konstantinos kaffas

the sedimentation of the Rio di Pusteria reservoir for the same study area (Figure 50.1) and period as in the previous section. The same high resolution (0.25 m) bathymetric analyses data were used for validating the results. The GIS version of the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) (Arnold et  al., 1998) was used at a daily time step from July 2011 to May 2019 with a three-year warm-up period (Kaffas et al., 2022a). The hydrologic losses and rainfall excess were determined by the SCS-CN method (SCS, 1972), while soil erosion was modeled by means of the modified universal soil loss equation (MUSLE) (Williams, 1975):

SY = R f ·K ·LS·C·P·FCFRG (50.2) R f = 11.8 × ( Q × qp )

0.56

(50.3)

where SY is the sediment yield per unit of time (t); Rf is the runoff erosivity factor; Q is the volume of runoff per unit of time (m3); and qp is the peak flow rate (m3/s). A similar application of MUSLE with a coarse fragment factor was successfully implemented by Kaffas et al. (2022b) for the flash flood of Mandra in Greece.

reservoir sedimentation as an off-site effect of soil erosion  221 Subsequently, the stream sediment transport was simulated using Yang’s (1996) sand and gravel model. A more detailed description of the models used can be found in Kaffas et al. (2018). Although the model was run at a daily time step, the results were extracted as monthly water and sediment yields. For calibration and validation, the measured sediment yield obtained by the volumetric difference of the two reservoir bathymetries (previous section) had to be disaggregated into monthly sediment yields. This was achieved using the results of the study of Kaffas et al. (2021) (previous section). According to these results, the measured sediment yield was split into annual sediment yields, which were further

disaggregated into monthly sediment yields based on the raw results of SWAT. Streamflow and sediment discharge were calibrated through 29  hydrologic, hydraulic, snow and sediment parameters, and 4000 simulations, for a two-year period (July 2014–June 2016) and produced a Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) of 0.97 and 0.59, respectively. The model was subsequently validated from July 2016 to May 2019, indicating a very satisfactory model performance with NSE values of 0.97 for streamflow discharge and 0.48 for sediment discharge. The final values for the 29 calibrated parameters were used for the entire study period (June 2014–May 2019) and the results are shown in Figure 50.3.

Source:  Kaffas et al. (2022a).

Figure 50.3   (a) Monthly stream discharge and (b) monthly sediment yield at Rio di Pusteria reservoir

konstantinos kaffas

222  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management The NSE values between calculations and measurements for the results presented in Figures 50.3a and b are (NSE = 0.96) for streamflow discharge and (NSE  =  0.49) for sediment discharge. The sediment discharge displays a much higher 95 percent prediction uncertainty (95PPU); however, it includes the entire measurement. The application resulted in a five-year calculated sediment yield of 472 680  tons, presenting a deviation of only –4.2 percent from the measured value.

Conclusion Two different approaches are presented to calculate the sedimentation rates of the Rio di Pusteria reservoir. In the first case, the sedimentation is determined as a result of soil erosion and sediment yields using a combination of empirical models. The model is applied in two different configurations resulting in a single five-year sediment yield in the first case and in annual sediment yields in the second case. Apart from the very satisfactory performance in calculating the reservoir sedimentation, the overall merit of this application is the adaptation of a par excellence agricultural soil erosion model to the Alpine terrain, and effectively the introduction of a USLE-based model that is ideal for upper lands and mountain areas. In the second case, a more physically based application is presented and reservoir sedimentation is calculated due to soil erosion and stream sediment transport. The SWAT model is run daily, and monthly sediment yields result from the aggregation of daily sediment yields. An exhaustive calibration with 4000 simulations is conducted and the results are deemed satisfactory. As mentioned in the first section, the accurate prediction of sediment discharge at a point of interest inside a stream is key to the viability of dams with regard to sedimentation. Konstantinos Kaffas

References Annandale, G. W., Morris, G. L., & Karki, P. (2016). Extending the Life of Reservoirs: Sustainable Sediment Management for Dams and Run-of-River Hydropower. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998). Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment konstantinos kaffas

part I: model development 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34(1), 73–89. Borrelli, P., Alewell, C., Alvarez, P., Anache, J. A. A., Baartman, J., Ballabio, C., et  al. (2021). Soil erosion modelling: A global review and statistical analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 780, 146494. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2021​.146494 Brambilla, D., Longoni, L., Mazza, F., & Papini, M. (2011). Sediment yield from mountain slopes: A GIS based automation of the classic Gavrilovic method. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 146, 301–311. https://doi​.org​ /10​.2495​/ RM110261 de Vente, J., & Poesen, J. (2005). Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield at the basin scale: Scale issues and semi-quantitative models. Earth-Science Review, 71, 95–125. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.earscirev​.2005​.02​ .002 FAO, & ITPS (2015). Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR)–Main Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, 650. Folegot, S., Bruno, M. C., Larsen, S., Kaffas, K., Pisaturo, G. R., Andreoli, A., Comiti, F., & Maurizio, R. (2021). The effects of a sediment flushing on Alpine macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia, 848(17), 3921–3941. https:// link​.springer​.com​/article​/10​.1007​/s10750​ -021​-04608-8 ICOLD (2009). Sedimentation and Sustainable Use of Reservoirs and River Systems; Technical Report. International Commission on Large Dams, Paris, France. Kaffas, K., & Hrissanthou, V. (2019a). Computation of hourly sediment discharges and annual sediment yields by means of two soil erosion models in a mountainous basin. International Journal of River Basin Management, 17(1), 63–77. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1080​/15715124​.2017​.1402777 Kaffas, K., Pisaturo, G.R., Pisinaras, V., Premstaller, G., & Righetti, M. (2022a). Preliminary investigation of reservoir sedimentation rates in the Italian Alps with SWAT model. 7th IAHR Europe Congress, 7–9 September, Athens, Greece. Kaffas, K., Papaioannou, G., Varlas, G., Al Sayah, M. J., Papadopoulos, A., Dimitriou, E., Katsafados, P., & Righetti, M. (2022b). Forecasting soil erosion and sediment

reservoir sedimentation as an off-site effect of soil erosion  223 yields during flash floods: The disastrous case of Mandra, Greece, 2017. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1002​/esp​.5344 Kaffas, K., Pisinaras, V., Al Sayah, M. J., Santopietro, S., & Righetti, M. (2021). A USLE-based model with modified LS-factor combined with sediment delivery module for Alpine basins. Catena, 207, 105655. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.catena​ .2021​.105655 Kaffas, K., Hrissanthou, V., & Sevastas, S. (2018). Modeling hydromorphological processes in a mountainous basin using a composite mathematical model and ArcSWAT. Catena, 162, 108–129. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.catena​.2017​.11​.017 Kondolf, G. M. (1997). PROFILE: Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environmental Management, 21(4), 533–551. Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models: Part I. A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 119(3), 429–442. Pisaturo, G. R., Folegot, S., Menapace, A., & Righetti, M. (2021). Modelling fish habitat influenced by sediment flushing operations from an Alpine reservoir. Ecological

Engineering, 173, 106439. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.ecoleng​.2021​.106439 Soil Conservation Service (SCS). (1972). National Engineering Handbook, Section 4: Hydrology. The Service. Williams, J. R. (1975). Sediment-yield prediction with universal soil loss equation using runoff energy factor. In Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yield and Sources. Agricultural Research Service & US Department of Agriculture, Oxford, Mississippi, pp. 244–252. Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning. Science and Education Administration, Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 537, Washington, DC. Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1965). Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains: Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water Conservation. Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 282, Washington, DC. Yang, C. T. (1996). Sediment Transport: Theory and Practice. McGraw-Hill Book Co., USA.

konstantinos kaffas

51. Monitoring Sustainability through the Lens of Water Productivity, Resource Productivity and Eco-Innovation in the EU-28 Introduction and motivation Over the years, the European Union (EU) has built a coherent framework to facilitate sustainable and inclusive growth through resource efficiency starting with the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (European Commission, COM/2005/670). The target was to mitigate the environmental degradation occurring as a result of scarce resources utilization, aspiring to achieve sustainable development. Resource efficiency holds a distinctive place among the priorities of the strategy. In practical terms, resource efficiency is about using scarce resources in a sustainable manner given the level of technology. Resource efficiency was further strengthened by the launch of the Europe 2020 Strategy (European Commission, COM/2010/2020), a strategy focusing on smart growth, enhancing competitiveness, resource utilization, innovation, the knowledge base of the European countries and social cohesion among others, for the decade to come. Consequently, one of the top priorities of the Europe  2020 Strategy is the Resource Efficiency Flagship Initiative (European Commission, COM/2011/0571 – b) materialized via the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe outlining how to support sustainable growth through resource efficiency and economy decarbonization by 2050, while later the same year the Eco-Innovation Action Plan was launched and adopted (European Commission, COM/2011/0899 – a) with the aim to support eco-innovation, that is, innovations toward sustainable growth and positive environmental effects and boost resource efficiency. Those strategies and directives have been endorsed by the European Green Deal, the new growth strategy of Europe (European Commission, COM/2019/640).

To monitor the progress of the European countries on resource efficiency aspects, the EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard was introduced. The latter includes a three-tier system consisting of the lead indicator, which is resource productivity, the dashboard indicators as well as several thematic indicators. Resource productivity is considered a sustainability indicator for the EU and is used as a policy evaluation tool. Moreover, the scoreboard also monitors eco-innovation performance through the eco-innovation index. Such data provide grounds for fruitful discussions and reflections on tracing the sustainability transition of European countries; however, studies have not yet surfaced to employ such valuable information even though recent evidence indicates that heterogeneous levels of environmental awareness exist as well as sustainability discrepancies among the EU-28 (Chatzistamoulou and Koundouri, 2022; 2021). Therefore, by employing information provided by the scoreboard, we focus on water productivity, resource productivity and ecoinnovation as integral parts of the sustainability transition to investigate whether there are discrepancies as well as convergence patterns among the EU-28 over the last 20 years. Evidence indicates that convergence clubs emerge for both indicators giving rise distinct groups offering the opportunity for tailor-made measures to foster sustainability transition while most countries exhibit water productivity lower than the European average. Overall, the performance of European countries on sustainability and eco-innovation appears to show signs of convergence which is particularly promising in the pursuit of sustainability transition. In what follows we present the data, the method used to explore convergence, a discussion of the results and some concluding remarks.

Data and methods Data We divide a balanced panel covering the EU-281 for a 20-year period, from 2000 through 2019. Thus, there are 560  observations in the panel dimension. We collect data on the resource productivity and eco-innovation index from Eurostat (2022). Those are part of the EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard, a three-tier system based on a lead indicator, a dashboard of indicators focusing on resource management and environmental impact and a

224

monitoring sustainability  225 set of thematic indicators monitoring policy effectiveness. Resource productivity is the lead indicator defined as the ratio of gross domestic product (GDP) to domestic material consumption (DMC) measuring the amount of GDP generated per unit of direct material consumed, that is, euros/kg (Eurostat, 2022). It is the EU’s sustainable development indicator for policy evaluation providing insights into whether decoupling between the use of natural resources and economic growth occurs. Recent findings indicate resource productivity could positively influence sustainability transition across the EU-28 (Chatzistamoulou and Tyllianakis, 2022). Water productivity indicates how much economic output is produced per cubic meter of fresh water abstracted (EUR/m 3 or PPS/m 3) and serves as a measure of the efficiency of water use. It should be mentioned that an increasing trend in time series also indicates decoupling of economic growth from water use. Total freshwater abstraction includes water removed from any fresh water source, either permanently or temporarily (Eurostat, 2022). Eco-innovation2 is a thematic indicator first published by the Eco-Innovation Observatory in 2010. It is a multifaceted index appropriate for benchmarking (Park et al., 2017), comprising five thematic areas3 including 16  sub-indicators from eight contributors monitoring the eco-innovation of member states. It is part of a holistic approach to measuring the innovativeness of EU member states (Eurostat, 2022). Evidence from the EU-28 indicates that eco-innovation could boost green growth and sustainability transition, especially in member states whose performance on the sustainable development goals index is lower than the European average (Chatzistamoulou and Tyllianakis, 2022). Method: Convergence analysis and club formation To investigate whether there are distinct clubs within the EU-28, we proceed with convergence analysis. Employing the method of Phillips and Sul (2007), we test whether convergence clubs coexist based on resource productivity and eco-innovation performance,4 as integral parts of the sustainability transition. Technical details can be found in Camarero et al. (2013) and Du (2017).

Results and discussion Figures  51.1 and 51.2 illustrate the average water productivity (1995–2018) and the average growth rates of resource productivity (2000–19) and eco-innovation performance (2010–19) of the EU-28, respectively. Figure 51.1 shows that there are water productivity discrepancies across the EU-28, while most of the member states’ water productivity is below the European average (Figure 51.1). Specifically, one cubic meter of water has a low contribution to the GDP of a country, on average. Evidence in Figure  51.2 indicates that there are countries exhibiting similarities in their growth rates which could lead to the formation of groups of countries. The first panel in Table  51.1 identifies five convergence clubs, by testing whether resource productivity levels converge. The resource productivity levels of countries in Clubs 1–4 appear to be convergent, but not for Club 5, where there is weak evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The latter finding echoes the findings of other studies showcasing discrepancies in the sustainable development goals index in the EU-28 (Chatzistamoulou and Koundouri, 2021). The second panel explores possible club merging, by testing whether individual clubs could be merged to form a larger convergent club. The results indicate that the only clubs that could form a larger club are Clubs 2 and 3 (Clubs 2 + 3). The last panel in Table 51.1 summarizes the final convergence clubs, highlighting that there is heterogeneity to consider when designing policies to promote sustainability. Table  51.2 identifies convergence clubs based on eco-innovation performance. The first panel in Table 51.2 provides strong evidence that the null hypothesis of convergence is not rejected. Thus, eco-innovation performance converges forming five clubs; however, the second panel indicates that there is insignificant evidence to support further club merging. The last panel in Table  51.2 showcases the final club formation, where Clubs  3 and 4 could form a larger club, whereas the rest of the club participation remains unchanged. Based on the eco-innovation performance and club formation, sustainability transition could be fostered by boosting any of the thematic areas and indicators included in the eco-innovation index, particularly in countries with lower performance.

nikos chatzistamoulou and phoebe koundouri

226  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:   Authors’ construction.

Figure 51.1  Average water productivity, EU-28

Source:   Authors’ construction.

Figure 51.2  Average growth rates of resource productivity and eco-innovation, EU-28

nikos chatzistamoulou and phoebe koundouri

monitoring sustainability  227 Table 51.1   Resource productivity convergence clubs, EU-28 H0: Resource productivity convergence log(t)

Club1

Club2

Club3

Club4

Club5

Coeff (std error)

–0.139 (0.152)

0.131 (0.229)

0.161 (0.241)

–0.170 (0.938)

1.244 (0.724)

t-stat

–0.909

0.571

0.668

–0.181

1.718

Countries

BE, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT,

AT, CY,DK, EL, MT, SE,

CZ, FI, HR,

HU, LT, PL

BG, RO

LU, NL, UK

SL, SK

LV, PT

log(t)

Club1 + 2

Club2 + 3

Club3 + 4

Club4 + 5

Coeff (std error)

–0.694 (0.083)

–0.189 (0.203)

–0.737 (0.084)

–0.977 (0.212)

t-stat

–8.371

–0.930

–8.832

–4.598

H0: Club merging

Final resource productivity clubs log(t)

Club1

Club2

Club3

Club4

Coeff

–0.139

–0.189

–0.17

1.244

t-stat

–0.909

–0.93

–0.181

1.718

Countries

BE, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT,

AT, CY, CZ, DK, EL, FI, HR,

HU, LT, PL

BG, RO

LU, NL, UK

LV, MT, PT, SE, SL, SK

Notes: (i) t-stat is compared to –1.65 critical value to decide whether to reject the null hypothesis at 5  percent level of significance. (ii) S  tars indicate statistical significance or that the null is rejected. (iii) T he first four periods are discarded before regression. (iv) Estonia is non-convergent.

Table 51.2   Eco-innovation convergence clubs, EU-28 H0: Eco-innovation performance convergence log(t)

Club1

Club2

Club3

Club4

Club5

Coeff (std error)

–0.952 (0.853)

–0.897 (0.659)

0.064 (0.144)

0.092 (0.334)

–0.424 (0.284)

t-stat

–1.116

–1.362

0.443

0.274

–1.497

Countries

DK, FI, LU

AT, SE

DE, IT, LT, UK

CZ, EL, ES, FR, IE,

BE, BG, CY, ES,

LV, NL, PT, SL, SK

HU, MT, PL, RO

H0: Club merging log(t)

Club1 + 2

Club2 + 3

Club3 + 4

Club4 + 5

Coeff (std error)

–0.911 (0.220)

–0.216 (0.111)

–0.110 (0.194)

–0.709 (0.217)

t-stat

–4.135

–1.949

–0.569

–3.270

Final eco-innovation clubs log(t)

Club1

Club2

Club3

Club4

Coeff

–0.952

–0.897

–0.11

–0.424

t-stat

–1.116

–1.362

–0.569

–1.497

Countries

DK, FI, LU

AT, SE

DE, IT, LT, UK, CZ, EL, ES,

BE, BG, CY, ES, HU, MT, PL, RO

FR, IE, LV, NL, PT, SL, SK

Notes: (i) t-stat is compared to –1.65 critical value to decide whether to reject the null hypothesis. (ii) Stars indicate statistical significance or that the null is rejected. (iii) The first two periods are discarded before regression. (iv) Croatia is not included in the analysis as data was inconsistent before 2013, when it became part of the EU.

nikos chatzistamoulou and phoebe koundouri

228  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management In summary, European countries exhibit club convergence both in terms of resource productivity and eco-innovation performance. Club formation could be grounded in resource endowment, competitiveness, technological opportunities and institutions leading to insufficient resource allocation (AmankwahAmoah et  al., 2021). Technological heterogeneity and absorptive capacity have been acknowledged as factors provoking productivity differentials in the EU as well as globally (Chatzistamoulou et al., 2019; Tsekouras, 2016; 2017).

Concluding remarks The EU supports sustainability transition and inclusive growth through several policy directives. To monitor progress toward sustainable growth, the EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard was launched. Focusing on water productivity, resource productivity and ecoinnovation performance, we trace the pattern of performance and conduct convergence analysis to explore whether convergence clubs are formed. We find that convergence clubs, both for resource productivity and eco-innovation, exist for the period considered. This indicates that despite sustainability discrepancies, European countries exhibit patterns of convergent behavior indicating that they are on track to achieve sustainable growth. Future policies should further facilitate catch-up to ensure that no one is left behind, serving the priority of inclusive and sustainable growth. Nikos Chatzistamoulou and Phoebe Koundouri

Notes 1.

2. 3. 4.

Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Croatia (HR), Cyprus (CY), Czech Rep. (CZ), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (EL), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Latvia (LV), Lithouania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovak Rep. (SK), Slovenia (SL), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE), United Kingdom (UK). The United Kingdom has been included because during the period covered it was subject to the European policy reporting data on the selected variables. Eco-innovation launched in 2010. Eco-innovation inputs, eco-innovation activities, eco-innovation outputs, resource efficiency outcomes and socioeconomic outcomes. Estimations for both variables include the United Kingdom.

References Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., & Wood, G. (2021). COVID-19 and business failures: The paradoxes of experience, scale, and scope for theory and practice. European Management Journal, 39(2), 179–184. Camarero, M., Castillo, J., Picazo-Tadeo, A. J., & Tamarit, C. (2013). Eco-efficiency and convergence in OECD countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 55(1), 87–106. Chatzistamoulou, N., & Koundouri, P. (2021). SDGs patterns across the globe: From theory to practice. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A. M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., & Wall, T. (eds) Decent Work and Economic Growth. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-319​-95867​-5​_81 Chatzistamoulou, N., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Sustainability transition awareness to promote environmental efficiency. Contributions to Economics. In: M. Kenan Terzioğlu (ed.), Advances in Econometrics, Operational Research, Data Science and Actuarial Studies, 345–362, Springer. Chatzistamoulou, N., & Tyllianakis, E. (2022). Green growth & sustainability transition through information. Are the greener better informed? Evidence from European SMEs. Journal of Environmental Management, 306, 114457. Chatzistamoulou, N., Kounetas, K., & Tsekouras, K. (2019). Energy efficiency, productive performance and heterogeneous competitiveness regimes. Does the dichotomy matter?. Energy Economics, 81, 687–697. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Innovation for a sustainable future: The Eco-innovation Action Plan (Eco-AP) /* COM/2011/0899 final */. (2011). Accessible at https://eur​ -lex​.europa​.eu​/ legal​-content​/ EN​/ALL/​?uri​ =CELEX​%3A52011DC0899 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Roadmap to a Resource

nikos chatzistamoulou and phoebe koundouri

monitoring sustainability  229 Efficient Europe /* COM/2011/0571 final */. Available at https://eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​ /legal ​ - content ​ / EN ​ / TXT/ ​ ? uri ​ = CELEX​ :52011DC0571 Du, K. (2017). Econometric convergence test and club clustering using Stata. The Stata Journal, 17(4), 882–900. EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth /* COM/2010/2020 final */. (2010). Available at https://eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/legal​-content​/ EN​/ALL/​?uri​=celex​:52010DC2020 European Commission (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources {SEC(2005) 1683} {SEC(2005) 1684}/* COM/2005/0670 final */. Available at https://eur​-lex​.europa​ .eu​/ legal​- content​/en​/ TXT/​? uri​= CELEX​ %3A52005DC0670 European Commission. (2019). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The European Green Deal COM/2019/640 final. Available at https://eur​-lex​.europa​.eu​/ legal​-content​/ EN​ /TXT/​?qid​=1588580774040​&uri​= CELEX​ %3A52019DC0640 Eurostat (2022). Accessible at https://ec​ .europa​.eu​/eurostat​/web​/main​/ home Park, M. S., Bleischwitz, R., Han, K. J., Jang, E. K., & Joo, J. H. (2017). Eco-innovation indices as tools for measuring ecoinnovation. Sustainability, 9(12), 2206. Phillips, P. C., & Sul, D. (2007). Transition modeling and econometric convergence tests. Econometrica, 75(6), 1771–1855. Tsekouras, K., Chatzistamoulou, N., & Kounetas, K. (2017). Productive performance, technology heterogeneity and hierarchies: Who to compare with whom. International Journal of Production Economics, 193, 465–478. Tsekouras, K., Chatzistamoulou, N., Kounetas, K., & Broadstock, D. C. (2016). Spillovers, path dependence and the productive performance of European transportation sectors in the presence of technology heterogeneity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 261–274.

nikos chatzistamoulou and phoebe koundouri

52. Science-Supported Policies to Achieve Environmental Sustainability under Crises Many policy bodies involved with water management issues are facing new challenges, increasingly associated with complex problems that suggest reconsidering traditional management approaches. Many problems start from the mismanagement of environmental assets of the past decades. Increasing needs and goods, that is, demand while assuming abundant supply and that the resources should adapt to our needs (and not the opposite), has resulted in overexploitation and, gradually, resource deficits (Alamanos and Zeng, 2021; Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022a). This applies to other resources than just water, such as land, fuel and other raw materials. The intensification of production has also led to increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that have enhanced climate change (Li et  al., 2021). Among the multiple consequences of climate change, drier climates in certain areas of the world and more frequent and intense extreme phenomena (drought periods, floods, wildfires, etc.) have been associated with increased energy demands for cooling and heating (Li et  al., 2021). The expansion of various human activities that rely on energy (jobs, data processing and storage centers, everyday activities, etc.) has also contributed to the increased demand. Another phenomenon that has been attributed to climate change are winds of lower intensity that have prevailed in regions of North Europe – which have invested heavily in renewable (wind) energy systems, but do not have the respective energy storage capacity (Akhtar et  al., 2021; Laurila et  al., 2021). Global alterations in the energy supply and demand pattern previously brought us a big increment in demand and a reduction in supply and available stocks, thus an overall increase in prices (e.g. electricity and natural gas) – inflation (Cook, 2021). The aggressive macroeconomic policies of the past were further intensified during Covid-19, while the subsequent war in Ukraine made those effects more evident and much more stressed (Quitzow et al., 2021).

This situation constitutes an unprecedented phenomenon that requires integrated, serious and scientific solutions, and not adhering to ‘tested’ practices (as governments often prefer) that have proved insufficient to solve the problems of the past. This situation greatly affects systems that are interconnected with water resources, and the respective decisions on management, infrastructure and investments. The danger of complex crises is the creation of conflicts and dichotomies (Englezos et al., 2022) – thus any opportunities for improvements can be missed (Schulte et al., 2022). By seeing the short-term benefits of satisfying certain needs, makes many people including policymakers see those different systems (water, food, energy, fuel resources, the economy) as competitive. This is not in agreement with the principles of integrated and sustainable management that seek the co-benefits of those systems (overall optimum solutions) (Garcia and Alamanos, 2022). From the perspective of water management, this complex situation must be seen as an opportunity to improve the perception of our systems, build interdisciplinary collaborations and put more emphasis on the analysis of integrated systems and the communication of ideas. Continuous capacity building and training are also important for cultural transition to the multi-disciplinarity required by policymakers (Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022b). Societies have started to understand the severity of the situation, and there is increasing interest in involving diverse stakeholders in management, aiming to impact on policymaking (Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022a). Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSP) are used internationally to allow stakeholders to explain their positions and objectives, give them a voice in the governance and decisionmaking process and resolve conflicts. There are several encouraging examples of MSPs seeking more scientifically supported decisions for more targeted policy recommendations on specific issues and more meaningful policy input – the study of Alamanos and Koundouri (2022b) reviewed examples from Ireland, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain and the United States, among others. There are several opportunities for applying more integrated and science-based approaches, which are on the European Union (EU) and international policy agendas, and

230

science-supported policies to achieve environmental sustainability   231 there are ongoing efforts for their harmonization within national policies. Examples include, among others, the sustainable development goals (SDGs); the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC that currently finds most EU member states preparing for its 3rd Cycle (2022–27) with their River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and the associated directives; the European Green Deal; the Farm to Fork strategy; Food 2030 research and innovation policy; Healthy Soils strategy; Action Plans for the USA and Canada; and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The scope of these plans is very broad, as they set in essence the objectives of sustainability, implying the consideration of multiple systems. Overall, the SDGs include several aspects so their progress reflects the general picture which is not as expected so far. Progress has been generally slow and there has been very limited transformative political impact (Biermann et al., 2022). However, the 2030  Agenda seems to successfully capture the concept of sustainable development and needs more time, so it is expected that it will be extended until 2050, instead of introducing a new sustainability agenda. A good practice to further support this progress, as the Toolkit for Water Policies and Governance underlines (OECD, 2015), is to consider science-supported policies and data-driven approaches to enhance informed decision-making. National policies need to consider and embrace such integrated approaches, considering all elements of supply and demand and all different external challenges, and by providing the necessary support in terms of education, training and funding opportunities including government and private opportunities and mechanisms (Löfqvist and Ghazoul, 2019). The latter will allow many forms of stakeholder engagement and the broader implementation of sustainable solutions, even at the community level. Future research should focus on the direction of integrated analyses (Cremades et  al., 2019; Sterl et al., 2020), taking into account the interconnections of complex human–environmental systems (Falk et al., 2022; Alamanos et  al., 2022), and provide solid evidence of the multiple benefits of such approaches. A simple example is the adoption of new environmentally friendly practices in the water, energy and agri-food sectors (Singh, 2022; Schulte et al., 2022). Energy autonomy based on diversified portfolios of renewable energy

sources, investments in storage, coupled, circular solutions and regenerative systems have been proved to be feasible, cost-effective and environmentally friendly (net-zero GHS emissions and pollution, zero waste, consuming less resources), and better for human health, ecosystems and food systems (Schulte et  al., 2021; Marrou, 2019; Barron-Gafford et al., 2019). Scientists have shown the solutions, the technologies have provided the tools to apply them, so it is now up to the political will to consider them. The speed of their response (which is often slower than the emerging scientific and technological advances) is also crucial, especially under complex crises situations. If policymakers promote environmentally friendly, cost-effective and integrated solutions based on resource-use efficiency (such as regenerative food and energy systems), then it is more likely that food production will be enhanced, together with multiple environmental and socioeconomic benefits: wealth will be created, thereby increasing equity and reducing injustice (associated with unequal wealth distribution, often affecting rural communities). Assuming that policymakers would like to work toward that direction, and this might not always be a safe assumption, the role of communicating such solutions is key. Education and capacity building, with the emphasis on science, targeting different levels of stakeholders are recommended to make communities part of the solutions and of the implementation/mainstreaming of good practices.1 Angelos Alamanos and Phoebe Koundouri

Note 1.

This research was funded by the ERC Grant Smart Water Futures (acronym Water-Futures), Grant agreement ID: 951424.

References Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., Rockel, B., Sommer, P. S., & Schrum, C. (2021). Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alter wind climate and reduce future power generation potentials. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 11826. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41598​ -021​-91283-3 Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022a). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink,

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

232  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management 2022(4), Citizen Science. https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131 Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022b). Multi-stakeholder platforms for water management: Connecting policy and Science. 10th Annual International Conference on Sustainable Development (ICSD). Online, 19-20 September, 2022. Alamanos, A., & Zeng, Q. (2021). Managing Scarce water resources for socially acceptable solutions, through hydrological and econometric modeling. Central Asian Journal of Water Research, 7, 84–101. https://doi​.org​/10​.29258​/CAJWR​/2021​-R1​ .v7​-1​/84​-101​.eng Alamanos, A., Koundouri, P., Papadaki, L., Pliakou, T., & Toli, E. (2022). Water for tomorrow: A living lab on the creation of the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Water, 14(18), 18. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ w14182879 Barron-Gafford, G. A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A., Minor, R. L., Sutter, L. F., BarnettMoreno, I., Blackett, D. T., Thompson, M., Dimond, K., Gerlak, A. K., Nabhan, G. P., & Macknick, J. E. (2019). Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food– energy–water nexus in drylands. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 848–855. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1038​/s41893​-019​-0364-5 Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C.-A., Beisheim, M., Bernstein, S., Chasek, P., Grob, L., Kim, R. E., Kotzé, L. J., Nilsson, M., Ordóñez Llanos, A., Okereke, C., Pradhan, P., Raven, R., Sun, Y., Vijge, M. J., van Vuuren, D., & Wicke, B. (2022). Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 1–6. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1038​/s41893​-022​-00909-5 Cook, M. (2021). Chapter 2—Trends in global energy supply and demand. In M. Cook (Ed.), Developments in Petroleum Science (Vol. 71, pp. 15–42). Elsevier. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/ B978​-0​-12​-821190​-8​.00002-2 Cremades, R., Mitter, H., Tudose, N. C., Sanchez-Plaza, A., Graves, A., Broekman, A., Bender, S., Giupponi, C., Koundouri, P., Bahri, M., Cheval, S., Cortekar, J., Moreno, Y., Melo, O., Karner, K., Ungurean, C., Davidescu, S. O., Kropf, B., Brouwer, F., & Marin, M. (2019). Ten principles to integrate the water-energy-land nexus with climate services for co-producing local and regional integrated assessments. Science of

the Total Environment, 693, 133662. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2019​.133662 Englezos, N., Kartala, X., Koundouri, P., Tsionas, M., & Alamanos, A. (2022). A novel hydroeconomic—econometric approach for integrated transboundary water management under uncertainty. Environmental and Resource Economics. ht t ps://doi​ . org ​ / 10​ . 10 07​ / s10 6 4 0 ​ - 022​ -00744-4 Falk, J., Attig-Bahar, F., Colwell, R. R., Behera, S. K., El-Beltagy, A. S., von Braun, J., Dasgupta, P., Gleick, P. H., Kaneko, R., Kennel, C. F., Koundouri, P., Lee, Y. T., Lovejoy, T. E., Luers, A., Murray, C. A., Lal, R., Serageldin, I., Sokona, Y., Takeuchi, K., … & Yasunari, T. (2022). Addressing our planetary crisis. Sustainability Science, 17(1), 5–7. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11625​ -021​-01059-x Garcia, J. A., & Alamanos, A. (2022). Integrated modelling approaches for sustainable agri-economic growth and environmental improvement: Examples from Greece, Canada and Ireland. Land, 11(9), 9. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ land11091548 Laurila, T. K., Sinclair, V. A., & Gregow, H. (2021). Climatology, variability, and trends in near-surface wind speeds over the North Atlantic and Europe during 1979–2018 based on ERA5. International Journal of Climatology, 41(4), 2253–2278. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1002​/joc​.6957 Li, Y., Wang, W., Wang, Y., Xin, Y., He, T., & Zhao, G. (2021). A review of studies involving the effects of climate change on the energy consumption for building heating and cooling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 40. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ ijerph18010040 Löfqvist, S., & Ghazoul, J. (2019). Private funding is essential to leverage forest and landscape restoration at global scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(12), 1612– 1615.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41559​- 019​ -1031-y Marrou, H. (2019). Co-locating food and energy. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 793– 794. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​-019​ -0377-0 OECD (2015). Toolkit for Water Policies and Governance: Converging Towards the OECD Council Recommendation on

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

science-supported policies to achieve environmental sustainability   233 Water. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https:// www​ . oecd ​ - ilibrary​ . org ​ / environment ​ / toolkit​-for​-water​-policies​-and​-governance​ _ed1a7936​-en Quitzow, R., Bersalli, G., Eicke, L., Jahn, J., Lilliestam, J., Lira, F., Marian, A., Süsser, D., Thapar, S., Weko, S., Williams, S., & Xue, B. (2021). The COVID-19 crisis deepens the gulf between leaders and laggards in the global energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 74, 101981. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.erss​.2021​ .101981 Schulte, L. A., Dale, B. E., Bozzetto, S., Liebman, M., Souza, G. M., Haddad, N., Richard, T. L., Basso, B., Brown,

R. C., Hilbert, J. A., & Arbuckle, J. G. (2022). Meeting global challenges with regenerative agriculture producing food and energy. Nature Sustainability, 5(5), 384–388. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​ -021​-00827-y Singh, S. (2022). Networking for food production. Nature Sustainability, 1–2. ht t ps://doi​ . org ​ / 10​ . 1038​ / s 41893 ​ - 022​ -00916-6 Sterl, S., Vanderkelen, I., Chawanda, C. J., Russo, D., Brecha, R. J., van Griensven, A., van Lipzig, N. P. M., & Thiery, W. (2020). Smart renewable electricity portfolios in West Africa. Nature Sustainability, 3(9), 710–719.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​ -020​-0539-0

angelos alamanos and phoebe koundouri

53. Sediment Transport and Reservoir Sedimentation

Forggensee Reservoir Bavaria, Germany) ● ● ●

Dams are constructed to create retention or detention water storage. Examples of retention reservoirs are those designed to store water for such purposes as irrigation, municipal, industrial and domestic water supply, and hydropower. Detention reservoirs are those designed, among others, for flood prevention purposes and groundwater recharge. During the design and dimensioning phase of a reservoir, it should be taken into account that a small or large part of the reservoir volume will be occupied in the next years by sediment. Reservoir sedimentation, which decreases the useful life of a reservoir, is closely associated with soil and streambed erosion in the corresponding basin. Sediment inflowing into the reservoir, through the river which feeds the reservoir, originates mainly from the products of soil and streambed erosion in the corresponding basin. Therefore, the computation of reservoir sedimentation requires, in a previous step, the computation of soil erosion and stream sediment transport in the reservoir basin. The computation of soil erosion, in turn, requires, in a previous step, the computation of runoff due to rainfall, because both rainfall and runoff cause soil erosion. According to the above-mentioned process chain, the physical processes that should be quantified are runoff resulting from rainfall, soil erosion due to rainfall and runoff, inflow of eroded particles into streams, sediment transport in streams, sediment inflow into the reservoir and sediment deposition in the reservoir (Hrissanthou, 2011). In this chapter, four case studies regarding the computation of the mean annual sediment inflow into four reservoirs will be described. The mathematical simulation model, used in all cases, consists of three submodels: ● ● ●

a hydrologic rainfall-runoff submodel a soil erosion submodel a stream sediment transport submodel

The following paragraphs provide the names of the reservoirs, the submodels used and the available output data.

(Lech

River,

Rainfall-runoff submodel of Lutz (1984) ‘Universal soil loss equation’ (USLE) Stream sediment transport submodel of Yang and Stall (1976)

Available output data: daily values of sediment yield (suspended load) at the reservoir inlet for 12 years (1966–77). Yermasoyia Reservoir (Yermasoyia River, Cyprus) ●

● ●

Rainfall-runoff submodel (Giakoumakis et al., 1991) Soil erosion submodel of Schmidt (1992) Stream sediment transport submodel of Yang and Stall (1976)

Available output data: mean annual rate of soil erosion in the corresponding basin. Thisavros Reservoir (Nestos River, Greece) ●

● ●

Rainfall-runoff submodel (Giakoumakis et al., 1991) Soil erosion submodel of Schmidt (1992) Stream sediment transport submodel of Yang and Stall (1976)

Available output data: suspended load measurements for 53 years (1937–89) at the location ‘Momina Koula’ (Bulgarian part of Nestos River). Platanovrysi Reservoir (Nestos River, Greece) ●

● ●

Rainfall-runoff submodel (Giakoumakis et al., 1991) Soil erosion submodel of Schmidt (1992) Stream sediment transport submodel of Yang and Stall (1976)

No available output data. The rainfall-runoff submodel of Lutz (1984) predicts rainfall excess for a given storm by using region- and event-dependent parameters. Region-dependent parameters are the land use and the hydrologic soil group that reflects the infiltration rate. The main eventdependent parameter is the rainfall depth. The rainfall-runoff submodel of Giakoumakis et al. (1991) is a simplified water

234

sediment transport and reservoir sedimentation  235 balance model, in which the variation in soil moisture due to rainfall, evapotranspiration, deep percolation and runoff is considered. The classical form of the USLE (Wischmeier and Smith, 1978) is intended to estimate average soil loss over an extended period, for example, mean annual soil loss. The USLE includes a rainfall erosivity factor, a soil erodibility factor, a topographic factor, a crop management factor and an erosion control practice factor. However, only raindrop impact is taken into account in this equation to estimate soil loss. An improved erosivity factor was introduced by Foster et al. (1977) to also take into account the runoff shear stresses effect on soil detachment for single storms. The soil erosion submodel of Schmidt (1992) is based on the assumption that the impact of droplets on the soil surface and the surface runoff are proportional to the momentum flux contained in the droplets and the runoff, respectively. The relationship of Yang and Stall (1976) is used to compute sediment transport capacity by streamflow. It was determined from the concept of unit stream power (rate of potential energy expenditure per unit weight of water) and dimensional analysis. A critical situation is considered at the beginning of sediment particle motion, as in most sediment transport equations. Application of the mathematical simulation model to the basin of Forggensee Reservoir (Hrissanthou, 1988; 1989) ● ●

●

●

●

●

Basin area: 1500 km2. Available data: (a) daily rainfall amounts from five rainfall stations in the basin for 12  years (1966–77); (b) suspended load at the outlet of the basin for these same 12 years, on a daily basis; (c) topographical maps; (d) soil cover maps; (e) information about the soil texture class only for a small part of the basin. Division of the basin into 88  natural sub-basins. Performance of the calculations on a daily basis. Comparison between computed and measured values of sediment yield at the basin outlet on an annual basis, with satisfactory results. Mean annual (1966–77) computed sediment inflow into Forggensee Reservoir from the corresponding basin: 655 640 t.

Application of the mathematical simulation model to the basin of Yermasoyia Reservoir (Hrissanthou, 2006) ● ●

●

●

●

●

Basin area: 122.5 km2. Available data: (a) daily rainfall data for four years (1986–89) from three rainfall stations; (b) mean daily values of air temperature and relative air humidity, and daily values of sunlight hours for the above four years from a meteorological station; (c) mean daily values of wind velocity only for one year (1988) from the same meteorological station; (d) monthly runoff volumes for the years 1986–89 from a water gauging station; (e) distribution of mean annual erosion rates over the island of Cyprus; (f) topographical maps; (g) soil cover maps; (h) soil type maps. Division of the basin into four natural sub-basins. Performance of the calculations on a monthly basis. Comparison between computed and measured values of runoff volume and sediment yield at the basin outlet on an annual basis, with satisfactory results. Mean annual (1986–89) computed sediment inflow into Yermasoyia Reservoir from the corresponding basin: 131 000 t.

Application of the mathematical simulation model to the basin (Bulgarian and Greek parts) of Thisavros Reservoir (Andredaki et al., 2014) ●

●

●

●

●

Basin area (Bulgarian and Greek parts): 2783 + 804 = 3587 km2. Available data: (a) monthly rainfall data and mean monthly temperature data from 15  meteorological stations in Bulgaria and Greece, for 11 years (1980–90); (b) annual values of suspended load at the location ‘Momina Koula’ (Bulgarian part of Nestos River basin) for 53 years (1937–89); (c) topographical maps; (d) soil cover maps; (e) geological maps. Division of the basin into 29  natural sub-basins. Performance of the calculations on a monthly basis. Comparison between computed and measured values of sediment yield at the location ‘Momina Koula’ (corresponding vlassios hrissanthou

236  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

●

basin area: 1511 km2) on an annual basis, with satisfactory results. Mean annual (1980–90) computed sediment inflow into Thisavros Reservoir from the corresponding basin (Bulgarian and Greek parts): 1 146 500 t.

Application of the mathematical simulation model to the basin of Platanovrysi Reservoir (Andredaki et al., 2014) ● ●

●

●

●

Basin area: 405 km2. Available data: (a) monthly rainfall data from three rainfall stations and mean monthly temperature data from a meteorological station, for 11  years (1980–90); (b) topographical maps; (c) soil cover maps; (d) geological maps. Division of the basin into nine natural sub-basins. Performance of the calculations on a monthly basis. Mean annual (1980–90) computed sediment inflow into Platanovrysi Reservoir from the corresponding basin: 314 500 t.

The evolution of the soil erosion and the sediment transport modeling has consistently followed the evolution of technology. In the last few decades, there has been a major advancement in the domain of soil erosion modeling as a result of the advancements in computer science. This has resulted in the development of a plethora of integrated models that, in many cases, fully address the study of the hydrogeomorphological processes. A wide range of integrated models simulate the runoff, the soil erosion and the stream sediment transport processes on a continuous (longterm) or on an event-time basis, for example, Kaffas et al. (2018). Vlassios Hrissanthou

References Andredaki, M., Georgoulas, A., Hrissanthou, V. and Kotsovinos, N. (2014). Assessment of reservoir sedimentation effect on coastal erosion in the case of Nestos River, Greece. International Journal of Sediment Research, 29, 34–48. Foster, G.R., Meyer, L.D. and Onstad, C.A. (1977). A runoff erosivity factor and variable slope length exponents for soil loss estimates. Transactions of the American vlassios hrissanthou

Society of Agricultural Engineers, 20(4), 683–687. Giakoumakis, S., Tsakiris, G. and Efremides, D. (1991). On the rainfall-runoff modeling in a Mediterranean island environment. In Advances in Water Resources Technology, Balkema, Rotterdam, 137–148. Hrissanthou, V. (1988). Simulation model for the computation of sediment yield due to upland and channel erosion from a large basin. International Symposium on Sediment Budgets, Porto Alegre, Brazil, IAHS Publication No. 174, 453–462. Hrissanthou, V. (1989). Feststofflieferungsmodell eines Einzugsgebietes. Wasserwirtschaft, 79(4), 186–192. Hrissanthou, V. (2006). Comparative application of two mathematical models to predict sedimentation in Yermasoyia Reservoir, Cyprus. Hydrological Processes, 20(18), 3939–3952. Hrissanthou, V. (2011). Computation of lake or reservoir sedimentation in terms of soil erosion. Chapter 11 in Sediment Transport in Aquatic Environments, edited by A.J. Manning, In Tech, 233–262. Kaffas, K., Hrissanthou, V. and Sevastas, S. (2018). Modeling hydromorphological processes in a mountainous basin using a composite mathematical model and ArcSWAT. Catena, 162(2018), 108–129. Lutz, W. (1984). Berechnung von Hochwasserwellen unter Anwendung von Gebietskenngrößen. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Hydrologie und Wasserwirtschaft, Universität Karlsruhe, Germany, Heft 24. Schmidt, J. (1992). Predicting the sediment yield from agricultural land using a new soil erosion model. Proceedings 5th International Symposium on River Sedimentation, Karlsruhe, Germany, edited by P. Larsen and N. Eisenhauer, 1045–1051. Wischmeier, W.H. and Smith, D.D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation planning. In US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library. Division of Lending. Beltsville, Maryland 20705. https://naldc. nal.usda.gov/download/CAT79706928/ PDF Yang, C.T. and Stall, J.B. (1976). Applicability of unit stream power equation. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 102(5), 559–568.

54. Sharing of Transboundary Rivers and Making Peace As a result of human-induced environmental destruction, the world is witnessing a sharp reduction in the availability of freshwater resources. More than 42 percent of the world’s population is dependent on 310 transboundary river basins. The institutions and the available knowledge we have about sharing these rivers between and among countries are facing increasingly greater challenges because of the increased demand and the decreased supply of fresh water. Adding further to the problem, the threat of global climate change has started to undermine the ongoing interstate sharing arrangements on transboundary rivers. It is a fact that how water is shared among countries cannot follow a single overarching principle because the value of water and its demand and supply vary from one region to another. Thus, the one-shot approach to water sharing is not feasible. Moreover, river agreements do not occur easily, as they requite transforming the more immediate problems of divergent interests between water-sharing countries, within short time horizons that typically accompany conflictual situations. The sharing of scarce water resource not only results in conflict but it also induces cooperation between and among countries (Swain 2004). Countries have generally opted to sign agreements over their shared rivers and have not waged water wars as some had predicted. International agencies and institutions have facilitated several river sharing agreements, attempting to translate ideas into action in many transboundary basins and supporting the establishment of river basin organizations. Conflict and cooperation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. States collaborate to protect their declining water resources and these collaborations can have positive spin-offs for peace. Peace may vary from the absence of violent conflict to the absence of the possibility of violent conflict. It is possible that this ‘peacemaking’ is founded on river sharing agreements (Grech-Madin et  al. 2018). The diffusion of bilateral cooperation over water resources to other areas is

not an uncommon phenomenon. The ‘spinoff’ advantages of water-induced cooperation have been observed in river water sharing in different parts of the world. Water in general and rivers in particular have been seen as the source for nation and state building in the past. Water scarcity and the need to control water supply are important inputs in joint human construction projects. The rise of dynamic cultures and great civilizations is due to river resources. Thus, water brings people together. Cooperation over the Rhine River was most likely the foundation for the establishment of the present European Union. Cooperation over the Mekong and Zambezi rivers has set the stage for other forms of cooperation among the riparian states. The positive contribution of the cooperative arrangement over the Colorado, Columbia and Limpopo rivers to the bilateral relations of their basin states is significant (Earle et al. 2015). However, one may ask whether this type of river cooperation has a self-propelling peaceenhancing power or is it still a dependent variable? As Conca and Dabelko point out, if water scarcity can trigger broader forms of violent conflict among or between groups, then it is just as plausible that water cooperation can trigger peace. Water cooperation may transform mistrust and suspicion among countries and provide opportunities for shared gains and establishing a pattern of reciprocity. It can also pave the way for greater interaction, interdependence and societal linkages. It is possible that national sovereignty and actors maximizing self-interest may place obstacles to the appropriate evolution of river sharing. However, if the stakes are very high, which is the case with increasing water scarcity, then cooperation might alter the existing relations. The diffusion of bilateral cooperation over river water resources to other areas is regularly cited in the literature, which supports the water cooperation–induced peace approach (Earle et  al. 2015). Establishing a bilateral commitment to share, protect and develop transboundary river water can help to overcome the existing mistrust and suspicion between two disputing countries and create a milieu of reciprocal gains in the national interest on a long-term basis. Cooperation on river issues may also bring people together resulting in transborder civil society linkages and building joint responsibility and bilateral cooperation.

237

238  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management With the help of cooperation theory in international relations and social capital theory in development studies, it is not difficult to propose that cooperation over a shared river can have positive spin-offs for peace. It can be argued that the basis for achieving this peacemaking is river cooperation that will lead to regular interactions between riparian countries, helping them to trust each other and creating a norm of bilateral reciprocity. However, there is still a dearth of serious empirical research scrutinizing the types of institutional structures and cooperative approaches that might embody this often-claimed theoretical potential (Krampe 2017), particularly at the bilateral level. After signing a river sharing agreement, riparian states might not be genuinely interested in pursuing sustainable water management policies rooted in environmental and social justice; rather, their newly acquired rights and legitimacy might simply yield more effective water resources exploitation. While, on the one hand, the post-river agreement setting might increase the riparian state’s capacity to seek more control over water; on the other hand, it facilitates broader bilateral engagement to facilitate river cooperation. Understandably, interstate river cooperation does not transpire easily, nor will it have spontaneous peace-diffusing effects when it does take place. Furthermore, the strengthening of riparian state capacity and increased inter-riparian interaction might not always lead to the transformation of state institutions allowing better bilateral relations. In this context, the form of river sharing cooperation between riparian states and its results will have a significant influence on its peace-diffusing character. Conca (2001) has cautiously argued that river water cooperation can theoretically promote and enhance peace: In the short run, environmental cooperation could create positive externalities for international peace and human security by improving the climate of strategic interaction and political bargaining. In the long run, it could be an important way to strengthen the institutionalization of post-Westphalian forms of governance, by creating new norms, deepening, and broadening positive transnational linkages, deepening the development of international

ashok swain

civil society, and transforming institutions of the security state.

Cooperation in sharing international rivers may help bridge the divide between riparian countries and pave the way for bilateral and regional cooperation. But the peacemaking potential of river agreements does not have the same effect in each case. While agreements in the Mekong, Zambezi, Rhine, Danube and Colorado river basins seem to have contributed to some extent in promoting peace among riparian states, this has not been possible for agreements in the Jordan, Inguri and Nile basins. Similarly, in South Asia, while Indian and Bangladesh bilateral relations have improved many fold since both countries signed the Ganges River Agreement in 1996, India and Pakistan have 58  years of sharing arrangements on the Indus River water, but it seems to have failed to contribute to bilateral peace. A better understanding of the effects of river cooperation on riparian peace is needed to map how to build sustainable peace at the transboundary river basin level that is hydrologically smart, ecologically sensitive while equally socially and politically relevant, lasting and peace diffusing. Ashok Swain

References Conca, K. 2001. “Environmental Cooperation and Regional Peace” in P. F. Diehl & N. P. Gleditsch, eds., Environmental Conflict. Westview Press: 225–247. Earle, A. A. E. Cascao, S. Hansson, A. Jägerskog, A. Swain, J. Öjendal 2015. Transboundary Water Management and the Climate Change Debate. Routledge. Grech-Madin, C, S. Döring, K. Kim, A. Swain 2018. “Negotiation Water Across Levels: A Peace and Conflict ‘Toolbox’ for Water Diplomacy”, Journal of Hydrology, 559, pp.100–109. Krampe, F. 2017. “Towards Sustainable Peace: A New Research Agenda for PostConflict Natural Resource Management”, Global Environmental Politics, 17 (4), 1–8. Swain, A., 2004. Managing Water Conflict. Routledge.

55. Socioeconomic Consequences of Water Trading: Reviewing the Evidence for Water Markets in Australia In times of water scarcity, there is evidence and quite common acceptance that water markets improve overall efficiency by reallocating water toward uses that are more highly valued, and that markets serve as a risk management tool for farmers (Barbier 2019; Grafton et  al. 2011; Nauges et  al. 2016). However, water markets are a frequent cause for concern, and opponents to water trading often raise fears about the possible adverse effects on the welfare of irrigation-dependent rural communities (Griffin et  al. 2013; Wheeler 2021, chapter 2). In what follows, we review the existing evidence on the socioeconomic consequences of water trading for both irrigated farmers and rural communities. Given space constraints, we abstract here from the environmental consequences of water trading (although see Wheeler et  al. 2014a for a review), from the arguments regarding the Basin Plan1 (see Grafton 2019 for a review) and from issues regarding claims of cartel and collusion behavior in water markets (see ACCC 2021 and Wheeler 2022 for a review). We focus our attention on the Murray– Darling Basin (MDB) in Australia, which covers four states and one territory in the south-western part of the country. The southern MDB is the most active market in the world in terms of transactions (Grafton et al. 2011). Also, as water trading formally started in this region in the 1980s, there has been a long enough time frame to evaluate the longterm socioeconomic consequences of water markets. Two main types of water rights can be traded in the MDB: (i) water entitlements (i.e. permanent water), which provide longterm access to a share of the total consumptive pool of water resource(s) and represent capital assets; and (ii) water allocations (i.e. temporary water), which correspond to the annual seasonal volume of water that water rights holders receive. Allocations vary from one year to the next and are adjusted over the

season depending on storage levels, expected rainfall and demand (Wheeler et al. 2014a). In the MDB, fears and concerns have been widespread since the introduction of water markets (Wheeler et  al. 2014a). Irrigationdependent farmers are usually more apprehensive of the expected benefits from permanent water trading, especially in regard to the longterm impact on local communities as a whole. On the other hand, irrigators have traditionally been more supportive of temporary trading (Bjornlund et al. 2011). Bjornlund (2002) summarizes the major concerns often raised by communities: if water is traded away from an irrigation-dependent community, irrigated activity will reduce, resulting in a decline in farm and land values and a decrease in on-farm- and off-farm-related jobs and economic activity. As a consequence, reduced labor demand may lead to migration from the area, with depopulation leading to a decline in services such as schools, doctors and local businesses. Third-party effects, which can be seen as negative externalities possibly impacting irrigation-dependent rural communities, are commonly not internalized in private market transactions. Hence, regulation by independent authorities may be required and an economic analysis of such third-party impacts is necessary to inform regulatory decisions (Wheeler 2022). However, the causal effects of water trading on rural communities’ welfare are very difficult to isolate, since more water transactions are commonly observed in times of water scarcity. Under severe drought conditions, rural communities will also be affected, independently of water trading, through negative impacts on agricultural production and economic activity. Hence, disentangling the effect of the drought itself – plus other impacts on commodity inputs and outputs – from the effect of water trading on communities’ welfare is an extremely difficult task. The overall economic context also exacerbates doubts and fears about water trading: in the 2000s, severe drought episodes were concomitant with the rise in the Australian dollar after the mining boom. Hence, jobs were lost at the time also because of Australia’s declining competitiveness on the international markets (Wheeler et al. 2014a; Wittwer and Young 2020). A number of macro-studies have been undertaken since the difficult period known as the Millennium Drought in Australia (common time period of 2001–2009) to assess

239

240  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management the impact of water trading on agricultural production and revenues. Although both the methods and the direction of the estimated monetary gains from trading vary from one study to another, all agree on the role of water trading in mitigating losses in times of severe drought. Some of the key studies include the National Water Commission (NWC 2012) which reported that the gross value of irrigated agricultural production fell by (only) 27  percent from 2005–2006 to 2008–2009 despite a 53 percent decrease in water availability in the MDB. For the 2008–2009 season, when the drought was at its highest, the NWC estimated that water trading generated an additional AUD$220 million (that would not have been realized without trading). This is somewhat below the values of Peterson et al. (2004) who estimated the gains from water trading at about AUD$500  million in a dry year. Hughes et al. (2021) estimated that trading and carry-over policies (carry-over makes intertemporal trading possible) generated average annual benefits of AUD$117 million per year to irrigators in the southern MDB. Rafey (2020) suggested that annual water trading increased farm output by 4–6 percent, and that not having water trading would be comparable to an 11 percent decline in water allocations in terms of farm profits. The role of water trading in mitigating the adverse impacts of reduced water availability on farms was also shown in Jiang and Grafton (2012) using a hydro-economic model, as well as in Connor et al. (2009) using a mathematical programming approach. Gains from water trading are mainly the consequence of the reallocation of water to the most valued uses in times of scarcity: during the Millennium Drought, water markets allowed permanent-crop farmers who irrigate orchards and vineyards – higher-value users – to avoid losing capital (i.e. valuable plantings) and to maintain the long-term viability of their enterprises. In addition, lower-value users that primarily produce annual crops (a type of production that can be quite easily expanded or reduced each year) were often better off during the most drought-affected years, selling whatever water allocations they had available, instead of using the water for much reduced production. The sale of water allocations during the severest years of the drought, especially in 2006–2008 when seasonal allocation prices reached one of their highest levels ever, also helped some farmers céline nauges and sarah ann wheeler

pay their debts and/or fund other farm investments (Wheeler et al. 2014b). These earlier findings on the overall benefits induced by successive water reforms and water trading activities have been confirmed by a recent funded assessment of the social and economic conditions in the MDB (Sefton et  al. 2020). However, this assessment also pointed out heterogeneous impacts across rural communities, with the panel stating that the benefits of water reform were not even across regions and sectors, and high-value irrigation areas benefited more. It was modeled that communities that were net water exporters would suffer from reduced economic activity and development potential. Farmers usually have some ability to adapt (or exit), but the businesses that were dependent on irrigation activities (such as local irrigation hardware suppliers and the related labor force) faced greater difficulties in adjusting to the changing environment. As explained earlier, separating the drivers of rural communities’ socioeconomic outcomes is very complicated since a number of local, national and international forces can explain the socioeconomic changes observed over the last decades in the MDB. In addition to water reforms and the development of water trading, changes in terms of trade, commodity prices and exchange rates along with the transformation of the Australian economy (moving away from manufacturing and agriculture toward more services) and the development of modern technology and innovation – which can lower labor needs – also contributed to the observed changes in the socioeconomics of MDB rural communities (Wheeler et al. 2020b). For the above reasons, and because of the difficulty in obtaining data consistently measured over time, and the lags in available public data such as agricultural and population censuses, micro-econometric studies attempting to assess the impact of water trading on rural communities remain quite rare. For the most part, studies to date have focused on testing the existence of a statistically significant association between the volume or number of water transactions and some specific socioeconomic measures such as farms’ exit decisions, within a defined period of time. Some key studies include: Wheeler and Cheesman (2013), using data from a large survey, found that most water entitlement sellers decided to stay in their local area.2 This was confirmed

socioeconomic consequences of water trading  241 later in Wheeler et  al. (2020b) which, using data at the statistical local area level from 1991 to 2011 in the MDB, showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between water trade movements and net farm exit. The main drivers of net farm exit were lower commodity output prices, higher temperatures and higher unemployment. Using water trading data from the southern MDB from 2010–11 to 2013–14, Haensch et  al. (2021) investigated the link between the water trade and regional socioeconomic characteristics (population, distance and access to markets and infrastructure, socioeconomic indexes and government benefits payments). Haensch et  al. found that farmers sell water entitlements when conditions are less favorable (decrease in rainfall, dryland salinity) but did not find evidence of a positive association between water entitlements sales and poor rural community socioeconomics. Although there is general agreement and ample evidence of the overall benefits of water trading through the reallocation of scarce water to higher-valued uses, now that there is a substantially long time period to evaluate the potential impacts of water trading, it would be beneficial to more fully investigate particular socioeconomic trends in irrigation-dependent rural communities, in particular those that were net sellers of water entitlements. Indeed, there is also a strong need to disentangle the impact of water trading from other government programs, which have been developed to improve rural socioeconomic outcomes in the MDB (such as government economic development programs and substantial investment in irrigation infrastructure programs – on- and off-farm). The actual overall impact of such government programs is unclear, although there is evidence that they may have actually decreased the resilience of irrigation communities (i.e. such as increasing irrigators’ individual water consumption rather than the overall objective of decreasing water consumption [Wheeler et al. 2020a]). Although blaming water markets, or the reallocation of water away from consumptive to environmental use, can be an easy target for many farmers and commentators, policy changes must be based on more than just anecdotal evidence of deprived economic activity and farmers’ distress. Climate change in terms of increased temperatures – increased probabilities of multiple 40°C days; reduced rainfall; increased rainfall variability

– as well as financial difficulties (increasing input prices and decreasing output prices), ongoing farm consolidation and reduced education/health investment will all continue to play a role in changing the Australian agricultural and rural community landscape.

Acknowledgments Funding and support for this chapter was partly provided by the Australian Research Council DP200101191. Céline Nauges and Sarah Ann Wheeler

Notes 1.

2.

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan represents one of the largest reallocations of water from consumptive use to environmental use in the world. The overall plan, legislated in 2012, aims to return up to a third of the basin’s water resources to the environment, through two main methods: (a) buying water back directly from willing irrigators; and (b) obtaining water through on-farm and off-farm irrigation infrastructure upgrades/subsidies (Grafton 2019). In addition, using farm-level observations, Wheeler et al. (2014b) found that the impact on farm income from selling water entitlements was mixed, with no statistically significant impact identified, while Wheeler et al. (2014c) found very weak to no statistically significant evidence of a delayed impact from selling water entitlements.

References ACCC. (2021). Murray-Darling Basin water markets enquiry: Final report. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Canberra. Barbier, E. (2019). The water paradox: Overcoming the global crisis in water management. Yale University Press, New Haven. Bjornlund, H. (2002). The socio-economic structure of irrigation communities: Water markets and the structural adjustment process. Rural Society, 12, 123–147. Bjornlund, H., Wheeler, S.A. and Cheesman, J. (2011). Irrigators, water trading, the environment and debt: Buying water entitlements for the environment. In: Connell, D., Grafton, R.Q. (eds) Basin futures: Water reform in the MurrayDarling Basin, pp. 291–302. ANU Press, Canberra. Connor, J., Schwabe, K., King, D., Kaczan, D. and Kirby, M. (2009). Impacts of climate change on lower Murray irrigation. céline nauges and sarah ann wheeler

242  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(3), 437–456. Grafton, R.Q. (2019). Policy review of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: The “do’s” and “do’nots”. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 63, 116–141. Grafton, R.Q., Libecap, G., McGlennon, S., Landry, C. and O’Brien, B. (2011). An integrated assessment of water markets: A cross-country comparison. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5(2), 219–239. Griffin, R., Peck, D. and Maestu, J. (2013). Introduction: Myths, principles and issues in water trading. In: Maestu, J. (eds) Water trading and global water scarcity: International experiences. RFF Press, Oxon. Haensch, J., Wheeler, S.A. and Zuo, A. (2021). Explaining permanent and temporary water market trade patterns within local areas in the southern Murray–Darling Basin. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 65(2), 318–348. Hughes, N., Gupta, M., Whittle, L. and Westwood, T. (2021). A model of spatial and inter-temporal water trade in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, ABARES Technical Report, Canberra. Jiang, W. and Grafton, R.Q. (2012). Economic effects of climate change in the Murray– Darling Basin, Australia. Agricultural Systems, 110, 10–16. National Water Commission (2012). Impacts of water trading in the southern MurrayDarling basin between 2006–07 and 2010– 11. National Water Commission (NWC), Canberra, ACT. Nauges, C., Wheeler, S.A. and Zuo, A. (2016). Elicitation of irrigators’ risk preferences from observed behaviour. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 60, 442–458. Peterson, D., Dwyer, G., Appels, D. and Fry, J. (2004). Modelling water trade in the southern Murray-Darling Basin. Productivity Commission, Melbourne. Productivity Commission (2021). National water reform 2020, Inquiry Report no. 96, Canberra. Rafey, W. (2020). Droughts, deluges, and (river) diversions: Valuing marketbased water reallocation. In essays on environmental market design. Ph.D Thesis, pp. 7–110. Massachusetts Institute of céline nauges and sarah ann wheeler

Technology, Department of Economics, May 2020. https://dspace​.mit​.edu​/ handle​ /1721​.1​/127033. Sefton, R., Peterson, D., Woods, R., Kassebaum, A., McKenzie, D., Simpson, B. and Ramsay, M. (2020). Final Report: Independent assessment of social and economic conditions in the MurrayDarling Basin, panel for independent assessment of social and economic conditions in the Murray-Darling Basin, Melbourne. Wheeler, S. A. (2021). Water markets: A global assessment. S. Wheeler (Ed.), UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Wheeler, S.A. (2022). Debunking Australian water market myths, School of Economics and Public Policy working paper, May 2022. Wheeler, S.A., Carmody, E., Grafton, R.Q., Kingsford, R. and Zuo, A. (2020a). The rebound effect on water extraction from subsidising irrigation infrastructure in Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 159, 104755. Wheeler, S.A. and Cheesman, J. (2013). Key findings from a survey of sellers to the restoring the balance programme. Economic Papers, 32(3), 340–352. Wheeler, S.A., Loch, A., Zuo, A. and Bjornlund, H. (2014a). Reviewing the adoption and impact of water markets in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 518, 28–41. Wheeler, S.A., Zuo, A. and Hughes, N. (2014b). The impact of water ownership and water market trade strategy on Australian irrigators’ farm viability. Agricultural Systems, 129, 81–92. Wheeler, S.A., Zuo, A. and Bjornlund, H. (2014c). Investigating the delayed on-farm consequences of selling water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. Agricultural Water Management, 145, 72–82. Wheeler, S.A., Xu, Y. and Zuo, A. (2020b). Modelling the climate, water and socioeconomic drivers of farmer exit in the Murray-Darling Basin. Climatic Change, 158, 551–574. Wittwer, G. and Young, M.D. (2020). Distinguishing between policy, drought and international events in the context of the Murray-Darling basin plan. CoPS Working Paper no. G-295, March 2020, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne.

56. Sociohydrology Sociohydrology studies the interplay of water and society (Sivapalan et  al., 2012). It has built on a long history of work in several fields including (i) water resources systems, which began with the Harvard Water Program in the 1960s (Brown et  al., 2015), focusing on optimization; (ii) integrated water resources management, which started in the 1990s and emphasized the importance of integration in the development and implementation of water-related policies and measures (Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2008); and (iii) various interdisciplinary concepts dealing with the interactions of nature and society, such as social-ecological systems (Folke et al., 2005; Janssen & Ostrom, 2006; Schlüter et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2015). Throughout history, human societies have relied on access to freshwater resources, which is essential to support livelihoods and socioeconomic development (Di Baldassarre et al., 2013). Over the past centuries, humans have increasingly altered hydrological regimes by building dams and reservoirs to secure a water supply; diverting water flows to supply cities, industries and agriculture; raising dikes and levees to reduce the frequency of flooding; and changing river basin characteristics through deforestation, urbanization and drainage of wetlands (Blöschl et  al., 2013; Montanari et al., 2013). While societies have shaped hydrological regimes, hydrological regimes in their turn have shaped societies. Individuals, communities and institutions have responded (and adapted) to hydrological change (Adger et al., 2013). This has included spontaneous processes, such as migration from areas affected by floods or droughts, and formal responses, including changes in water allocation and governance (Savelli et al., 2021). This mutual shaping of human and water systems can generate water crises or sociohydrological phenomena (Figure 56.1), which challenge the development of sustainable policies for water management and disaster risk reduction (Di Baldassarre et  al., 2019). To illustrate, we describe two sociohydrological phenomena: the safe development paradox and the supply–demand cycle. The safe development paradox, also known as the levee effect, was first identified by

Gilbert White in the 1940s (White, 1945). This phenomenon may occur when structural protection measures are introduced (or strengthened) to cope with hydrological risks. For example, building or raising levees to reduce the probability of flooding in certain areas. The literature has shown that these protection measures can generate a sense of complacency (Montz & Tobin, 2008), and enable urbanization of risky areas (Kates et  al., 2006). Thus, risk can paradoxically increase after building protection measures. It is important to note that this paradox consists of self-reinforcing feedback: more urbanized areas will likely require further structural protection measures and thus generate a spiral. These feedback loops eventually make flooding events very rare, but extremely catastrophic, with devastating consequences especially for low-income groups (Finch et  al., 2010). The dramatic consequences of the 2005 deadly flooding of New Orleans were a case in point (Kates et al., 2006). The supply–demand cycle occurs when increasing the water supply enables increasing water consumption (Kallis, 2010). These cycles can be seen as a type of rebound effects, which have been studied in economics for several decades since Stanley Jevons in the 1860s. The theory is that efficiency gains often rebound (or even backfire) causing higher production and consumption (Alcott, 2005). Dams and reservoirs are often built (or expanded) to cope with drought and prevent water shortages, which is when a water supply does not meet water consumption (Di Baldassarre et  al., 2018). The basic idea is that the water stored in reservoirs can be used during a drought to keep supplying agriculture, cities and industries. However, securing a water supply often enables additional agricultural, urban or industrial expansion, which in turn further increases water consumption (Gohari et  al., 2013; Kallis, 2010). This feedback generates vicious cycles of supply and demand. As a result, the initial benefits of dams in securing a water supply can be quickly offset by increasing consumption. Moreover, when a drought occurs the economic losses associated with water shortages can be substantially worsened because of the increased reliance on the availability of water resources due to the aforementioned agricultural, urban or industrial expansion. Increasingly devastating losses caused by

243

244  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Risks, losses and perceptions

Water system

Human system

(e.g. hydrological flows, storages, distribution of floods and droughts)

(e.g. demography, behavior, governance, infrastructure)

Impacts and preventive measures

Water system phenomena

Human system time (years, decades)

Figure 56.1   Sociohydrology. Interactions and feedback between water and human systems (top panel) that generate phenomena over time (bottom panel)

drought in California are emblematic of the potentially negative effects of supply–demand cycles (Di Baldassarre et al., 2021). As shown by the foregoing two examples, research in sociohydrology is mostly interdisciplinary (Montanari et  al., 2013). It often combines qualitative and quantitative studies, as well as historical observations and mathematical models (Sivapalan et  al., 2012). These mixed research methods have allowed the unraveling of key feedback between human and water systems, and their potential to generate water crises or sociohydrological phenomena (Figure 56.1). Current developments in sociohydrology aim not only to further advance the understanding of complex human–water systems but also to inform decision-making processes for the sustainable management of water resources, including policymaking and measures for the reduction of drought and flood risks. Giuliano Di Baldassarre

References Adger, W. N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., Murphy, C., & Sweeney, J. (2013). Changing social contracts in climate-change adaptation. giuliano di baldassarre

Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 330–333. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/nclimate1751 Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons’ paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), 9–21. Blöschl, G., Nester, T., Komma, J., Parajka, J., & Perdigão, R. A. (2013). The June 2013 flood in the Upper Danube basin, and comparisons with the 2002, 1954 and 1899 floods. Hydrology & Earth System Sciences Discussions, 10(7), 5197–5212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/ hess-17-5197-2013. Brown, C. M., Lund, J. R., Cai, X., Reed, P. M., Zagona, E. A., Ostfeld, A., Hall, J., Characklis, G. W., Yu, W., & Brekke, L. (2015). The future of water resources systems analysis: Toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management. Water Resources Research, 51(8), 6110–6124. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​ /2015WR017114 Di Baldassarre, G., Mazzoleni, M., & Rusca, M. (2021). The legacy of large dams in the United States. Ambio. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/s13280​-021​-01533-x Di Baldassarre, G., Sivapalan, M., Rusca, M., Cudennec, C., Garcia, M., Kreibich, H., Konar, M., Mondino, E., Mård, J., Pande,

sociohydrology  245 S., Sanderson, M. R., Tian, F., Viglione, A., Wei, J., Wei, Y., Yu, D. J., Srinivasan, V., & Blöschl, G. (2019). Sociohydrology: Scientific challenges in addressing the sustainable development goals. Water Resources Research, 55(8), 6327–6355. https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​/2018WR023901 Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Carr, G., Kuil, L., Salinas, J. L., & Blöschl, G. (2013). Socio-hydrology: Conceptualising human-flood interactions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(8), 3295–3303. https://doi​.org​/10​.5194​/ hess​-17​-3295​-2013 Di Baldassarre, G., Wanders, N., AghaKouchak, A., Kuil, L., Rangecroft, S., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Garcia, M., van Oel, P. R., Breinl, K., & Van Loon, A. F. (2018). Water shortages worsened by reservoir effects. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 617– 622.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41893​- 018​ -0159-0 Finch, C., Emrich, C. T., & Cutter, S. L. (2010). Disaster disparities and differential recovery in New Orleans. Population and Environment, 31(4), 179–202. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of socialecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. Gohari, A., Eslamian, S., Mirchi, A., AbediKoupaei, J., Massah Bavani, A., & Madani, K. (2013). Water transfer as a solution to water shortage: A fix that can Backfire. Journal of Hydrology, 491, 23–39. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jhydrol​.2013​.03​.021 Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecology and Society, 11(2). https://doi​.org​ /10​.5751​/ ES​-01861​-110237 Kallis, G. (2010). Coevolution in water resource development: The vicious cycle of water supply and demand in Athens, Greece. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 796–809. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ecolecon​ .2008​.07​.025 Kates, R. W., Colten, C. E., Laska, S., & Leatherman, S. P. (2006). Reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: A research perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(40), 14653–14660. https://doi​.org​/10​.1073​/pnas​ .0605726103

Montanari, A., Young, G., Savenije, H. H. G., Hughes, D., Wagener, T., Ren, L. L., Koutsoyiannis, D., Cudennec, C., Toth, E., Grimaldi, S., Blöschl, G., Sivapalan, M., Beven, K., Gupta, H., Hipsey, M., Schaefli, B., Arheimer, B., Boegh, E., Schymanski, S. J., … & Belyaev, V. (2013). “Panta Rhei— Everything Flows”: Change in hydrology and society—The IAHS scientific decade 2013–2022. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 58(6), 1256–1275. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1080​/02626667​.2013​.809088 Montz, B. E., & Tobin, G. A. (2008). Livin’ large with Levees: Lessons learned and lost. Natural Hazards Review, 9(3), 150–157. https://doi​.org​/10​.1061/ (ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:3(150) Savelli, E., Rusca, M., Cloke, H., & Di Baldassarre, G. (2021). Don’t blame the rain: Social power and the 2015–2017 drought in Cape Town. Journal of Hydrology, 594, 125953. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.jhydrol​.2020​.125953 Savenije, H. H. G., & Van der Zaag, P. (2008). Integrated water resources management: Concepts and issues. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 33(5), 290–297. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.pce​.2008​.02​.003 Schlüter, M., Müller, B., & Frank, K. (2019). The potential of models and modeling for social-ecological systems research: The reference frame ModSES. Ecology and Society, 24(1). https://www​.jstor​.org​/stable​ /26796919 Sivapalan, M., Savenije, H. H. G., & Blöschl, G. (2012). Socio-hydrology: A new science of people and water. Hydrological Processes, 26(8), 1270–1276. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1002​/ hyp​.8426 White, G. F. (1945). Human Adjustment to Floods: Department of Geography Research Paper No. 29. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Yu, D. J., Qubbaj, M. R., Muneepeerakul, R., Anderies, J. M., & Aggarwal, R. M. (2015). Effect of infrastructure design on commons dilemmas in social−ecological system dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(43), 13207–13212. https://doi​.org​/10​.1073​/pnas​.1410688112.

giuliano di baldassarre

57. Stakeholder Engagement and Communication for Water Policy The best water policy proposal can fail on the basis of public perception. Yet, stakeholder communication is often addressed as a formality, conducted after decisions are made, or given low priority in the water planning process (Barreteau et al., 2010; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Rinaudo & Garin, 2005). Engaging a variety of stakeholders in water management is pragmatic, as it increases the probability that management objectives will be realized. It is also ethical, allowing those dependent on common resources to have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives (Cleaver, 1999; Wehn et al., 2018). The ubiquity of water means there are many stakeholders, and the appropriate level of communication with each depends on the water issue, objectives and context (Fung, 2006; Hurlbert & Gupta, 2015; Michener, 1998; OECD, 2017; Richards et  al., 2007; Tippett et al., 2007). Water stakeholders can be broadly categorized into two types. The first consists of those with above average economic and/or affective investment in water outcomes. These highly invested stakeholders include the agricultural industry, tourism industry, waterfront property owners, residents in flood risk zones, subsistence fishers and environmental interest groups, among others. Depending on the issue, the wellbeing of these groups may be substantially altered, positively or negatively, by water policy. They are likely to care deeply about water proposals. A second type of stakeholders consists of the general public, all of whom are dependent on the water supply for health, home and recreation. Often with the general public’s relatively lower investment in water policy comes relatively low scientific knowledge and interest in water management. With this categorization, communication can be designed in proportion to stakeholders’ investment in the water topic, which may also align with their desire to participate. Highly invested stakeholders often participate more actively in water planning in an effort to protect their interests (Collins et al., 2004). Given effective opportunities to participate within

the system, stakeholders may feel less need to work outside the system. Moreover, engagement among highly invested stakeholders, scientists and policymakers builds trust, accountability and acceptance of outcomes (von Korff et al., 2012). Better outcomes also result when policies are based not only on scientific knowledge, but also on the experiential knowledge of stakeholders. Water challenges are wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) that often involve substantial uncertainty, complexity and conflict (von Korff et al., 2012). As a result, scientists and policymakers may lack the range of information needed to properly address water challenges (von Korff et  al., 2012). Because of their varied experience with water resources, stakeholders can identify problems and their causes, provide local geographic and social context, and anticipate the reasons that various courses of action may or may not be successful (Hurlbert & Gupta, 2015). They are desirable partners in water policy formulation. It is often noted that participatory processes can be counterproductive without proper planning and implementation (Brett, 1996; Coglianese, 1997; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Priscoli, 2004; von Korff et  al., 2012; Webler, 1999). Several researchers have detailed the components of effective participatory engagement (Eaton et  al., 2021; Mott Lacroix & Megdal, 2016; Rowe & Frewer, 2000; Syme & Nancarrow, 1992; Webler et  al., 1995). Below, we offer several guidelines for engaging stakeholders in the water management process, though not an exhaustive list.

Guidelines for engaging highly invested stakeholders Stakeholder representation. Stakeholder representation should not be limited to those who have traditionally engaged in water management processes. Process managers are advised to identify the range of stakeholder groups affected, then prioritize the vulnerable and most severely impacted (OECD, 2017). Minority and economically disadvantaged groups have traditionally been underrepresented in resource decision-making and often have less access to power (Allen et al., 2006; Weisner et  al., 2020; Wescoat et  al., 2007); therefore, additional effort will likely be required to secure their involvement and make them comfortable continuing. It should

246

stakeholder engagement and communication for water policy  247 not be assumed that stakeholders will desire to participate in water management processes (Mott Lacroix and Megdal, 2016). Barriers to participation include the time and effort required as well as the uncertainty about the degree to which their involvement will matter (Webler et  al., 1995; Wehn et  al., 2018). Engagement activities should be arranged to make participation easy yet impactful on water management decisions. Furthermore, stakeholders should be recognized for the opportunity cost of their investment in the process. Level of participation. Multiple researchers have put names to the levels at which stakeholders can contribute to water management processes. They range from (on the low end) one-way communication (from water managers to stakeholders) up to co-design and implementation of water management strategies (Arnstein, 1969; OECD, 2017). The level and manner in which stakeholders are asked to engage is a key decision and one that should be made after asking, ‘stakeholder engagement for what purpose?’ (Wehn et al., 2018, p. 55) If stakeholder input is unlikely to be incorporated into water plans, then seeking input on the premise that it will be used is unethical (Wehn et  al., 2018) at best, and possibly destructive. Barreteau et  al. (2010) argue that to minimize disillusionment with the process, stakeholders should be precisely informed about who will produce, use and receive information; the timing of involvement by participants; the framing power participants will have; and the manner in which interactions among stakeholders, researchers and policymakers will take place. For stakeholders to adequately represent their interests during the process, they may require information and support from process leaders (OECD, 2017). Different types of water knowledge. Stakeholder knowledge is sometimes perceived as second-class knowledge, less than the contributions of scientists, and inadequate for meaningful participation in water management processes. This view of stakeholder contributions risks the disillusionment of stakeholder participants. Though stakeholders may lack the formal expertise of water managers, they can be intimately familiar with local water resources and have vivid memories of prior management successes and failures. In short, they understand water in ways that scientists and policymakers often

do not. In settings where stakeholder knowledge is elevated and communication between stakeholders and scientists is prioritized, potential policy barriers can be reduced and new solutions generated (Ison et  al., 2007; Monroe et al., 2013; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008; Pahl-Wostl & Hare, 2004; Scholz et al., 2014). Stakeholder conflict. Because water is a shared and limited resource, water management decisions often place stakeholders in competition and conflict. Water allocated to one purpose is often not available for another. Similarly, policies put in place to protect water quality can limit economic and other activities that provide social goods. In some cases, stakeholder engagement processes have reduced long-standing conflict between stakeholder groups, but in other cases, they have created or amplified conflict (Basco-Carrera et al., 2017; Collins & Ison, 2009; Evers et al., 2012; Hare, 2011). For this reason, care should be taken in selecting facilitators familiar with participatory engagement and who are knowledgeable about local context and conflict history. The co-orientation model provides a framework for understanding and addressing stakeholder conflict (Hundemer & Monroe, 2020; McLeod & Chaffee, 1973). The role of science and values. Water policies are value decisions, not merely scientific ones. While science can provide the likely outcomes of policy options, it cannot weigh the tradeoffs between options (particularly when an option that promotes one social good degrades another). The centrality of economic, ecological and social values in water management should be acknowledged. It should also be recognized that an option seen as a ‘win’ by one stakeholder group may be perceived as a ‘loss’ by another. Managing value discussions can be difficult; however, understanding the range of values that motivate stakeholders is a good first step. For example, stakeholders who are economically dependent on water resources may make many water decisions based on environmental concerns (Traoré et  al., 1998). It would be erroneous and potentially counterproductive to assume that one type of value shapes people’s perspectives. Mental model analysis is one method for examining stakeholders’ water values (Amtmann, 1996; Hundemer & Monroe, 2020; Kearney, 2015). In addition, moral foundations theory (Haidt, 2012) is an actionable framework for value-based discourse. sadie hundemer and martha c. monroe

248  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Guidelines for communication with the general public In contrast to highly invested stakeholders, the general public may be less motivated to engage with water management policies. Rather than investing the time that would be required to seek, understand and evaluate information on policy alternatives, the general public is more likely to rely on information shortcuts. They may support or oppose a water policy based on the opinion of a leader of their political party, the advice of a neighbor or the policy’s resonance with their personal values (Haidt, 2012; Kahan, 2017; Kahneman, 2011). Though the public may remain a step removed from the details of water policy, this does not mean that they will remain on the sidelines of water debates. As discussed above, water policy is a representation of what society values and, as a result, the public can have an affective investment in water decisions. Below, we provide several preliminary guidelines for communicating with the public. Communicating for scientific understanding. There is no communication without understanding. It is therefore essential that public communication be developed at a level that the public can comprehend. Several studies have found the public to lack basic water knowledge which could impede understanding of water issues that affect their lives (Hubbard, 2020; Hundemer et al., 2021; Kunda, 1990; Lamm et  al., 2015; NEETF, 1998, 1999; Robelia & Murphy, 2012). Mental model analysis can reveal how the public understands and processes information about water systems and water challenges (Amtmann, 1996; Hundemer & Monroe, 2020; Kearney, 2015). Value-centric messages. Compared to highly invested stakeholders, the general public doesn’t have as much to personally gain or lose as a result of water management decisions. Therefore, they are less likely to base their policy preferences on personal impact, and more likely to base their decisions on whether the policy moves society in ‘the right direction’. What ‘the right direction’ means to an individual is largely determined by their values which, in turn, often relate to their political orientation. Water communicators can increase the resonance of water discourse across political groups, and minimize inadvertently stoking partisanship, by attending sadie hundemer and martha c. monroe

to the diversity of value priorities across political lines. In the United States, liberals have been found to prioritize policy that they perceive takes care of others and promotes equality of outcomes (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Kahan & Braman, 2006). In contrast, conservatives tend to prioritize actions that prioritize personal freedom and tradition (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Kahan & Braman, 2006). As mentioned above, moral foundations theory provides a particularly implementable approach to communicating values across the political spectrum (Haidt, 2012). Community discussions and guided deliberation can help people learn about other perspectives in a context that respects differences (Mathews, 2014; M. C. Monroe et  al., 2009; Muro & Jeffrey, 2008; Stern, 2005). Opinion leadership. People are more likely to consider communication from those they trust, and they tend to trust people and groups whom they perceive to share their worldview. This perception of common values is often based on outward identifiers such as a spokesperson’s political identity or organizational affiliation (Kahan, 2017; Slothuus & de Vreese, 2010). Because people have a variety of worldviews, a spokesperson whose outward identity conveys trust for one group may have the opposite effect on another group (Hart & Nisbet, 2012). Therefore, broad public support may require multiple communicators from diverse political orientations, organizations or demographics. Highly invested stakeholders (discussed above) are often knowledgeable about both water challenges and their value implications, which can make them effective at shaping public perceptions of water management. Of course, their ability and motivation to convey a consistent message may depend on their engagement in the water management process.

Conclusion Stakeholder engagement is pragmatic and ethical, but it can also be contentious. The principles provided in this chapter can help water managers maximize socially beneficial water outcomes and reduce conflict. However, they represent only a fragment of the stakeholder engagement literature that should be consulted during water policy development and implementation. Sadie Hundemer and Martha C. Monroe

stakeholder engagement and communication for water policy  249

References

(2004). Stakeholders and stakeholding in integrated catchment management and Allen, A., Dávila, J. D., & Hofmann, P. sustainable use of water. SLIM Policy (2006). The peri-urban water poor: https://www​.researchgate​.net​/ Briefing. Citizens or consumers? Environment and publication​/238695062​_ Stakeholders​_ and​ Urbanization, 18(2), 333–351. https://doi​ _Stakeholding​_ in​_ Integrated​_Catchment​ .org​/10​.1177​/0956247806069608 _Management ​_ and ​_ Sustainable ​_Use ​_ of​ Amtmann, L. A. (1996). Stakeholder _Water perspectives on wild and scenic rivers: A new cognitive tool for enhancing Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of participation [Master’s Thesis]. University technical and environmental dangers. of Michigan. University of California Press. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Eaton, W. M., Brasier, K. J., Burbach, M. E., Whitmer, W., Engle, E. W., Burnham, M., Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https:// Quimby, B., Kumar Chaudhary, A., Whitley, doi​.org​/10​.1080​/01944366908977225 H., Delozier, J., Fowler, L. B., Wutich, A., Barreteau, O., Bots, P., & Daniell, K. (2010). Bausch, J. C., Beresford, M., Hinrichs, C. A framework for clarifying “Participation” C., Burkhart-Kriesel, C., Preisendanz, H. in participatory research to prevent its E., Williams, C., Watson, J., & Weigle, J. rejection for the wrong reasons. Ecology (2021). A conceptual framework for social, and Society, 15(2). https://doi​.org​/10​.5751​/ behavioral, and environmental change ES​-03186​-150201 through stakeholder engagement in water Basco-Carrera, L., Warren, A., van Beek, resource management. Society & Natural E., Jonoski, A., & Giardino, A. (2017). Resources, 34(8), 1111–1132. https://doi​.org​ Collaborative modelling or participatory /10​.1080​/08941920​.2021​.1936717 modelling? A framework for water Evers, M., Jonoski, A., Maksimovič, Č., Lange, resources management. Environmental L., Ochoa Rodriguez, S., Teklesadik, A., Modelling & Software, 91, 95–110. https:// Cortes Arevalo, J., Almoradie, A., Simões, doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.envsoft​.2017​.01​.014 N. E., Wang, L., & Makropoulos, C. Brett, E. A. (1996). The participatory (2012). Collaborative modelling for active principle in development projects: The involvement of stakeholders in urban flood costs and benefits of cooperation. Public risk management. Natural Hazards and Administration and Development, Earth System Sciences, 12, 2821–2842. 16(1), 5–19. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002/ https://doi​.org​/10​.5194​/nhess​-12​-2821​-2012 (SICI)1099-162X(199602)16:13.0.CO;2-6 complex governance. Public Administration Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of Review, 66(s1), 66–75. https://doi​.org​/10​ participation: Questioning participatory .1111​/j​.1540​-6210​.2006​.00667.x approaches to development. Journal of International Development, 11(4), Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and 597–612. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002/ Religion. Random House, Inc. (SICI)1099-1328(199906)11:43.0.CO;2-Q modelling and its potential for widespread Coglianese, C. (1997). Assessing consensus: adoption in the water sector. Environmental The promise and performance of Policy and Governance, 21(6), 386–402. negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/eet​.590 46(6), 1255–1349. https://doi​.org​/10​.2307​ Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang /1372989 effects in science communication: How Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off motivated reasoning and identity cues Arnstein’s ladder: Social learning as a amplify opinion polarization about climate new policy paradigm for climate change mitigation policies. Communication adaptation. Environmental Policy and Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi​.org​ Governance, 19(6), 358–373. https://doi​ /10​.1177​/0093650211416646 .org​/10​.1002​/eet​.523 Collins, K., Steyaert, P., Marco, T., Brives, Hubbard, M. L. (2020). The role of knowledge in water resource management: An H., Roche, B., Billau, J., & Powell, N. assessment of the Oregon general public. sadie hundemer and martha c. monroe

250  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management The Social Science Journal, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/ 03623319​. 2020​ .1782635 Hundemer, S., & Monroe, M. C. (2020). A co-orientation analysis of producers’ and environmentalists’ mental models of water issues: Opportunities for improved communication and collaboration. Environmental Communication, 15(3), 1–19. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/17524032​ .2020​.1828128 Hundemer, S., Monroe, M. C., & Kaplan, D. (2021). The water science communication problem: Water knowledge and the acceptance or rejection of water science. Journal of Hydrology, 406, 1–16. Hurlbert, M., & Gupta, J. (2015). The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science & Policy, 50, 100–113. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.envsci​.2015​.01​.011 Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1540​ -6210​.2004​.00346.x Ison, R., Röling, N., & Watson, D. (2007). Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: Investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(6), 499–511. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.envsci​ .2007​.02​.008 Kahan, D. M. (2017). On the sources of ordinary science knowledge and extraordinary science ignorance. In D. M. Kahan & D. Scheufele (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (pp. 35–50). Oxford University Press. Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2006). Cultural Cognition and Public Policy. Yale Law & Policy Review, Public Law Working Paper No. 87, 24, 147–170. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kearney, A. R. (2015). 3CM: A tool for knowing “Where They’re At.” In R. Kaplan & A. Basu (Eds.), Fostering Reasonableness: Supportive Environments for Bringing Out Our Best (pp. 273–294). Michigan Publishing. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), sadie hundemer and martha c. monroe

480–498. https://doi​.org​/10​.1037​/0033​ -2909​.108​.3​.480 Lamm, K. W., Lamm, A. J., & Carter, H. S. (2015). Bridging water issue knowledge gaps between the general public and opinion leaders. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(3), 146–161. https://doi​.org​ /10​.5032​/jae​.2015​.03146 Mathews, D. (2014). The Ecology of Democracy. Kettering Foundation Press. McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16(4), 469–499. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​ /000276427301600402 Michener, V. J. (1998). The participatory approach: Contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Development, 26(12), 2105–2118. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S0305​ -750X(98)00112-0 Monroe, M. C., Oxarart, A., Mcdonell, L., & Plate, R. (2009). Using community forums to enhance public engagement in environmental issues. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 3(2), 171–182. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​ /097340820900300212 Monroe, M., Plate, R., & Oxarart, A. (2013). Intermediate collaborative adaptive management strategies build stakeholder capacity. Ecology and Society, 18(2). https://doi​.org​/10​.5751​/ ES​-05444​-180224 Mott Lacroix, K. E., & Megdal, S. B. (2016). Explore, synthesize, and repeat: Unraveling complex water management issues through the stakeholder engagement wheel. Water, 8(4), 118. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w8040118 Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/09640560801977190 NEETF. (1998). The National Report Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide. http://www​ .neefusa​.org​/resources​/publications​.htm NEETF. (1999). The National Report Card on Environmental Readiness for the 21st Century. The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF) and Roper Starch Worldwide.

stakeholder engagement and communication for water policy  251 OECD. (2017). Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector. OECD Publishing. http:// dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1787​/9789264252462​-en Pahl-Wostl, C., & Hare, M. (2004). Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 193– 206. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/casp​.774 Pahl-Wostl, C., Tàbara, D., Bouwen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Ridder, D., & Taillieu, T. (2008). The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 484–495. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .ecolecon​.2007​.08​.007 Priscoli, J. D. (2004). What is public participation in water resources management and why is it important? Water International, 29(2), 221–227. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/02508060408691771 Richards, C., Blackstock, K., Carter, C., Carter, C., & Spash, C. L. (2007). Practical Approaches to Participation. The Maculay Institute. http://citeseerx​.ist​.psu​.edu​/ viewdoc​/download​?doi​ =10​ .1​ .1​ .605​.4495​ &rep​=rep1​&type​=pdf Rinaudo, J. D., & Garin, P. (2005). The benefits of combining lay and expert input for water-management planning at the watershed level. Water Policy, 7(3), 279– 293. https://doi​.org​/10​.2166​/wp​.2005​.0018 Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1007​/ BF01405730 Robelia, B., & Murphy, T. (2012). What do people know about key environmental issues? A review of environmental knowledge surveys. Environmental Education Research, 18(3), 299–321. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/13504622​. 2011​ .618288 Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​ /016224390002500101 Scholz, G., Dewulf, A., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2014). An analytical framework of social learning facilitated by participatory methods. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 27(6), 575–591. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/s11213​-013​-9310-z Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning,

and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 630–645. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1017​/S002238161000006X Stern, P. C. (2005). Deliberative methods for understanding environmental systems. BioScience, 55(11), 976–982. Syme, G. J., & Nancarrow, B. E. (1992). Predicting public involvement in urban water management and planning. Environment and Behavior, 24(6), 738–758. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0013916592246003 Tippett, J. A., Handley, J. F., & Ravetz, J. (2007). Meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Appraisal of a New Methodology for Participatory Ecological Planning. Elsevier. Traoré, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (1998). On-farm adoption of conservation practices: The role of farm and farmer characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards. Land Economics, 74(1), 114–127. JSTOR. https://doi​.org​/10​.2307​/3147217 von Korff, Y., Daniell, K., Moellenkamp, S., Bots, P., & Bijlsma, R. (2012). Implementing participatory water management: Recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation. Ecology and Society, 17(1). https://doi​.org​ /10​.5751​/ ES​-04733​-170130 Webler, T. (1999). The craft and theory of public participation: A dialectical process. Journal of Risk Research, 2(1), 55–71. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/136698799376989 Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995). Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15(5), 443–463. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​ /0195​-9255(95)00043-E Wehn, U., Collins, K., Anema, K., BascoCarrera, L., & Lerebours, A. (2018). Stakeholder engagement in water governance as social learning: Lessons from practice. Water International, 43(1), 34–59. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/02508060​ .2018​.1403083 Weisner, M. L., Root, T. L., Harris, M. S., Mitsova, D., & Liu, W. (2020). Tap water perceptions and socioeconomics: Assessing the dissatisfaction of the poor. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 21, 269–278. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.spc​ .2019​.08​.008 Wescoat, J. L., Headington, L., & Theobald, R. (2007). Water and poverty in the United States. Geoforum, 38(5), 801–814. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.geoforum​.2006​.08​.007 sadie hundemer and martha c. monroe

58. Sustainable Provision of Drinking Water in the Context of the Circular Economy Water is fundamental to the well-being of individuals and for the economic growth of society. Despite this, currently over four million people live in areas with water scarcity, a situation that in recent years has been exacerbated by the increase in the human population, urbanization and climate change (Tzanakakis et al., 2020; Stringer et al., 2021). The reduction in the availability of freshwater sources has resulted in enormous pressures for water utilities that must provide a continuous supply of drinking water. To address this, the management of water resources plays a fundamental role, which must be oriented toward sustainable consumption, the minimization of its economic costs, efficient distribution and technological support for resource management. In a context of water scarcity, there has been overall social and political agreement on prioritizing water for human consumption. It is clearly linked with the human right to water and with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015). However, to adequately include this priority in the legal and regulatory systems, it is necessary to carefully determine its content and scope. Otherwise, we will only focus on the mere incorporation of a declaration that positively enshrines it, but it will be an empty decision that, contrary to expectations, could lead to more difficulties and conflicts than those that currently exist in this field. a.

b.

What to prioritize? The link between the human right to water and the prioritization of personal and domestic use is direct, thus water for ‘personal and domestic use’ should be prioritized. In that sense, the definition of ‘personal and domestic use’ is essential. How much to prioritize? That is, what volume of water do we require to meet human needs for personal and domestic use and that should be prioritized. In other words, the question is how much water is sufficient to ensure human dignity. Different definitions have been

proposed in the literature on this subject, ranging between 50 and 270  liters per person/day, approximately (Chenoweth, 2008; Feitelson, 2012; Organización Panamericana de la Salud, 2013, among others). It is essential to define the amount of water (minimum and maximum) that should be prioritized because, otherwise, this can cause controversies and abuses, since the focus of prioritization (personal and domestic use) is limited. c. When to prioritize? This implies specifying under what circumstances or in what instances to include and enforce prioritization. Some alternatives that are considered in several legal regimes are the procedures for the original allocation of water rights, those related to the exercise of such rights and, in particular, conditions of scarcity or drought. In all these hypotheses it is necessary to specify the assumptions that make the prioritization matter applicable. d. How to prioritize? Under this heading, it is necessary to detail the instruments and/or regulatory mechanisms to be used, the applicable procedure and the competent authorities to make the prioritization effective and ensure that it is adequately respected. Likewise, and bearing in mind that drinking water and sanitation services are provided under different schemes (in concession sectors, by concessionaires and in non-concession localities, by rural drinking water committees or cooperatives), it is necessary to establish under what operating conditions the water provider will apply such prioritization. Drinking water delivered to people must meet the quality standards established by national regulations. In other words, raw water from conventional or alternative water sources should be treated to produce drinking water. In this context, drinking water treatment plants have strongly contributed to providing safe water for human consumption and are a pivotal technological component that supports the achievement of sustainable development goal  6 of the 2030  Agenda (United Nations, 2015). However, their treatment unit processes generate a slurry stream of waste called drinking water treatment residuals (DWTRs). Their composition is variable, and it is controlled by the assemblage of suspended solids in the source and the chemicals

252

sustainable provision of drinking water in the circular economy  253 used for the treatment train (Ippolito et  al., 2011). It results in a heterogeneous mix of clays, organic matter, fine sand, and metal oxides and oxyhydroxides, which are a highly reactive by-product of the iron or aluminum salts added during coagulation. DWTRs may be an opportunity for or a threat to the sustainability of the urban water cycle. They become a threat when discharged to surface waters as they are loaded with toxic metals or metalloids, such as copper, lead and arsenic. This usually happens in the metal-rich watersheds of countries that do not have stringent wastewater discharge standards (Briso et  al., 2022). When they are not enriched with toxic metals, ‘clean’ DWTRs may still increase the turbidity of the water column and form sediment repositories if discharged to ambient waters. Other management alternatives such as dewatering and disposal in landfills prevent water pollution but require precious land and transportation. Therefore, it is urgent that DWTRs be managed with a circular economy approach to enhance the sustainability of the urban water cycle. Fortunately, DWTRs are likely to have an untapped reactivity that may be used to bind pollutants within an engineered solution. After exhausting the possibilities of reducing the volume of DWTRs via source improvement and process optimization, the unavoidable flux of DWTRs could be converted to resources. Briefly, clean DWTRs may be used to (1) recover degraded soil, with careful management of the phosphorus budget to prevent the inhibition of soil microbial communities; (2) implement a reactive bed or barrier that binds phosphate to prevent the eutrophication of lakes; (3) prevent the flux of metals from polluted sediments to the water column; (4) manufacture sorbents tailored for nutrient and metal removal within water and wastewater treatment schemes; and (5) manufacture building materials. Another alternative to improve the circularity of the urban water cycle is through gray water reuse. It has been reported that the reuse of treated gray water is a feasible alternative that promotes the sustainable use of the resource and allows the generation of a circular economy around water resources (Al-Jayyousi, 2003; Khajvand et  al., 2022). Similarly, this produces an increase in secondary and ‘unconventional’ water sources, contributing to the water security of communities.

Domestic gray water such as that from sinks, bathtubs, dishwashers, washing machines and showers has a low concentration of contaminants compared with wastewater from toilets (black water) and therefore requires less complex and sophisticated treatment processes (Leiva et  al., 2021). Thus, this advantage in water treatment favors its use as potential decentralized systems. Decentralized gray water treatment systems are a potential alternative to address sustainable water management, especially for small communities in geographically isolated areas. Among the advantages of decentralized systems over centralized systems are low energy consumption, simple operation and a reduction in the transport and distribution of water (Garfí et  al., 2017; Kobayashi et  al., 2020). Gray water reuse systems have been shown to reduce water consumption by approximately 40 percent, have broad sustainability benefits and require lower investment and operating costs compared with more sophisticated treatment systems (Atanasova et  al., 2017; Rodríguez et al., 2021). Although this option has been validated and tested in rural areas with less access to water, the increasing supply–demand deficit and the deterioration of centralized water distribution infrastructure make it necessary to consider this alternative for urban areas from a broader perspective in a context of the circular economy and the sustainable management of water resources. Economic policy instruments (EPIs) might also play a relevant role in improving the sustainability of the provision of drinking water services. Water pricing is one of various EPIs that have been used to increase the efficient and rational use of water. Numerous studies addressing urban water pricing topics have been conducted (Dinar et  al., 2015; Lago et al., 2015), and have concluded that this economic instrument is effective in combining water and sanitation services’ efficiency and revenue. Urban water pricing policies are a low cost and effective tool to increase access to water and sanitation services (Barbosa and Brusca, 2015). A general conclusion of several studies that compared the performance of water pricing among countries, is that there is no practice most appropriate for one country or sector (Dinar et al., 2015). Several reasons have been suggested to explain the lack of consensus on water tariffs (van den Berg, 2015). The most frequent are disagreement on the objectives of guillermo donoso et al.

254  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management water pricing, lack of empirical work on the effect of different water prices on consumer behavior and concerns over affordability and access to improved water and sanitation services. Tariff models include multiple objectives: (i) cost recovery to finance the operation and maintenance costs, as well as investment needs; (ii) incentivize efficiency gains in the provision of water and sanitation; (iii) equity; (iv) accessibility and affordability; and (v) provide an appropriate price signal for the rational use of water. In this multiobjective context, a variety of alternative pricing structures have been implemented (Worthington and Hoffman, 2008). The majority of these consist of a two-part tariff composed of a fixed component and a volumetric component that can be a uniform volumetric rate structure, an increasing block rate (IBR) or a decreasing block rate (DBR). Globally, IBRs are the most frequent (Zetland and Gasson, 2012). However, the use of water tariffs faces several challenges. Implementing tariff reforms is often difficult in practice due to political factors and the absence of governance structures that can result in quality service provision (Lago et  al., 2015). Additionally, institutional replication of successful water pricing policies has been difficult due to incomplete information and the contextual uniqueness of local institutions, politics and social relations (Gurung and Martínez-Espiñeira, 2019). In summary, it is illustrated that there are many opportunities for improving the sustainability and circularity of the urban water cycle embracing technological, economic and regulatory approaches. However, not only further analysis and evidence, but also economic incentives and regulatory frameworks are needed to enhance the adoption of these new approaches, which will also contribute to the broader goals of water security and the sustainable provision of drinking water.1 Guillermo Donoso, Eduardo Leiva, María Molinos-Senante, Pablo Pastén and Daniela Rivera

Note 1.

The authors would like to thank the financial support of the Chilean Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) though the project FSEQ210018.

guillermo donoso et al.

References Al-Jayyousi, O. R. (2003). Greywater reuse: Towards sustainable water management. Desalination, 156(1–3), 181–192. Atanasova, N., Dalmau, M., Comas, J., Poch, M., Rodriguez-Roda, I., Buttiglieri, G. (2017). Optimized MBR for greywater reuse systems in hotel facilities. Journal of Environmental Management, 193, 503–511. Barbosa, A., Brusca, I. (2015). Governance structures and their impact on tariff levels of Brazilian water and sanitation corporations. Utilities Policy, 34, 94–105. Briso, A., Vega, A. S., Molinos-Senante, M., Pasten, P. (2022). Challenges and opportunities for drinking water treatment residuals (DWTRs) in metal-rich areas: An integrated approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(43), 65599–65612. Chenoweth, J. (2008). Minimum water requirement for social and economic development. Desalination, 229, 245–256. Dinar, A., Pochat, V., Albiac-Murillo, J., eds. (2015). Water Pricing Experiences and Innovation, vol. 9. New York: Springer-Verlag. Feitelson, E. (2012). What is water? A normative perspective. Water Policy, 14, 52–64. Garfí, M., Flores, L., Ferrer, I. (2017). Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment systems for small communities: Activated sludge, constructed wetlands and high rate algal ponds. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 211–219. Gurung, A., Martínez-Espiñeira, R. (2019). Determinants of the water rate structure choice by Canadian municipalities. Utilities Policy, 58, 89–101. Ippolito, J. A., Barbarick, K. A., Elliott, H. A. (2011). Drinking water treatment residuals: A review of recent uses. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40(1), 1–12. Khajvand, M., Mostafazadeh, A. K., Drogui, P., Tyagi, R. D., Brien, E. (2022). Greywater characteristics, impacts, treatment, and reclamation using adsorption processes towards the circular economy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–38.

sustainable provision of drinking water in the circular economy  255 Kobayashi, Y., Ashbolt, N. J., Davies, E. G., Liu, Y. (2020). Life cycle assessment of decentralized greywater treatment systems with reuse at different scales in cold regions. Environment International, 134, 105215. Lago, M., Mysiak, J., Gómez, C. M., Delacámara, G., Maziotis, A. (2015). Use of Economic Instruments in Water Policy: Insights from International Experience, vol. 14. Switzerland: Springer. Leiva, E., Rodríguez, C., Sánchez, R., Serrano, J. (2021). Light or dark greywater for water reuse? Economic assessment of on-site greywater treatment systems in rural areas. Water, 13(24), 3637. Organización Panamericana de la Salud (2013). Cantidad de agua necesaria para emergencias. Notas técnicas sobre agua, saneamiento e higiene en emergencias. Washington, DC. Available at: https:// www​ . paho​ . org​ /es​ /emergencias​ - salud​ / notas​-tecnicas​-sobre​-agua​-saneamiento​- e​ -higiene​-emergencias Rodríguez, C., Sánchez, R., Rebolledo, N., Schneider, N., Serrano, J., Leiva, E. (2021). Life cycle assessment of greywater treatment systems for water-reuse management in rural areas. Science of the Total Environment, 795, 148687.

Stringer, L. C., Mirzabaev, A., Benjaminsen, T. A., Harris, R. M., Jafari, M., Lissner, T. K., Tirado-von Der Pahlen, C. (2021). Climate change impacts on water security in global drylands. One Earth, 4(6), 851–864. Tzanakakis, V. A., Paranychianakis, N. V., Angelakis, A. N. (2020). Water supply and water scarcity. Water, 12(9), 2347. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In: General_Assembly, ed. A/RES/70/1, 21 October. Van den Berg, C. (2015). Pricing municipal water and wastewater services in developing countries: Are utilities making progress toward sustainability? In: Dinar, A., Pochat, V., Albiac, J., eds. Water Pricing Experiences and Innovations. New York: Springer, 443–462. Worthington, A. C., Hoffman, M. (2008). An empirical survey of residential water demand modelling. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(5), 842–871. Zetland, D., Gasson, C. (2012). A global survey of urban water tariffs: Are they sustainable, efficient and fair? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 29(3), 327–342.

guillermo donoso et al.

59. The Blue Acceleration in Human Use of the Ocean A new ocean reality The twentieth century has seen nations and corporations alike increasingly look to the ocean as a novel economic frontier (Golden et  al., 2017; Goddard, 2015), with governments characterizing economic activities linked to the ocean in some way as ‘the ocean economy’ in their accounting (Colgan, 2016) and companies rapidly expanding their operations offshore. With the ocean economy projected to grow faster than the global economy by 2030 (OECD, 2016), numerous governments have articulated the ambition for increased investment and jobs from the ocean economy (Bennett et al., 2020), and a 2020 panel of 14 heads of state supported by 250 scientists are committed to a ‘sustainable ocean economy’ in the future (Nature, 2020). While humanity has depended on the ocean for millennia, today’s ocean use is unprecedented. Scholars have collected empirical evidence of rapid growth across a range of ‘claims’ on the ocean space and resources with relevance for ecosystem sustainability, human well-being and economic development, and have dubbed it ‘the blue acceleration’ (Jouffray et  al., 2020) – a new phase in humanity’s relationship with the ocean that has exhibited a phenomenal rate of change over the last 30 years, with a sharp acceleration from the start of the twenty-first century (Figure 59.1). For example, since 2000: (i) almost all of the world’s offshore wind farms have been constructed, with global offshore wind energy capacity increasing more than 500 times; (ii) the growth in global trade has continued to depend on the expansion of shipping, with the annual volume of cargo transported by containers increasing more than 400 percent; (iii) almost one  million kilometers of fiberoptic cables have been laid across the seabed in order carry some 99 percent of the world’s international telecommunications; (iv) major discoveries of conventional hydrocarbon deposits worldwide have been concentrated offshore, as the industry has moved to farther depths; (v) the daily capacity to desalinate seawater has grown globally to 65 million cubic

meters; (vi) exploratory mining licenses have been issued for over 1.3 million square kilometers of the seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction; (vii) patents have been registered for more than 13 000 marine genetic sequences as evidence of an emerging marine biotechnology industry; and (viii) aquaculture production has grown from almost nothing in 1980 to providing half of all seafood consumed (Jouffray et al., 2020).

A crowded and pressured ocean This rapid and simultaneous growth of individual ocean industries means that the ocean space has become increasingly crowded and that interactions between users have intensified (Crona et  al., 2021). This poses great sustainability challenges as each industry carries certain risks that can have wide-ranging impacts on ecosystems and adjacent activities (Halpern et al., 2019). As the impacts of climate change worsen, cumulative pressures from human activities risk fundamentally altering the ocean and its capacity to sustain human well-being. Serious concerns also exist about systemic inequity in the ocean economy (Österblom et  al., 2020). With a tendency to prioritize economic growth and an unequal distribution of technical and financial capacity to engage in ocean sectors, benefits from the ocean economy disproportionately flow to economically powerful states and corporations, while harms are largely affecting developing nations and local communities. For instance, vessels flagged to high-income nations account for 97  percent of trackable industrial fishing in areas beyond national jurisdictions (McCauley et al., 2018) and 98 percent of all patents associated with marine genetic resources are registered by entities headquartered in just ten countries (Blasiak et  al., 2018). Meanwhile, seven of the ten most vulnerable countries to climate change impacts on fisheries are small island developing states (Blasiak et al., 2017). Biased access to ocean space based on historical presence, size or current economic influence may lead to the unequal ability among nations and ocean sectors to develop and exert their rights or demands (Crona et al., 2021).

Concentration in the ocean economy Concentration among a small number of corporations has become a dominant feature of

256

Figure 59.1  The blue acceleration

Source:  Jouffray et al. (2021).

the blue acceleration in human use of the ocean  257

jean baptiste jouffray and john virdin

258  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management many economic sectors (Folke et  al., 2019), and the ocean economy is no exception. While a range of established metrics exist to measure the concentration in the economic sectors, with implications for the power of firms to influence the rules of the game or in this case for ocean use (Havice et al., 2021), scholars have recently calculated firms’ share of total revenues in the core industries of the ocean economy (Virdin et  al., 2021) as an initial indication. Taking 2018 as a snapshot, they showed that a small number of large companies generated most revenue from

ocean-based industries. On average, the ten largest firms in each of the eight core industries of the ocean economy, based on the classification used by the OECD (2016), generated 45 percent of the respective total industry revenues (Figure  59.2). Aggregating across the eight industries, the 100 largest firms generated 60 percent of the total revenues (Virdin et al., 2021). While further study is needed to determine the extent of the concentration in the ocean economy and the influence of the largest firms on ocean governance (Havice et  al., 2021),

Source:   Virdin et al. (2021).

Figure 59.2   Concentration of revenues in the ocean economy

jean baptiste jouffray and john virdin

the blue acceleration in human use of the ocean  259 the level of revenue concentration is consistent with the structure of terrestrial industries based on natural resources and their international supply chains (Folke et al., 2019). The implications of the majority of ocean wealth in the hands of a few would be significant for ocean equity aspirations (Österblom et  al., 2020). In particular, the dominance of the growing ocean economy by a small number of firms could allow such actors to lobby governments to affect the rules governing ocean use or create barriers to entry for new firms (Folke et  al., 2019). Similarly, dominance of the ocean economy by a small number of firms may enable ‘ocean grabbing’, where the benefits from using ocean space and resources characterized as public goods are captured by a few, often at the expense of traditional users such as small-scale fishers (Bennett et  al., 2015). This risk has been specifically highlighted by scholars (Cohen et  al., 2019), even as the international community of governments has committed to securing ocean access for small-scale fisheries as part of the sustainable development goal  14, ‘life below water’. Alternatively, some have suggested that if the concentration of firms in the growing ocean economy is the status quo, then scientists should consider engaging with those companies to explore their potential for corporate stewardship (Österblom et  al., 2022; Folke et  al., 2019). The experience of scientists engaging with large seafood firms to undertake voluntary actions to enhance the sustainability of fisheries (Österblom et  al., 2022) may provide lessons for the wider ocean economy (Virdin et al., 2021). However, while voluntary corporate efforts to increase the sustainable use of the ocean are essential, they cannot and should not be expected to substitute for public policy: governments will continue to have a fundamental role in regulating ‘the blue acceleration’ to meet internationally agreed sustainable development goals. Jean Baptiste Jouffray and John Virdin

References Bennett et  al. (2020). Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nature Sustainability 2(2019), 991–993. Bennett et al. (2015). Ocean grabbing. Marine Policy 57(2015), 61–68. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.marpol​.2015​.03​.026

Blasiak et  al. (2017). Climate change and marine fisheries: Least developed countries top global index of vulnerability. PLOS One 12, 1–15. Blasiak et  al. (2018). Corporate control and global governance of marine genetic resources. Science Advances 4(6), eaar5237. Cohen et al. (2019). Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Frontiers in Marine Science 6(171). https:// doi​.org​/10​.3389​/fmars​.2019​.00171 Colgan, C. (2016). Measurement of the ocean economy from national income accounts to the sustainable blue economy. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics 2(2), 12. https://doi​.org​/10​.15351​/2373​-8456​.1061 Crona et al. (2021). Sharing the seas: A review and analysis of ocean sector interactions. Environmental Research Letters 16(6), 063005. Folke et al. (2019). Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nature Ecology and Evolution 3(2019), 1396–1403. Goddard, C. (2015). The ocean business: The rise of rhetoric of the blue economy. The Economist (2 November 2015). Golden et  al. (2017). Making sure the blue economy is green. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1(2017), 0017. Halpern et al. (2019). Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–8. Havice et  al. (2021). Making sense of firms for ocean governance. One Earth 4(5): 602–604. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.oneear​ .2021​.04​.022 Jouffray et al. (2020). The blue acceleration: The trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2(1): 43–54. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1016​/j​.oneear​.2019​.12​.016 Jouffray et al. (2021). Blue Acceleration: An Ocean of Risks and Opportunities. Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance (ORRAA) Report. McCauley et  al. (2018). Wealthy countries dominate industrial fishing. Science Advances, 4(8), eaau2161. Nature. (2020). World leaders are waking up to the ocean’s role in a healthy planet. Nature 588, 7–8. Österblom et  al. (2020). Towards Ocean Equity. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Österblom et  al. (2022). Scientific mobilization of keystone actors for jean baptiste jouffray and john virdin

260  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management biosphere stewardship. Scientific Reports 12(2022): 3802. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/ s41598​-022​-07023-8 OECD. (2016). The Ocean Economy to 2030. OECD, Paris.

jean baptiste jouffray and john virdin

Virdin et  al. (2021). The Ocean 100: Transnational corporations in the ocean economy. Science Advances 7(3). https:// doi​.org​/10​.1126​/sciadv​.abc8041

60. The Environmental Impacts of On-Site Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems: Evaluating Embodied and Operational Life Cycle Performance

two- or three-stage conventional, packaged or nature-based solution treatment systems (Figure  60.1). The conventional treatment system was passive in nature and included a septic tank with a soil percolation area. The modern packaged system incorporated a mechanically aerated packaged unit with a subsequent sand filter and soil percolation area. The nature-based willow evapotranspiration system produces biomass as part of the treatment process, followed by a soil percolation area. The LCA was conducted in accordance with ISO  14040 and 14044 guidelines (ISO, Introduction 2006a, 2006b), and the Ecoinvent v3.6 dataWastewater treatment ensures environ- base was used to calculate the environmental mental protection of the water cycle (EEA, impacts of all materials and processes in the 2021). The energy demands of effluent treat- DWWTS (Ecoinvent, 2020). A 1  per popument equate to 1  per cent of total global lation equivalent (p.e.) functional unit was electricity (IEA, 2017), with the possibility applied for a comparison of the results for of additional energy requirements pending each treatment system and a 30-year lifespan stricter treatment standards in the future. was chosen to reflect the typical operational The sustainability of wastewater treatment, DWWTS lifespan. Life cycle inventory: Primary data related ranging from large, centralized plants to small, passive and independent systems, to the conventional, packaged and naturehave come to the forefront of discussions in based treatment systems were collected and recent years. Despite the benefits of central- accounted for all the potential embodied and ized systems when it comes to energy effi- operational burdens of the DWWTS. Life cycle impact assessment: The assessciency, decentralized systems are necessary in rural environments (Chirisa et al., 2017). ment compared the embodied and operaApproximately one-third of households in tional impacts for the following six impact Ireland have on-site or domestic wastewa- categories from the LCIA  2.0 midpoint ter treatment systems (DWWTSs) for their method and reflects associated climate, ecosystem and resources burdens: climate effluent disposal (CSO, 2016). Innovations are required to ensure that change total (CC), freshwater eutrophicathese decentralized systems are sustainable tion (FE), marine eutrophication (ME), disand affordable, while maintaining treatment sipated water (DW), fossils (F) and minerals standards for environmental protection. As and metals (MM). Interpretation: The breakdown of embodsuch, life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) can inform the sustain- ied and operational impacts and the cumulaable design of a DWWTS by evaluating the tive burdens for the conventional, packaged environmental and economic performance of and nature-based solution DWWTSs are predifferent treatment processes (Nogueira et al., sented in Table 60.1 (Gallagher & Gill, 2021). The cumulative results demonstrated the 2009). It can inform the decision-making process for material selection to reduce the variability across the different environmenembodied impacts and take into consideration tal burden categories considered for each the operational energy demands of different DWWTS over their 30-year operational lifespan. The conventional septic tank treatment treatment options. system configuration presented lower environmental impacts across all six categories in Methods comparison to the packaged aerated treatment Goal and scope: The embodied and opera- system, ranging between 11.6 per cent for FE tional life cycle environmental impacts to 61.3 per cent for DW. The willow evapotranwere compared for three distinct domestic- spiration system presented 54–124  per  cent scale DWWTSs for a typical four-person greater environmental burdens for five of equivalent capacity (Gallagher & Gill, the six impact categories when compared to 2022). The systems selected represent either either the conventional or packaged treatment 261

262  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:   Adapted from Gallagher and Gill (2022).

Figure 60.1   Layout of (a) conventional, (b) packaged and (c) nature-based solution DWWTS configurations

systems, with the exception of a 14  per  cent lower CC impact due to biomass production. Between 81 per cent and 98 per cent of the total burdens for the conventional septic tank system were associated with the embodied john gallagher and laurence gill

burdens. The packaged treatment system presented a mix of results as the greater embodied burdens were associated with two (DW and MM) of the six impact categories, with the greater impact associated with operational

environmental impacts of on-site domestic wastewater treatment systems  263 Table 60.1   Embodied, operational and total environmental burdens per population equivalent (p.e.) for each DWWTS during its construction and operation life cycle DWWTS

Climate change

Ecosystem quality

CC (kg CO2

FE (kg P-eq./p.e.)

Resources DW (m water eq./p.e.) 3

ME (kg N-eq./p.e.)

F (MJ/p.e.)

eq./p.e.)

MM (kg Sb eq./p.e.)

(a) Septic tank – soil percolation trench Embodied

820.0

0.32

0.75

420.3

20 287

2.55E-02

Operational

106.2

0.02

0.18

9.2

1 540

9.46E-04

Total

926.3

0.35

0.93

429.5

21 827

2.64E-02

(b) Packaged aerated system – sand filter – soil percolation trench Embodied

461.7

0.13

0.44

303.7

10 456

2.38E-02

Operational

1,103.1

0.26

1.95

195.4

17 213

1.79E-02

Total

1.569.1

0.39

2.41

499.2

27 726

4.17E0-2

(c) Septic tank – willow bed (evapotranspiration) Embodied

4,079.6

1.63

4.45

2,812.5

92 132

1.83E-01

Operational

−3,269.8

−3.25

−63.43

−726.6

−31 591

−6.00E-01

Total

809.8

−1.61

−58.98

2.085.8

60 541

−4.16E-01

Note:   Environmental indicators: CC: climate change; FE: freshwater eutrophication; DW: dissipated water; ME: marine eutrophication; F: fossils; MM: minerals and metals. Source:  Gallagher and Gill (2021).

demands for the other categories. In the case of the willow evapotranspiration system, the operational life cycle which led to willow production offset the burdens of the treatment system for all six impact categories. As there was no requirement for tertiary treatment in the conventional septic tank system (given that the soil effectively offers both secondary and tertiary forms of treatment to the percolating effluent), this two-stage treatment configuration presented lower burdens as compared with the three-stage packaged treatment system. Large quantities of materials were required to construct the initial conventional system, whereas the packaged system produced high operational impacts related to electricity for pumping and more frequent desludging of the tank. The willow evapotranspiration system offers a unique outcome of biomass production during the operational lifespan of the system; however, large quantities of materials and construction energy demands are required to construct this system. Primary settlement systems, conventional percolation areas and the willow bed are passive in nature and therefore have low operational impacts associated with desludging and pumping. However, these systems have high

embodied burdens due to the large quantities of materials required for their construction. The operational energy demands reflect dominant impacts for systems that adopt packaged secondary/tertiary treatment processes.

Conclusion The environmental burdens attributed to conventional, packaged and nature-based solution DWWTSs vary across the range of impact categories. The packaged treatment system presented the highest burdens of all three systems examined, and the greater impacts were associated with operational demands for four of the six impact categories assessed. This contrasted with the conventional system where the embodied impacts dominated the burdens of these projects. Greater embodied burdens were associated with the large quantities of raw materials required to construct these treatment systems, whereas dominant operational impacts were due to the energy associated with pumping and desludging of treatment processes. The study highlights how different DWWTSs vary in terms of their cumulative, and indeed embodied and operational impacts, when examined from a life cycle perspective. john gallagher and laurence gill

264  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management The findings can inform improved design to optimize the environmental performance of conventional, packaged and nature-based solution treatment systems. John Gallagher and Laurence Gill

References Chirisa, I., Bandauko, E., Matamanda, A., & Mandisvika, G. (2017). Decentralized domestic wastewater systems in developing countries: The case study of Harare (Zimbabwe). Applied Water Science, 7(3), 1069–1078. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s13201​ -016​-0377-4 CSO. (2016). Census 2016, Principal Demographic Results. D. Government of Ireland. Stationery Office. https://www​.cso​ .ie ​/en ​/csolatestnews​/presspages​/2017​/cen​ sus2​016s​umma​ryresults​-part1/ Ecoinvent. (2020). Ecoinvent 3.6 (2019) Database. https://www​.ecoinvent​.org/ EEA. (2021). Urban Waste Water Treatment in Europe. European Environment Agency. https://www​.eea​.europa​.eu​/data​ -and​-maps​/indicators​/urban​-waste ​-water​ -treatment ​/ urban​-waste ​-water​- treatment​ -assessment-5

john gallagher and laurence gill

Gallagher, J., & Gill, L. W. (2021). The life cycle environmental performance of on-site or decentralised wastewater treatment systems for domestic homes. Water, 13(18), 2542. https://www​.mdpi​.com​/2073​- 4441​ /13​/18​/2542 Gallagher, J., & Gill, L. W. (2022). Correction: Gallagher, J.; Gill, L.W. The life cycle environmental performance of on-site or decentralised wastewater treatment systems for domestic homes. Water 2021, 13, 2542. Water, 14(2), 268. https://www​ .mdpi​.com ​/2073​- 4441​/14​/2​/268 IEA. (2017). Water Energy Nexus. https:// www​.iea​.org​/reports​/water​-energy​-nexus ISO. (2006a). ISO 14040: Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework. ISO. ISO. (2006b). ISO 14044: Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines. ISO. Nogueira, R., Brito, A. G., Machado, A. P., Janknecht, P., Salas, J. J., Vera, L., & Martel, G. (2009). Economic and environmental assessment of small and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Desalination and Water Treatment, 4(1–3), 16–21. https://doi​.org​/10​ .5004​/dwt​.2009​.349

61. The Evolving Economics of Agricultural Water in the Western United States Introduction Agricultural economics is the study of how businesses and individuals utilize scarce resources in the production of crops and livestock for food and fiber. The field initially focused on the utilization of land that was the limiting resource to expanding production. With substantial improvements in farming technology, fertilizers and pest management over the last several decades, water, not land, is now the limiting resource to expanding crop production, particularly in the Western United States. The economics of agricultural water is evolving with changes in markets as well as law, technology, institutions, climate and environmental policies. Water is increasingly scarce with growing urban populations and climate change that is increasing the frequency and duration of drought, fire and extreme weather events. These factors interact over time. This chapter describes the evolving economics of agricultural water in the Western United States, illustrating how law, technology, institutions, climate, environmental policies and, importantly, markets have shaped, and will continue to shape changes in irrigated agriculture in the Western United States.

Water property rights Defining the property right to a resource is fundamental to evaluating the economics of its use. Three classes of property rights are used for agricultural water in the Western United States, namely riparian rights, appropriative rights and correlative rights. Riparian rights provide the landowner with a right to water flowing on or over their property. These rights were initially defined under Roman law and are the primary water right under British law. While suited for wellwatered areas where rights are concerned with rates of streamflow in natural watercourses, riparian rights were found to be

unwieldy by the early settlers in the Western United States due to substantial variability in the timing and location of streamflows. Early settlers found that they needed to change the location of water use from the natural stream to maximize its economic benefit in the current industry. Riparian rights for surface water flows are the highest priority water property rights but have been superseded in many Western US states by appropriative rights for more recent surface water development. The classic motivation for replacing riparian rights with appropriative rights was in the early days of goldmining in California. Miners started by exploiting the natural stream alluvial gold, but when that was exhausted there was a strong incentive to divert streamflows to alternative sites where they could be used for the hydraulic mining of gold in dry locations. Two principles of appropriative water rights evolved from necessity. They are the criteria of ‘beneficial use’ of appropriated water, and the priority rule of ‘first in use first in right’. Beneficial use specifies that the water is used for defined economic activities. First in use first in right establishes later water rights as subordinate to earlier rights, thus cementing most riparian rights as higher priority than appropriative rights. Appropriative rights are a successful system in situations where shortfalls in water supply are neither common nor severe. However, the expanding liberal interpretation of beneficial use coupled with the hierarchal allocation of limited water supplies in drought years has caused sharp swings in water allocations between rights holders of different priority (Littleworth and Garner, 2019). The concept of beneficial use has been extended in several states to include the sale of water to users with a higher-value marginal product. Such sales can cause problems due to the change in the quantity of return flows relied on by neighbors, or changes in river flows with resulting environmental problems. The third water property right in the Western United States is associated solely with underground water: correlative rights. A correlative right is based on the principle of the proportional allocation of groundwater to the overlying land area. Like riparian rights to surface flows, correlative groundwater rights are tied to the land. The management of correlative rights in times of scarcity has been dogged by the high

265

266  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management transaction costs of measuring groundwater extractions. This lack of viable enforcement or establishment of a correlative right has led to the classic tragedy of the commons overexploitation of groundwater resources. In many states, and recently in California, the ability to extract groundwater has been defined by the long-term sustainable yield based on recharge to the groundwater aquifer. In other parts of the Western United States where there is no natural rate of recharge of groundwater such as the Ogallala aquifer, groundwater has been treated as an extraction resource with the long-term planned result of aquifer exhaustion (Pfeiffer and Lin, 2012). The layered water rights in the Western United States continue to evolve under interpretation by the courts. The environmental externalities of surface and groundwater use on river and stream flows, wetlands and interconnected ecological systems have caused significant modification of groundwater and surface water property rights over the last 30  years. In California, environmental restrictions on diversions from rivers, and the temperature and volume of releases from dams are prime criteria for the maintenance of both fish and water-based wildlife habitat. Court cases establishing the primacy of public environmental benefits have substantially restricted the operation of storage and diversion actions in dry years.

Infrastructure and institutional evolution Infrastructure and institutions interact with water property rights to govern how water can be used across the Western United States. Infrastructure ranges from large-scale, publicly funded diversion and storage to local district water conveyance. Institutions establish how water is managed within existing water rights and infrastructure constraints. Institutions continue to evolve, including the recent expansion in the prevalence and complexity of water markets. Initial developments of irrigated agriculture in the Western United States were based on limited local diversions from streams and rivers followed in some places by the development of groundwater resources. In the middle of the last century, it became apparent that irrigated areas that relied solely on pumping groundwater needed additional interbasin transfers to fully develop their agricultural richard e. howitt and duncan macewan

potential. The political pressure for water projects to facilitate such transfers started at the federal level, but later involved substantial investments by states in their water storage and conveyance infrastructure. Many of these projects were substantially subsidized by public finance. The initial development of interbasin transfer infrastructure took scant notice of environmental externalities caused by the change in location of water diversion and use. Irrigated acreage expanded exponentially in areas that previously had limited potential. This expansion was further accelerated by innovation in farming technology and management. The unchecked externalities spurred subsequent legislation to protect the environment, including the federal Endangered Species Act and similar state laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act. A fundamental problem of surface water management has been the persistent overoptimistic estimates of water available for diversion and use. A classic example is the over-appropriation assumed in the promulgation of the Law of the River for the Colorado River allocations to several Western states. This is partially due to optimism and partially due to a series of atypical wet years preceding the establishment of the initial agreement that divided water allocation between different regions and states. With the advent of global climate change coupled with a series of dry years, the Colorado River basin is now in crisis and requires a long-term reallocation of the originally agreed-on quantities of water to be diverted by different states. Stakeholders are currently reassessing the laws, institutions and management that collectively define the Law of the River. As surface water supplies are increasingly limited due to climate change, or over-appropriated due to optimistic hydrology, groundwater use has increased. In many areas, extractions are substantially greater than the rate of recharge. In response, most Western states have enacted some form of groundwater management. California was the last to join, having recently enacted a comprehensive legislative approach to management that emphasizes the sustainability of the aquifers and explicitly requires that environmental impacts on water quality, associated wetlands and the salinization of aquifers be considered when assessing sustainable groundwater use (Garner et al., 2020).

evolving economics of agricultural water in the western united states  267 Water management institutions have slowly evolved with changing water management needs. A notable development that affects the economics of irrigated agriculture in the Western United States are water markets that have evolved over the past 50 years. These initially enabled surface water transfers where the infrastructure or natural river flows permit. However, the establishment of permanent reliable market signals has been dogged by the difficulties of local transaction costs, significant differences between water years and environmental externalities (Jandoc et al., 2015). More recently, markets for groundwater pumping rights are evolving in parallel with the ability to measure water use remotely, and the realization that groundwater has the same scarcity limits as surface water in the West.

Crop market forces on irrigation development Changes in irrigated agriculture in the Western United States have been driven by the demand for crops and livestock produced under the favorable conditions of warm climates and plentiful water supplies. Early development in the Western United States emphasized broad-scale field crops such as wheat, cotton, alfalfa (lucerne) hay and maize. Over the past 40 years, broad-scale field crops in the Western United States have given way to specialty crops such as tomatoes, grapes, almonds, pistachios and leafy vegetables. The diversification of crops to higher-value products is driven by US demand in addition to the substantial expansion of export markets (Johnson and Cody, 2015). Crops such as almonds and pistachios are driven by international trade, with over 80  percent of Western US production exported. The rapidly growing demand from consumers in Asia and the Middle East pushed prices higher in the mid-2010s. These crops are particularly suited to both the climate and water resources in the Western United States and growers responded by increasing plantings. Almond production in California increased from 1  billion pounds in 2006 to nearly 3  billion pounds by 2020. As international trade shifted with tariffs under the Trump Administration, demand in the Asian markets dropped and almond prices fell from a high of $4 per pound to less than $1.50 per pound today.

Market forces also cause crops to shift between US states. For example, over the past 30  years dairy production has moved its emphasis from Midwestern states such as Wisconsin to western states including California. This was driven by the potential for higher profit margins in dairy due to lowcost high-quality feeds, and lower cow maintenance costs in warm climates. Changes in production technology and the genetic developments of crops have also changed the face of irrigated agriculture in the Western United States by lowering the cost to produce a crop and allowing production to expand into more marginal lands. The advent of drip irrigation has enabled intensive production to take place in areas where the topography and soil type are less suitable for furrow irrigation. Improved water management software has allowed much more precise management of applied water to significantly improve irrigation efficiency. Of course, this improvement has allowed the expansion of more acres rather than conserving water from the existing acres (Ward and Pulido-Velazquez, 2008). In addition to irrigation technology, other innovations have led to expansions in irrigated acreage. For example, the improvement in mechanization first revolutionized the processing tomato industry and has gradually worked its way through to the full mechanization of olives, wine grapes and some vegetables. Genetic improvements have not only bred varieties that are more amenable to mechanical harvesting, but also have a longer shelf life and better flavor. The advent of remote-sensing and global positioning system (GPS)-based farm machinery has improved irrigation precision and mechanization that allows tractor work between fragile irrigation tubes.

The impact of climate change on Western US agriculture Much of the irrigated agriculture in the Western United States has the advantage of a temperate Mediterranean climate. But it is not immune to climate change. Current projections for the impact of climate change on Western US water resources is that the mean annual precipitation will hold steady, but the timing, location and variability will shift. Larger short-duration rainfall events richard e. howitt and duncan macewan

268  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management are expected to increase with less snowpack accumulation and runoff. The change in the timing and magnitude of precipitation will result in a lower net yield from the existing infrastructure of dams and conveyance canals. Mountain snowpack, that in all Western states is used as a reserve water storage system, will be devalued by the higher ambient temperatures in spring and winter. A secondary effect is on flood protection against a higher variation in precipitation and snowmelt. To maintain the current level of flood protection, existing dams will need to operate with greater flood capacity. This inevitably reduces the effective storage capacity for irrigation. The combined effect is that the existing surface water storage and diversion infrastructure will not yield the same supply as it did earlier in the century (Hopmans and Maurer, 2008). A second effect of climate change is already being seen in the shift of both fruit and wine production northward as the temperature gradient increases. Whether the southerly regions will be able to compensate with genetic changes or new crops remains uncertain; however, in terms of wine production and quality it is clear that a northern shift is taking place. For orchard crops, a northern shift is being driven by both water availability and warmer growing seasons. Climate change will change the value of groundwater resources. Given that droughts and floods are normal in the Western United States, irrigators have routinely relied on the ability to pump additional groundwater as a mechanism to compensate for decreased surface water supplies during droughts. Coupled with the declining levels of underground water resources, the increased intensity of both drought and floods due to climate change will stress the traditional role of groundwater resources as the water supply buffer balancing out the seasons.

Environmental and ecological aspects of Western water The development of irrigated agriculture in the Western United States has had many deleterious effects on the natural environment and a few positive ones. One notable impact on the Central Valley of California is a marked loss of wetlands over the last 100 years (Bertoldi and Swain, 1996). Pioneer Kit Carson wrote about working his way trapping and hunting richard e. howitt and duncan macewan

through the remarkable Central Valley wetlands in 1830 (California Historical Society Quarterly, 1922). This vast expanse of wetlands was not without its problems, as the advent of malarial mosquitoes made it almost uninhabitable for newcomers. It is understandable that the remaining wetlands are fiercely defended by public advocates. The accumulation of salts is another negative effect of expanded irrigated agriculture across the Western United States. Given the natural salinity in groundwater it is inevitable that pumping and evapotranspiration by crops will result in increased salinity in the deep percolation of the remaining water. This increase in salinity has been inexorably growing, and while modern precision methods of irrigation will reduce the amount of applied water salinity, the fundamental salt balance will continue to grow. Improvements in irrigation efficiency have led to an increase in water use in some areas as growers respond by increasing the intensity of irrigation rather than reducing total applied water. This results in a reduction of the return flows to groundwater or nearby riparian streams where often downstream water users rely on return flows for part of their water supply. This problem is compounded by water rights that are based on diversions instead of consumptive use. Recent years have seen an increased emphasis on positive environmental outcomes from irrigated agriculture and additional innovations are likely. The Pacific Flyway for migrating birds relies heavily on the flooded rice lands in the Sacramento Valley of California for both bird habitat and food for several months of the year. Recent work has shown that under the right circumstances, rice fields can provide a very nutritious habitat for young salmonids that grow much faster in the warm nutritious water of rice fields than they do in the colder less nutritious river environment (Moyle and Jeffres, 2016).

Water markets in the Western United States Increasing water scarcity, climate change and an emphasis on environmental outcomes will continue to limit water for irrigated agriculture in the Western United States. Water markets are an important tool that have been evolving sporadically in the western states over the last 50  years. Fragmented surface

evolving economics of agricultural water in the western united states  269 water markets exist across the Western United States. Several states have local groundwater markets, which are expected to expand further as California implements its groundwater management legislation. Water markets in the Western United States first emerged as a temporary solution to drought shortages in the 1980s. In some cases, they were operated as a formal government-authorized exchange, while in other states and regions private deals took over with brokers facilitating transactions. The increasing scarcity of surface water has increased the impact of droughts. For surface supplies the importance of markets has grown and is reflected in the changing market water price from the low $100s per megaliter ten years ago to current prices of around $1200 per megaliter. Several large urban and government resource agencies have engaged in longer-term, larger water sale contracts. Often, agreements between urban water agencies and agricultural water districts are promulgated based on reducing the risk of urban shortages in drought years over an extended number of years. With the recent promulgation of effective property rights for groundwater and the need to reduce average pumping, there has been renewed interest in trading groundwater pumping rights to optimally reallocate existing supplies. Systems to effectuate such trades have been implemented for the last ten years in several of the High Plains states (e.g. Nebraska) in response to groundwater shortages. Western US states have been slow to follow with smaller, local systems in place to facilitate trading. The impact of water markets on the timing of water flows is also important. For example, in the Yakima Valley of Washington water transfers can affect the timing of return flows between water sellers and buyers. If water is sold in April and transferred downstream but is typically flowing in June, then this affects downstream users in those years. It also affects streamflows that provide habitat for fish. The development of effective water markets for groundwater and surface water requires consideration of these types of thirdparty impacts.

Conclusion The economics of agricultural water is evolving with changes in markets as well as law,

technology, institutions, climate and environmental policies. Irrigated acreage has expanded and shifted in response to domestic and export demand as well as technological innovations that lower the cost to produce a crop. Expanded irrigated acreage and increasing reliance on groundwater have caused other externalities, mostly negative but some positive, and laws and institutions have slowly changed to address these issues. The development of water resources in the Western United States has progressed in phases. Initial development focused on projects that were government funded, often subsidized and focused solely on surface water storage and conveyance. Development has since shifted away from infrastructure to improving laws, management and institutions. As water scarcity increases due to both increased demand and the realization that we have finite supplies, water markets and more rational allocation institutions have started to evolve. However, the rate of evolution of both infrastructure and institutions will be challenged by further increases in scarcity induced by climate change. Richard E. Howitt and Duncan Macewan

References Bertoldi, G.L. and W.C. Swain (1996) United States Geological Survey. Water supply paper 2425. National Water SummaryWetland Resources, pp 127–134 California Historical Society Quarterly. (1922) Kit Carson in California Vol 1,No 2, pp 111–151. University of California Press Garner, E, R. McGlothlin, L. Szeptycki, C. Babbitt and V. Kincaid (2020). The Sustainable groundwater management act and the common law of groundwater rights: Finding a consistent path forward for groundwater allocation. Journal of Environmental Law Vol 38, p 2 Hopmans, J. E. P. and Maurer (2008) Impact of Climate Change on Irrigation Water Availability, Crop Water Requirements and Soil Salinity in the SJV. UC Water Resources Center Technical Completion Report Project SD011 Jandoc, K., R.E. Howitt, J.A. Roumasset and C.. Wada (2015) Institutions for managing groundwater and surface water and the theory of the second best. Chapter 11 in Routledge Handbook of Water Economics richard e. howitt and duncan macewan

270  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management and Institutions. Eds. Burnett, K., R.E. Howitt, Roumasset, J. A, and C. Wada. Routledge Handbooks Johnson, R. and B. A. Cody (2015) California Agricultural Production and Irrigated Water Use. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700. www​.crs​.gov R44093 Littleworth, A.L. and E.L. Garner (2019) California Water, 3rd edition. Solano Press Moyle, P.B. and C. Jeffres (2016) Nigiri Project Mixes Salmon and Rice Fields for

richard e. howitt and duncan macewan

Fifth Year on Floodplain, UC Davis News Press Release, Feb. 23, 2016 Pfeiffer, L. and C.-Y. Cynthia Lin (2012) Groundwater pumping and spatial externalities in agriculture. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 64: 16–30 Ward, F.A. and M. Pulido-Velazquez (2008) Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (47): 18215–18220

62. The Role of Groundwater in Adapting to Climate Crisis in Greece Introduction In almost every part of the world, living with water crises is an everyday reality for many people. The climate crisis exacerbates water availability, and water variability will only increase and become more frequent and severe. Droughts and floods are examples of increased water variability that present shocks to water systems (Leslie and Day, 2021). On the other hand, the Covid-19 crisis points to the importance of a water–health nexus. Groundwater is critical to the Earth’s survival and during the last century became a key resource supporting human well-being and economic development. It is a key resource for the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda for 2030 and of central importance to the ‘resource-oriented’ sustainable development goal (SDG) 6 targets (UNESCO, 2016; FAO, 2018). In 2022, World Water Day was dedicated for the first time to groundwater. Globally, groundwater provides approximately 26  percent of potable water supply, 42  percent of water for irrigated agriculture and 24  percent for direct industrial needs (IAH, International Association of Hydrogeologists, 2016, www​.iah​.org). The mismanagement of groundwater resources causes negative effects including depletion of the aquifer storage, groundwater level decline, seawater intrusion in coastal areas, quality deterioration and environmental problems in other water bodies (wetlands, surface water). This chapter summarizes the current status of groundwater and the impacts of its mismanagement in Greece. Then, climate change adaptation and effective governance measures are presented.

Current status of groundwater in Greece Greece is located in Southern Europe by the Mediterranean Sea covering an area of 132 000  km 2. It has approximately 10 500 000 inhabitants. Approximately

65  percent of the population lives in urban areas and the majority of these people depend on groundwater for fresh water. From a water management perspective, the country is divided into 14 water districts or hydrological departments. The main aquifer systems are developed in carbonate rocks (karst aquifers) and alluvial deposits (intergranular aquifers). Karst aquifers are discharged through many springs: submarine, coastal brackish and inland freshwater springs. It must be pointed out that in many parts, limestone is in contact with the sea and the karst aquifers often discharge groundwater through large submarine springs with brackish water. Some karst water is characterized as thermos-metallic water which relates to fault structures. Water resources are characterized by high water requirements for agriculture and tourism during the dry period (April–late October) when water availability is low. Greece is thirty-first in the top 50 countries with severe water stress (EEA, 1999) and is characterized by (1) a long coastline that favors hydraulic communication between coastal aquifers and seawater, and (2) the non-homogeneous distribution of rainfalls and water resources. The water consumption per sector in Greece is shown in Figure  62.1. The major water use, approximately 86  percent of total consumption, is in irrigation for agriculture (Chartzoulakis et  al., 2001). Groundwater plays an important role in covering the water needs for domestic and agricultural use in Greece, which is characterized by the absence of rainfall during the summertime. Water needs are mainly covered by groundwater abstracted from aquifers via numerous wells and boreholes; approximately 250 000 for the whole of Greece (Voudouris, 2022). Groundwater is under pressure, which is exacerbated by urbanization, increased demand for food production, quality deterioration, land use changes and climate crises (EEA, 1996). Such pressures establish a regime characterized by groundwater overexploitation (due to natural deficiency during the summer season and insufficient exploitation of surface and spring waters) and a decline in groundwater levels (Figure  62.2) in combination with a reduction in reserves (negative/deficit water balances). In addition, prolonged overpumping contributes to the expansion of land subsidence due to the significant drop in the

271

272  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management domestic and industrial effluents in surface water or/and septic tanks. Polluted groundwater is common in densely populated areas and zones of intensive agriculture and industrial activities (WWDR, 2022).

Groundwater management and groundwater governance

groundwater level in m b.g.s.

11/12/04

11/12/02

11/12/00

11/12/98

11/12/96

11/12/94

11/12/92

11/12/86

11/12/84

11/12/82

11/12/80

11/12/78

11/12/76

0

11/12/74

11/12/72

level of groundwater in alluvial aquifers (Figure 62.3), causing damage to water supply networks. Many aquifers are reported to be affected by a deterioration in quality, mainly salinization due to seawater intrusion (Figure  62.4) and nitrate pollution due to fertilizer use. The total area of aquifers affected by seawater intrusion is estimated to be 1500 km2. Another threat to groundwater contamination is the uncontrollable discharge of untreated

11/12/90

Figure 62.1  Water consumption per sector in Greece

11/12/88

Source:   Author’s own.

There is a distinction between groundwater management and groundwater governance (Seward and Xu, 2019). The first includes hydrogeologists determining rules about groundwater availability and water managers implementing these rules. In contrast, governance takes into account the concerns of scientists, policymakers and users of a groundwater resource, as well as stakeholder participation, emphasizing policy and planning. Groundwater management deals with interventions and other actions intended to optimize the benefits to society accruing from groundwater, and to protect and enhance the local groundwater resources (WWDR, 2022). In other words, groundwater management focuses on practical interventions, including actions in the field. Margat and Van der Gun (2013) distinguish four categories of instruments and tools in groundwater management: (1) laws and regulations; (2) economic and financial instruments (e.g. taxes, subsidies); (3) educational,

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Source:   Author’s own.

Figure 62.2   Hydrograph of groundwater level (in m b.g.s.) in Thessaly (central Greece), showing the decline of the groundwater level during the last decades

konstantinos voudouris

the role of groundwater in adapting to climate crisis in greece  273

Source:  Photos Voudouris (2022).

Figure 62.3   Land subsidence and surface cracking due to overpumping

informational, communication and awareness-raising instruments; and (4) technical instruments (Koundouri et al., 2018). On the other hand, water governance refers not only to technological solutions for the water supply but also to how water resources are managed, in terms of optimizing the use of existing supplies as well as balancing the social, ecological and economic impacts of new sources (Hoogester and Wester, 2015). Groundwater governance, including the exchange of information and transparent and sustainable management, is a precondition and of utmost importance for water security and the water supply (Findidakis and Sato, 2011). The main weaknesses in the sustainable and active management of groundwater are ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

Lack of data from systematic monitoring (you cannot manage what you do not measure). Lack of a reliable groundwater balance in river basins and safe yield of aquifers. Lack of cooperation among universities, ministries, organizations, local authorities, water policymakers and stakeholders (Kapetas et al., 2019). Lack of conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources, which is the optimal method for sustainable water management. Managerial and administrative problems of groundwater exploitation. Lack of economic incentives for efficient water use. Lack of information dissemination. Lack of updated management plans for river basins.

Adaptation to climate crisis proposals The prospects for the future include the increase in frequency and intensity of phenomena resulting from climate change (floods and droughts), which will affect the parameters of the hydrologic cycle, for example, the recharge of groundwater and consequently the reliability of the public water supply systems, and significantly increase operating costs. Rainfall is expected to decrease by 10–20  percent in many areas of Greece, which are already facing water shortage problems. In addition, the increase in real evapotranspiration will result in a reduction in the natural recharge of aquifer systems. Although groundwater is more resistant to climate change, it remains vulnerable because climatic change will affect the recharge of aquifer systems. Groundwater will play an important role in adapting to the climate crisis, through appropriate water management measures and effective governance. Emphasis should be placed on the circular economy, which aims to reduce and reuse water and renew water retention. The reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation, artificial wetlands and artificial aquifer recharge is therefore of paramount importance to Greece, and secondary, rainwater harvesting and its utilization in rain gardens, urban uses and flood protection. In Greece, only a small amount, of the order of 1.5–2.0 percent, of treated liquid waste is reused. Finally, an assessment of the groundwater footprint per region will be a useful tool for the rational management and planning of infrastructure water works (Voudouris, 2022). konstantinos voudouris

274  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:   Daskalaki and Voudouris (2008).

Figure 62.4   Map of Greece showing the coastal aquifers affected by seawater intrusion

Improved water efficiency and groundwater sustainability through the application of the 5R principles (reduce, reuse, recover, recycle, replenish) can be achieved through the following recommendations: 1. Decrease of irrigation water with a combination of artificial recharge to the aquifer system. Utilization of the treated wastewater and the application of watersaving techniques such as spray and drip irrigation should be applied to decrease the groundwater quantities for irrigation use (Voudouris, 2011). konstantinos voudouris

2. Exploitation of surface water and groundwater simultaneously would allow maximum water use efficiency and should meet the growing need for irrigation water (demand management). The construction of small interception dams in the main torrents, aiming at the retardation of wintertime torrential flows and increased groundwater recharge (supply management) (Voudouris, 2006). 3. Adoption of full-cost pricing for water use, which will be the basis for reducing losses and promoting conservation (Chartzoulakis et al., 2001).

the role of groundwater in adapting to climate crisis in greece  275 4. An appropriate set of management strategies, including water conservation measures, the regulation of existing developments, improvements in current legislation and public education should be adopted. 5. The sustainable management of groundwater is an issue of national and international water security as some aquifers are transboundary. This requires cooperation between the involved countries for conflict resolution (Voudouris et al., 2019). 6. Ensure sustainable and efficient water management through ‘digital water’, with positive impacts on quality and quantity, particularly via the development of intelligent equipment and sensors, smart networks and advanced data analytics (Water Europe, 2020).

Conclusion Aquifer systems account for 97 percent of the fresh and liquid water resources, covering increased water needs. Groundwater is under threat because of over-abstraction and pollution. The climate crisis (floods, droughts, reductions in rainfall) will affect the parameters of the hydrologic cycle, and consequently the natural recharge of aquifers and groundwater resources. Groundwater can help in adapting to the climate crisis and in protecting the ecosystems. For this reason, it needs to be rationally exploited and sustainably managed. Emphasis should be placed on the circular economy, and firstly on the reuse of wastewater. In closing, human intelligence and the spectacular development of hydro-technology (drones, geographic information systems, remote sensing, satellites, Internet of Things, citizen science, digital water and modeling) are appropriate guarantees of man’s considerable ability to adapt to the climate crisis. That is why greater effort is required from governments, scientists and the wider society to protect this critical and valuable resource for planetary well-being and dignified human life. Konstantinos Voudouris

References Chartzoulakis, K.S., Paranychianakis, N.V., Angelakis, A.N. (2001). Water resources management in the island of Crete, with

emphasis on the agricultural use. Water Policy, 3, 193–205. Daskalaki, P., Voudouris, K. (2008). Groundwater quality of porous aquifers in Greece: A synoptic review. Environmental Geology, 54, 505–513. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/s00254​-007​-0843-2 European Environment Agency (EEA) (1996). Water resources problems in Southern Europe. Topic report, 15, 1996, Inland waters (by Estrela, T., Marcuello, C., Iglesias, A.). FAO (2018). Transforming food and agriculture to achieve the SDGs: 20 Interconnected actions to guide decision-makers. Technical Reference Document. Rome. Findidakis, A.N., Sato, K. (2011). Groundwater management practices. IAHR Monograph, UNESCO-IHP, CRC Press/Balkema. Hoogester, J., Wester, P. (2015). Intensive groundwater use and (in)equity: Processes and governance challenges. Environmental Science Policy, 51, 117–124. Kapetas, L., Kazakis, N., Voudouris, K., McNicholl, D. (2019). Water allocation and governance in multi-stakeholder environments: Insight from Axios Delta, Greece. Science of the Total Environment, 695, 133831, 1-11. Koundouri, Ph., Akinsete, E., Englezos, N., Kartala, X.I., Souliotis, I., Adler, J. (2018). Economic instruments, behavior and incentives in groundwater management. In Advances in Groundwater Governance (Eds. Villholth, K.G., Lopez-Gunn, E., Conti, K.I., Garrido, A., Van der Gun, J.). CRC Press/Balkema, 157–176. Margat, J. and Van der Gun, J. (2013). Groundwater around the World: A Geographic Synopsis. CRC Press/ Balkema, 348 p. Morris-Iveson, L. and Day, St. J. (Eds.) (2021). Resilience of Water Supply in Practice: Experiences from the Frontline. IWA Publishing. DOI: 10.2166/ 9781789061628_0001 Seward, P., Xu, Y. (2019). The case for making more use of the Ostrom design principles in groundwater governance research; A South African perspective. Hydrogeology Journal, 27, 1017–1030. Voudouris, K. (2006). Groundwater balance and safe yield of the coastal aquifer system in North-Eastern Korinthia, Greece. Applied Geography, 26, 291–311. Voudouris, K. (2011). Artificial recharge via boreholes using treated wastewater: konstantinos voudouris

276  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Possibilities and prospects. Water, 3(4), 965–975 (Special Issue: Water Recycling and Reuse). Voudouris, K. (2022). Groundwater Exploitation and Management. Tziolas Publisher (in Greek). Voudouris, Κ., Kolokytha, Ε., Venetsanou, P., Kazakis, Ν. (2019). Groundwater governance in transboundary aquifers: A case study from Greece-Bulgaria. Review of the Bulgarian Geological Society, 80(3), 203–206. Water Europe (2020). A Water-smart Society for a Successful post-COVID-19 Recovery Plan. https://watereurope​.eu

konstantinos voudouris

UNESCO (2016). World Water Assessment Programme, UNESCO The United Nations World Water Development Report 2016: Water and Jobs, Facts and Figures Available online: https://unesdoc​.unesco​ .org​/ark:​/48223​/pf0000244041 (accessed on 27 June 2019). UN World Water Development Report (WWDR) (2022). Groundwater, Making the Invisible Visible. https://www​.unesco​ .org​/reports​/wwdr​/2022​/en

63. The Water Commons

self-governance by resource users (Ostrom, 1990, 1993). Through scientific empirical studies, she demonstrated that resource users were able to craft ‘institutions’ or ‘rules in use’ that allowed resources to be managed The water commons sustainably; in other words, the tragedy of Common pool resources are defined as those the commons was not inevitable. This shifted resources that are characterized by subtracta- the attention of academics and policymakers bility and non-excludability. This means that to forming user groups for the management the consumption of such a resource reduces of natural resources and to understanding the its availability to other potential consum- conditions under which they would be longers; further, it is difficult or impossible to enduring, sustainable and effective. This exclude potential consumers from partaking was the basis for much policy prescription of the benefits of the resource. Common pool for decentralization in water management resources include grazing lands, pastures, through policies for participatory irrigation wetlands, ponds, lakes, tanks and what are management, irrigation management transfer often called wastelands. or irrigation management turnover (Narain, Common pool resources need to be concep- 2003; Groenfeldt and Svendsen, 2000). tually distinguished from common property In the early 1980s, natural resource manresources. When a common pool resource is agement scholar N.S. Jodha established that owned, controlled and managed collectively the commons were important in that they proby a group of people, it is known to be the vided livelihood support to poor and landless common property of that group of people. households and small and marginal farmers Thus, it is important to understand that while (Jodha, 1986). They depended, for instance, a common pool resource refers to the physi- on common lands to collect fodder, fuelcal characteristics of a resource, the word wood and timber. Likewise, the water comcommon property refers to an institutional mons perform several important functions. arrangement. Common pool resources could Village ponds serve as important sources of be owned, managed and controlled as state water for bathing livestock, washing clothes property or be open access resources. When and utensils, and swimming and relaxation, common pool resources are owned, managed besides being important means of rechargand controlled by the state, they constitute ing aquifers. In societies of the Global South state property. When no property right regime such as in India, many traditional livelihoods is known to exist, they represent a case of have depended on them. For instance, potopen access. ‘The commons’ is a loosely used ters depend on village ponds as a source of word, often referring both to common pool silt and washermen depend on lakes as an and to common property resources. important source of water for washing clothes The commons came to acquire increasing (Narain and Nischal, 2007). Perhaps the most policy and academic attention when Hardin important water commons are wetlands. (1968) drew attention to the ‘tragedy of the They perform several ecological and livelicommons’. This is one of the most popular hood support functions. Locals may depend and widely cited narratives in the develop- on the wetlands for fishing both as a means of ment and natural resource management litera- livelihood and a source of protein; they may ture. Hardin argued that if a grazing land was use the wetlands as a means of navigation. used in common by a large number of graz- Wetlands may also serve as buffers against ers such that there were no rules, regulations flooding. Additionally, many wetlands are or incentives to limit extraction, the grazing listed as important birding and biodiversity land would, in due course, become overex- areas (IBAs) and are home to several resident ploited and disappear. Thus, privatization and migratory birds. – establishing private property – or nationThe commons in general, and the water alization – establishing state property – were commons in particular, are increasingly under seen as possible alternatives to averting the threat. Many water commons are encroached tragedy. This became the dominant narrative on by local elite. In a desperate bid to supunderlying approaches to natural resource port urbanization, many water commons have conservation. been acquired by the state or by real estate However, political scientist Elinor Ostrom to build residential houses, gated communidrew attention to the possibility of effective ties, shopping malls and recreation centers. 277

278  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management In fact, many cities of the Global South have been built by acquiring the water commons around them (Nagendra and Ostrom, 2014; Mundoli et  al., 2015; Narain and Vij, 2016). Thus, the water commons often bear the ecological footprint of urban expansion. Along with changes in climatic patterns, including high intensity rainfall over short periods of time, this is a factor that contributes to urban flooding in cities of the Global South. However, while many water commons are under threat due to the forces of urbanization as described above, new water commons are also being formed. For instance, in Gurgaon, a rapidly expanding residential, recreation and outsourcing hub of northwest India, irrigators diverted the water of a wastewater canal to store it in a former freshwater pond to pump it for irrigation. Collectively, they devised norms and rules for the creation of the wastewater infrastructure and for the appropriation of the wastewater. Therefore, some commons scholars have argued that commoning and decommoning need to be seen as processes, rather than as a configuration (Nayak and Berkes, 2011). Vishal Narain

References Groenfeldt, D., & Svendsen, M. (Eds.). (2000). Case studies in participatory irrigation management (Vol. 273). World Bank Publications. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Resilience Alliance Inc.

vishal narain

Jodha, N. S. (1986). Common property resources and rural poor in dry regions of India. Economic and Political Weekly, 1169–1181. Mundoli, S., Manjunath, B., & Nagendra, H. (2015). Effects of urbanisation on the use of lakes as commons in the peri-urban interface of Bengaluru, India. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 7(1), 89–108. Nagendra, H., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 1–18. Narain, V. (2003). Institutions, technology and water control: Water users associations and irrigation management reform in two large-scale systems in India. Wageningen University and Research. Narain, V., & Nischal, S. (2007). The peri-urban interface in Shahpur Khurd and Karnera, India. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 261–273. Narain, V., & Vij, S. (2016). Where have all the commons gone?. Geoforum, 68, 21–24. Nayak, P. K., & Berkes, F. (2011). Commonisation and decommonisation: Understanding the processes of change in the Chilika Lagoon, India. Conservation and Society, 9(2), 132–145. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (1993). Design principles in long‐enduring irrigation institutions. Water Resources Research, 29(7), 1907–1912.

64. The Water– Energy Nexus as a Sociotechnical System under Uncertainty Setting the scene The global goal of sustainability requires an integrated viewpoint in order to take into account natural resources protection and energy transition concerns, along with economic growth, environmental improvement and social prosperity. In this scene, the concept of the water–energy nexus, which aims to address both vital elements from a unified perspective, is recognized as a critical turning point and the means to enhance both water and energy security (Scanlon et al., 2017; Cai et al., 2018). We underscore that the ‘nexus’ approach originates from the multidimensional role of water as (a) energy producer, not only direct, namely for hydropower generation, but also indirect (e.g. irrigation of biofuels, cooling of thermal power plants, photovoltaics (PVs) over open water); (b) energy consumer (e.g. pumping, water treatment, desalination); and (c) energy buffer (water stored in hydroelectric reservoirs, energy regulation through pumped storage systems). The key role of water is further strengthened by the ongoing energy crisis, which, among others, disputes the feasibility of the European Green Deal. It is now clear that this pan-European goal can be achieved by relying on wind and solar power generation, only if these are balanced by hydropower and other dispatchable generators, which also requires revising the current operation policies of hydroelectric plants (Bogdanov et  al., 2019; Gøtske and Victoria, 2021). So far, two strategies represent the interdependencies in the water–energy nexus. The most common is to couple single-system models and run them within an iterative procedure, internally representing all interactions within a single model (Payet-Burin et  al., 2019). Instead, state-of-the-art attempts clearly promote a more holistic path (Khan et al., 2018), emphasizing the representation of the diversity in the scales of interest (spatial, temporal, political) at which water–energy interactions occur (McCarl et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, the reliability, resilience, economic effectiveness and, ultimately, the long-term sustainability of water–energy systems are substantially affected by complex social dynamics, which is the footprint of individual human actions. In this vein, the anthropogenic behaviour and its multiple interactions and feedback loops with the technical system components, that is, water and energy fluxes, and associated infrastructures, make it essential to extend the nexus rationale in order to explicitly embed the crucial social dimension (Molajou et  al., 2021). However, the experience so far reveals that most of the analyses of the water–energy nexus mainly focus on the physical processes, while rarely considering the social ones, which refer to human responses to the nexus (e.g. Elshafei et al., 2014; Di Baldassarre et al., 2019). A major obstacle to representing the water, energy and social dynamics under a really unified modelling paradigm originates from the issue of uncertainty, which is an intrinsic characteristic of all associated processes (Koutsoyiannis et  al., 2009). While the representation of individual uncertainties is by definition a challenging task, this becomes even more demanding if the three elements are considered as a nexus. In fact, the nexus approach makes it essential to consider all kinds of interactions and feedbacks among water, energy and society, eventually accounting for dependent uncertainties across scales, both temporal and spatial. In this vein, we argue that, in practice, the linkage of technical systems with social processes, especially under the prism of uncertainty, is rather fragmented. In fact, conventional modelling approaches for the wide range of water–energy problems, including strategic planning, engineering design, strategic management and long-term financial assessment, generally consider a deterministic and thus controllable and predictable world. Under this premise, the multiple and multidimensional uncertainties across water– energy systems, induced by their perpetually changing physical and anthropogenic environment, are only marginally accounted for, for example, by means of investigating alternative scenarios with respect to socioeconomic assumptions (Morris et  al., 2022), or even neglected. This chapter has a twofold objective. The first is to manifest the water–energy nexus under the rationale of stochastic

279

280  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management sociotechnical systems, thus highlighting the major role of social drivers, which are affecting and are affected by water and energy fluxes. In this vein, we provide a brief review of state-of-the-art approaches for embedding the social feature within the technical description of the water–energy nexus. The second objective is to outline a holistic probabilistic-stochastic framework for recognizing, classifying, representing, quantifying and eventually interpreting uncertainties across the unified water–energy–society nexus. These two objectives are developed herein.

Modelling the triptych of water–energy–society In the last years, the social impact across hydrological systems has been progressively recognized as an essential feature, thus leading to the development of the crossdisciplinary domain of socio-hydrology and the fostering of the so-called hydro-social research (Ross and Chang, 2020). As pointed by Di Baldassarre et al. (2019), emphasis has been given to human–flood, human–drought and human–environment interactions and feedbacks, while the linkage of socio-hydrology with energy (as well as food) production is still poorly investigated. The social footprint across water–energy systems is expressed via multiple means, not only in terms of water and energy uses, but also through multiple other human-induced procedures, such as legal controls, management policies, market rules and so on. We underline that in common modelling approaches, all these elements are handled under the steady-state hypothesis. For instance, water and energy demands are typically considered as known model inputs, which follow a priori specified seasonal patterns, while in fact they are strongly dependent on social actions and reactions against the system’s state and its various facets of change (e.g. changes in bills causing changes to consumption, which in turn trigger changes to management policies). As already emphasized, all these complex tradeoffs reveal the need for a unified approach to the triptych of water, energy and society as a nexus. Its importance is further highlighted when these sociotechnical systems are diverted from their normal operation, due to disruptive and unpredictable events and abnormal circumstances, which may affect both the micro- and macro-behaviour

of an entire society in the longer run. These may include geopolitical shifts, economic crises and extreme hydroclimatic conditions (e.g. persistent droughts), causing long-term water and/or energy shortages, which are in turn reflected in the associated demands, prices and operation policies. Currently, agent-based models (ABMs) are recognized as the state-of-the-art approach for representing human behaviour in a wide range of applications, including water and energy systems (Berglund, 2015). The agent-based theory has been formalized by Bonabeau (2022) in an attempt to provide an elegant mathematical description of the human factor, from a bottom-up perspective, by integrating complex adaptive system theory and distributed artificial intelligence. Their key principle is to explain the extremely complex social processes by means of representative modelling elements, called agents, which are characterized by their own data, knowledge and behaviours. The adaptation of a bottom-up approach to study the agent interactions both with the technical (in our case, water–energy) system and among each other at the micro level, allows conclusions to be drawn about the system’s behaviour at the macro level. Although ABMs have quicky gained in popularity across several disciplines, there are still open questions with respect to their practical use. Magliocca (2020) remarks that most of the studies employed so far do not contain agent interactions nor do they base agent decision-making on existing behavioural theories. In the field of water resources, the use of ABMs so far has mainly focused on the spatiotemporal evolution of demands (e.g. Koutiva and Makropoulos, 2019; Huber et al., 2019), which is an important yet not the sole aspect of anthropogenic effects across the water cycle. Regarding energy systems, Yazdanie and Orehounig (2021) manifest the need for improving uncertainty analyses through AMBs, with respect to factors such as socioeconomic development, population changes, technology development, future costs and policies, as well as sudden largescale changes, also referred to as ‘black swan’ events. Nevertheless, the integration of the social dimension within the water–energy nexus seems to be still underdeveloped in modelling and research (Zeng et al., 2022). The need for a holistic sociotechnical modeling paradigm is strengthened due to

andreas efstratiadis and georgia-konstantina sakki

the water–energy nexus as a sociotechnical system under uncertainty  281 the emerging challenges induced by running global crises (environmental, geopolitical, financial, energy) that have gone beyond the borders of national economies. All crises are interlinked with the social factor and, consequently, affect the evolution and the long-term sustainability of water and energy resources.

Water, energy and society as a stochastic sociotechnical system Since water, energy and social dynamics are subject to multiple sources of uncertainty, their recognition, representation, classification, quantification and eventual interpretation are a key objective to be addressed, in order to represent this nexus under the novel prism of stochastic sociotechnical systems. Following the typical classification of environmental modeling (e.g. Beven, 2016), uncertainty can be classified into two major categories: ●

●

Process uncertainty, where the term ‘process’ refers to a randomly varying quantity and is mainly associated with natural phenomena, the random behaviour of which can be macroscopically described via probabilistic and stochastic laws (e.g. hydroclimatic variables). In particular, under the stationarity hypothesis, these laws can be extracted on the basis of past (i.e. observed) data. Model uncertainty, which spans all aspects of the modelling procedure, including its conceptualization and underlying assumptions, the mathematical description of the system dynamics and the assignment of parameter values to governing equations. These uncertainties can be quantified if there are available observations of the real system’s response to compare with modelled responses.

In the context of water–energy–society systems, and according to the rationale of Sakki et al. (2022), uncertainties can also be identified as exogenous and endogenous, where the first refer to the system’s drivers and the second to its internal processes. In particular, the production of water and energy (particularly renewable energy) is driven by inherently uncertain hydrometeorological processes that

exhibit significant peculiarities across scales (e.g. intermittency, intra-day and seasonal periodicity, long-term persistence and complex dependence structures). However, since these are natural and thus ‘pristine’ processes, their probabilistic regime is, at least partially, explained by the statistical information provided by past observations. In contrast, social behaviour is strongly unpredictable, thus displaying emergent properties with respect to highly uncertain environmental, (geo)political and economic drivers, and interactions among different societal groups, as well. On the other hand, the internal uncertainties involve all kinds of spatiotemporal propagations, exchanges and transformations across the sociotechnical system (e.g. conversion of river flows to hydropower), which are represented through simulation models, including ABMs. The various disciplines involved in the representation of the individual components of the water–energy–society nexus, and also the different (and often contrasting) uncertainty assessment ‘schools’, have not yet established a generally accepted framework to handle the full spectrum of uncertainties, particularly to translate them into practice. The issue of uncertainty across such complex systems requires a holistic viewpoint in order to take advantage of current methodological and computational advances in probability and statistics, emphasizing stochastic models and copulas. We remark that such approaches, particularly stochastic models, have quite a long history in water resources and other environmental sciences, as the means to generate long synthetic data for the model inputs that reproduce, in statistical terms, the regime of the observed processes. However, a fully coupled stochastic approach, allowing an explanation for all the aforementioned cascades and dependencies under the prism of uncertainty, is still missing. In this vein, the research effort with respect to the water– energy–society nexus should focus on formalizing the concept of stochastic sociotechnical systems, not only as a theoretical tool but also as a means to support decision-making in the real world (Will et al., 2021). Andreas Efstratiadis and Georgia-Konstantina Sakki

andreas efstratiadis and georgia-konstantina sakki

282  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

References Berglund, E. Z., Using agent-based modeling for water resources planning and management, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag., 141(11), doi:10.1061/(ASCE) WR.1943-5452.0000544, 2015, 17. Beven, K., Facets of uncertainty: Epistemic uncertainty, non-stationarity, likelihood, hypothesis testing, and communication, Hydrol. Sci. J., 61(9), 1652–1665, doi:10.10 80/02626667.2015.1031761, 2016. Bogdanov, D., J. Farfan, K. Sadovskaia, A. Aghahosseini, M. Child, A. Gulagi, A. S. Oyewo, L. de Souza Noel Simas Barbosa, and C. Breyer, Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps, Nature Communications, 10, 1077, doi:10.1038/ s41467-019- 08855-1, 2019. Bonabeau, E., Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 99(Supplement 3(suppl_3)), 7280–7287, doi:10.1073/pnas.082080899, 2022. Cai, X., K. Wallington, M. Shafiee-Jood, and L. Marston, Understanding and managing the food-energy-water nexus: Opportunities for water resources research, Adv. Water Resour., 111, 259–273, doi:10.1016/j. advwatres.2017.11.014, 2018. Di Baldassarre, G., M. Sivapalan, M. Rusca, C. Cudennec, M. Garcia, H. Kreibich, et al., Sociohydrology: Scientific challenges in addressing the sustainable development goals, Water Resour. Res., 55(8), 6327– 6355, doi:10.1029/2018WR023901, 2019. Elshafei, Y., M. Sivapalan, M. Tonts, and M. R. Hipsey, A prototype framework for models of socio-hydrology: Identification of key feedback loops and parameterisation approach, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2141–2166, doi:10.5194/hess-18-2141-2014, 2014. Gøtske, E. K., and M. Victoria, Future operation of hydropower in Europe under high renewable penetration and climate change, iScience, 24(9), 102999, doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.1029992021, 2021. Huber, L., J. Rüdisser, C. Meisch, R. Stotten, G. Leitinger, and U. Tappeiner, Agent-based modelling of water balance in a socialecological system: A multidisciplinary approach for mountain catchments, Sci. Total Environ., 755(1), 142962, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142962, 2019.

Khan, Z., P. Linares, M. Rutten, S. Parkinson, N. Johnson, and J. García-González, Spatial and temporal synchronization of water and energy systems: Towards a single integrated optimization model for long-term resource planning, Appl. Energy, 210, 499–517, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.003, 2018. Koutiva, I., and C. Makropoulos, Exploring the effects of alternative water demand management strategies using an agentbased model, Water, 11(11), 2216, doi:10.3390/w11112216, 2019. Koutsoyiannis, D., C. Makropoulos, A. Langousis, S. Baki, A. Efstratiadis, A. Christofides, G. Karavokiros, and N. Mamassis, Climate, hydrology, energy, water: Recognizing uncertainty and seeking sustainability, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 247–257, doi:10.5194/hess-13-2472009, 2009. Magliocca, N. R., Agent-based modeling for integrating human behavior into the food-energy-water nexus, Land, 9(12), 519, doi:10.3390/land9120519, 2020. McCarl, B. A., Y. Yang, K. Schwabe, B. A. Engel, A. H. Mondal, C. Ringler, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, Model use in WEF nexus analysis: A review of issues, Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep., 4, 144–152, doi:10.1007/s40518-017-0078-0, 2017. Molajou, A., P. Pouladi, and A. Afshar, Incorporating social system into waterfood-energy nexus, Water Resour. Manag., 35, 4561–4580, doi:10.1007/s11269-02102967-4, 2021. Morris, J., J. Reilly, S. Paltsev, A. Sokolov, and K. Cox, Representing socio‐economic uncertainty in human system models, Earth’s Future, 10(4), doi:10.1029/2021EF002239, 2022. Payet-Burin, R., M. Kromann, S. PereiraCardenal, K. M. Strzepek, and P. Bauer-Gottwein, WHAT-IF: An opensource decision support tool for water infrastructure investment planning within the water-energy-food-climate nexus, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4129–4152, doi:10.5194/hess-23-4129-2019, 2019. Ross, A., and H. Chang, Socio-hydrology with hydrosocial theory: Two sides of the same coin? Hydrol. Sci. J., 65(9), 1443–1457, doi: 10.1080/02626667.2020.1761023, 2020. Sakki, G.-K., I. Tsoukalas, P. Kossieris, C. Makropoulos, and A. Efstratiadis, Stochastic simulation-optimisation framework for the design and assessment of renewable energy

andreas efstratiadis and georgia-konstantina sakki

the water–energy nexus as a sociotechnical system under uncertainty  283 systems under uncertainty, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 168, 112886, doi:10.1016/j. rser.2022.112886, 2022. Scanlon, B. R., B. L. Ruddell, P. M. Reed, R. I. Hook, C. Zheng, V. C. Tidwell, and S. Siebert, The food-energy-water nexus: Transforming science for society, Water Resour. Res., 53(5), 3550–3556, doi:10.1002/2017WR020889, 2017. Will, M., G. Dressler, D. Kreuer, H.-H. Thulke, A. Grêt-Regamey, and B. Müller, How to

make socio-environmental modelling more useful to support policy and management?, People Nature, 3, 560–572, doi:10.1002/ pan3.10207, 2021. Zeng, Y., D. Liu, S. Guo, L. Xiong, P. Liu, J. Yin, and Z. Wu, A system dynamic model to quantify the impacts of water resources allocation on water-energy-food-society (WEFS) nexus, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3965–3988, doi:10.5194/hess-26-39652022, 2022.

andreas efstratiadis and georgia-konstantina sakki

65. Tradable Groundwater Permits in Agriculture Due to its seeming abundance, fresh water has traditionally been regarded as an open access public good. However, the intensification of agricultural production and the irrational over-exploitation of groundwater for irrigation have resulted in considerable quantitative and qualitative degradation of groundwater resources in many arid and semi-arid regions of the world. Consequently, groundwater reserves are being depleted and the marginal cost of an irrigation water supply is constantly rising. In this case, water regulators and government agencies are interested in protecting groundwater resources, by setting specific conservation goals and without compromising agricultural productivity, social cohesion and regional economic development. A principal theorem of environmental economics, built on the Coase theorem (1960) and based on the establishment of property rights to environmental resources (Dales, 1968), demonstrates that, under specific conditions, an appropriately defined tradable permit system can minimize the cost of reaching a predefined environmental (e.g. groundwater use) target (Baumol and Oates, 1971). In this context, a tradable groundwater (pumping) permit system can be used in irrigated agriculture to prevent increased depletion, either by controlling new pumping or by reducing groundwater withdrawals (Molle and Closas, 2020). This could be achieved by (a) periodically allocating rights to farmers allowing them to withdraw, within a certain period of time (usually a year), a specific amount of groundwater (to be used exclusively for irrigation), while (b) offering a mechanism through which these rights (permits) could be voluntarily traded. The transferability of these permits has the potential to reduce the economic losses that could arise if only groundwater pumping restrictions were applied. It should be noted that permits could be distributed (by regulators, water agencies, water user associations, etc.) either free of charge or through an auction system. Permit holders, who gain a lower benefit from using their permits, would have an incentive to trade them to farmers who place

a higher value on them. For example, in Figure 65.1, we assume that two farmers have the same initial groundwater allocation of permits/rights (wA  =  wB) but different marginal net benefit functions, resulting in a different marginal net benefit for this (initial) allocation. Tradable permits may provide them with mutual benefits by allocating groundwater to the highest-value user (Farmer  A in our example). The seller (Farmer  B) earns more from the sale than they would from using the permit and the buyer gets more value from the permit than they paid for it (Tietenberg, 2003). As a consequence, no matter the initial allocation rule, the marginal net benefits to farmers are equalized, creating efficiency gains, increasing the productivity of water (Berkamp and Sadoff, 2008), achieving the predetermined environmental target and fostering self-reliance and entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector (Bennett, 2005). Several prerequisites must be fulfilled for the successful implementation of these trading systems, including (a) the operation of a competitive water market with the ability to determine the property rights (exclusively for irrigation use) over groundwater resources; (b) pumping constraints should be binding on everyone in a way that at least some farmers have positive net marginal benefits from groundwater pumping (Brozoviz and Young, 2014); and (c) institutions should be able to guarantee market functioning as well as ensuring monitoring, transparency, enforcement and protection for vulnerable farmers’ groups and aquifers (Latinopoulos, 2016). High transaction costs and the possible emergence of market power (with adverse effects for wealth distribution) – especially in developing countries – are some of the challenges of these systems. Another challenge is that, due to several institutional, socioeconomic and policy reasons, farmers are not usually entitled to an equal share of groundwater permits (as shown in Figure 65.1). Such inequalities are likely to affect the performance of water markets as well as leading to a significant redistribution of farmers’ income. Redistribution effects may also arise due to increasing water prices (in times/conditions of severe scarcity) and may be exacerbated in regions with low (water) market competitiveness (Borghesi, 2014). A significant amount of water trading (usually including groundwater), either formally or informally, takes place in many countries

284

tradable groundwater permits in agriculture  285

Source:   Author’s own.

Figure 65.1  Trading groundwater permits in agriculture – mutual benefits and efficiency gain

around the world, including Australia, China, Chile, the United States, South Africa, India and Pakistan. The success or failure of water trading has been analyzed in several relevant studies1 and the main conclusion drawn is that the planning and implementation of tradable permits must take into account the local characteristics (climatic, environmental, economic, social and legal). Overall, these studies emphasize the reliability and the environmental effectiveness of tradable permits compared to other options/policy instruments. For example, an early study by Provencher (1993) provides evidence that the proper use of water permits may enable water planners to better approximate optimal water allocation, thereby recovering in the long run the potential gains from groundwater management. Additionally, in the long term, a tradable water permits system is likely to incentivize farmers to develop strategies to increase water use efficiency by (a) adopting highefficiency irrigation systems or (b) shifting to higher valued and less water-intensive crops

(Rosegrant and Binswanger, 1994). Ballestero et al. (2002) and Griffin (2016) conclude that tradable permits may significantly improve water use efficiency, while also helping to cope with problems such as the continuous decline in groundwater. Water scarcity and heterogeneity between farmers have been proved to foster the activity of water markets. In fact, according to Latinopoulos and Sartzetakis (2015), water permits are more effective than other water policy methods in cases/regions where the agro-economic characteristics among farmers (or farmers’ groups) are more diverse and the water conservation policy targets are stricter. Farmers’ social norms (e.g. Aghaie et  al., 2020), socioeconomic characteristics and risk attitudes (e.g. regarding future water availability and climate change) may also affect the effectiveness/performance of tradable water permits systems. In addition to protecting underground aquifers, groundwater permits were found to have some additional positive effects. For example, dionysis latinopoulos

286  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management they can deal with the constraints of food security in a region by setting a minimum amount of agricultural production for the whole agricultural sector (Pereau et al., 2018). They can also contribute to the protection of nearby streams (Kuwayama and Brozović, 2013) by properly regulating withdrawals. Nevertheless, their ultimate advantage is that they provide maximum flexibility in response to uncertainty in crop prices (influencing irrigation water demand), as well as in water availability, driven by climate change or other factors (Rosegrant et al., 2014). Dionysis Latinopoulos

Note 1.

It should be mentioned that most studies used ‘top-down’ optimization approaches based on the assumption of perfect market efficiency. On the other hand, some recent studies have also applied ‘bottom-up’ approaches – mainly through agentbased models – aiming to simulate ‘real-world’ markets.

References Aghaie, V., Alizadeh, H. & Afshar, A. (2020). Emergence of social norms in the cap-andtrade policy: An agent-based groundwater market. Journal of Hydrology, 588, 125057. Ballestero, E., Alarcon, S. & Garcia-Bernabeu, A. (2002). Establishing politically feasible water markets: A multicriteria approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 65, 411–429. Baumol, W.J. & Oates, W.E. (1971). The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. In Bohm, P. & Kneese, A.V. (eds.) The Economics of Environment: Papers from Four Nations. Palgrave Macmillan, 53–65. Bennett, J. (ed.) (2005). The Evolution of Markets for Water: Theory and Practice in Australia. Edward Elgar Publishing. Bergkamp, G. & Sadoff, C.W. (2008). Water in a sustainable economy. In: State of the World: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy. Worldwatch Institute, 107–122. Borghesi, S. (2014). Water tradable permits: A review of theoretical and case studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(9), 1305–1332. Brozovic N. & Young, R. (2014). Design and implementation of markets for groundwater

dionysis latinopoulos

pumping rights. In Easter, K.W. & Huang, Q. (eds.) Water Markets for the 21st Century. What Have We Learned? Springer, 283–303. Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1–44. Dales, J. (1968). Pollution, Property and Prices. University Press. Griffin, R.C. (2016). Water Resource Economics: The Analysis of Scarcity, Policies and Projects. MIT Press. Kuwayama, Y. & Brozović, N. (2013). The regulation of a spatially heterogeneous externality: Tradable groundwater permits to protect streams. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66(2), 364–382. Latinopoulos, D. (2016). Equity considerations in implementing tradable water permits systems in agriculture. European Water, 55, 7–19. Latinopoulos, D. & Sartzetakis, E.S. (2015). Using tradable water permits in irrigated agriculture. Environmental and Resource Economics, 60(3), 349–370. Molle, F. & Closas, A. (2020). Why is state‐centered groundwater governance largely ineffective? A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7(1), e1395. Pereau, J.C., Mouysset, L. & Doyen, L. (2018). Groundwater management in a food security context. Environmental and Resource Economics, 71, 319–336. Provencher, B. (1993). A private property rights regime to replenish a groundwater aquifer. Land Economics, 69, 325–340. Rosegrant, M.W. & Binswanger, H.P. (1994). Markets in tradable water rights: Potential for efficiency gains in developing country water resource allocation. World Development, 22(11), 1613–1625. Rosegrant, M.W., Ringler, C. & Zhu, T. (2014). Water markets as an adaptive response to climate change. In Easter, K.W. & Huang, Q. (eds.) Water Markets for the 21st Century. What Have We Learned? Springer, 35–55. Tietenberg, T. (2003). The tradable-permits approach to protecting the commons: Lessons for climate change. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(3), 400–419.

66. Transboundary Water Management Introduction Fresh water from rivers, lakes and aquifers has always been the lifeblood of human settlements and cultures. Because of its value, managing its allocation and use has been a complex and frequently fraught undertaking. In the past century especially, urban migration has caused the overall population to grow while climate change has threatened existing supplies. These and other pressures have exacerbated the challenges to effective and equitable management. In the postwar, postcolonial period of the mid-to-late twentieth century, another force was added to the complexity of water management: new state formation. In 1900, the world had 78 independent nations; today there are 195. A single outburst, the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia spawned 21 new countries, with each new political entity creating new international borders; between 1991 and 1994 alone, 46 new borders came into being (Udall and Varady, 1994). One important result of this proliferation is the term ‘transboundary’, which was absent from early discourses. While the concept may have existed earlier, the first occurrences of the term in scholarship on resources – concerning air pollution and animal disease – dates from the 1960s. With regard to Earth’s water, the notion is particularly germane since vast volumes of surface and subsurface water lie astride international and other jurisdictional boundaries. To illustrate, of the world’s 35  largest river basins, all but six flow through more than one nation (Wolf, 2003; Varady and Morehouse, 2003; McCracken and Wolf, 2019). Similarly, some 470  aquifers in five continents – some shared by six or more nations – can be considered transboundary (IGRAC, 2021).1 Management and, more broadly, governance of these shared waters are subject to disparate legal, political, administrative, financial, cultural and diplomatic conditions.

Framings and approaches to transboundary water management The world’s earliest states, dating from the fourth to the third millennium BCE, almost

universally coalesced around rivers: the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Indus, Yangtze and Yellow rivers. The spatial extent and the boundaries of these entities shifted temporally in keeping with their political power, in a perpetual conflict between the center and periphery. Awareness of borders is as old as the states themselves. Already in 2400  BCE, as evidenced by a deciphered stele, Sumerians recognized the ‘Edge of the Plain’, the outer limit of their domain (Daley, 2018). Ancient Chinese statesmen were also very familiar with their empire’s boundaries, erecting walls and devising strategies (Olberding, 2021). Accordingly, theories of statesmanship generally reflected geopolitical struggles. Perhaps most well-known is the Indian strategist Kautilya’s fourth-century BCE, ‘Mandala Theory’ of border relations: your neighbor is your enemy, and consequently your neighbor’s neighbor is your ally. This construct offers a dynamic, ever-changing and pragmatic perspective on transboundary matters (Rangarajan, 1992). In modern times, the late twentieth century is characterized by more systematic thinking about international boundaries, recognizing them as human-made political constructs. As such, their relationship to cross-border natural resources – including water – and the environment became a subject of scholarly inquiry (e.g. Morehouse, 1995; Waterstone, 1996; Blatter et  al., 2001; Varady and Morehouse, 2003). With new attention on transboundary resource management, it was a short step to recognize the potential for disagreement among states that ‘shared’ these resources. In the late 1990s, at a time of rising threats to global water supplies, a number of investigators turned their attention to the notion of conflict over the possession of water. Reacting to journalists’ expressions of fear over potential ‘water wars’, Aaron Wolf developed a comprehensive database of global water conflicts (Wolf, 1999a). While his work showed that no wars had ever been fought over water (Wolf, 1999b), the topic was rife for further investigation and a number of important international efforts emerged, including the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) ‘From Potential Conflict to Cooperation Potential’, a project that began in 2001 examining multiple aspects of water conflict (UNESCO-IHP, 2022a). Other studies surveyed the range of issues arising from transboundary water flows

287

288  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management – from the roots of water conflicts to ways of understanding, coping and resolving them (e.g. Gleick, 1993; Kraft and Kameniecki, 2001; Uitto and Duda, 2002; Dinar et  al., 2007; Susskind, 2018). To those who looked at water conflict, it became evident that a common source of tension and dispute arises when upstream riparian nations act to control or limit flow to downstream states, for example, when upstream nations construct dams to store water for later use or when overuse upstream limits river flows downstream. Such hegemonic issues, following soon after general work on conflict, became the centerpiece of a rich suite of studies. These investigations led to such ‘upstream–downstream’ concepts as ‘hydropolitics’, most generally, and more specifically, ‘hydrohegemony’, ‘hydrocide’, ‘hydroschizophrenia’, ‘hydrosolidarity’ and ‘ecohydrosolidarity’, each term expressing a facet of international transborder water relations ranging from extreme hostility to conciliation and concern for human rights and for the environment (e.g. Lundqvist, 1998; Falkenmark and Lundqvist, 1999; Falkenmark and Folke, 2002; Jarvis et al., 2005; Zeitoun and Warner, 2006; Mirumachi and Allan, 2007; Zeitoun and Mirumachi, 2008; Falkenmark, 2009; Gerlak et  al., 2009, 2011; Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2012; Rai et al., 2017; Ganoulis and Fried, 2018; Blomquist, 2021; UNESCO IHP, 2022a; McCracken, 2022). Key transnational water-related issues include hegemonic water politics (e.g. upstream vs. downstream or wealthy vs. poor riparian states), questions of ownership, control and disputed boundary definitions. In order to cope with such matters, nations have relied on age-old diplomatic approaches, leading to a field sometimes known as ‘hydrodiplomacy’. Early approaches – many aimed at transborder dams, irrigation systems and other large waterworks – commonly featured technical and engineering approaches to problem-solving (Duckstein et  al., 1996). By contrast, most recent scholarship has examined the role of transnational institutions such as the United Nations and donor agencies; river-basin commissions; international laws, treaties and instruments; and non-governmental organizations (e.g. Kliot et al., 2001a; Wouters, 2013; Giordando et al., 2014; Schmeier, 2015; Schmeier et  al., 2016; Wouters and Vinogradov, 2020; Milman and Gerlak, 2020; Milman et  al., 2020) and robert g. varady et al.

questions of the effectiveness of international institutions (Huitema and Meijerink, 2014; Gerlak and Schmeier, 2013). While the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention provides a basis for legal norms to guide relations over shared waters, implementing these guidelines in practice is an ongoing challenge. River basin organizations and international treaties have been established to promote these international norms through dialogue, information-sharing, stakeholder engagement and coordination among riparian nations. Cooperation on various levels can contribute to a benefit-sharing approach to water management (e.g. Sadoff and Grey, 2005). Approaches to transboundary water management have leveraged the river basin as a unit of analysis for scientific assessment and stakeholder engagement, and as a forum for promoting cooperation and dialogue across borders. However, basin-scale institutions, such as river basin organizations, face challenges to implementing basin-wide programs due to insufficient institutional capacity and a lack of administrative authority in individual nation states (Subramanian et  al., 2012; Mirumachi, 2013). This disconnect between the administrative and hydrologic scale is a long-standing challenge for water management and a particular concern in transboundary contexts (Dore and Lebel, 2010; Subramanian et al., 2012). Approaches to reducing cross-border conflict and inducing cooperation have been studied by scholars in the fields of international relations, water law, policy studies, resource economics and other social sciences (Caldwell, 1991; Benvenisti, 1996; Milich and Varady, 1999; Blatter et al., 2001; Dinar et  al., 2007; Rahaman, 2009; Gerlak et  al., 2011; Brickman and Gleditsch, 2012; Voza et al., 2012; Susskind and Islam, 2012; Pangare, 2013; Mirumachi, 2015; Susskind, 2018; Wilder et al., 2020; Varady et al., 2021). Much of this literature was motivated by long-standing geographic disagreements and conflicts over major international river basins, for example, the waters in the Danube, Indus, Mekong, Nile, Rhine and Tigris-Euphrates rivers. Transboundary groundwater resources present additional challenges for management due to the difficulty in assessing and monitoring resource sustainability and have remained less well-examined than shared surface waters to date (e.g. Blomquist and Ingram, 2003; Linton and Brooks, 2011; Puri

transboundary water management  289 and Aureli, 2005; Conti, 2014; Albrecht et al., 2017; UNESCO, 2022b). The interstate issues identified above are superimposed on a template of multiple other sources of prospective tension, all of which are magnified when they exist in a transboundary setting. Among these overarching causative forces are (1) prevailing sociopolitical considerations (such as population density, customs and practices, types of political regimes, legal and administrative traditions, degree of institutional sustainability and cultural ideas and practices); (2) the type of water ownership regime (state owned or privately owned); (3) sectoral competition (e.g. agriculture or industry vs. environment); (4) the relative political heft of visible surface water vs invisible groundwater (a particularly thorny subject in view of the greatly increased reliance on aquifers; Gerlak, 2007; UNESCO IHP, 2022b); (5) the degree of applicable government regulation; (6) the availability of reliable science and technology; and (7) the existing degree of democratization of transboundary decision-making (i.e. do users, local minorities and Indigenous populations and other stakeholders participate?).

Transboundary water management in practice The variety and complexity of these conditions, added to the difficulty of managing a changing and non-stationary resource across political borders, make transboundary water management a challenging task. In each instance, institutions, officials, managers and affected populations confront difficult practical problems: how to evaluate the nature of transborder disagreements, how to allocate disputed supplies, how to apply and enforce quality regulations, how to obtain sufficient data and information to support resource management and how to anticipate and adjudicate potential and actual conflict. Additionally, embedded in such geopolitical issues are place-based matters of ethics, equity, gender and fairness, further complicating attempts at a resolution (e.g. Earle and Bazilli, 2013; Rivera-Torres and Gerlak, 2021; Sehring, ter Horst, and Zwarteveen, 2022). The literature is replete with valuable, broad-spectrum works on approaches to governance, management strategies, climate adaptation, lessons learned, assessments and ways of measuring success (case studies make up the bulk of the literature and are far too numerous

to cite, but for selected general writings, see, e.g. Akamani and Wilson, 2011; Blatter and Ingram, 2000; Kliot et al., 2001a, 2001b; Puri and Aureli, 2005; Gooch and Stalnacke, 2006; Dellapenna, 2007; Mirumachi and Allan, 2007; Cooley et al., 2009; Wada and Heinrich, 2013; de Sherbinin and Glennie, 2014; Armitage et  al., 2015; Gerlak, 2017; McCracken, 2017; McCracken and Meyer, 2018; Varady et  al., 2020; Rieu-Clarke et al., 2022).

Future directions for transboundary water governance and management Transboundary water governance and management are becoming more significant due to anthropogenic changes including climate change and population growth. A 2018 analysis of ‘future worlds’ (Foreign Affairs, 2018) suggests that among the various kinds of diplomacy, transboundary water diplomacy may be the most consequential form of international scientific and political collaboration. Colglazier (2018) suggests that transboundary diplomacy over water resources may be the single steepest future challenge. In accordance with this view, Busby describes a ‘warming-world’ scenario and suggests that climate change ‘matters more than anything else, and will test the international system in new and unpredictable ways’. Colglazier (2018) believes this scenario portends greater international conflicts over water, especially in developing countries. Climate change is acknowledged to exhibit non-stationarity – meaning that the past climate is no longer a sufficient guide for the possibilities of the future – and at the same time, new ‘tipping points’ may be reached in the coming decades that ‘bake in’ new Earth system feedback loops with implications for the water supply and availability and waterrelated hazards such as drought and floods (Steffen et  al., 2018). Climate non-stationarity and the potential for reaching Earth system tipping points create an epistemological challenge as science, society and water governance decision-makers seek to grasp the evolving new realities. At the present time, transboundary water conflicts have largely remained subject to peaceful resolution at the institutional and/or diplomatic level. Yet, the challenges of the future may require new approaches to ensure water security across transboundary settings. robert g. varady et al.

290  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Recent research on transboundary water governance suggests new approaches are needed. While the river basin has evolved as the major organizing construct for most transboundary water governance over the last three decades, there is a pressing need for multiscalar approaches ‘beyond the basin’ and to incorporate other actors beyond the nation-state (Albrecht and Gerlak, 2022). Building adaptive capacity among governance actors and networks in transboundary contexts continues to be of the utmost importance, as research has documented the value of flexible governance processes and mechanisms coupled with robust transboundary institutions, such as agreements, treaties and accords (Wilder et al., 2020). Science may play an enhanced role in future transboundary water policy as scientific advances facilitate more precise data generation and analysis at multiple scales. Scientific advances could be increasingly important in effectively governing transboundary groundwater. Research is needed that couples the dynamism of real-world water management and governance with the evolving environmental and social challenges of transboundary contexts. The capacity to adapt our institutional practices and processes could not be more important as we confront the evershifting complexity of transboundary water governance. Robert G. Varady, Tamee R. Albrecht, Andrea K. Gerlak and Margaret O. Wilder

Note 1.

Previous mapping conducted by the International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC) included transboundary aquifers and other transboundary groundwater bodies (the EU Water Framework Directive’s management units that typically subdivide larger aquifers) (IGRAC, 2021). In 2015, IGRAC mapped 366 such aquifers plus 226 transboundary groundwater bodies (IGRAC and UNESCO-IHP, 2015). In their 2021 update, IGRAC counted only transboundary aquifers. The updated map shows 468 transboundary groundwater aquifers in 2021 – an increase from previous estimates (excluding groundwater bodies that are not aquifers) (IGRAC, 2021).

References Albrecht, T.R. and Gerlak, A.K., 2022. Beyond the basin: Water security in transboundary environments. Water Security, 17, 100124. robert g. varady et al.

Albrecht, T., Varady, R.G., Zuniga, A.A., Gerlak, A.K. and Staddon, C., 2017. Governing a shared hidden resource: A review of governance mechanisms for transboundary groundwater security. Water Security, 2, 43–56. Akamani, K. and Wilson, P.I., 2011. Toward the adaptive governance of transboundary water resources. Conservation Letters, 4(6), 409–416. Armitage, D., De Loe, R.C., Morris, M., Edwards, T.W., Gerlak, A.K., Hall, R.I., Huitema, D., Ison, R., Livingstone, D., MacDonald, G. and Mirumachi, N., 2015. Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio, 44(5), 353–366. Benvenisti, E., 1996. Collective action in the utilization of shared freshwater: The challenges of international water resources law. American Journal of International Law, 90(3), 384–415. Blatter, J. and Ingram, H., 2000. States, markets and beyond: Governance of transboundary water resources. Natural Resources Journal, 40, 439. Blatter, J., Ingram, H. and Levesque, S.L., 2001. Expanding perspectives on transboundary water. Reflections on water: New approaches to transboundary conflicts and cooperation. The MIT Press. Blomquist, W., 2021. Upstream-downstream conflicts, 1930–1960. In The realities of adaptive groundwater management (pp. 31–42). Springer. Blomquist, W. and Ingram, H.M., 2003. Boundaries seen and unseen: Resolving transboundary_groundwater problems. Water International, 28(2), 162–169. Brochmann, M. and Gleditsch, N.P., 2012. Shared rivers and conflict: A reconsideration. Political Geography, 31(8), 519–527. Caldwell, L.K., 1991. Globalizing environmentalism: Threshold of a new phase in international relations. Society & Natural Resources, 4(3), 259–272. Colglazier, E.W., 2018. Science diplomacy and future worlds. Science & Diplomacy, 7(3). http://www​.sciencediplomacy​.org​ /editorial ​ / 2018 ​ /science ​ - diplomacy​ - and​ -future​-worlds Conti, K.I., 2014. Factors enabling transboundary aquifer cooperation: A global analysis. International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre.

transboundary water management  291 Cooley, H., Christian-Smith, J., Gleick, P.H., Allen, L. and Cohen, M., 2009. Understanding and reducing the risks of climate change for transboundary waters (p. 96). Pacific Institute. Daley, J., 2018. Recently deciphered 4,500-year-old pillar shows first known record of a border dispute. Smithsonian Magazine. Accessed 24 August 2022. Dellapenna, J.W., 2007. Transboundary water sharing and the need for public management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 133(5), 397–404. de Sherbinin, A.M. and Glennie, P., 2014, December. The transboundary waters assessment programme (TWAP) River Basin component methods and results. In AGU fall meeting abstracts (Vol. 2014, pp. EP51A–3520). Dinar, A., Dinar, S., McKinney, D.C. and McCaffrey, S.C., 2007. Bridges over water: Understanding transboundary water conflict, negotiation and cooperation (Vol. 3). World Scientific Publishing Company. Dore, J. and Lebel, L., 2010. Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance. Environmental Management, 46(1), 60–80. Earle, A. and Bazilli, S., 2013. A gendered critique of transboundary water management. Feminist Review, 103(Special Edition on Water), 99–119. Palgrave Macmillan. Falkenmark, M., 2009. Ecohydrosolidarity: Towards better balancing of humans and nature. In Water front. Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI). Falkenmark, M. and Lundqvist, J., 1999. Towards upstream/downstream hydrosolidarity. In Proceedings of SIWI/ IWRA Seminar Towards upstream/ downstream Hydrosolidarity. Falkenmark, M. and Folke, C., 2002. The ethics of socio-ecohydrological catchment management: Towards hydrosolidarity. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 6(1), 1–10. Foreign Affairs, 2018. Which world are we living in? July /August issue. Ganoulis, J. and Fried, J., 2018. Transboundary water conflicts and cooperation. In Transboundary hydro-governance (pp. 55–76). Springer. Ganoulis, J., Duckstein, L. and Literathy, P., eds., 1996. Transboundary water resources management: Institutional and

engineering approaches (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media. Gerlak, A.K., 2007. Lesson learning and trans-boundary waters: A look at the Global Environment Facility’s international waters program. Water Policy, 9(1), 55–72. Gerlak, A.K., 2017. Regional water institutions and participation in water governance: The Colorado River Delta as an exception to the rule? Journal of the Southwest, 59(1–2), 184–203. Gerlak, A.K. and Schmeier, S., 2013. River basin organisations: Tackling questions of design and effectiveness. Global Dialogue (Online), 15(2), 61. Gerlak, A.K., Varady, R.G. and Haverland, A., 2009. Hydrosolidarity and international water conflict. International Negotiation, 14(2), 311–328. Gerlak, A.K., Varady, R.G., Petit, O. and Haverland, A., 2011a. Hydrosolidarity and beyond: Can ethics and equity find a place in today’s water resource management? Water International, 36(3 (May)), 251–265. Gerlak, A.K., Lautze, J. and Giordano, M., 2011b. Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(2), 179–199. Giordano, M., Drieschova, A., Duncan, J.A., Sayama, Y., De Stefano, L. and Wolf, A.T., 2014. A review of the evolution and state of transboundary freshwater treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(3), 245–264. Gleick, P.H., 1993. Water and conflict: Fresh water resources and international security. International Security, 18(1), 79–112. Gooch, G.D. and Stalnacke, P., 2006. Integrated transboundary water management in theory and practice. IWA publishing. Huitema, D. and Meijerink, S.V., 2014. The politics of river basin organisations: Coalitions, institutional design choices and consequences. Edward Elgar Publishing. IGRAC (International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre), 2021. Transboundary Aquifers of the World [map]. Edition 2021. Scale 1 : 50 000 000. IGRAC. (Retrieved 9/14/2022). IGRAC (International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre) and UNESCO-IHP (UNESCO International robert g. varady et al.

292  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Hydrological Programme), 2015. Transboundary Aquifers of the World [map]. Edition 2015. Scale 1 : 50 000 000. IGRAC. Jarvis, T., Giordano, M., Puri, S., Matsumoto, K. and Wolf, A., 2005. International borders, ground water flow, and hydroschizophrenia. Groundwater, 43(5), 764–770. Kliot, N., Shmueli, D. and Shamir, U., 2001a. Institutions for management of transboundary water resources: Their nature, characteristics and shortcomings. Water Policy, 3(3), 229–255. Kliot, N., Shmueli, D. and Shamir, U., 2001b. Development of institutional frameworks for the management of transboundary water resources. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 1(3–4), 306–328. Kraft, M.E. and Kamieniecki, S., 2001. Reflections on water: New approaches to transboundary conflicts and cooperation. MIT Press. Linton, J. and D. Brooks, 2011. Governance of transboundary aquifers: New challenges and new opportunities. Water International 36(March 2015), 606–618. Lundqvist, J., 1998. How to avert the threatening hydrocide: Paper related to the theme for the Panel Discussion. In Waterthe key to socio-economic development and quality of life (Stockholm, 10–13 August 1998) (pp. 117–120). The 8th Stockholm Water Symposium. McCracken, M., 2017. Measuring transboundary water cooperation: Options for Sustainable Development Goal Target 6.5 (pp. 1–88). Global Water Partnership (GWP). McCracken, M., 2022. Defining effective transboundary water cooperation. Routledge. McCracken, M. and Meyer, C., 2018. Monitoring of transboundary water cooperation: Review of Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 6.5. 2 methodology. Journal of Hydrology, 563, 1–12. McCracken, M. and Wolf, A.T., 2019. Updating the Register of International River Basins of the world. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(5), 732–782. Milich, L. and Varady, R.G., 1999. Openness, sustainability, and public participation: New designs for transboundary river-basin robert g. varady et al.

institutions. Journal of Environment and Development, 8(3), 258–306. Milman, A. and Gerlak, A.K., 2020. International river basin organizations, science, and hydrodiplomacy. Environmental Science & Policy, 107, 137–149. Milman, A., Gerlak, A.K., Albrecht, T., Colosimo, M., Conca, K., Kittikhoun, A., Kovács, P., Moy, R., Schmeier, S., Wentling, K., Werick, W., Zavadsky, I. and Ziegler, J., 2020. Addressing knowledge gaps for transboundary environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 64, 102162. Mirumachi, N., 2013. Transboundary water security: Reviewing the importance of national regulatory and accountability capacities in international transboundary river basins. In Lankford, B., Bakker, K., Zeitoun, M. and Conway, D. (Eds.), Water security: Principles, perspectives and practices. (pp. 166–177). Routledge. Mirumachi, N., 2015. Transboundary water politics in the developing world. Routledge. Mirumachi, N. and Allan, J.A., 2007, November. Revisiting transboundary water governance: Power, conflict cooperation and the political economy. In Proceedings from CAIWA International Conference on Adaptive and Integrated Water Management: Coping with Scarcity. Basel, Switzerland (Vol. 1215). Morehouse, B., 1995. A functional approach to boundaries in the context of environmental issues. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 10(2), 53–73. Olberding, G.P., 2021. Designing boundaries in early China. Cambridge University Press. Pangare, G. ed., 2013. Hydro diplomacy: Sharing water across borders. Academic Foundation. Puri, S. and Aureli, A., 2005. Transboundary aquifers: A global program to assess, evaluate, and develop policy. Groundwater, 43(5), 661–668. Rahaman, M.M., 2009. Principles of international water law: Creating effective transboundary water resources management. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 1(3), 207–223. Rai, S.P., Wolf, A.T., Sharma, N. and Tiwari, H., 2017. Hydropolitics in transboundary water conflict and cooperation. In River system analysis and management (pp. 353–368). Springer.

transboundary water management  293 Rangarajan, L.N. ed., 1992. The arthashastra. Penguin Books. Rieu-Clarke, A.S., Bernardini, F., TiefenauerLinardon, S. and Aureli, A., 2022. Advances in monitoring transboundary water cooperation? Reflecting on the development and implementation of SDG indicator 6.5.2. Water International, 47(3), 438–457. Rivera-Torres, M. and Gerlak, A.K., 2021. Evolving together: Transboundary water governance in the Colorado River Basin. International Environmental Agreements, 21, 553–574. Sadoff, C.W. and Grey, D., 2005. Cooperation on international rivers: A continuum for securing and sharing benefits. Water International, 30(4), 420–427. Sehring, J., ter Horst, R. and Zwarteveen, M., 2022. Gender dynamics in transboundary water governance: Feminist perspectives on water conflict and cooperation. Taylor & Francis Group. Schmeier, S., 2015. The institutional design of river basin organizations – Empirical findings from around the world. International Journal of River Basin Management 13(1), 51–72. Schmeier, S., Gerlak, A.K. and Blumstein, S., 2016. Clearing the muddy waters of shared watercourses governance: Conceptualizing international river basin organizations. International Environmental Agreements, 16, 597–619. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10784​ -015​-9287-4 Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T.M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., ... and Schellnhuber, H.J., 2018. Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. Subramanian, A., Brown, B. and Wolf, A.T., 2012. Reaching Across the Waters: Facing the Risks of Cooperation in International Waters. The World Bank. Susskind, L., 2018. Complexity of transboundary water conflicts: Enabling conditions for negotiating contingent resolutions. Anthem Press. Susskind, L. and Islam, S., 2012. Water diplomacy: Creating value and building trust in transboundary water negotiations. Science & Diplomacy, 1(3), 1–7. Udall, S.L. and Varady, R.G., 1994. Environmental conflict and the world’s new international borders. Transboundary Resources Report, 7(3) (Winter 1993), 5–6.

Uitto, J.I. and Duda, A.M., 2002. Management of transboundary water resources: Lessons from international cooperation for conflict prevention. Geographical Journal, 168(4), 365–378. UNESCO Intergovernmental Hydrological Programme (IHP), 2022a. From potential conflict to cooperation potential. Accessed 24 August 2022. UNESCO Intergovernmental Hydrological Programme (IHP), 2022b. ISARMInternational shared aquifer resources management initiative. Accessed 24 August 2022. Varady, R.G. and Morehouse, B., 2003. Moving borders from the periphery to the center: River basins, political boundaries, and water management policy. Water: Science, Policy, and Management, 143, 160. Varady, R.G., Albrecht, T.R., Gerlak, A.K., Wilder, M.O., Mayer, B.M., Zuniga-Teran, A., Ernst, K.C. and Lemos, M.C., 2020. The exigencies of transboundary water security: Insights on community resilience. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 74–84. Varady, R.G., Gerlak, A.K., Wilder, M.O. and Pineda, N., eds., 2021. Special issue, Environmental Science and Policy, “New Directions in Hydrodiplomacy to Meet Global Water Challenges: Learning from the Past, Shaping the Future.” Voza, D., Vuković, M., Carlson, L. and Djordjević, D.B., 2012. International water conflict and cooperation: The role of power relations among riparians. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(11), 56–66. Wada, Y. and Heinrich, L., 2013. Assessment of transboundary aquifers of the world— Vulnerability arising from human water use. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024003. Waterstone, M., 1996. A conceptual framework for the institutional analysis of transboundary water resources management: Theoretical perspectives. In Transboundary water resources management (pp. 9–18). Springer. Wilder, M.O., Varady, R.G., Gerlak, A.K., Mumme, S.P., Flessa, K.W., ZunigaTeran, A.A., Scott, C.A., Pablos, N.P. and Megdal, S.B., 2020. Hydrodiplomacy and adaptive governance at the US-Mexico border: 75 years of tradition and innovation robert g. varady et al.

294  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management in transboundary water management. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 189–202. Wolf, A.T., 1999a. The transboundary freshwater dispute database project. Water International, 24(2), 160–163. Wolf, A.T., 1999b. “Water wars” and water reality: Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. In Environmental change, adaptation, and security (pp. 251– 265). Springer. Wolf, A.T., 2003. The present and future of transboundary water management. Rethinking water management: Innovative approaches to contemporary issues (pp. 164–179). Taylor & Francis Group. Wouters, P., 2013. International law– facilitating transboundary water

robert g. varady et al.

cooperation. Global Water Partnership, TEC Background Papers, (17). Wouters, P. and Vinogradov, S., 2020. Reframing the transboundary water discourse: Contextualized international law in practice. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 29(3), 385–394. Zeitoun, M. and Mirumachi, N., 2008. Transboundary water interaction I: Reconsidering conflict and cooperation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 297–316. Zeitoun, M. and Warner, J., 2006. Hydrohegemony: A framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy, 8(5), 435–460.

67. Understanding the WEFE Nexus Paradigm: Principles and Challenges

●

The water, energy, food security and ecosystems (WEFE) nexus is a multisectoral and multiscale approach for the integrated management and governance of natural resources, able to consider the complex links and interdependences between WEFE sectors in the context of sustainable development. Initially presented and discussed during the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference (as the three-pillar Water–Energy–Food security [WEF] concept), it constitutes the latest paradigm within the resources management field and intends to overcome the limitations of the previous single sector approaches. This failure to assess the impacts of one sector on another leads to suboptimal allocation, unintended consequences and potentially contradictory outcomes (Hoff, 2011). The subsequent evolution from the WEF to the WEFE concept through the addition of the ecosystem services component is aimed to amplify the net social benefits of the adopted solutions. This reconciles not only the interests of the different sectoral stakeholders but also those of the environment and society as a whole, thus increasing the sustainability of subsequent actions. In this context, the WEFE nexus approach is particularly adequate to integrate the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. Two dimensions (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary) and five fundamental principles have been identified within the WEFE nexus approach. The interdisciplinary dimension is devoted to understanding the linkages between the different sectors of the WEFE and the identification of synergies and tradeoffs, while the transdisciplinary dimension addresses cooperation and governance across stakeholders and sectors (Endo et al., 2020). Fundamental principles include the following (Carmona-Moreno et al., 2019): ●

Exploring the spatial and temporal interdependences between resources and considering the global system’s efficiency

●

●

●

instead of the individual productivity of each sector. Acknowledging the interlinkages between the WEFE components while promoting rational and inclusive dialogues in a decision-making framework, as well as encouraging the adoption of a conscious environmental approach to the efficient use of natural resources. Identifying tradeoff optimization options and building up synergies across sectors, advocating the adoption of mutually beneficial solutions to foster the potential for cooperation. Ensuring coordination across stakeholders and sectors to benefit from synergies and achieve sustainable solutions. Treasuring the natural capital of land, water, energy sources and ecosystems and encouraging governments and stakeholders to work toward sustainable development.

Although the multiple advantages of the WEFE nexus conceptual framework have been widely recognized (Farinosi et al., 2021; Pastori et al., 2021), for example, enhancement of the exploitation of co-benefits, improvement in system resilience and/or stimulation of policy coherence and multipurpose investments, its practical implementation still remains a huge challenge and critical voices have been raised against the lack of empirical evidence to demonstrate its benefits (‘nexus thinking’ rather than ‘nexus doing’; Simpson and Jewitt, 2019). General constraints to the real application of the nexus include: (i) an insufficient understanding of the nexus tradeoffs in the context of science–policy–stakeholder interactions (Liu et  al., 2017, 2020); (ii) the presence of strong sectoral silos; (iii) the scarcity of incentives; and (iv) limited vision, knowledge and practical experience to lead the proper operationalization of the approach (Hoff et al., 2019). Additionally, the implementation process is currently hindered by additional barriers arising from its three main phases (evidence, nexus assessment and nexus policy dialogue). These phases can be iterative rather than sequential to integrate new key issues or findings (Carmona-Moreno et al., 2019; Figure 67.1): 1.

295

Evidence: This phase of the process aims to provide an inventory of the current status along with the identification of key

296  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:   Modified from Carmona-Moreno et al. (2019).

Figure 67.1  WEFE nexus methodology in a modelling context

development priorities. It also requires comprehensive data and knowledge collection (both qualitative and quantitative depending on the case) throughout the fields of natural resources, socioeconomic information and sectoral policies. This information should be properly tailored to the context and related to policy priorities and environmental aspects. The main barriers appearing at this stage are related to data and knowledge gaps (particularly relevant in developing countries), which impair the characterization of real interlinkages beyond the conceptual understanding. Additionally, the disparity of the available data – in terms of aggregation level, scale, accuracy or reliability – needs to be addressed through encouraging information harmonization and sharing across the involved institutions. 2. Nexus assessment: The main objective of this phase is to obtain a scientifically and technically sound portfolio of recommendations (optimal solutions) which

will lay the foundations for discussion at the policy dialogue stage. The core of the nexus assessment relies on integrated and collaborative models and evaluations. Barriers to the implementation of this phase could include: the non-correspondence of nexus boundaries with conventional administrative or management units, the insufficient integration of social components (e.g. politics, power or justice) or the complexity of capturing non-monetary values concerning synergies and tradeoffs (Pastori et al., 2021). 3. Nexus policy dialogue: This phase comprises two steps (not necessarily consecutive but iterative): (i) the development of scenarios to simulate and identify the potential effects of policy interventions at different temporal and spatial scales; and (ii) the agreement on response options within the nexus framework. Scenario development can be performed through the use of existing sectoral models and tools and should facilitate the assessment of the benefits of the WEFE components

patricia marcos-garcia, marco pastori and cesar carmona-moreno

Figure 67.2  An example of WEFE nexus identification of key optimization objectives and constraints for optimal and sustainable water and resource management in the Senegal River Basin

understanding the wefe nexus paradigm  297

patricia marcos-garcia, marco pastori and cesar carmona-moreno

298  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management along with the impacts on the SDGs (Pastori et  al., 2019; Udias et  al., 2018). This step could be hindered by the lack of relevant indicators, systematic tools and monitoring data – mainly in developing countries – to properly tackle the existing tradeoffs. Regarding response options, stakeholder consultations should be open, participatory and inclusive and not necessarily conducted after the previous phase (they can start after the evidence phase even if initially based on a qualitative rather than a quantitative analysis). To conclude, it should be noted that no onesize-fits-all WEFE nexus framework actually exists and that the development of this approach requires awareness capacity and tools. However, key recommendations towards its successful implementation could include (Carmona-Moreno et  al., 2019): (i) triggering effective collaboration across institutions, stakeholders and sectors; (ii) exploiting the potential of the nexus to increase the fundability of projects (through co-benefit analysis and cost optimization, for the provision of less commercially viable components); (iii) applying the nexus at different scales (to account for different combinations of elements, processes and actors); (iv) shifting from responding to pressures on water resources to tackling broader basin stress and socioeconomic strains (by combining natural and built infrastructure); (v) favoring the use of ‘loose coupling’ models (where outputs from one model become inputs for another) instead of developing fully integrated crosssector models; (vi) addressing the nexus within the framework set by strategic environmental assessments (SEAs); and (vii) developing nexus toolkits to provide pertinent guidance for policy dialogue at the strategic level (Figure 67.2). Patricia Marcos-Garcia, Marco Pastori and Cesar Carmona-Moreno

References Carmona-Moreno, C., Dondeynaz, C., & Biedler, M. (Eds.). (2019). Position Paper on Water, Energy, Food and Ecosystems (WEFE) Nexus and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Publications

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi:10.2760/5295 Endo, A., Yamada, M., Miyashita, Y., Sugimoto, R., Ishii, A., Nishijima, J., Qi, J. (2020). Dynamics of water–energy–food nexus methodology, methods, and tools. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 13, 46–60. Farinosi, F., Crestaz, E., Mishra, A., Marcos-Garcia, P., Pastori, M., Amani, A., Carmona-Moreno, C. (2021). WaterEnergy-Food Security-Ecosystems in Africa. Publication Office of the European Union, Italy. JRC124433. Hoff, H. (2011). Understanding the Nexus: Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. Hoff, H., Alrahaife, S.A., El Hajj, R. et  al. (2019). A Nexus approach for the MENA region: From concept to knowledge to action. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7, 48. https://doi​.org​/10​.3389​/fenvs​ .2019​.00048 Liu, J. et  al. (2017). Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy– foodnexus. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 62(11), 1714–1720. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /02626667​.2017​.1353695 Liu, J., Scanlon, B.R., Zhuang, J., Varis, O. (2020). Food-energy-water nexus for multiscale sustainable development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 154(C). Pastori, M. et  al. (2019). Identification of optimal agricultural development strategies in the West African Sahel Mékrou Transboundary River Basin. In: Bamutaze, Y., Kyamanywa, S., Singh, B., Nabanoga, G., Lal, R. (eds) Agriculture and Ecosystem Resilience in Sub Saharan Africa. Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​ /978​-3​- 030​-12974​-3​_33 Pastori, M., Udias, A., Cattaneo, L., MonerGirona, M., Niang, A., Carmona-Moreno, C. (2021). Bioenergy potential of crop residues in the Senegal River Basin: A cropland– energy–water-environment nexus approach. Sustainability, 13, 11065. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/su131911065 Simpson, G.B., Jewitt, G.P.W. (2019). The water-energy-food nexus in the anthropocene: Moving from ‘nexus thinking’ to ‘nexus action’. Current

patricia marcos-garcia, marco pastori and cesar carmona-moreno

understanding the wefe nexus paradigm  299 Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 40, 117–123, ISSN 1877-3435. Udias, A., Pastori, M., Dondeynaz, C., Carmona Moreno, C., Ali, A., Cattaneo, L., Cano, J., 2018. A decision support tool to

enhance agricultural growth in the Mékrou river basin (West Africa). Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 154, 467–481. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/ J​.COMPAG​.2018​ .09​.037

patricia marcos-garcia, marco pastori and cesar carmona-moreno

68. Unravelling the Unintended Consequences of Water Interventions: Challenges of Understanding Adoption within Human–Water Systems and a Way Forward

way forward to disentangle such bidirectional feedback so that coupled human–water systems (e.g. human agricultural systems) can be realistically modeled and the effects of the intervention on human well-being are more accurately estimated.

Adoption of interventions: Influence of behavioral factors and reverse causality

Introduction Changes in the water cycle (availability/variability of water) influence and shape human society (e.g. floods and droughts have shaped human civilization), whereas decisions humans take (e.g. building dams, irrigation) influence the water cycle. The study of these coupled and co-evolving human–water systems is central to sociohydrology (Sivapalan et al., 2012). For example, irrigation efficiency measures can lead to increased water use, rather than the expected reduction (Perry and Steduto, 2017), or the unplanned proliferation of rainwater harvesting structures such as check dams in river streams can reduce downstream flows leading to upstream–downstream conflicts or even increased demand (Alam et al., 2022; Calder et al., 2008). While the motivation of such interventions has been to make regional agriculture climate resilient, they can have unintended negative impacts such as shifts toward more water-intensive crops, increased vulnerability to droughts and groundwater exploitation (Alam et  al., 2022). While farmers of all income groups behave similarly, poorer farmers who cannot adapt to these negative consequences (e.g. by drilling deeper groundwater wells) bear most of the negative impacts (Bouma et al., 2011; Narayanamoorthy, 2015). Without accounting for the bidirectional feedback of human– water systems, investments in interventions to increase irrigation efficiency or harvest rainwater can lead to long-term unintended consequences, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities and social inequities, or impacting the sustainability of resources. We propose a

One key indicator of the success of investments made in water-related interventions is their adoption by the targeted population. It is influenced by a range of behavioral factors such as norms, risk perception, attitudes and cultural and socioeconomic factors (Daniel et  al., 2019; Kaufmann et  al., 2009). Thus, understanding the drivers of the adoption of interventions is the first step in developing effective behavior change interventions. Generally, many behavioral theories grounded in social science consider the influence of psychological factors such as norms, attitude, ability and risk perception on behavior (Mosler, 2012). They generally do this by regressing dependent behavior (e.g. adoption of water treatment technology, irrigation efficiency measures) on such psychological factors (Daniel et al., 2021). Research has shown that explaining adoption behavior is often more complex (Daniel et  al., 2022). This is because behavior that influences adoption may itself be influenced by the prevalence of the practice. For example, attitudes toward the adoption of irrigation may themselves be influenced by the prevalence of irrigation practices, yielding bidirectional feedback. This is referred to as endogeneity in economics, exemplified by situations where an explanatory variable is correlated with the error term, resulting from reverse causality or the feedback effect from the dependent variable to the independent variable (Heckmann, 1978) (Figure 68.1). One example is the use of social norms as independent variables to predict the adoption of water filtration by a community under the assumption of a one-way influence of social norms on adoption behavior. However, one can expect that households that already use water filtration in a community influence the social norms of that community. This exemplifies a two-way (or bidirectional) feedback between the psychology and the behavior of households (Daniel et al., 2022).

300

unravelling the unintended consequences of water interventions  301

Source:   Image modified from Daniel et al. (2022).

Figure 68.1   Description of the feedback effect or reverse causality applied to irrigation adoption behavior

Currently, most applications of behavioral theories do not consider these bidirectional feedbacks. As a result, analyses and recommendations considering these bidirectional feedbacks may lead to biased outcomes. This, in turn, may under or overestimate the adoption of water interventions such as groundwater recharge systems or household water treatments (HWTs), and unintended outcomes may emerge as a result. Also, as human–water systems co-evolve, these bidirectional dynamics may also evolve. Daniel et al. (2022) demonstrated this in the context of the adoption of HWT technologies across eight countries. The authors found that the effect of attitude and norms is underestimated by 59  percent and 40  percent, respectively, when reverse causality is ignored, thereby underestimating the impacts of interventions that influence such factors to increase adoption rates.

IV regression and survey design: Treating for reverse causality To account for such reverse causality and endogeneity in regression analysis, an instrument variable (IV) is often used. In the case of the adoption of interventions, IVs remedy the potential reverse feedback of adoption behavior on psychological factors. In doing so, IVs are used first to predict the psychological factors which are then used to predict behavior (Daniel et  al., 2022). The

psychological factors do not act as predictor variables alone, but as endogenous explanatory variables, that is, predictor variables whose values are determined by other variables or IVs. The IVs are then used to first predict the psychological factors, which are then used in the second stage regression to obtain unbiased estimates of the effects of human psychology on adoption behavior (Bascle, 2008). However, identifying appropriate IVs and collecting corresponding data are a challenge. This is because IVs are required to meet the criteria that they should only be directly related to psychological factors and only indirectly to behavior (Mehta, 2001). In the case of human–water systems, similar to Tabellini (2010) and Akerlof and Kranton (2000), Daniel et al. (2022) argue that historical institutions, a system of social factors that conjointly generates a regularity of behavior (Greif, 2006), can act as suitable IVs as their impact on the adoption of interventions is mediated by the culture which influences the risk perception, attitude toward new technologies and prevalent social norms of the population. Institutions evolve slowly and are influenced by history, political systems or the geographical location of a place and influence the psychology of the population (e.g. attitude, perception of risk). For example, trust in governmental agencies that manage the water supply could influence the perception of the quality of the distributed water (Doria, 2010). There could also be an interplay between

mohammad faiz alam, dani daniel, soham adla and saket pande

302  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management institutions, the perception of risk and the attitude that influences a household’s decision to treat water, for example, regarding the smell, taste, color and turbidity aspects of distributed water (Crampton & Ragusa, 2016; Jain et  al., 2014). Thus, while there is strong evidence in the literature to support the correlation between the quality of institutions and the psychology of the population, especially with social norms, it remains to be tested whether the quality of institutions is a ‘valid’ IV. Data on such slow-moving indicators are not readily available. One way is to use proxy indicators for the same. Daniel et  al. (2022) used governance indicators as a measure of institutions for analyzing HWT adoption behavior in eight locations across Asia, Africa and South America. As data on local institutions are difficult to come by, they used country governance indicators taken from the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) capturing six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability, (2) political stability and absence of violence/ terrorism, (3) government effectiveness, (4) regulatory quality, (5) rule of law and (6) control of corruption. However, it is known that institutions and governance indicators can vary greatly within a country. At the same time, locallevel data on institutions and governance are difficult to collect and are often not collected. Here, we call for the need to integrate the collection of institutional indicators as part of behavioral studies. Questions on institutional quality as perceived by individual households within a study area (village, towns, districts, etc.) can be added to surveys. These may include the respondents’ perception of institutional performance, their trust in institutions, their knowledge of what the institutions have done in that area and whether the institutions involve relevant stakeholders in planning, executing, monitoring and evaluating the project and so on. Such questions, in cross-sectional surveys, can help better understand the barriers to adoption, the role of institutions and the design of appropriate interventions. The collection of data on IVs at a local scale across surveys also provides a way to cross-compare results. However, to know the impact of any interventions on institutions, slowchanging, long-term longitudinal surveys will be required.

A way forward: Embedding disentangled feedback in agentbased models Developed relationships, using surveys on adoption, psychology and institutions, provide a way forward to develop dynamic models. In general, scenario-based modeling considers the adoption of interventions as exogenous scenarios, considering water and human systems as independent, ignoring the reality that human decisions are influenced by changes in environmental and socioeconomic conditions. The inclusion of results from behavioral theories in system dynamics models has been gaining ground (Pouladi et al., 2019; Ghoreishi et al., 2021; Alam et al., 2022) and provides a means to model coupled human–water systems. By disentangling reverse causality, realistic and dynamic feedback can be embedded in system dynamics and agent-based models (ABMs). ABMs are promising tools in incorporating these relationships to understand and explore the evolution of coupled human–water systems and unraveling and understanding the adoption of interventions and their subsequent impacts. This is because ABMs can explicitly account for farmers’ individual behavior, micro-constraints and interactions with society and the environment. This would consequently facilitate more representative modeling of human– water systems and highlight unintended consequences and inequitable impacts. ABMs have been widely used to study the evolution of different systems including land use, urban, forests, ecosystems, epidemiology, social-ecological and agricultural systems (Page et  al., 2013). ABMs have investigated the adoption of water conservation behavior and technologies (Pouladi et  al., 2019; Rasoulkhani et al., 2018), irrigation efficiency measures (Ghoreishi et al., 2021), clean technology (Pakravan and MacCarty, 2020) and investment decisions (Schreinemachers et al., 2009; Marvuglia et al., 2022) by farmers. Alam et  al. (2022) reviewed the application of ABMs to water interventions, which showed that while ABMs have been extensively used, gaps remain. One key limitation has been the simplistic simulation of farmers’ behavior with over-reliance on rational choice theory or simple heuristics. They suggest that behavioral theories should be grounded in social science and use rich empirical data collected from the field to formalize them.

mohammad faiz alam, dani daniel, soham adla and saket pande

unravelling the unintended consequences of water interventions  303 We believe that adding reverse causality in these socially grounded behavioral theories can further strengthen the ABMs and make them more useful to unravel future unintended consequences of water interventions. For example, the adoption of drip irrigation technology (or any other practice/technology) by farmers is usually modeled as a function of one or a combination of factors such as farmers’ socioeconomic factors, social interaction and perception of technology. This can be strengthened by including IVs on local institutions. This will account for how farmers’ social interactions and perceptions are themselves modulated by the existing institutions and the farmers’ perception of them (e.g. concern about water use, trust in institutions and their advice, corruption) in the area. Mohammad Faiz Alam, Dani Daniel, Soham Adla and Saket Pande

References Akerlof, G. A., Kranton, R. E., 2000. Economics and Identity*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753. https://doi​.org​/10​.1162​/003355300554881 Alam, M. F., McClain, M., Sikka, A., Pande, S., 2022. Understanding human-water feedbacks of interventions in agricultural systems with agent based models: A review. Environmental Research Letters. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1088​/1748​-9326​/ac91e1 Bascle, G., 2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3), 285–327. Bouma, J. A., Biggs, T. W., Bouwer, L. M., 2011. The downstream externalities of harvesting rainwater in semi-arid watersheds: An Indian case study. Agricultural Water Management, 98, 1162–70. Calder, I., Gosain, A., Rao, M. S. R. M., Batchelor, C., Snehalatha, M., Bishop, E., 2008. Watershed development in India. 1. Biophysical and societal impacts. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10, 537–557. Crampton, A., Ragusa, A. T., 2016. Exploring perceptions and behaviors about drinking water in Australia and New Zealand: Is it risky to drink water, when and why? Hydrology, 3(1), 8. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/ hydrology3010008 Daniel, D., Diener, A., Pande, S., Jansen, S., Marks, S., Meierhofer, R., Bhatta, M.,

Rietveld, L., 2019. Understanding the effect of socio-economic characteristics and psychosocial factors on household water treatment practices in rural Nepal using Bayesian Belief Networks. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 222, 847–55. Daniel, D., Pande, S., Rietveld, L., 2021. Socioeconomic and psychological determinants for household water treatment practices in indigenous–rural Indonesia. Frontiers in Water, 3, 649445. Daniel, D., Pande, S., Rietveld, L., 2022. Endogeneity in water use behaviour across case studies of household water treatment adoption in developing countries. World Development Perspectives, 25, 100385. Doria, M. de F., 2010. Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality. Water Policy, 12(SUPPL. 1), 1–7. https:// doi​.org​/10​.2166​/wp​.2009​.051 Ghoreishi, M., Sheikholeslami, R., Elshorbagy, A., Razavi, S., Belcher, K., 2021. Peering into agricultural rebound phenomenon using a global sensitivity analysis approach. Journal of Hydrology, 602, 126739. Greif, A., 2006. Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, 1–505. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1017​/CBO9780511791307 Heckman, J. J., 1978. Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica, 46, 931–959. Jain, M., Lim, Y., Arce-Nazario, J. A., Uriarte, M., 2014. Perceptional and sociodemographic factors associated with household drinking water management strategies in rural Puerto Rico. PLoS ONE, 9(2). https://doi​.org​/10​.1371​/journal. pone.0088059 Kaufmann, P., Stagl, S., Franks, D. W., 2009. Simulating the diffusion of organic farming practices in two New EU Member States. Ecological Economics, 68, 2580–2593. Marvuglia, A., Bayram, A., Baustert, P., Gutiérrez, T. N., Igos, E., 2022. Agentbased modelling to simulate farmers’ sustainable decisions: Farmers’ interaction and resulting green consciousness evolution Journal of Cleaner Production, 332, 129847. Mehta, P. D., 2001. Control variable in research. In: Smelser, N. J., Baltes, P. B.

mohammad faiz alam, dani daniel, soham adla and saket pande

304  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 2727–2730. Mosler, H.-J., 2012. A systematic approach to behavior change interventions for the water and sanitation sector in developing countries: A conceptual model, a review, and a guideline. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 22, 431–449. Narayanamoorthy, A., 2015. Groundwater depletion and water extraction cost: Some evidence from South India. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 31, 604–617. Page, C. L. et al., 2013. Agent-based modelling and simulation applied to environmental management. In: Edmonds, B., Meyer, R. (eds) Simulating Social Complexity. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​ /978​-3​-540​-93813​-2​_19 Pakravan, M. H., MacCarty, N., 2020. What motivates behavior change? Analyzing user intentions to adopt clean technologies in low-resource settings using the theory of planned behavior. Energies, 13, 3021. Perry, C., Steduto, P., Karajeh, F., 2017. Does Improved Irrigation Technology Save Water? A Review of the Evidence. Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Cairo, 42. Pouladi, P., Afshar, A., Afshar, M. H., Molajou, A., Farahmand, H., 2019. Agentbased socio-hydrological modeling for restoration of Urmia Lake: Application of theory of planned behavior. Journal of Hydrology, 576, 736–748. Rasoulkhani, K., Logasa, B., Presa Reyes, M., Mostafavi, A., 2018. Understanding fundamental phenomena affecting the water conservation technology adoption of residential consumers using agent-based modeling. Water, 10, 993. Schreinemachers, P., Berger, T., Sirijinda, A., Praneetvatakul, S., 2009. The diffusion of greenhouse agriculture in Northern Thailand: Combining econometrics and agent-based modeling. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, 513–536. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1744​-7976​.2009​ .01168.x Sivapalan, M., Savenije, H. H. G., Blöschl, G., 2012. Socio-hydrology: A new science of people and water. Hydrological Processes, 26, 1270–1276. Tabellini, G., 2010. Culture and institutions: Economic development in the regions of Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(4), 677–716.

mohammad faiz alam, dani daniel, soham adla and saket pande

69.  Valuing European Biodiversity Ecosystems1 Introduction Natural capital refers to the world’s stocks of natural assets such as forests, fisheries, rivers, biodiversity, land and minerals. Biodiversity can be defined as the variability among living organisms from all ecosystems of which they are part, covering richness, rarity and uniqueness. This definition captures both the living and non-living aspects of ecosystems and implies that the elements of nature have value to society (HM Treasury, 2020). Numerous studies have extensively demonstrated the emergency deriving from the loss of biodiversity that we are experiencing. However, less evidence has been provided on the changes we need at a political, financial and economic level to slow down and reverse this path (Dasgupta, 2021).

humans depend on for their present and future prosperity (TEEB, 2010). Ecosystem services are final products or results that directly and indirectly affect human well-being, and these factors can work well with an economic strategy. The main reason for valuing ecosystem services is that they help people make informed decisions. They ensure that policy decisions consider the costs and benefits of the natural environment and the implications for human well-being while giving policymakers new ideas. Indeed, the term ‘ecosystem services’ indicates the link between natural capital and the economy, which corresponds to the utility that people derive from exploiting ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005)2 has recognized four categories of ecosystem services: ●

●

Provisioning services: Products obtained from ecosystems, for example, water, food and fiber. Regulating services: Benefits guaranteed by the regulation of ecosystem processes, for example, climate regulation, water regulation and pollination. Cultural services: Non-material benefits derived from ecosystems, for example, recreation, aesthetic, spiritual and religious, cultural heritage. Supporting services: Services needed to produce all other ecosystem services, for example, nutrient cycling, soil formation, primary production.

Natural capital and human society Over time, natural capital stocks provide flows of environmental or ‘ecosystem’ services. These services, which are frequently combined with other types of capital (human, produced and social), generate various benefits. A resource’s use value might be either a market value, such as minerals, wood, water and other goods, or a non-market value, such as outdoor recreation, landscape amenity and many others. Non-use values, such as the importance that people attach to specific habitats or species, are also included. Environmental economists consider nature as a resource from which humans may benefit. The quality, quantity and location of natural resources greatly influence their potential to produce commodities and services – background forces, management policies and demand factors all impact these characteristics (Pastor et al., 2022).

So far, only a tiny fraction of products offered by nature are considered in current metrics that measure economic progress (gross domestic product [GDP]) and human well-being (Human Development Index) (Dasgupta, 2021). Moreover, other benefits, such as pollination, regulation and nature’s ability to mitigate disasters, have failed to be captured. This inability to account for the total economic values (TEVs) of ecosystems and biodiversity, jointly with the intense pace of economic activity, has significantly influenced their degradation.

Ecosystem services The productivity of natural capital derives from its quality and quantity, in other words, its biodiversity. Therefore, maintaining the stock of this capital constant allows the provision of flows of ecosystem services that

Valuing ecosystem services Putting a value on ecosystem services is the last step in a long and often detailed study of how a policy change will affect them. Based on the type of ecosystem service and the amount and quality of data that can be

●

●

305

306  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management used to value it, the valuation method will be chosen. Some forms of valuing ecosystem services may be better at capturing the value of specific ecosystem services than others. Because many ecosystem services are not traded in markets, they do not have a price. So, to figure out how much these goods or services are worth, non-market valuation methods are required. A framework for valuing ecosystem services is called total economic value, which considers market and non-market values. TEV includes not only the direct use value of a good or service, but also its indirect use value, option value, existence value and bequest value. By incorporating all these values, TEV provides a more comprehensive understanding of the true value of a good or service to society. TEV represents the total benefit in wellbeing from a policy, which is the sum of the people’s willingness to pay (WTP) and their willingness to accept (WTA) the policy. We are attempting to capture the overall value of a marginal change in the underlying ecosystem services (DEFRA, 2007).

Data and methodology For the economic valuation, a meta-regression analysis has been conducted using the publicly accessible database the Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI). Primary literature related to ecosystem services valuation from 2012 to 2022 has been selected. Studies have been determined according to the ecosystem typology, the ecosystem services valued and the geographical area in which the study was conducted. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) typology for ecosystem classification (European ecosystem assessment – concept, data and implementation, EEA Technical Report, no. 6/2015) has been followed to identify the typology of ecosystems. This includes three main groups: (1) terrestrial ecosystems: urban, cropland, grassland, forest, heathland and shrub, sparse vegetated land and inland wetlands; (2) marine ecosystems: marine inlets and transitional water, coastal, shelf and open oceans; and (3) freshwater ecosystems: rivers and lakes. On the other hand, ecosystem services have been distinguished between provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services

in compliance with the aforementioned MA classification. Finally, since ecosystem typologies vary across regions, the geographical area of the study has been defined according to the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and for the EMERALD Network set up under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). This last distinguishes nine European Union (EU) biogeographical regions: Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal, Continental, Macaronesian, Mediterranean, Pannonian and Steppic; and five EU marine regions: Marine Atlantic, Marine Baltic, Marine Black Sea, Marine Macaronesian and Marine Mediterranean. Meta-regression analysis function transfer To summarize and synthesize the empirical findings of various studies in our research, we rely on the meta-regression analysis function transfer using the summary statistics provided. Our purpose is to statistically explain the variation found in the studies under consideration due to identifiable characteristics among the studies such as the valuation method, geographic location, study-specific factors, survey mode and other relevant determinants and demographic elements. The meta-analysis model is presented as

Yi = g + b¢Xi + ei (69.1)

where i corresponds to each observation gathered from the studies under consideration; Y is the dependent variable in our case, WTP; γ is the intercept and β are the parameters to be estimated as slopes of the specifications; X is the matrix of the explanatory variables; and ε is the error term with the usual properties. Specifically, WTP refers to the annual mean WTP (in euros) for ecosystem services. Various explanatory variables were considered to explain the variation mentioned above: the type of the ecosystem, the underlying ecosystem services, the survey design, the valuation method, the biogeographical region, the country and the value elicitation methodology among others. As socioeconomic variables, we have considered the following: age, income, gender and education. The final dataset consists of 212  papers collected from EVRI, where 165 were used for estimation.3

phoebe koundouri, conrad landis and angelos plataniotis

valuing european biodiversity ecosystems  307

Empirical results and conclusions Willingness to pay by ecosystem type and by country Table  69.1 provides the descriptive statistics of all the variables used in the analysis. Next, we performed various stepwise specifications of the variables considered slightly elastic in the individual statistical significance of the explanatory variables (using Newey– West heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation robust standard errors). Apart from the standard levels (of α = 0.01, α = 0.05 and α = 0.1), we have considered (in such analysis) P-values

less than 0.25. BIC criterion was used for the model selection. The 1 percent extreme WTP observations were excluded from the analysis. Table 69.2 provides the meta-regression estimates and benefit transfer functions for all the models we considered; that is, a model including all ecosystems and its breakdown into terrestrial and marine and freshwater.4 P-values for the Newey–West HAC standard errors are reported in brackets. Figures  69.1 and 69.2 present the annual marginal WTP (MWTP) per household, disaggregated by ecosystem service and

Table 69.1   Descriptive statistics of the proposed variables Variable

Mean

SE mean

StDev

Minimum

Q1

Median

Q3

Maximum 1404.6

WTP

76.8

12.9

165.7

0.0

93000.0

23.4

64.4

ES terrestrial

0.521

0.039

0.501

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

ES marine

0.394

0.038

0.490

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

ES freshwater

0.085

0.022

0.280

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000 1.000

Cultural

0.588

0.038

0.494

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

Provisioning

0.267

0.035

0.444

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

Supporting

0.436

0.039

0.497

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

Regulating

0.327

0.037

0.471

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

SD interview

0.665

0.037

0.474

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

1.000 1.000

SD questionnaire online

0.329

0.037

0.471

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

SD secondary data

0.050

0.017

0.218

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

CE

0.461

0.039

0.500

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

CVM

0.400

0.038

0.491

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

Revealed

0.139

0.027

0.347

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Alpine

0.133

0.027

0.341

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Atlantic

0.236

0.033

0.426

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Boreal

0.139

0.027

0.347

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Continental

0.212

0.032

0.410

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Macaronesian

0.006

0.006

0.078

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Mediterranean

0.279

0.035

0.450

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

1.000

Steppic

0.006

0.006

0.078

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Marine Atlantic

0.176

0.030

0.382

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Marine Black Sea

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Marine Baltic

0.042

0.016

0.202

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.000

Age

44.221

0.624

6.301

28.620

40.088

43.000

49.350

58.000

Income

27 969

1 210

15 160

2 398

18 267

24 512

35 371

104 030

Gender

0.489

0.009

0.087

0.170

0.463

0.510

0.540

0.640

Education

0.554

0.178

2113.000

0.104

0.265

0.360

0.460

25.400

Source:   Authors’ own work.

phoebe koundouri, conrad landis and angelos plataniotis

308  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Table 69.2   Meta regression estimates All

Terrestrial

ecosystems

Marine and freshwater

148.94

105.93

43 01

[0 020]

[0 041]

[0 279]

–86.23

–21.91

–64.32

[0 084]

[0 487]

[0 091]

–82 96

19 39

–102.34

[0 286]

[0 748]

[0 040]

–48 36

–7 07

–41 29

[0 162]

[0 817]

[0 269]

–91.73

–54.37

–37 36

[0057]

[0 069]

[0 344]

–74.40

–62.46

–11 95

[0 106]

[0059]

[0 779]

59.32

25 77

33 55

[0075]

[0 292]

[0 259]

53.19

1298

40.21

[0 224]

[0 541]

[0214]

42.70

1346

2924

[0 117]

[0 599]

[0312]

–42 09

–50.20

8 11

[0 351]

[0 118]

[0 803]

3.77

1.14

2.64

[0007]

[0 127]

[0 023]

–5.20

–0 60

–4 60

[0 187]

[0 853]

[0 387]

–79.15

–0 52

–78.63

[0 157]

[0 983]

[0 126]

–6007

10 78

–70.84

[02971

[07041

[0 1611

R-squared

0 32

0 27

0.18

Adjusted R-squared

0 20

0.15

0 04

F-statistic

87.90

75.71

1.96

[0 000]

[0 000]

[0 0229]

80.53

38.42

42.10

Alpine

Atlantic

Boreal

Continental

Mediterranean

Marine Atlantic

Provisioning

Regulating

Supporting

SD questionnaire

Age

Education

Choice experiment

Contingent valuation

MWTP

Source:   Authors’ own work.

biogeographical region for all three ecosystem specifications (total, terrestrial and marine and freshwater), respectively. Figure 69.3 presents the marginal WTP at the national level disaggregated in ecosystems

(terrestrial and marine and freshwater). For the socioeconomic variables of the benefit transfer function (age and education), data for the year 2020 for all countries were collected from Statista (median age of the world population 2020) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); share of people with tertiary education in OECD countries 2020). The classification of countries into biogeographical regions follows the definitions of the European Environmental Agency. For all countries that mainly refer to a region not included in our model,5 we normalized all the relevant dummy variables to add to 1. A quick conclusion that can be drawn from observing Figure 69.1 is that in almost 63  percent of European countries (17 out of 27), the WTP for improvements to the marine and freshwater ecosystems exceeds that of the terrestrial ecosystems. The reason why this is happening needs further investigation, which is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, one possible explanation may be that the citizens of these countries recognize that marine and aquatic ecosystems are at greater risk of collapse than terrestrial ecosystems, so they are willing to spend part of their income on the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. Another possible explanation is that the citizens of these countries are dependent on the marine or aquatic ecosystem, for example, due to fishery production and tourism, to a greater extent than terrestrial, and are willing to bear the cost of maintaining these ecosystems in good condition. Valuing ecosystem services and sustainable development Finding a balance between socioeconomic development and ecosystem services is a crucial challenge for sustainable development (McCartney et al., 2014; Alamanos and Koundouri, 2022). In this subsection, we examine the correlation between WTP and the level of achievement of 17  sustainable development goals (SDGs) overall, for the 27 countries of the EU. To calculate the correlation, we used the scores per SDG of each country from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN) Sustainable Development Report Europe 2021,6 and the MWTP per country calculated above. Figure  69.4 presents the cross-sectional correlation coefficients between national

phoebe koundouri, conrad landis and angelos plataniotis

valuing european biodiversity ecosystems  309

Figure 69.1  Annual marginal WTP by ecosystem service

Figure 69.2  Annual marginal WTP by biogeographical region

MWTP estimates and SDG Index scores and the scores for all of the 17 underlying goals for all ecosystems and the three ecosystem services categories, respectively. Data for the SDG scores were obtained from the SDSN. The results indicate that marine and freshwater ecosystems mainly relate to SDGs  2, 12 and 13, while terrestrial ecosystems relate to SDGs 2, 14 and 15.

Conclusion This study refers to the valuation of European ecosystems and ecosystem services, classified under three broad ecosystem categories,

that is, terrestrial, marine and freshwater, as well as three types of ecosystem services, that is, regulating, supporting and provisioning, respectively. The results reveal high WTP for all European regions and countries for terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystem services where countries classified as Alpine favor terrestrial ecosystem services, while Mediterranean and Atlantic countries tend to have higher WTP for marine and freshwater ecosystems. Moreover, by exploring the relationship between WTP estimates and national SDG scores, the marine and freshwater ecosystems are mainly related to SDGs  12 and

phoebe koundouri, conrad landis and angelos plataniotis

310  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management 0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Germany Denmark Spain Estonia Finland France Greece Croatia Hungary Ireland Italy Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia Sweden All Ecosystems

Terestrial

Marine & Fresh Water

All Ecosystems

Terestrial

SDG 17

SDG 16

SDG 15

SDG 14

SDG 13

SDG 12

SDG 11

SDG 10

SDG 9

SDG 8

SDG 7

SDG 6

SDG 5

SDG 4

SDG 3

SDG 2

SDG 1

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 –0.10 –0.20 –0.30 –0.40 –0.50

SDG Index Score

Figure 69.3   Marginal WTP by ecosystem and country

Marine & Fresh Water

Figure 69.4   Cross-sectional correlation of UNSDSN index scores and ecosystem MWTP, by SDG

phoebe koundouri, conrad landis and angelos plataniotis

valuing european biodiversity ecosystems  311 13, which can be interpreted as the need for a transformation is higher relative to the rest of the SDGs. Phoebe Koundouri, Conrad Landis and Angelos Plataniotis

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

This chapter is based on the second report of the SDSN senior working group (SWG) on the joint implementation of Agenda 2030 for sustainable development and the European Green Deal, titled: Financing the Joint Implementation of the SDGs and the European Green Deal (Sachs et al., 2022). Co-authors: Professor Phoebe Koundouri (lead author), Angelos Plataniotis, Charis Stavridis, Christian Hansmeyer, Conrad Landis, Daniel Wetzel, Elisa Chioatto, Filippo Tessari, Georgios Halkos, Ilenia Gaia Romani, Ketan Patel, Leonardo Becchetti, Mauro Cordella, Nicolaos Theodossiou, Piergiuseppe Morone, Riccardo Christopher Spani, Stathis Devves and Theodoros Zachariadis. The report is available at: https://resources​.unsdsn​ .org​/financing​-the​-joint​-implementation​-of​-agenda​ -2030 ​-and​-the​-european​-green​-deal. The Millennium Ecological Assessment (MEA) was a four-year multinational work program aiming to provide decision-makers with scientific knowledge on the relationships between ecosystem changes and human well-being. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment looked at the effects of ecosystem changes on human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, more than 1360 experts from around the world worked on the MA. Scientifically, their findings show how ecosystems and the services they provide are in a state of flux around the world. They also show how to protect and use them in a way that is healthy for the planet and for people. In total, 47 studies have been omitted. In general, these studies present net present values, total economic values and monetary values that are hardly compatible with the type of values expressed in the studies under review. In addition, a small number of cases were omitted because the values were too high and thus represented outliers in the database. The freshwater ecosystem was only covered by 14 studies in our sample, so it was grouped with the marine ecosystem. For example, for Hungary which is classified as Pannonian, we set all the biogeographical dummy variables included in our model equal to 0.2. https://eu​-dashboards​.sdgindex​.org​/profiles.

References Alamanos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2022). Emerging challenges and the future of water resources management. Hydrolink, Citizen Science (2022–4). https://www​.iahr​ .org​/library​/infor​?pid​=22131 Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. Abridged Version. London: HM Treasury.

DEFRA (2007). An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. https:// e c​.eu r op a ​.eu ​/e nv i r on m e nt ​/n a t u r e ​/ biodiversity​ / economics ​ / pdf ​ / valuing ​ _ ecosystems​.pdf HM Treasury (2020), Final Report of the 2020 Green Book Review, 25 November 2020. ISBN 978-1-5286-2229-5, PU3051. MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press. MAES (2015), Typology for Ecosystem Classification (European Ecosystem Assessment-concept, Data and Implementation, EEA Technical Report, No 6/2015). McCartney, M., Finlayson, M., de Silva, S., Amerasinghe, P., & Smakhtin, V. (2014). Sustainable Development and Ecosystem Services (No. 612-2016-40661). Pastor, A. V., Tzoraki, O., Bruno, D., Kaletová, T., Mendoza-Lera, C., Alamanos, A., Brummer, M., Datry, T., De Girolamo, A. M., Jakubínský, J., Logar, I., Loures, L., Ilhéu, M., Koundouri, P., Nunes, J. P., Quintas-Soriano, C., Sykes, T., Truchy, A., Tsani, S., & Jorda-Capdevila, D. (2022). Rethinking ecosystem service indicators for their application to intermittent rivers. Ecological Indicators, 137, 108693. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ecolind​.2022​.108693 Sachs, J., Koundouri, P. Becchetti, L., Brunnhuber, S., Chioatto, E., Cordella, M., Devves, S., Halkos, G., Hansmeyer, C., Landis, C. Morone, P., Patel, K., Plataniotis, A., Romani, I., Spani, R., Stavridis, C., Tessari, F., Theodossiou, N., Wetzel, D., & Zachariadis, T. (2022). Financing the Joint Implementation of Agenda 2030 and the European Green Deal. Report of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://resources​.unsdsn​.org​/ financing​ - the​ -joint​ - implementation​ - of​ -agenda​ -2030​ - and​ - the​ - european​ - green​ -deal TEEB (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. www​.dieakti​ visten​.de

phoebe koundouri, conrad landis and angelos plataniotis

70. Water and Cities: Natural Solutions to the Urban Challenges In the late twenty-first century, our planet will be facing compelling climate circumstances requiring tradeoffs to maintain viable environmental conditions and standards of living (Kalantari, 2021). Wetlands (areas flooded with water, either seasonally or permanently) are among the most diverse and productive ecosystems, providing a wide variety of services and thus have great potential for use as nature-based solutions (NBS) to address several environmental, social and economic challenges. Common multi-beneficial ecosystem services from wetlands include, for example, water quality protection (e.g. Verhoeven et al., 2006), coastal protection (e.g. Temmerman et al., 2013), groundwater level and soil moisture regulation (e.g. Xiong et al., 2003; Hefting et al., 2004), carbon sequestration (Page et al., 2021) and biodiversity support (e.g. Gibbs, 2000). Urban wetlands are often described as natural sponges (Figure 70.1) due to their long hydraulic residence time combined with their vegetative features, which play an important role in reducing downstream peak flows, erosion rates and nutrient retention (LePage, 2011; EPA, 2018). As the frequency of natural hazards increases, wetlands can play an important role in flood regulation (e.g. de Groot et al., 2002; Acreman & Holden, 2013; Ferreira et  al., 2020) and flood risk mitigation by strengthening the resilience of the landscape both locally and at larger scales (WWAP, 2018). Wetlands provide a costefficient and sustainable NBS to cope with a range of current and future challenges. However, despite their relevance, wetlands have been degraded and converted into other land uses. Although absolute global wetland losses (both in numbers and area) have slowed considerably in some regions of the world, such as the United States and Europe, in part due to political agreements such as the Ramsar Convention, many regions are still experiencing rapid wetland loss (Davidson, 2014; Mitsch & Gosselink, 2015). Globally, wetland ecosystem services are estimated to contribute more than 20  percent of the total value of ecosystem services (US$26.4 trillion/ yr), exceeding the contributions of terrestrial

forests and coral reefs (Costanza et al., 2014). The Swedish Wetland Survey Report stresses the very large responsibility of Sweden in global wetland area conservation and administration (EPA, 2014). This highlights the need for evaluating and optimizing the planning and management of wetlands to protect their nature conservation value. Urban wetlands are dynamic and morphologically diverse. Because water flow is dictated by local-scale processes, finding the optimal location for constructed wetlands is very challenging as it requires exploring a catchment with high spatial resolution and dealing with space availability constraints in urban landscapes. The urban wetland location and design need to be defined based on the main water source (hydrologically), vegetation cover, topography, morphology, slope of the landscape, soil type and different ecological aspects (Acreman & Holden, 2013). Whether or not wetlands contribute to landscape-scale functions may, to a large degree, depend on natural flowpath conditions across the landscape, the degree of connectivity and the interactions between individual wetlands and surface and groundwater pathways (Thorslund et al., 2017). The concept of landscape connectivity has recently received widespread scientific attention in the field of modeling runoff and soil erosion, which are key elements in flood hazard mitigation. Bracken and Croke (2007) define connectivity as the degree of linkages and internal connections in networks in the field of environmental and earth science. The connectivity of a landscape is based on geomorphological parameters such as hillslope, morphology, soil moisture conditions, runoff pathways and sediment transport (Bätz et al., 2015). Increased understanding has resulted in different methods to assess connectivity at the catchment scale (Kalantari et al., 2021). It is particularly important to consider catchment connectivity in the field of flood risk reduction, where the disconnection of the landscape is a desirable strategy (Ferreira et  al., 2016; Keesstra et  al., 2018). Fryirs et  al. (2007) define the disconnectivity of a catchment as the features and processes that decrease water and sediment transport within that catchment. Keesstra et al. (2018) suggest that NBS can be used to disconnect fluxes of water and sediment in the landscape. For the successful implementation of urban landscape solutions as disconnecting features (e.g. wetlands, ponds and grassed waterways), it is important to

312

water and cities  313

Source:   Author’s own.

Figure 70.1   Urban wetland in Marivan, Iran

analyze the catchment using a holistic system approach. Other factors that affect landscape disconnectivity are topographical properties such as slope and drainage area where a more complex morphology increases disconnectivity. The appropriate placement and design (i.e. type and sizing) of disconnecting features are crucial in reducing flood risk (Masselink et al., 2017). The urban wetland location and size are two important factors to consider in exploiting the full potential of wetlands in terms of flood risk mitigation (Kalantari et al., 2021). Due to climate change and general land and water use changes, a large-scale response is needed (Thorslund et al., 2017; Czuba et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2018). By using a largescale approach, hydrological and sediment conditions, linkages and changes in the catchment can be identified such that wetlands can be designed and located appropriately. ‘Wetlands would represent an application of the concept of connectivity in urban catchments, allowing for improving water management and enhance urban resilience to climate change and increasing urbanization rates’. Zahra Kalantari, Carla Sofia Ferreira and Omid Rahmati

References Acreman, M., & Holden, J. (2013). How wetlands affect floods. Wetlands, 33(5), 773–786. Bätz, N., Verrecchia, E.P., & Lane, S.N. (2015). The role of soil in vegetated gravelly river braid plains: More than just a passive response? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 40(2), 143–156.

Bracken, L.J., & Croke, J. (2007). The concept of hydrological connectivity and its contribution to understanding runoff‐dominated geomorphic systems. Hydrological Processes, 21(13), 1749–1763. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski,I., Farber, S., & Turner, R.K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystemservices. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158. Czuba, J.A., Hansen, A.T., Foufoula‐Georgiou, E., & Finlay, J.C. (2018). Contextualizing Wetlands within a river network to assess nitrate removal and inform watershed management. Water Resources Research, 54(2), 1312–1337. Davidson, N.C. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65, 934–941. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., & Boumans, R.M.J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2018). Why are wetlands important? Available at: https://www​ .epa​ . gov​ / wetlands​ / why​ - are​ - wetlands​ -important. [Accessed 7 June 2018]. Ferreira, C.S.S., Mourato, S., Ksanin-Grubin, M., Ferreira, A.J.D., Destouni, G., & Kalantari, Z. (2020). Effectiveness of nature-based solutions in mitigating flood hazard in a Mediterranean peri-urban catchment. Water, 12, 2893. Ferreira, C.S.S., Walsh, R.P.D., Costa, M.L., Coelho, C.O.A., & Ferreira, A.J.D.

zahra kalantari, carla sofia ferreira and omid rahmati

314  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management (2016). Dynamics of surface water quality driven by distinct urbanization patterns and storms in a Portuguese peri-urban catchment. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 16, 2606–2621. Fryirs, K., Brierley, G.J., Preston, N.J., & Kasai, M. (2007). Buffers, barriers and blankets: The (dis)connectivity of catchment-scale sediment cascades. Catena, 70, 49–67. Gibbs, J.P. (2000). Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 14, 314–317. Hansen, A.T., Dolph, C.L., FoufoulaGeorgiou, E., & Finlay, J.C. (2018). Contribution of wetlands to nitrate removal at the watershed scale. Nature Geoscience, 11(2), 127. Hefting, M., Clément, J.C., Dowrick, D., Cosandey, A.C., Bernal, S., Cimpian, C., Tatur, A., Burt, T.P., & Pinay, G. (2004). Water table elevation controls on soil nitrogencycling in riparian wetlands along a European climatic gradient. Biogeochemistry, 67, 113–134. Kalantari, Z. (2021). Enlivening our cities: Towards urban sustainability and resilience. Ambio, 2021. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/s13280​-021​-01518-w Kalantari, Z., Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., von Platen, H.N., Gustafsson, M., Rahmati, O., & Ferreira, C.S.S. (2021). Using landscape connectivity to identify suitable locations for nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk. In The handbook of environmental chemistry. Springer. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​ /698​_2021​_771 Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., & Cerdà, A. (2018). The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment, 610, 997–1009. LePage, B.A. (2011). Wetlands: A multidisciplinary perspective. In Wetlands (pp. 3–25). Springer.

Masselink, R., Temme, A.J.A.M., Giménez, R., Casalí, J., & Keesstra, S.D. (2017). Assessing hillslope-channel connectivity in an agricultural catchment using rare-earth oxide tracers and random forests models. Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica, 43(1), 17–39. Mitsch, W.J., & Gosselink, J.G. (2015). Wetlands (744 pp) 5th edition. John Wiley & Sons, INC. Page, J., Kåresdotter, E., Destouni, G., Pan, H., & Kalantari, Z. (2021). A more complete accounting of greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in urban landscapes. Anthropocene, 34, 100296. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.ancene​.2021​.100296 Temmerman, S., Meire, P., Bouma, T.J., Herman, P.M.J., Ysebaert, T., & De Vriend, H.J. (2013). Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature, 504, 79–83. Thorslund, J., Jarsjo, J., Jaramillo, F., Jawitz, J.W., Manzoni, S., Basu, N.B.,… & Kalantari, Z. et  al. (2017). Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: Status and challenges for research, engineering and management. Ecological Engineering, 108, 489–497. Verhoeven, J.T.A., Arheimer, B., Yin, C., & Hefting, M.M. (2006). Regional and globalconcerns over wetlands and water quality. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 96–103. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. (2018). The United Nations world water development report 2018: Nature-based solutions for water. UNESCO. Xiong, S., Johansson, M.E., Hughes, F.M.R., Hayes, A., Richards, K.S., & Nilsson, C. (2003). Interactive effects of soil moisture, vegetation canopy, plant litter and seed addition on plant diversity in a wetland community. Journal of Ecology, 91, 976–986.

zahra kalantari, carla sofia ferreira and omid rahmati

71. Water and the Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was introduced in 2000 with the aim to ensure the full integration of the economic and ecological perspectives on water quality and quantity management in the European Union (EU) member states (MS). By 2027, good status for surface waters (e.g. rivers, lakes, coastal waters) and groundwaters should have been achieved. Nevertheless, the WFD allowed extensions limited to at most two further cycles, unless natural conditions prevent achieving the WFD objectives within the time limits (Art.  4 and Preamble of the WFD). Achieving ‘good status’ means securing good ecological and chemical status for surface waters and good quantitative and chemical status for groundwaters, the main sources for the abstraction of drinking water. The use of economic tools and instruments is a key feature of the WFD to support the transition and guarantee the achievement of high environmental standards in European water bodies (Kallis and Butler, 2001). The practical dimension of the WFD has been characterized by multiple conflicts over interpretation, ultimately leading to disappointing outcomes, both in terms of the achievement of ‘good status’ of water bodies and the development of effective water policy instruments (Berbel and Expósito, 2018; Dufour and Piegay, 2009; Joseffson, 2012). The cost recovery principle (Art.  9) can serve as a perfect example. It is probably one of the most quoted normative sections of the directive and the political and economic foundations of this principle deserve special attention. Art. 9 requires MS to consider the principle of cost recovery of water services, including capital and investment and the costs of operating and maintaining water infrastructures and services which are commonly denoted as financial costs. Art. 9 also relates the polluter pays principle (PPP) to the principle of cost recovery in the sense that it requires an ‘adequate contribution’ by alternative water users toward the full recovery of the costs, including environmental and resource costs (ERCs). Environmental costs usually refer to the costs of environmental damage caused by water users (and beneficiaries), while resource costs represent opportunity

costs due to resource depletion. The term ‘polluter pays’ should thus be broadly interpreted to include the negative externalities of any water use on the environment and the sustainability of both the quantity and quality of the water resource. The European Commission (EC) and many other stakeholders nevertheless advocate for the strict application of Art. 9, which involves the implementation of pricing instruments for full cost recovery in all its dimensions, financial costs and ERCs, although no practical implementation methodology is available after more than 20 years of WFD implementation. Additionally, positive externalities such as ecosystem services provided by land use should be considered and promoted through, for example, a system of payment for ecosystem services (PES), thereby adopting a more systematic approach. Interpretation conflicts have taken this principle to the European Court of Justice, which has ruled that MS may decide which type and design of economic instruments are to be implemented to recover costs for water services, if the WFD objectives are met; these may include new taxation instruments and public tariffs (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014). Although the WFD has been a great boost for the use of economic concepts and instruments, and water practitioners and academia have made significant efforts to implement and test them, the status of the implementation of key economic instruments is still insufficient (Berbel and Expósito, 2018), thus requiring further development and political commitment (Table 71.1). In this respect, future reforms of the WFD should focus on closing the gaps. A recent review of the water management instruments introduced by the WFD shows that the following issues require further attention (Berbel and Expósito, 2018): 1. Need to harmonize definitions and analytical methods with special emphasis on ● Financial cost recovery (EEA, 2013; Gawel, 2014; Strosser and de Paoli, 2013). It should be noted that the lack of a harmonized definition reached the Court of Justice of the European Union. ● ERCs (Gawel, 2014; Mouratiadou et  al., 2010) and the value of water (EC, 2015; Moran and Dann, 2008).

315

316  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Table 71.1   Summary of economic analytical tools and management instruments for european water policy Issue

Current status

Economic analysis of water uses

Non-harmonized method

Scenarios, uncertainty

Non-harmonized method

Water pricing, environmental taxation

Discussion on effectiveness

Full cost recovery (including E&R cost)

Non-harmonized method

Water accounting

To be developed

Water policy finances

To be developed

Wider economic impacts

To be included formally

Disproportionality of costs

Scarce application

CEA (cost-effectiveness analysis)

Scarce application

CBA (cost–benefit analysis) of measures

Scarce application

Public participation

Harmonization

Ecosystem services, nature-based solutions

Scarce application

Governance, common resources management

Not expressly included

Water markets

Scarce application

Climate change adaptation and mitigation

To be included formally

Water–energy–food nexus, circular economy

To be included formally

Source:  Berbel and Expósito (2018).

Exemptions from WFD ecological objectives, including improved applications of cost–benefit analysis that incorporate equity and affordability considerations, wider benefits (not strictly limited to water), local stakeholder input and uncertainty about the effectiveness of measures in the face of changing conditions in the future (Klauer et  al., 2016; Martin-Ortega, 2012; Wilby et al., 2006). 2. Need to reach a consensus on water management and policy issues: ● Water pricing effectiveness. ● Water policy financing, especially when direct beneficiaries cannot be identified (e.g. public services such as flood control). ● Integration of water accounting following the UN (2012) and the European Commission (2015). ● Assessment of wider impacts of water policy, such as social equality, employment and economic growth, and its integration in WFD reports. ● Development of instruments to manage climate change impacts (e.g. drought and flood events). ●

alfonso expósito and julio berbel

●

Definition of public participation processes (Art.  14) and identification of best practices for the involvement of stakeholders and public communication.

MS such as Spain, Italy, Netherlands and the United Kingdom have aimed to test and implement some economic instruments in water management, such as water markets, PES and water pricing. On the other hand, economic instruments such as cost-effectiveness (Art.  11) and an analysis of disproportionate costs (Art. 4) require more analysis to develop effective applications. More recent available reports on the status of water in the EU can be found in the Second River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and the First Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) (EC, 2019a) as required by WFD Art. 18, FD Art. 16 and Art. 11 of the Groundwater Directive, and the additional information found in the ‘State of Water Report’ provides detailed information on the status of Europe’s water bodies (EEA, 2018). The analysis shows that 74  percent of EU groundwater bodies have now achieved good chemical status and 89 percent have achieved

water and the water framework directive  317 good quantitative status. The situation is less encouraging for surface waters: only 38  percent have good chemical status and just 40 percent have good ecological status or potential. In fact, compared to the 2009–15 cycle, only a limited number of water bodies have improved their status. This may be due to the late identification of pressures, the longer time required to design effective policy measures, the slow introduction of measures, the response time of nature before measures take effect, and also heightened quality standards and improved monitoring and reporting that reveal water bodies previously qualified to be of ‘unknown’ status to be ‘less than good’. Although significant efforts have been made to implement the WFD, and the implementation of other closely linked EU directives (such as Urban Waste Water Treatment, Nitrates, and Industrial Emissions Directives and EU law on chemicals) have positively contributed, the European Economic Area (EEA) concludes that European waters remain under significant pressure from both diffuse (e.g. agriculture, transport infrastructure) and point source (e.g. industry or energy production) generated pollution, over-abstraction and hydro-morphological changes stemming from a range of human activities (EEA, 2018). With the aim to improve the good status of those affected water bodies and their management, the EEA recommends that third-cycle RBMPs should (i) improve stakeholder involvement in the planning process of the RMBPs; (ii) identify the gap to good status for individual pressures and water bodies and design, fund and implement targeted programs of measures (PoM) to close it; (iii) reduce reliance on exemptions to ensure the timely achievement of the WFD objectives and improve transparency in relation to the justifications used; and (iv) ensure the proper implementation of Art.  9 on cost recovery, including the calculation and internalization of ERCs for all activities with a significant impact on water bodies and an economic analysis to underpin the PoM (although does not give any example or any proposal of an harmonized practical estimate of the ERC). Finally, it is worth noting that a fitness check of the WFD (and its associated directives) reported in 2019 (EC, 2019b) concluded that overall they are ‘fit for purpose’, with some room for enhanced effectiveness. Additionally, it argues that the fact that the WFD’s objectives have not yet been fully reached is largely due to insufficient funding, slow implementation

and insufficient integration of environmental objectives in sectoral policies, rather than deficiencies in the legislation. Alfonso Expósito and Julio Berbel

References Berbel, J., & Expósito, A. (2018). Economic challenges for the EU Water Framework Directive reform and implementation, European Planning Studies, 26(1), 20–34. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1364353 Dufour, S., & Piegay, H. (2009). From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: Forget natural references and focus on human benefits. River Research and Applications, 25(5), 568–581. doi: 10.1002/rra.1239 EC (2015). Guidance Document on the Application of Water Balances for Supporting the Implementation of the WFD. Brussels: European Commission. EC (2019a). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), Second River Basin Management Plans, First Flood Risk Management Plans. Brussels: European Commission. Accessed at: https://ec​.europa​.eu​/environment​/water​/ water​-framework​/impl​_reports​.htm EC (2019b). Fitness check of the water framework directive and the floods directive. SWD (2019) 439 final. Brussels: European Commission. Accessed https://ec​.europa​.eu​/environment ​/ at: water ​ / fitness ​ _ check ​ _ of ​ _ the ​ _ eu ​ _water​ _legislation ​/documents​/ Water​%20Fitness​ %20Check​%20-​%20SWD(2019)439​%20-​ %20web​​.pdf EEA (2013). Assessment of Cost Recovery Through Water Pricing. Technical report No 16/2013. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. EEA (2018). European Waters. Assessment of Status and Pressures. EEA report no 7/2018. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Gawel, E. (2014). Article 9 of the EU water framework directive: Do we really need to calculate environmental and resource costs? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 11(3), 249–271. doi: 10.1163/18760104-01103004 alfonso expósito and julio berbel

318  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Josefsson, H. (2012). Achieving ecological objectives. Laws, 1(1), 39–63. doi: 10.3390/ laws1010039 Kallis, G., & Butler, D. (2001). The EU water framework directive: Measures and implications. Water Policy, 3(3), 125–142. doi: 10.1016/S1366-7017(01)00007-1 Klauer, B., Sigel, K., & Schiller, J. (2016). Disproportionate costs in the EU water framework directive: How to justify less stringent environmental objectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 10– 17. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.017 Martin-Ortega, J. (2012). Economic prescriptions and policy applications in the implementation of the European water framework directive. Environmental Science and Policy, 24, 83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.002 Moran, D., & Dann, S. (2008). The economic value of water use: Implications for implementing the water framework directive in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 87(3), 484– 496. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.043

alfonso expósito and julio berbel

Mouratiadou, I., Russell, G., Topp, C., Louhichi, K., & Moran, D. (2010). Modelling common agricultural policywater framework directive interactions and cost-effectiveness of measures to reduce nitrogen pollution. Water Science and Technology, 61(10), 2689–2697. doi: 10.2166/wst.2010.216 Strosser, P., & de Paoli, G. (2013). Background document for the Workshop “Supporting a better economic analysis for the 2nd RBMP and beyond”, 1–2 October 2013, Brussels. UN (2012). System of EnvironmentalEconomic Accounting for Water. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, New York. ST/ESA/STAT/SER.F/100 United Nations publication. http://unstats​.un​.org​/ unsd​/publication​/seriesf​/Seriesf​_100e​.pdf. Wilby, R. L., Orr, H. G., Hedger, M., Forrow, D., & Blackmore, M. (2006). Risks posed by climate change to the delivery of water framework directive objectives in the UK. Environmental International, 32(8), 1043– 1055. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.017

72. Water Conservation in Agriculture: Economic and Policy Tools

may provide economic incentives for efficient use and increased water conservation.

Water pricing

Introduction Over the last decades, increasing water scarcity due to population growth, economic development and climate change, and the recognition of environmental demands and ecosystem services linked to water have considerably increased the need for the efficient use and conservation of water in agriculture. Globally, agriculture is the main water user, responsible for about 70 percent of total water withdrawals. These figures are even larger in water-scarce regions where irrigation is a key strategy for food production, food security and rural livelihoods, and where agriculture and agricultural policies have, in many cases, been responsible for increased pressures over resources (Dagnino and Ward, 2012). Many countries are already implementing demandoriented water conservation policies targeting the technical and economic efficiency of water use. Current water management policies are in the process of adopting the principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM) which build on the Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development (1992) that recognizes the social and economic value of water. Managing water as an economic good contributes to its efficient allocation and use, providing incentives for water conservation, ensuring cost recovery and financial feasibility and signaling consumers’ willingness to pay for water. A lack of recognition of the full value of water leads to its inefficient use and allocation to low-value activities, disregarding its scarce nature (GWP-TAC, 2002). The sustainable use of water relies on balancing water value and costs, including the cost of investment, operation and maintenance, its opportunity or resource cost and the costs of environmental externalities. While agricultural water demand management policies mainly rely on water quotas or rationing, its combination with economic instruments such as water pricing, water markets subsidies and water-saving technologies

The implementation of water pricing in irrigation agriculture may serve varied purposes including financial sustainability, through the recovery of costs associated with water use and efficient allocation, guiding users’ behavior toward high-value-added activities and, eventually, toward water conservation through reduced water abstraction. Irrigation water pricing mechanisms can be widely categorized under three types: (i) volumetric water tariffs that charge direct water application by farmers and require measuring water use; (ii) non-volumetric tariffs, in which water charges are not directly related to water use, but based on flat rates, area-based rates, crop-wise rates or other; and (iii) market-based pricing that sets the water price according to water demand and supply in a formal or informal market structure. However, water pricing approaches often involve different tradeoffs among objectives and face advantages and shortcomings, some of which are presented below. Most frequently, water prices are settled through administrative procedures. However, administrative water prices in many cases fail to internalize the capital costs of water infrastructures needed for a water supply, and thus full supply cost recovery is uneven across regions. Moreover, in most cases, the environmental and resource costs associated with water use are difficult to determine and not included in the pricing system. With respect to the water conservation goal, water tariffs can induce water savings only when there is a link between the cost of water and the volume applied. However, the prevalence of volumetric water pricing is limited and infrequent in developing countries. The main barriers to its implementation include the difficulties in measuring and controlling farmers’ individual water consumption, especially in the case of groundwater abstractions, due to the high costs of metering systems and users’ reluctance to report actual consumption (Johansson et al., 2002). Moreover, even when volumetric water pricing is effectively applied, the attainment of water conservation goals may be dependent on consumers’ response to the water price, that is, water demand elasticity. When water is allocated to high-value-added

319

320  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management crops and the cost of water represents a small share of the crop net revenue, the effect of increased water prices will be reduced (Iglesias and Blanco, 2008). As reported by Rey et  al. (2019), when farmers’ capacity to pay for water is high, cost-recovery ratios can be high but water prices may have a small impact on water conservation, as shown, for example, by Gutiérrez-Martín et  al. (2014) for the Guadalquivir basin in Spain. In any case, signaling water scarcity through water prices incentivizes investment in efficient irrigation systems and promotes the search for alternative non-conventional water resources, such as reclaimed water reuse and desalination. Tradeoffs between goals call for a mix of economic instruments and other policy tools. The economic impact of water pricing, which in some cases may be disproportionate, and irrigators reluctance to accept the implementation of such policies may require other measures that contribute to balancing economic and environmental goals such as subsidizing water conservation technology or exploring the role of water markets. In this regard, several studies suggest that policies promoting irrigation modernization, when jointly applied with a volumetric pricing scheme, can mitigate the negative impacts of increased water costs and contribute to users’ increased acceptance of water pricing (Esteve et al., 2015, 2018).

Water markets Water markets have progressed as a tool to confront increased competition for water resources and greater water scarcity, facilitating the reallocation of water among users and improving water use efficiency. Both formal and informal water trading can be found across the world. Yet, the expansion of water markets has faced criticism due to possible social, economic and environmental impacts. Formal water markets started developing in Australia in the 1980s, and are considered the largest and most active, USA Western States and Chile. In 1999, water markets were also introduced into Spanish law. Initially, farmers were reluctant to enter the market, but evidence from Australia and the United States shows that opposition may be declining with time, experience (Bjornlund, 2003) and decreasing transaction costs (Wheeler & Garrick, 2020). eva iglesias and paloma esteve

In most regions, temporary water trading has been more widely adopted than permanent transfers of water entitlements (Bjornlund, 2003) which usually face restrictions on the volume traded among uses and entail higher transaction costs (Loch et al., 2017). In addition, temporary water market activity notably increases in times of drought (Seidl et  al., 2020), suggesting that water markets provide users with an important risk management tool to adjust to increased uncertainty and facilitate adaptation to climate change (Crase et al., 2020; Zuo et al., 2015). In recent years, sophisticated water market products have gained in popularity in Australia. In forward contracts, water is traded with a future delivery date at an agreed price while carry-over contracts allow unused water to be ‘carried over’ from one water year to another, providing users with greater interseasonal flexibility and increasing water efficiency (Crase et al., 2020). There has been great concern over potential hoarding and speculation in water markets. While Loch et  al. (2021) found no evidence of hoarding behavior in the Murray–Darling basin, speculation in unused non-consumptive water-use rights in Chile became an important issue. The 2005 Water Reform implemented a non-use fee to address this issue (Hearne & Donoso, 2014). Avoiding third-party effects, including environmental impacts and the potential decline of rural economies, known as areaof-origin effects, is an important issue in the design of water markets (Bourgeon et  al., 2008). In most regions, water transfers out of a basin or to other sectors face restrictions either in volume or price. In US Western States, water transfers are subject to state approval and ‘no injury’ rules to protect third parties which include environmental and area-of-origin impacts (Chong & Sunding, 2006). In this regard, the use of dry-year option contracts has gained attention as a way to transfer agricultural water to municipalities avoiding permanent area-of-origin effects (Hadjigeorgalis, 2009). As awareness of the environmental value of water has increased so has its role in water policy and water markets. Water buybacks for environmental purposes operated by trust funds and administration units have notably increased in recent decades (Crase et al., 2020) and open a promising avenue to integrate environmental concerns.

water conservation in agriculture  321

Incentives to the adoption of water conservation technologies Among other policy tools, many governments have opted for providing payments to reduce water consumption and/or induce the adoption of water-efficient technologies and subsidizing irrigation modernization (e.g. the National Irrigation Plan [2002–2008] in Spain, or the Environmental Quality Incentive Program to induce adoption of water-efficient irrigation technologies in the United States). A number of studies (e.g. Dagnino and Ward, 2012) evidenced that subsidizing technology change and irrigation modernization are unlikely to reduce water depletion unless they are applied together with a redefinition of water rights to ensure that lower crop water use does not result in enlarged irrigated crop areas. Also, often these programs do not consider costeffectiveness criteria in the selection of beneficiaries. The lack of performance indicators prevents the awarding of payments to applications that effectively improve water conservation and the health of ecosystems.

Conclusion Economic instruments for water demand are diverse and, frequently, their implementation needs to be coordinated so that different objectives, such as water saving, efficiency, cost-recovery, irrigation economic profitability and social welfare can be achieved without unacceptable tradeoffs. The paradigm shift from supply-oriented policies to water demand policies, particularly water pricing, has significant potential to improve economic efficiency, facilitate reallocation between uses and increase water conservation. However, there are significant challenges to their implementation. Practical difficulties such as metering, control and monitoring of water abstractions, or the determination of resource and environmental costs, preclude the effective implementation of water pricing schemes and the attainment of such goals. Moreover, the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to major challenges such as climate change or price volatility, and its strategic role in countries’ food security call for the careful implementation of water pricing schemes. Weak institutions and the lack of metering and control of water consumption limit the expansion of water markets. However, the

evolution of existing water markets in recent decades provides evidence of their benefits to rural communities. The market price signals water scarcity and resource cost, creates incentives for water conservation and facilitates flexible reallocation among users, particularly in times of drought. Water management policies based on economic incentives to confront high water resource competition require strengthening institutional capacity and the adoption of an IWRM framework that recognizes the dynamic complexity of water resources and integrates the socioeconomic, hydrological and ecological aspects of water systems within a multidisciplinary approach. Eva Iglesias and Paloma Esteve

References Bjornlund, H. (2003). Farmer participation in markets for temporary and permanent water in southeastern Australia. Agricultural Water Management, 63(1), 57–76. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S0378​-3774(03)00091-X Bourgeon, J.-M., Easter, K. W., & Smith, R. B. W. (2008). Water markets and third-party effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(4), 902–917. Chong, H., & Sunding, D. (2006). Water markets and trading. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 239– 264. https://doi​.org​/10​.1146​/annurev​.energy​ .31​.020105​.100323 Crase, L., Connor, J., Michaels, S., & Cooper, B. (2020). Australian water policy reform: Lessons learned and potential transferability. Climate Policy, 20(5), 641– 651. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/14693062​.2020​ .1752614 Dagnino, M., & Ward, F.A. (2012) Economics of agricultural water conservation: Empirical analysis and policy implications. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 28(4), 577–600. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/07900627​.2012​.665801 Esteve, P., Varela-Ortega, C., BlancoGutiérrez, I., & Downing, T.E. (2015). A hydro-economic model for the assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation in irrigated agriculture. Ecological Economics, 120, 49–58. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.ecolecon​.2015​.09​.017 Esteve, P., Varela-Ortega, C., & Downing, T.E. (2018). A stakeholder-based assessment of barriers to climate change adaptation in eva iglesias and paloma esteve

322  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management a water-scarce basin in Spain. Regional Environmental Change, 18, 2505–2517. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10113​-018​-1366-y Gutiérrez-Martín, C., Blanco, C., Gómez, C., & Berbel, J. (2014). Price volatility and water demand in agriculture: A case study of the Guadalquivir river basin (Spain). In T. Bournaris, J. Berbel, B. Manos, & D. Viaggi (Eds.), Economics of Water Management in Agriculture (pp. 319–348). Boca Raton: CRC Press. GWP-TAC (Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory Committee) (2002). Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC Background Papers No. 4. Global Water Partnership: Stockholm, Sweden. Hadjigeorgalis, E. (2009). A place for water markets: Performance and challenges. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 31(1), 50–67. Hearne, R., & Donoso, G. (2014). Water markets in Chile: Are they meeting needs? In K. W. Easter & Q. Huang (Eds.), Water Markets for the 21st Century: What Have We Learned? (pp. 103–126). Springer https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​ Netherlands. -94​-017​-9081​-9_6 Iglesias, E., & Blanco, M. (2008). New directions in water resources management: The role of water pricing policies. Water Resources Research, 44(6). https://doi​.org​ /10​.1029​/2006WR005708 Johansson, R.C., Tsur, Y., Roe, T.L., Doukkali, R., & Dinar, A. (2002). Pricing irrigation water: A review of theory and practice. Water Policy, 4, 173–199.

eva iglesias and paloma esteve

Loch, A., Auricht, C., Adamson, D., & Mateo, L. (2021). Markets, mis-direction and motives: A factual analysis of hoarding and speculation in southern Murray–Darling Basin water markets. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 65(2), 291–317. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/1467​ -8489​.12419 Loch, A., Wheeler, S., & Settre, C. (2017). Private transaction costs of water trade in the Murray-Darling basin. Ecological Economics, 146. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .ecolecon​.2017​.12​.004 Rey, D., Pérez-Blanco, C.D., Escriva-Bou, A., Girard, C., Veldkamp, T.I.E. (2019) Role of economic instruments in water allocation reform: Lessons from Europe. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(2), 206–239. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/07900627​.2017​.1422702 Seidl, C., Wheeler, S. A., & Zuo, A. (2020). Treating water markets like stock markets: Key water market reform lessons in the Murray-Darling Basin. Journal of Hydrology, 581, 124399. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.jhydrol​.2019​.124399 Wheeler, S., & Garrick, D. E. (2020). A tale of two water markets in Australia: Lessons for understanding participation in formal water markets. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(1), 132–153. Zuo, A., Nauges, C., & Wheeler, S. A. (2015). Farmers’ exposure to risk and their temporary water trading. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 42(1), 1–24. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/erae​/jbu003

73. Water Crisis: Communication Technologies and Public Awareness Policies

to effectively communicate water conservation and water demand to the public remains a pending issue (Moglia et al., 2018). For successful communication, water authorities need to increase their responsibilities beyond providing and monitoring water resources, to build their water strategies around the finite nature of water ecosystems. These strategies should further be informed by an ethos of conservation, the use of changing technologies (for both innovaRapid socioeconomic changes during the tion and renovation), a political institutional twenty-first century highlight the need to pro- context and changing goals that recognize mote comprehensive approaches to persistent multipurpose, multiobjective and multidisciand intense water resources problems. The plinary approaches (Vlachos & Braga, 2001; concept of sustainability and the transition to Alamanos et al., 2022). green development (Kolokytha, 2016) reflects Water management serves social objecthe search for new and balanced paradigms tives. Social issues such as water allocation of socioeconomic development, as infinite inequalities, water justice and water governeco­nomic growth might not be possible in a ance are at the forefront of the water crisis. ‘finite’ world. While these social issues are the cause of the Water demand is drastically increasing problem, they could also be the solution by due to population growth, rapid urbanization, shifting water consumption behaviors. economic development, pollution and changWater is the driving force of all economic ing consumption patterns. In fact, global activities, and is fundamentally related to water demand has increased by 600 percent human health, water security, the well-being over the past 100  years (Wada et  al., 2016). of society and sustaining a socially desirThe increasing demand for water, food and able environment. Economic prosperity also energy is directly proportional to popula- reflects the social distribution of benefits and tion and gross domestic product (GDP) costs from water management (Rogers et al., per-capita growth (World Bank, 2017). The 2002; Hanemann, 2006). ever-growing aspiration for economic growth Understanding the water consumption neglecting environmental degradation, the needs and preferences of the public is paraexhaustion of finite natural resources and mount in providing the most effective tools socioeconomic restrictions have resulted (Lamm et  al., 2016) to enable sustainable in severe depletion of water resources water use, water conservation and environ(Kolokytha & Mylopoulos, 2022). mental protection. Table  73.1 summarizes Today, the water crisis is recognized as some of the social methods and theories a joint water supply and demand crisis. The applied in water management. initial culprit of this crisis was that solutions Models of human behavior provide a basis focused solely on technical and engineering to examine variable-effect relationships in remedies by building dams and big reservoirs natural resource conservation behavior. because the objective was to augment the For example, situational theory of publics water supply to satisfy demand. Water demand (STP) provides a framework for understandmanagement appears to be the most appropri- ing why heavy water consumers (HWC) ate way to deal with the looming water scarcity might perceive water conservation to be and intense climate variability, thereby encour- important (problem recognition) but may not aging efficient water consumption and the con- feel personally responsible (involvement recservation of existing water reserves. Emphasis ognition) and may perceive barriers to changshould also be on reducing water demand. ing their behaviors (constraint recognition). In Integrated water resources management this case, communicators should consider tar(IWRM) demonstrates how to deal with com- geting messages and tailor-made approaches plex interdisciplinary water issues in an effi- to HWCs who perceive plentiful water to be cient and equitable way. Although the concept of high importance but do not engage in water of integration is well established, its imple- conservation behaviors (Lamm, 2016). mentation and particularly its communication The theory of planned behavior (TPB) to the public needs further improvement. How (Ajzen, 1991) is also broadly used to deal 323

324  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Table 73.1   Models of human behavior used in water-related issues (non-exhaustive) Theories/models

Main concepts

References

Situational theory of

STP has two dependent variables (active and passive communication

Grunig (1992, 2003)

publics (STP)

behavior) and three independent variables (problem recognition, constraint recognition and involvement recognition) to explain and predict communication behaviors. STP also examines the cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral effects of communication messages

Theory of planned

TPB explains that individual behavior is predicted by intentions, or

Ajzen (1985, 1991), Hagger

behavior (TPB)

the motivation to perform a behavior (concept of rational choice).

(2019)

Intentions are predicted by attitude toward the behavior, perceived approval of the behavior by others (subjective norms) and also the ease or difficulty with which an individual will be able to perform or carry out the behavior (perceived behavioral control) Theory of reasoned

The TRA extends the theory of planned behavior, highlighting

Ajzen and Fishbein (1999),

action (TRA)

how personal beliefs and attitudes influence a person’s behavior by

Hagger (2019)

determining their behavioral intentions Self-efficacy theory

A belief about an individual’s own competence that they can

Bandura (1977)

successfully perform a certain action (save water) related also to the social system’s responsiveness to that action

with water-related issues and public awareness. For example, residents who feel a personal obligation to conserve water may be more open to information related to water conservation, and may be more likely to act, even in the absence of social support. Several studies have demonstrated significant effects of the TPB core variables (attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) on individuals’ intentions to conserve water (Lam, 2006; Trumbo & O’Keefe, 2001). In most cases, personal involvement and enactment have been proven to provide remarkable results toward water conservation (Gregory & Di Leo, 2003). A plethora of communication tools can help consumers improve their learning opportunities about water topics and also adapt to the new emerging conditions of water scarcity. Behavioral change is the measure of success of a campaign. As stated by Global Water Partnership (GWP), ‘raising awareness means explaining issues and providing knowledge so that people can be involved and make their own, informed decisions’ (https://www​.gwp​ .org​ /en​ / learn​ / iwrm​ - toolbox​ / Management​ -Instruments ​ / Promoting ​ _ Social ​ _ Change ​ / Raising​_public​_awareness/). But as much as education and information are critical, they alone cannot promote the elpida kolokytha

expected change, as this is deeply related not only to attitudes and personal beliefs but also external factors such as social norms and public decision-making. Age, education, gender, income, household size and personal perceptions (Taylor & Lamm, 2017) are among the most important factors for behavioral change. Extension programs are common tools consisting of a set of educational activities such as workshops, applied demonstrations, websites and field days, aimed at influencing water consumption behaviors (Jorgensen et  al., 2009). Additionally, the direct use of conventional media (newspapers, newsletters, TV, radio, messages on water bills), social media, simulation games (the WISDOM project; https://www​.cardiff​.ac​.uk​/water​-research​ -institute​/research ​/activities​/wisdom​-project) and user-friendly information and communications technology (ICT) tools (Walker et al., 2015) can be deployed to engage and educate the public. A consistent message contributes to a sound culture of water conservation (Fielding et al., 2012). Education and awareness campaigns have a major impact on sustainable water use and consumption (Buuren et  al., 2019). The success of such programs, however, depends on understanding how people perceive water and its sustainable use (Mahler, 2018). They can

water crisis  325 use the public’s experience and know-how to develop solutions to water problems and to reduce costs arising from the non-involvement of the public. The development of a new social approach that would enable the water community not only to overcome current crises in terms of integrating all water supply and demand aspects, but also consider the meaning of our actions in the context of long-term plans, could be feasible and sustainable now and in the future. The integrated strategy should focus on the ‘4Ps’ communication to professionals (knowledge generators/researchers), politicians (policy generators), practitioners (implementers/administrators) and the public (recipients). This effort should be proactive, accessible, engaging and transparent. A core sustainability perception is that nature is finite, and we need to learn to respect the capacity of the ecosystems to sustain our activities. This is at the heart of the new water culture to initiate a process of comprehensive reform, rather than letting crisis drive change. In this sense, we need to activate the public to consume only those renewable water resources that can be replenished by nature. Changes to the perception of how water should be consumed, allocated and treated is key to sustainable water management. We need to focus our efforts on firstly reducing demand and secondly using water more efficiently. Water management strategies have to take into account and leverage personal and social behaviors through effective governance (Biswas & Tortajada, 2010). Elpida Kolokytha

References Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Kuhl, J., & Beckman, J. (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer. Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179– 211. ISSN 0749-5978. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1999). Theory of reasoned action/theory of planned behavior. http://www​.med​.usf​.edu/​~kmbrown​/ TRA​ _TPB​.htm Alamanos, A., Koundouri, P., Papadaki, L., Pliakou, T., & Toli, E. (2022). Water for tomorrow: A living lab on the creation of the science-policy-stakeholder interface.

Water, 14(18), Article 18. https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/w14182879 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psych Review, 84(2), 191–215. Biswas, A.K., & Tortajada, C. (2010). Future water governance: Problems and perspectives. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 26(2), 129–140. Fielding, K.S., Russell, S., Spinks, A., & Mankad, A. (2012). Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resources Research, 48(2012), Article W10510. https://doi​.org​/10​.1029​/2012WR012398 Gregory, G.D., & Di Leo, M.D. (2003). Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: The role of personal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1261– 1296. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.15591816​ .2003​.tb01949.x Grunig, J.E. (2003). Constructing public relations theory and practice. In B. Dervin, S. Chaffee, & L. Foreman-Wernet (Eds.), Communication, another kind of horse race: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter (pp. 85–115). Hampton Press. Grunig, J.E. (Ed.) (1992). Excellence in public relations and communications management (p. 620). Lawrence Erlbaum. Hagger, M. (2019). The reasoned action approach and the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/ OBO​/9780199828340 ​-0240 Hanemann, M. (2006). The economic conception of water. In Rogers, P/P/, Llamas, M.R., & Martinez-Cortina, L. (Eds.) Water crisis: Myth or reality? (pp. 61–92). Taylor and Francis. https://doi​.org​ /10​.2166​/9781780402659 Jorgensen, B.S., Graymore, M., & O’Toole, K. (2009). Household water use behavior: An integrated model. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 227–236. Kolokytha, E. (2016). Adaptation to climate change: Green development. In Kolokytha, E., Oishi S., & Teegavarapu, R.S.V. (Eds.), Sustainable water resources planning and management under climate change (pp. 223–260). Springer. ISBN-978-981-10-2049-9 elpida kolokytha

326  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Kolokyha, E., & Mylopoulos, Y. (2022). Reorienting water resources management and engineering. Proceedings of the 39th IAHR World Congress Granada, Spain. https://doi​.org​/10​.3850​/ IAHR​-39W​C 252​ 1716​X20221086 Lam, S.P. (2006). Predicting intention to save water: Theory of planned behavior, response efficacy, vulnerability, and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(11), 2803–2824. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​ .0021​-9029​.2006​.00129.x Lamm, A.J., Lundy, L.K., Warner, L., & Lamm, K.W. (2016). Associating importance with behavior: Providing direction for water conservation communication, Journal of Applied Communications, 100, 3. https:// doi​.org​/10​.4148​/1051​-0834​.1229 Mahler, R.L. (2018). Preferred water resource information sources and learning opportunities in the Pacific Northwest. Natural Science Education, 47, 1–7. Moglia, M., Cook, S., & Tapsuwan, S. (2018) Promoting water conservation: Where to from here? Water, 10, 1510. https://doi​.org​ /10​.3390​/w10111510 Rogers, P., de Silvab, R., & Bhatia, R. (2002). Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy, 4, 1–17. Taylor, M., & Lamm, A. (2017). Identifying the needs of opinion leaders to encourage widespread adoption of water conservation and protection. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58, 269–281. The United Nations World Water Development Report (2018). www​.unwater​

elpida kolokytha

.org​/publications​/world​-water​-development​ -report​-2018/. Trumbo, C.W., & O’Keefe, G.J. (2001). Intention to conserve water: Environmental values, planned behavior, and information effects. A comparison of three communities sharing a watershed. Society and Natural Resources, 14(10), 889–899. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1080​/089419201753242797 Van Buuren, A., Van Meerkerk, I., & Tortajada, C. (2019). Understanding emergent participation practices in water governance. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(3), 367– 382. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/07900627​.2019​ .1585764 Vlachos, E., & Braga, B. (2001). Maksimovic, C., & Tejada-Guibert, J.A. (Eds.), Frontiers in urban water management: Deadlock or hope (pp. 1–36). IWA Publishing. Wada, Y., Flörke, M., Hanasaki, N., Eisner, S., Fischer, G., Tramberend, S., Satoh, Y., van Vliet, M.T.H., Yillia, P., Ringler, C., Burek, P., & Wiberg, D. (2016). Modeling global water use for the 21st century: The Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative and its approaches. Geoscientific Model Development, 9, 175–222. Walker, W.E., Loucks, D.P., & Carr, G. (2015). Social responses to water management decisions. Environmental Processes, 2, 485–509. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s40710​ -015​-0083-5 World Bank Group (2017). Economic growth, convergence, and world food demand and supply. openk​​nowle​​dge​.w​​orldb​​ank​.o​​rg​/ ha​​ ndle/​​109​86​​/2891​​8.

74. Water Footprint and Its Monetization

for example, water volume per unit of money. This is consistent with the framework for water management accounting developed by Christ and Burritt (2017), which demonstrates how past-oriented physical information obtained by a water footprint calculation can The idea behind the water footprint concept is be used to inform long-term, future-oriented to make visible all water resources and their plans by incorporating a monetary element. uses, including issues connected to the polIt is pertinent to consider why the incorlution of water resources, associated with the poration of monetary information within production of a product, provision of a ser- footprint calculations and future research is vice or completion of an activity. A life cycle important in the context of water manageapproach is taken where not only direct water ment activities and has an important role to use is considered, but also indirect water use play in the quest for improved water manthat occurs in the supply chain. The water agement, ultimately leaving a smaller water footprint provides a metric of all freshwater footprint. By definition, commercial business resources associated with an activity or ser- involves the supply of goods and services in vice. Notably, the indirect water footprint exchange for money from customers (Kaler, can far exceed the direct water footprint (Bai 2003). While one purpose is to gain profit et al., 2018). from the exchange (Shaw, 1991) there can be Originally introduced in 2002 (Hoekstra many other purposes, including the efficient and Hung, 2002), the water footprint is tra- use of environmental resources such as water ditionally classified into three types: the blue which can be of general environmental benewater footprint, the green water footprint fit. Likewise, public sector organizations have and the grey water footprint. The blue water to be mindful of their monetary budget confootprint refers to what is traditionally con- straints and their decision-making involves sidered in all water management activities: effective and efficient use of funds, as well as the consumption of surface and groundwater social or environmental purpose, even though resources, net of returns, required to make a profit is not a focus. While information about product or provide a service. Where the water the physical aspects of water management, footprint concept differs is that it also consid- such as available stocks and flows of qualers the green water footprint which refers to ity water, is essential to management of the water and moisture held in soil that is used resource, for both private and public organiin the generation of a product or service, and zations monetary information is a necessary the gray footprint where the amount of fresh component of their decision-making. water required to dilute polluted water sources The need for quality water to be available to an acceptable standard is also calculated. is captured in the United Nations sustainable Calculating a water footprint is fundamen- development goal 6 for 2030, to ‘ensure availtally a past-oriented process in that it refers to ability and sustainable management of water activities that have already occurred and the and sanitation for all’. Much academic thought traditional calculation of a footprint provides has been given to the conceptual development only physical information. Nonetheless, there of water footprints and their management for is growing interest in how monetary data can policymaking, including the understanding be incorporated into the calculation to pre- of virtual water embodied in goods and sersent a more complete picture, especially for vices traded internationally, and water risk, business managers who are often driven by which recognizes the local problems of water economic imperatives as opposed to environ- stress. In addition, in support of improving mental objectives (Christ and Burritt, 2019). water management decision-making, two The most recent Water Footprint Assessment main standards have been developed on water Manual, published by the Water Footprint metrics by the Global Reporting Initiative Network in 2011 (Hoekstra et  al. 2011), rec- (GRI) and the International Organization for ognizes that monetary information can be Standardization (ISO). used with the footprint calculation. For examThe GRI is concerned about effective ple, it is acknowledged that while the volume water management by organizations of any of water per product unit will always be the size, type, sector or geographic location as most critical piece of information, there are part of their sustainability reporting. Its latdifferent ways in which this can be expressed, est topic-specific standard, GRI  303: Water 327

328  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management and Effluents 2018, is effective for reports and other materials published on or after 1 January 2021. The emphasis is on identifying areas with water stress rather than water footprints as a management tool and the focus is on the physical amount of water withdrawn and consumed by an organization and the quality of water discharges with water footprints viewed as a tool for assessing physical impacts. No mention is made of the monetary aspects of water management or links with water footprints. ISO  14046 ‘Environmental management – Water footprint – Principles, requirements and guidelines’ is a water management approach presenting a framework to measure the environmental impacts resulting from water use based on a life cycle approach (Bai et al., 2018). The standard only includes physical metrics related to the management of water. Neither GRI 303 nor ISO 14046 try to integrate other elements of sustainability, such as the economic aspects of water management; however, for decision-makers to address water in a holistic way, economic and social matters must also be integrated. There are some, albeit few, examples in the literature of researchers who have made efforts to incorporate monetary data into the water footprint concept (e.g. Ewing et  al., 2012). Others recognize the potential importance of considering monetary or economic data alongside and within water footprint calculations (e.g. Burritt and Christ, 2017; Cazcarro et  al., 2014). As with the footprint concept itself, such research can be applied or conducted at different levels from the national down to individual products or services. The lack of explicit, non-conceptual research in this space clearly demonstrates a need for additional study while also hinting at the challenges associated with such an undertaking. Yet, such research will allow a better understanding of the eco-efficiency associated with different products and services, and at different levels of analysis. Eco-efficiency, which can be defined as the economic value derived from each liter of water consumed, is important in the context of decision-making, be it at company, regional or national levels. It recognizes that decisions are often driven by economic rather than environmental imperatives and so the economic aspects and implications of water use need to be made clear. The goal should be to maximize efficiency in areas in which social and environmental outcomes have not previously been prioritized so

that water is not wasted or used in a frivolous way for no meaningful purpose. The inclusion of monetary data in the context of water footprints is not without its challenges and, as with the footprint concept more generally, it can be expected that technological developments will eventually make this process easier and likely increase interest in evaluating the monetary aspects of water use (or misuse). For example, Tregoning et al. (2021) argue that it is essential for return-oninvestment information to be available to farmers and policymakers if the transformation of agriculture through the integration of water-saving methods using satellite technologies is to occur. Where the returns, or costs, can be hundreds of thousands of dollars, farmers not only need to be sure that the water footprint information is robust, but also that it is clearly linked to the financial risk of methods such as remote monitoring of soil moisture and using weather and climate monitoring and irrigation management for blue and green water footprint calculations. This will also permit the consideration of tradeoffs to be more clearly articulated and understood in cases where water-specific outcomes and economic imperatives are in direct conflict. Katherine L. Christ and Roger L. Burritt

References Bai, X., Ren, X., Khanna, N.Z., Zhou, N., & Hu, M. (2018). Comprehensive water footprint assessment of the dairy industry chain based on ISO 14046: A case study in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 132, 369–375. Burritt, R.L. & Christ, K.L. (2017). The need for monetary information within corporate water accounting. Journal of Environmental Management, 201, 72–81. Cazcarro, I., Hoekstra, A. & Sánchez Chóliz, J. (2014). The water footprint of tourism in Spain, Tourism Management, 40, 90–101. Christ, K.L. & Burritt, R.L. (2017). Water management accounting: A framework for corporate practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, 379–386. Christ, K.L. & Burritt, R.L. (2019). Implementation of sustainable development goals: The role for business academics. Australian Journal of Management, 44(4), 571–593.

katherine l. christ and roger l. burritt

water footprint and its monetization  329 Ewing, B.R., Hawkins, T.R., Wiedmann, T.O., Galli, A., Ertug Ercin, A., Weinzettel, J. & Steen-Olsen, K. (2012). Integrating ecological and water footprint accounting in a multi-regional input– output framework. Ecological Indicators, 23, 1–8. Hoekstra, A.Y. & Hung, P.Q. (2002). Virtual Water Trade: A Quantification of Virtual Water Flows Between Nations in Relation to International Crop Trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11, UNESCOIHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. & Mekonnen, M.M. (2011). Water Footprint Manual, Water Footprint Network, The Netherlands. Kaler, J. (2003). What is a business? Philosophy of Management. 3, 57–65. Shaw, W.H. (1991). Business Ethics. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Tregoning, P., Atkin, O., McClusky, Yang, S.N., Amidy, M., Adams, S., Jia-Urnn Lee, J.-U. & Hammer, J. (2021). Space-based Technologies: Opportunities for the Rural Sector. AgriFutures Australia, Wagga Wagga, NSW, ISBN: 978-1-76053-160-7.

katherine l. christ and roger l. burritt

75. Water Governance in Irrigated Farming through the SocialEcological Systems Framework: An Empirical Case in Ethiopia

one, irrigation governance institutions must be strengthened (Gebul, 2021) to support smallholder farmers transition toward food security. To this aim, this study analyzes the systems of formal and informal norms and rules regulating smallholder farmers’ access to irrigation water in Ethiopia.

Methodology

Introduction Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopia’s economy, the primary source of income for almost 78.3 percent of the population. Despite the significant economic growth of the last two decades (Adela et al., 2019; Gebul, 2021), the performances of the agricultural sector remain poor and insufficient to feed the rapidly increasing population. Smallholder subsistence farmers dominate Ethiopian agriculture heavily reliant on irregular, insufficient and unevenly distributed rainfall (Dorosh et  al., 2020; Thomas et  al., 2020), which makes them vulnerable to water shortages, productivity losses and failures in improving their livelihoods (Haile & Kassa, 2015; Nakawuka et  al., 2018). Although Ethiopia has significant agricultural water potential from river basin runoff (12  river basins with a total annual runoff of 122 billion cubic meters) and groundwater (an estimated 6.5 million cubic meters) (Awulachew et  al., 2007; Berhane et  al., 2020), irrigated crops are grown only on around 10 percent of the 5.3 million hectares. Irrigation water governance is one of the barriers to efficient irrigation development in Ethiopia, inducing water shortages and preventing smallholder farmers from transitioning out of food insecurity and increasing their livelihoods (Adela et al., 2019; Gebul, 2021). In Ethiopia, irrigation water user associations are in their infancy and lack the technical and financial resources to carry out their governance responsibilities (Haileslassie et al., 2016; Yohannes et al., 2017), leading to the generation of a vicious cycle: ‘weak irrigation water governance capacity  →  poorly maintained and managed irrigation system  →  poor irrigation system performance  →  low crop productivity  →  low income from irrigated crops  →  weak governance capacity’. To transform this ‘vicious cycle’ into a virtuous

This study used the socio-ecological system (SES) framework (Ostrom, 2007; McGinnis & Ostrom, 2014) to analyze the formal and informal sets of rules (governance system) that control how actors (farmers) behave while appropriating water (resource unit) and describe how these rules are shaped, implemented and enforced. To this aim, the Cole I irrigation system in the Toke Kutaye district in Ethiopia has been used as a case study. The governance of the system affects farmers’ (the actors) choices and practices (interactions) which in turn cause water shortages (negative effects on the resource units) and reduce soil fertility, increasing deforestation (negative effects on the resource systems) which translate into reduced crop production (yield) and income for farmers. The qualitative research design combined the grounded theory approach and purposive and snowball sampling techniques to identify the most appropriate sample size and the relevant informants (Yin, 2011). The data were gathered through 42  semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Additionally, 19  focus group discussions, including 54 members of the Cole I Irrigation Water Users’ Association (IWUA) and 15  experts from other district departments, were held throughout the empirical fieldwork. To verify veracity, data were triangulated from a variety of sources. Empirical fieldwork was carried out between 1 December 2020 and 31 August 2021, and data were collected. All one-on-one interviews and focus groups were held in Afan Oromo (a local language), recorded, transcribed and translated into English before being coded and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and NVivo for thematic and content analysis. Description of the study area: The Toke Kutaye district Oromia Regional State is the country’s most populous and the largest region in terms of surface. The West Shewa Zone is one of the

330

water governance in irrigated farming  331

Source:   Author’s own.

Figure 75.1   Map of the study area

region’s zones. Toke Kutaye is one of the districts located in the West Shewa Zone (Figure 75.1). Toke Kutaye has 23 rural subdistricts that host around 87  percent of the population, and more than 90  percent are employed in agriculture or agriculture-related activities. The Cole I IWUA is in Emala Dawe Ajo sub-district. The main source of livelihood in the district is mixed agricultural practices growing cereals, vegetables, spices, fruits and oil crops. These crops are grown under a rainfed regime during the rainy season (May–September), while the irrigation growing regime is applied during the dry season (November–April). To support smallholder farmers, 180  irrigation projects have been implemented in the district. Among these, the Cole I represents the largest small-scale irrigation scheme. The Cole  I irrigation scheme represents the largest community irrigation scheme in the Toke Kutaye covering around 220  ha of agricultural land and serving more than 400  households. The Malka Cole water users’ group was established in 1984 and, in 2018, farmers who had land-use certificates and had paid land taxes in the irrigation command area became members of the new formal water user organization called Cole I  IWUA. The IWUA counts 12  water user groups organized based on their location, with group sizes ranging from 24 to 64  members. Although diverse in size, all groups get the same fixed slot of time for six hours to use canal water.

The water is primarily delivered through open and unlined canals. Secondary, tertiary and other canals are used by farmers. All members of the association maintain, operate and repair the main water canal once a year at the start of the irrigation season, whereas each farmer maintains the secondary, tertiary and other canals for themselves. Using furrow irrigation, farmers are allowed to harvest two or three times per season as well as rotate crops.

Results Network structure The presence of a very disaggregated networking structure between the IWUA and governmental institutions is a factor that hinders effective water management within the scheme. The scarce cooperation with governmental institutions – at a local, regional and national scale – results in a poorly maintained irrigation scheme which contributes to water shortages in the area. For example, in the 2020/21 irrigation season, the local government introduced the irrigated wheat cluster farming policy in the Cole  I irrigation system, promoting the production of irrigated wheat. Due to the introduction of this policy, upstream (resourceful) farmers irrigate more than the 0.5 ha (up to 4 ha) allowed as per the by-law of the association, reducing water availability for downstream farmers. Additionally, due to the lack of local government support the IWUA is failing in its role debella deressa bayissa et al.

332  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management of providing training and networking with contract farming, input suppliers and market operators. Constitutional, collective and operational rules The national government proclamation (No. 197/2000) defines water resource allocation priorities and encourages the development of IWUAs for the sustainable use of water resources. Additionally, various national and regional proclamations (e.g. the land administration and use proclamation) provide further rules for irrigation development in the country. However, these regulations have a minor impact on collective choices and operational activities due to the failure of governments and IWUAs to enforce them. In this collective choice context, governance, management, operation and maintenance are the key roles of the Cole I IWUA (FDRE, 2014). The Cole I IWUA is governed by a collegial body – the general assembly – which is responsible for defining the formal rules concerning farmers’ eligibility to become members of the association and modification of the operational rules. Farmers’ eligibility criteria and the operational rules are defined by the management committee, elected by the general assembly, and responsible for monitoring the association’s performance and enforcing the statute. Regular inspection of irrigation water infrastructure, preparation of a seasonal or annual action plan for maintenance, modernization of irrigation systems, implementation and monitoring of seasonal water distribution plans and training members on various irrigation techniques, are also the responsibility of the management committee. However, members of the management committee have no time to monitor all these activities on a daily basis as they are engaged in their farming activities. As a result, the monitoring processes are informally assigned to members of the association, who monitor the water canals during their respective irrigation turns. However, the rate of fulfilment of this role is very low and the monitoring of water canals is scarce. Indeed, these operations are particularly prohibitive for downstream farmers due to the large distance – three to four hours walking distance – from the tail end to the water source (see Figure 75.2). Furthermore, no payment is provided for the monitoring activities and the association has no water guards for debella deressa bayissa et al.

monitoring the canal water. These conditions favour water robbery, particularly during the night, and create unequal access to irrigation water, limiting downstream farmers’ water supply, while encouraging resourceful upstream farmers to grow irrigated crops over a large area. Although the IWUA has specific sanctions regarding rule violations, including fines or expulsion from the organization, no active sanctioning measures are enforced by the committee. Indeed, several breaching practices, even by committee members, such as cutting water canals, or breaking water pipes, refusing to engage in maintenance operations, theft of water and absence from the general assemblies have been observed. Moreover, additional factors are fostering neglect of the sanctioning system for fear of losing friendships with other members of the association or avoiding potential conflict among members. The observed rule violations can be attributed to farmers growing irrigated crops during the water shortage season, and these practices result in unequal access to water resources reducing farmers’ income and livelihood. Furthermore, the zone, local district and regional authorities fail in their supervising role to monitor whether the IWUAs enforce the water regulations and their statutory rules. Overall, participation of IWUA members in the decision-making processes is scarce and most members do not attend the meetings. Therefore, consensus within the different collegial bodies is seldom reached. Scarce participation, lack of consensus and the application of informal rules foster collective rules infringements from association members, particularly resourceful farmers.

Discussions and concluding remarks Although several programs have concentrated on building adequate regulatory and legislative frameworks to implement policy and strategy for long-term water resources management, they have failed to establish a virtuous policy decision-making process (Hailu et  al., 2018). Power concentration, delays between the issuing of proclamations and developing regulations, fragmentation of responsibilities and limited collaboration within water-related sectors have emerged as the main drivers for the failure of water

water governance in irrigated farming  333

Source:   Author’s own.

Figure 75.2  A drawing of the Cole I irrigation scheme

management policies on guaranteed water security. Although the established policies enforce the participatory definition of rules and norms, this process is jeopardized by the power imbalances at all levels of the institutional hierarchy. The results from the Cole I IWUA case study show a strong concentration of decision-making powers in favor of resourceful (upstream) farmers or farmers who have contact with local political parties to the detriment of poor (downstream) farmers. The comprehensive analysis of the Cole I IWUA governance system has disclosed the lack of or inefficient enforcement of institutional, collective and operational rules in the irrigation scheme, promoting farmers’ improper use of water (e.g. overuse of water, lack of maintenance) which has resulted in water scarcity in the irrigation system.

Resourceful farmers grow irrigated crops on a large area of land by diverting water from other farmers, especially those located at the tail end of the irrigation system. Moreover, the lack of collective decisions on crop scheduling generates water shortages in the scheme and market saturation since the same type of irrigated crops is grown at the same time. Additionally, the allocation rules of the irrigation system distribute water unequally among farmer groups. Fixed time slots are imposed on all groups despite their size, hindering equal access to water within the irrigation system. For example, the water user group found at the upstream (headend) consists of 24  members, while the water user group at the tail end consists of 64 members. Moreover, the pay-off rules are not rigorously enforced, encouraging water debella deressa bayissa et al.

334  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management misappropriation, especially to the detriment of downstream farmers. Finally, the set of rules and norms defined by governmental and water management bodies must be coherent and aligned with the characteristics of the local SES (resource system, resource units and users) for long-term sustainable water management to be achieved. Furthermore, the monitoring and enforcement of these norms and rules are critical to the long-term sustainability of the SES. Debella Deressa Bayissa, Michele Moretti, Joost Dessein and Gianluca Brunori

References Adela, F. A., Aurbacher, J., & Abebe, G. K. (2019). Small-scale irrigation scheme governance: Poverty nexus: Evidence from Ethiopia. Food Security, 11(4), 897–913. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s12571​-019​-00953-8 Awulachew, S. B., Yilma, A. D., Loulseged, M., Loiskandl, W., Ayana, M., & Alamirew, T. (2007). Water resources and irrigation development in Ethiopia. (p. 66) Colombo: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). (IWMI Working Paper 123) doi: http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.3910​/2009​.305 Berhane, G., Minten, B., Bachewe, F., & Koru, B. (2020). Crop productivity and potential. In P. Dorosh & B. Minten (Eds.), Ethiopia’s agri-food system: Past trends, present challenges, and future scenarios (pp. 53–95). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Dorosh, P., Smart, J., Minten, B., & Stifel, D. (2020). Droughts, cereal prices, and price stabilization options. In P. Dorosh & B. Minten (Eds.), Ethiopia’s Agri-food system: Past trends, present challenges, and future scenarios. International Food Policy Research Institute. https://lccn​.loc​ .gov​/2020007433 FDRE. (2014). Irrigation water users’ associations proclamation no. 841/2014.

debella deressa bayissa et al.

Gebul, M. A. (2021). Trend, status, and challenges of irrigation development in Ethiopia: A review. Sustainability, 13(10), 1–16. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/SU13105646 Haile, G. G., & Kassa, A. K. (2015). Irrigation in Ethiopia: A review. Academic Journals of Agricultural Research, 3(10), 264–269. https://doi​.org​/10​.15413​/ajar​.2015​.0141 Haileslassie, A., Hagos, F., Agide, Z., Tesema, E., Hoekstra, D., & Langan, S. (2016). Institutions for irrigation water management in Ethiopia: Assessing diversity and service delivery (No. 17). International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Hailu, R., Tolossa, D., & Alemu, G. (2018). Water institutions in the Awash basin of Ethiopia: The discrepancies between rhetoric and realities. International Journal of River Basin Management, 16(1), 107–121. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/15715124​ .2017​.1387126 Nakawuka, P., Langan, S., Schmitter, P., & Barron, J. (2018). A review of trends, constraints, and opportunities of smallholder irrigation in East Africa. In Global food security (Vol. 17, pp. 196– 212). Elsevier B.V. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .gfs​.2017​.10​.003 Thomas, T. S., Dorosh, P., & Robertson, R. (2020). Climate change impacts on crop yields. In P. Dorosh & Minten (Eds.), Ethiopia’s agri-food system: Past trends, present challenges, and future Scenarios (p. 350). International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press. Yohannes, D. F., Ritsema, C. J., Solomon, H., Froebrich, J., & van Dam, J. C. (2017). Irrigation water management: Farmers’ practices, perceptions, and adaptations at Gumselassa irrigation scheme, North Ethiopia. Agricultural Water Management, 191, 16–28. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/J​ .AGWAT​.2017​.05​.009

76. Water Innovation: Toward Smart and Resilient Water Systems and Services

known as the ‘new normal’ (Nikolopoulos et al., 2019).

An emerging technological innovation landscape

Setting the scene Critical water infrastructures are the hidden lifelines that sustain our cities and societies. Their size, extent, complexity, construction time and costs mean that infrastructures designed today will need to operate for at least 50+ years under necessarily uncertain conditions. In practice, most urban water systems have been expanding on top of earlier systems in an ad hoc manner which means that water infrastructures typically outlive their original design requirements, while ‘locking’ future water system upgrades into path dependencies (Hiessl et  al., 2001; Nikolopoulos et  al., 2022) through choices made decades earlier. This makes water systems and services susceptible to a wide range of stresses (Makropoulos et  al., 2018). Some of these stresses evolve over the longer term, for example, hydroclimatic stresses (e.g. changes in the quantity and quality of water resources due to climatic changes [IPCC, 2021]) and socioeconomic stresses (e.g. demographic changes, urban growth, increasing water demand and changing water use patterns, and land use change) (Nikolopoulos et al., 2022). Others evolve over shorter time horizons, but result in significant impacts on water service provision, for example, burst pipes or cyberphysical attacks. The evolving policy landscape also directly affects water systems and services and is also uncertain, despite being within the human sphere of influence: such a policy landscape affects, for example, not only priorities and operational rules, pricing, environmental targets and constraints, but also citizens and authorities’ attitudes (Koutiva et  al., 2017) to water conservation. As both short-term and long-term challenges are essentially unknown (and possibly even unknowable), the resulting deep uncertainty (Maier et al., 2016) challenges both decisionmakers at the utility level and policymakers at the national and supranational levels. Clearly, these challenges are not new, although recent years have seen a much wider variation and uncertainty on key drivers, quickly becoming

Yet, recent advances in both systemic thinking and technology offer the promise of new ways to ‘do more with less’, inspired by nature and capitalizing on the digital revolution (Makropoulos & Savić, 2019). Figure  76.1 presents a snapshot of this innovation landscape which attempts to use ‘smart’ digital technologies coupled with nature-inspired concepts, such as resilience to shield water systems and services from the ‘new normal’. This emerging innovation landscape considers a number of complementary ways to augment and improve on traditional water and wastewater infrastructure: (i) novel distributed solutions are being deployed (Makropoulos et al., 2018) to both extend the useful life of infrastructures and to make them more circular, reusing water, energy and materials ‘hidden’ in wastewater streams, within a circular economy framework; (ii) traditional water infrastructures are transformed by being coupled with nature-based solutions to decrease their exposure to extreme events and soften the blow of system failures (e.g. in the context of flood protection); and (iii) centralized, decentralized and nature-based infrastructures are being further augmented through a tighter coupling with digital infrastructures, monitoring, warning, controlling, optimizing and sometimes even adapting their physical counterparts. This tighter integration between the physical and digital counterparts of a water infrastructure is becoming known as a ‘digital twin’. The concept of digital twins, emerging from the cyber-physical transformation of industries (Lee, 2015), is progressively gaining more attention, as it holds the promise of placing at the center of both short- and longterm decision-making, ‘a dynamic virtual representation of a system across its lifecycle, using real-time data to enable understanding, learning and reasoning’ (Bolton et  al., 2018) that goes well beyond simple visualization or modeling. Digital twins are expected to allow real-time data streamed by Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the field to be analyzed on-the-fly by novel analytics and models (process or data-driven models or hybrids thereof), shaping both strategic and

335

336  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Immersive decision making & co-creation (AR/VR/SG)

Resilience-based design and stress-testing for cyberphysical infrastructure

Sociotechnical whole water system models

Digital Twins AI/ML analytics operating on infrastructure data

Real time data (IoT/Satellite)

Centralized, Decentralized and Nature Based Water Infrastructures as vehicle for Circular Economy Source:   Based on Makropoulos and Savić (2019).

Figure 76.1   Promising innovations in water systems and services

operational decisions in the water sector throughout a water infrastructure’s life cycle (from design and construction to operations, maintenance and decommissioning) while improving our understanding of how water systems ‘behave’ and ‘react’ to changing conditions and increased stresses. As such, digital twins are expected to be able to support real-time risk and resilience evaluations and develop event-based control strategies to mitigate the effects of a wide range of natural and man-made events including burst pipes, power outages, fires or even intentional contamination incidents in water systems (Walski, 2019), based on the true (live) state of the water system. Although admittedly the digital twin concept is in its infancy in the water sector, important steps have already been taken in producing real-world examples of digital twin applications in the urban water cycle (at various levels of maturity) for water and wastewater utilities, such as Águas do Porto in Portugal (Bentley Systems, 2019), San Diego christos makropoulos

in the United States (Curl et al., 2019), Global Omnium in Spain (Conejos Fuertes et  al., 2020), VCS in Denmark (Pedersen et  al., 2021), Thames Water in the United Kingdom (Thames Water Utilities Limited, 2021) and the Singapore Public Utilities Board (Johnson et al., 2021). Clearly, a melting pot of physical and digital information, such as digital twins, is only as valuable as the analytics and tools deployed on top of it. In this context, the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) (Nguyen et  al., 2018) has already demonstrated that AI/ML-enabled software systems can beat humans in complex and demanding tasks requiring strategic foresight and intuition – once thought the exclusive privilege of human decision-making. Using reinforcement learning (Castelletti et  al., 2002), these systems can improve their performance by interacting with a real or simulated environment and apply this knowledge and strategic foresight to support water service

water innovation  337 providers in performing demanding operational, tactical or strategic tasks. Furthermore, the emergence of socio-technical system (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2016) models for the whole water cycle (Rozos & Makropoulos, 2013) also plays an important role in the growing understanding of another important interplay that shapes water infrastructures and dynamically (re)defines their role as part of societal evolution: that of the interaction between water systems and their users (in society, economy and the environment) which drives the evolution of water demand in both time and space. These new, more integrative models, crossing traditional boundaries between engineering and the social sciences (Koutiva & Makropoulos, 2016), allow the sector to ask and answer higher-level questions, related for example to climate adaptation, livability, equity and sustainability. In this account of the water innovation landscape, we also need to take particular note of decision-makers and end users. The traditional way of decision-making in the water sector, often happening behind closed doors based on endless reports, supplemented by subsequent information provision to the public (through, for example, water bills), is slowly being replaced (or at least augmented) by a much more experiential approach,

supported by serious games (SG) and augmented/virtual reality (AR/VR) environments (Morley et al., 2017), challenging and disrupting the way decisions are conceptualized, discussed and reached.

An emerging conceptual and methodological innovation landscape It is also important to note that technology is not the only innovation that is disrupting and changing the water sector: conceptual and methodological shifts are also underway, building on the concept of resilience and adaptive design, aiming to articulate and navigate adaptive evolutionary pathways for water systems and services that can better respond to future challenges of the ‘new normal’ variety. The focus on resilience (rather than just reliability), understood (Makropoulos, et  al., 2018) as ‘the degree to which an urban water system continues to perform under progressively increasing disturbance’, arguably represents a departure from the traditional ‘fail-safe’ design paradigm that necessarily responds to future uncertainties with overdesign (Nikolopoulos et  al., 2022). Within this emerging resilience-based design paradigm, the aim shifts to making water

The system performs at its designed level of reliability within design parameters

But what happens beyond the design envelop?

Reliability

Resilience: The total area under the profile

Water System #1

Increased stress Source:   Based on Makropoulos et al. (2018).

Figure 76.2  A resilience profile graph for a water system stress tested beyond its design envelop

christos makropoulos

338  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management systems ‘safe(r)-to-fail’ (Butler et  al., 2017) by actively anticipating (inevitable) failures through stress testing beyond design envelops (Nikolopoulos et al., 2019) and planning also for the performance of the system at the tail end of Figure 76.2 representing low(er) probability at high-impact events. To deliver increased resilience the water industry is now closely looking at design approaches that are emerging from the growing climate adaptation literature and practice (Haasnoot et  al., 2013). These approaches include, for example, developing infrastructure ‘pathways’ able to dynamically ‘adapt’ to changing conditions, such as those considered in the ‘flexible staged design’ literature (Basupi & Kapelan, 2014; Cunha et al., 2020; Tsiami et  al., 2022). This is an active interface of multidisciplinary research-to-practice knowledge exchange and a promising domain for synergies between hardware, software and methodological innovations.

Conclusion As we enter a turbulent period, challenged by climatic, socioeconomic and geopolitical changes, water systems and services are faced with deeper uncertainties and more pronounced stresses than ever before. This chapter argues that new technologies, such as AI, ML and digital twins, and new design paradigms (based on the concepts of resilience and adaptation) are emerging to help decisionmakers and end users in the water sector collaborate to rethink, co-create and ultimately transform our water systems and services to be better suited for an uncertain future. Although progress is not inevitable nor deterministic, this confluence of the social and the technical, with the physical and digital counterparts of critical water infrastructures is opportune and holds the promise of a more adaptive pathway to a more water-wise future. Christos Makropoulos

References Basupi, I., & Kapelan, Z. (2014). Evaluating flexibility in water distribution system design under future demand uncertainty. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21(2), 04014034. https://doi​.org​/10​.1061/(ASCE) IS.1943-555X.0000199 Bentley Systems. (2019). Oporto Water Utility Develops Technology Platform for christos makropoulos

Integrated Management of Urban Water Cycle Fully-integrated Water Management Efficiently Uses Existing Resources. Bolton, R. N., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Cheung, L., Gallan, A., Orsingher, C., Witell, L., & Zaki, M. (2018). Customer experience challenges: Bringing together digital, physical and social realms. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 776–808. https://doi​ .org​ /10​ .1108​ / JOSM​ - 04​ -2018​ -0113 Butler, D., Ward, S., Sweetapple, C., AstaraieImani, M., Diao, K., Farmani, R., & Fu, G. (2017). Reliable, resilient and sustainable water management: The Safe & SuRe approach. Global Challenges, 1(1), 63–77. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/gch2​.1010 Castelletti, A., Corani, G., Rizzolli, A., Soncinie-Sessa, R., & Weber, E. (2002). Reinforcement learning in the operational management of a water system. In IFAC Workshop on Modeling and Control in Environmental Issues, 325–330. Conejos Fuertes, P., Martínez Alzamora, F., Hervás Carot, M., & Alonso Campos, J. C. (2020). Building and exploiting a digital twin for the management of drinking water distribution networks. Urban Water Journal, 17(8), 704–713. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1080​/1573062X​.2020​.1771382 Cunha, M., Marques, J., & Savić, D. (2020). A flexible approach for the reinforcement of water networks using multi-criteria decision analysis. Water Resources Management, 34(14), 4469–4490. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11269​-020​-02655-9 Curl, J. M., Nading, T., Hegger, K., Barhoumi, A., & Smoczynski, M. (2019). Digital twins: The next generation of water treatment technology. Journal: American Water Works Association, 111(12), 44–50. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/awwa​.1413 Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2016). The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems: An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 298–312. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.techfore​.2015​.11​.023 Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change,

water innovation  339 23(2), 485–498. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .gloenvcha​.2012​.12​.006 Hiessl, H., Walz, R., & Toussaint, D. (2001). Design and sustainability assessment of scenarios of urban water infrastructure systems. Water, 11. IPCC. (2021). The physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Johnson, B. R., Kadiyala, R., Owens, G., Mak, Y., Grace, P., Newbery, C., Sing, S., Saxena, A., & J. Greene. (2021). Water reuse and recovery facility connected digital twin case study: Singapore PUB’s Changi WRP process, control, and hydraulics digital twin. Proceedings of WEFTEC 2021. https://doi​ .org​/10​.2175​/193864718825158033 Koutiva, I., & Makropoulos, C. (2016). Modelling domestic water demand: An agent based approach. Environmental Modelling and Software, 79, 35–54. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.envsoft​.2016​.01​.005 Koutiva, I., Gerakopoulou, P., Makropoulos, C., & Vernardakis, C. (2017). Exploration of domestic water demand attitudes using qualitative and quantitative social research methods. Urban Water Journal, 14(3), 307–314. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/1573062X​ .2015​.1135968 Lee, E. A. (2015). The past, present and future of cyber-physical systems: A focus on models. Sensors, 15(3), 4837–4869. https:// doi​.org​/10​.3390​/s150304837 Maier, H. R., Guillaume, J. H. A., van Delden, H., Riddell, G. A., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2016). An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together? Environmental Modelling and Software, 81, 154–164. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .envsoft​.2016​.03​.014 Makropoulos, C., Nikolopoulos, D., Palmen, L., Kools, S., Segrave, A., Vries, D., Koop, S., van Alphen, H. J., Vonk, E., van Thienen, P., Rozos, E., & Medema, G. (2018). A resilience assessment method for urban water systems. Urban Water Journal, 15(4), 316–328. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1080​/1573062X​.2018​.1457166 Makropoulos, C., Rozos, E., Tsoukalas, I., Plevri, A., Karakatsanis, G., Karagiannidis, L., Makri, E., Lioumis, C., Noutsopoulos, C., Mamais, D., Rippis, C., & Lytras,

E. (2018). Sewer-mining: A water reuse option supporting circular economy, public service provision and entrepreneurship. Journal of Environmental Management, 216, 285–298. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .jenvman​.2017​.07​.026 Makropoulos, & Savić. (2019). Urban hydroinformatics: Past, present and future. Water, 11(10), 1959. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​ /w11101959 Morley, M. S., Khoury, M., & Savić, D. A. (2017). Serious game approach to water distribution system design and rehabilitation problems. Procedia Engineering, 186, 76– 83. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.proeng​.2017​.03​ .213 Nikolopoulos, D., Kossieris, P., Tsoukalas, I., & Makropoulos, C. (2022). Stresstesting framework for urban water systems: A source to tap approach for stochastic resilience assessment. Water, 14(2). https:// doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w14020154 Nikolopoulos, D., van Alphen, H. J., Vries, D., Palmen, L., Koop, S., van Thienen, P., Medema, G., & Makropoulos, C. (2019). Tackling the “new normal”: A resilience assessment method applied to real-world urban water systems. Water, 11(2), 1–22. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/w11020330 Pedersen, A. N., Borup, M., Brink-Kjær, A., Christiansen, L. E., & Mikkelsen, P. S. (2021). Living and prototyping digital twins for urban water systems: Towards multi-purpose value creation using models and sensors. Water, 13(5). https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/w13050592 Rozos, E., & Makropoulos, C. (2013). Source to tap urban water cycle modelling. Environmental Modelling and Software, 41, 139–150. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .envsoft​.2012​.11​.015 Thames Water Utilities Limited. (2021). Award Nominated “Digital Twin” Helps Save Millions of Litres in Leaks. Tsiami, L., Makropoulos, C., & Savic, D. (2022). A review on staged optimization of water distribution networks. 2nd International Joint Conference on Water Distribution Systems Analysis & Computing and Control in the Water Industry. Walski, T. (2019). Risk and resilience assessment isn’t optional anymore. Opflow, 45(9), 22–25. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/opfl​ .1249 christos makropoulos

77. Water Management and Armed Conflict Over the past three decades, water as a cause of conflict has been the focus of many studies (Gleick, 1993; Ide et  al., 2020; PetersenPerlman et  al., 2017; Wolf, 2007). At the same time, there is growing attention on how armed conflict affects water use and access, especially from international organizations (World Bank, 2011; UNICEF, 2019). However, limited scientific evidence exists on the ways in which different intensities and periods of armed conflict affect water resources and their management (Schillinger et al., 2020). Water management is defined as ‘the activities of analysing and monitoring, developing and implementing measures to keep the state of a [water] resource within desirable bounds’ (Pahl-Wostl, 2009: 355). Conflict is used interchangeably with ‘armed conflict’, which is defined as the resorting of parties to armed force or violence, leading to a protracted confrontation that results in damage to property or human life (ICRC, 2008).

Conflict impacts on water resources

liquid waste in the environment (Zwijnenburg et al., 2021). The accessibility of water resources can be restricted due to limitations on the mobility of people during conflict, including areas of active fighting, access restrictions to military zones and changes in territorial control between conflicting parties. The weaponization of water resources and related infrastructure, as explained in the next section, can also affect access to water resources, for instance, in the form of the manipulation of river flows (Schillinger et al., 2022). Particularly in water-scarce regions, unconventional resources, such as treated wastewater, rainwater harvesting and desalination, are used to augment the supply. However, the large-scale production of such resources, especially in the case of desalination, requires a significant amount of energy (Weinthal & Sowers, 2020). Given the common constraints on electricity supply in conflict settings, as well as the risk of infrastructure damage to central wastewater treatment or desalination facilities, the availability of such unconventional resources is limited (Schillinger et al., 2022).

Water as a weapon Using water to achieve military objectives is nothing new; the Pacific Institute’s Water Conflict Chronology records instances that date back several millennia (Gleick, 2019). Nevertheless, the topic regained attention in the 2010s due to the conduct of the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (King, 2015; Lossow, 2016). Daoudy (2020) distinguishes four primary motivations to weaponize water and water infrastructure in a conflict: (1) demonstrate infrastructural power and control over water systems to perform state-like functions and signal domination and legitimacy as an actor; (2) consider direct military targets or goals by attacking and capturing large-scale water infrastructure or use the water system’s destructive power; (3) use water as a military tool to provide a tactical advantage or as a tool of coercion of opponents or local populations, for instance by deliberately cutting water supplies; and (4) gain beneficial concessions from other conflict parties on the negotiation table by strategically using water as a bargaining chip or tool of cooperation.

Armed conflict can affect water resources through multiple pathways. These effects can occur directly by causing damage to and contamination of water resources, or indirectly by increasing the frequency or severity of detrimental processes (Francis, 2011). As shown in Figure 77.1, three main impact categories can be discerned: pollution of water resources, limitations to the accessibility of water resources and the availability of unconventional water resources (Schillinger et al., 2022). Water pollution during conflict is often linked to contamination with untreated wastewater, particularly in urban areas. Infrastructure damage can lead to leakage of wastewater from sewage networks, storage tanks or treatment stations, and treatment capacity is often limited by electricity shortages or lack of treatment chemicals (Weinthal & Sowers, 2019; Zeitoun et al., 2017). Further pollution can be caused by damage to indus- Water management and governance trial areas, with damage to oil wells and related facilities being particularly devastat- in conflict-affected areas ing (Hook & Marcantonio, 2022; Literathy, Effective water management is needed to mit1992), and uncontrolled dumping of solid and igate conflict impacts on water resources and 340

water management and armed conflict  341

Source:  Schillinger et al. (2022).

Figure 77.1   Impacts of armed conflict on water resources

water supply. However, conflict settings also affect the institutional and operational capacity of different actors in the water sector, with implications for their ability to uphold management processes and service provision. Providing sufficient water services is among the major challenges in conflictaffected areas. Three core elements of water supply systems that can be disrupted by conflict are the people, for example, utilities’ staff or private sector contractors; hardware, for example, infrastructure, equipment or machinery; and consumables, for example, fuel or water treatment chemicals (Zeitoun & Talhami, 2016; Sikder et al., 2018). Water supply systems also rely on a steady power supply. In conflict-affected areas, water service provision problems are often attributed to electricity shortages that put pumping stations and treatment plants out of operation (Etienne & Nembrini, 1995; Schillinger et  al., 2022). Informal water service provision, primarily in the form of privately operated water trucks, fills the supply gap when state-run service

provision is losing its operational capacity (Allouche, 2014). However, in the absence of functional government agencies, these informal service providers often operate with little or no regulatory oversight, leading to high water prices for local users and weak water quality safeguards (Pinera & Reed, 2009). The institutional capacity of government agencies and other key actors in the water sector commonly diminishes during armed conflict. The main reasons for this include a decrease in the workforce, with staff members losing their lives, getting injured or fleeing the area; the loss of institutional memory due to the loss of data or leadership staff; or budgets being shifted towards ending the conflict (Schillinger et  al., 2020; Zeitoun et  al., 2017). This results in a decrease or complete absence of government oversight, monitoring and regulation enforcement on water and environmental issues, such as sustainable groundwater yields and pollution, with implications for water quality and quantity, as well as ecosystem health (Faour & Fayad, 2014). In gül özerol and juliane schillinger

342  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management addition, spaces open up for new actors in the water sector and power dynamics as well as governance structures might shift as a conflict continues. Such new players in the water sector include local actors, for example, private service providers and civil society organizations (Allouche, 2014; Zeitoun et  al., 2017), and external actors, for example, humanitarian organizations and foreign militaries (Dowdeswell & Hania, 2014; Trottier et  al., 2019).

Transboundary water cooperation during armed conflict Most countries around the world share water resources with one or more neighbouring countries (Wolf, 2007). While these shared water resources can be a driver of inter-state conflict or cooperation, armed conflict in a transboundary water system can affect negotiation and cooperation processes even if the conflict is not between riparian states. Interstate conflicts, although increasingly rare, are likely to disrupt transboundary water cooperation in settings in which water is a highly politicized and contested issue between states (Libiszewski, 1997). However, nowadays, wars that feature non-state groups are a more common occurrence, making domestic conflicts and civil wars relevant for transboundary negotiations. Where state institutions are weakened due to civil war, a country might be unable to participate in transboundary negotiation processes, leading to deadlock or the country’s exclusion from the process (Kibaroglu, 2019). Political instability and lack of state authority in one riparian country can additionally threaten the availability of shared waters in downstream countries, and the emergence of a strong non-state actor that controls water introduces a new dimension to transboundary negotiations (Mason & Khawlie, 2016; Kibaroglu, 2019).

International humanitarian law on water International humanitarian law (IHL), which governs the conduct of parties to armed conflicts, includes a range of provisions that explicitly or implicitly protect water resources and water infrastructure during conflict (see Geneva Water Hub [2019] for an extensive review of the applicable IHL rules). The protection of water systems in IHL is primarily gül özerol and juliane schillinger

based on the basic humanitarian necessity of water and sanitation, which are critical to human health and food security, making them ‘indispensable for the survival of the civilian population’ (Gleick, 2019). Dams and dikes are further designated as ‘infrastructure containing dangerous forces’, as their destruction would release a dangerous amount of water that could cause far-reaching damage to civilian populations. Attacks against such infrastructure are prohibited in almost all cases. Water resources themselves, along with other parts of the environment, are assigned a civilian character in IHL, and as such enjoy the same protection as civilian populations (Tignino & Sjöstedt, 2020). These provisions notwithstanding, significant challenges remain in the application and enforcement of IHL on water, particularly with regard to non-state armed actors engaged in conflicts (Gleick, 2019; Damluji, 2016). Gül Özerol and Juliane Schillinger

References Allouche, J. (2014). The role of informal service providers in post-conflict reconstruction and state building. In E. Weinthal, J. Troell, & M. Nakayama (Eds.), Water and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding (pp. 31–42). Earthscan. Damluji, N. (2016). Legal analysis: Daesh control of watercourses in Syria and Iraq. Washington International Law Journal, 25(2), 331–363. Daoudy, M. (2020). Water weaponization in the Syrian conflict: Strategies of domination and cooperation. International Affairs, 96(5), 1347–1366. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1093​/ia​/iiaa131 Dowdeswell, T. L., & Hania, P. (2014). Regulating water and war in Iraq: A dangerous dark side of new governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 21(2), 453–482. Etienne, Y., & Nembrini, P. G. (1995). Establishing water and sanitation programmes in conflict situations: The case of Iraq during the Gulf War. SozialUnd Präventivmedizin SPM, 40(1), 18–26. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/ BF01615658 Faour, G., & Fayad, A. (2014). Water environment in the coastal basins of Syria - Assessing the impacts of the war. Environmental Processes, 1(4), 533–552. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s40710​-014​-0043-5

water management and armed conflict  343 Francis, R. A. (2011). The Impacts of modern warfare on freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Management, 48(5), 985– 999. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s00267​-011​ -9746-9 Geneva Water Hub. (2019). The Geneva List of Principles on the Protection of Water Infrastructure. Geneva: Geneva Water Hub. Gleick, P. H. (1993). Water and conflict: Fresh water resources and international security. International Security, 18(1), 79–112. Gleick, P. H. (2019). Water as a weapon and casualty of conflict: Freshwater and international humanitarian law. Water Resources Management, 33(5), 1737–1751. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11269​-019​-02212-z Hook, K., & Marcantonio, R. (2022). Environmental dimensions of conflict and paralyzed responses: The ongoing case of Ukraine and future implications for urban warfare. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 329(5993), 1–29. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /09592318​.2022​.2035098 ICRC. (2008). How is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law? Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www​ .icrc​.org​/en​/doc​/assets​/files​/other​/opinion​ -paper​-armed​-conflict​.pdf Ide, T., Lopez, M. R., Fröhlich, C., & Scheffran, J. (2020). Pathways to water conflict during drought in the MENA region. Journal of Peace Research, 40(4), 568–582. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1177​/0022343320910777 Kibaroglu, A. (2019). State-of-the-art review of transboundary water governance in the Euphrates–Tigris river basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(1), 4–29. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /07900627​.2017​.1408458 King, M. D. (2015). The weaponization of water in Syria and Iraq. Washington Quarterly, 38(4), 153–169. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1080​/0163660X​.2015​.1125835 Libiszewski, S. (1997). Integrating high and low politics: Lessons from the Israeli-Jordanian water regime. Water International, 22(1), 6–15. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1080​/02508069708686656 Literathy, P. (1992). Environmental consequences of the Gulf War in Kuwait: Impact on water resources. Water Science and Technology, 26(1–2), 21–30. Mason, M., & Khawlie, M. (2016). Fluid sovereignty: State–nature relations in

the Hasbani Basin, Southern Lebanon. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(6), 1344–1359. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/24694452​.2016​.1213155 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Veilleux, J. C., & Wolf, A. T. (2017). International water conflict and cooperation: Challenges and opportunities. Water International, 42(2), 105–120. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/02508060​ .2017​.1276041 Pinera, J.-F., & Reed, R. A. (2009). A tale of two cities: Restoring water services in Kabul and Monrovia. Disasters, 33(4), 574–590. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1467​ -7717​.2008​.01088.x Schillinger, J., Özerol, G., Güven‐Griemert, Ş., & Heldeweg, M. (2020). Water in war: Understanding the impacts of armed conflict on water resources and their management. WIREs Water, 7(6), e1480. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/wat2​.1480 Schillinger, J., Özerol, G., & Heldeweg, M. (2022). A social-ecological systems perspective on the impacts of armed conflict on water resources management: Case studies from the Middle East. Geoforum, 133, 101–116. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.geoforum​.2022​.05​.001 Sikder, M., Daraz, U., Lantagne, D., & Saltori, R. (2018). Water, sanitation, and hygiene access in southern Syria: Analysis of survey data and recommendations for response. Conflict and Health, 12, 17. https://doi​.org​/10​.1186​/s13031​-018​-0151-3 Tignino, M., & Sjöstedt, B. (2020). Searching for holistic approaches to protect water in relation to armed conflict. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 29(1), 3–6. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/reel​.12334 Trottier, J., Rondier, A., & Perrier, J. (2019). Palestinians and donors playing with fire: 25 years of water projects in the West Bank. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 5(2), 1–25. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1080​/07900627​.2019​.1617679 UNICEF. (2019). Water Under Fire: For Every Child, Water and Sanitation in Complex Emergencies. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. https://www​ .unicef​.org​/media​/51286​/file gül özerol and juliane schillinger

344  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management von Lossow, T. (2016). The rebirth of water as a weapon: IS in Syria and Iraq. The International Spectator, 51(3), 82–99. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/ 03932729​. 2016​ .1213063 Weinthal, E., & Sowers, J. (2019). Targeting infrastructure and livelihoods in the West Bank and Gaza. International Affairs, 95(2), 319–340. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/ia​/ iiz015 Weinthal, E., & Sowers, J. (2020). The water-energy nexus in the Middle East: Infrastructure, development, and conflict. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 5(1), e1437. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/wat2​ .1437 Wolf, A. T. (2007). Shared waters: Conflict and cooperation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 241–269. World Bank. (2011). World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and

gül özerol and juliane schillinger

Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Zeitoun, M., Elaydi, H., Dross, J.-P., Talhami, M., de Pinho-Oliveira, E., & Cordoba, J. (2017). Urban warfare ecology: A study of water supply in Basrah. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 41(6), 904–925. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​ /1468​-2427​.12546 Zeitoun, M., & Talhami, M. (2016). The impact of explosive weapons on urban services: Direct and reverberating effects across space and time. International Review of the Red Cross, 98(901), 53–70. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/S1816383117000157 Zwijnenburg, W., Nahas, N., & Jaramillo Vasquez, R. (2021). War, waste, and polluted pastures: An explorative environmental study of the impact of the conflict in northeast Syria. PAX. https://paxforpeace​.nl​/ media​/download​/ PAX​_WWPP​_v2​.2​.pdf

78. Water Management in Africa

fever spread by mosquitoes. Although many of these waterborne sicknesses are treatable and preventable, they are nonetheless one of the leading causes of illness and death in the world. Infants and children are especially susceptible to these diseases because of their Water management in Africa immature immune systems (TWP, 2012) Despite providing neither food, energy nor which lend to elevated infant mortality rates organic micronutrients, water is a requi- in many regions of Africa. Productivity and development: Water is a site for all forms of life. Water also plays an important role in driving economic develop- fundamental resource for industrial manufacment as it is essential for manufacturing and turing (both as an input and for cooling heavy extractive processes as well as power genera- machinery), mining and energy generation. tion. Globally, approximately 70 percent of all As such, lack of water has a direct impact fresh water is devoted to agricultural produc- on economic development, or lack thereof. tion (OECD, 2020), a sector that employs up Consequently, poverty is often directly linked to 70 percent of the population in some devel- to the accessibility of water. Studies (Soussan, oping countries (UNEP, 2021). In addition, 2006; Reddy et al., 2004) have demonstrated water further facilitates trade and commerce a link between poverty and access to clean with a network of waterways (canals, rivers, drinking water, without which the chances of seas and oceans) serving as a dependable breaking out of the poverty trap are extremely means of transportation for both people and slim. Within this poverty trap, people are caught in a cycle where they are subjected to commodities. While Africa is a resource-rich conti- low incomes, high fixed costs for water supply nent, it is also the continent with the highest facilities and lack of credit for water investnumber of countries experiencing significant ment, all of which result in a low level of developmental challenges. One such chal- investment in water and land resources, lack lenge is the lack of adequate water (both in of investment in profit-generating activities, terms of quality and quantity) to support the resource degradation and chronic poverty populace. Some key facts help paint a clearer (Roy and Crow, 2004). Agriculture: Water scarcity translates to picture – Africa has about 9  percent of the world’s freshwater resources and 16  percent loss of food security as rain-fed agriculture of the world’s population, second only to accounts for more than 70  percent of the Asia (Sheihk et al., 2019). Some of the conti- agricultural forms practiced in sub-Saharan nent’s largest river bodies are the Congo, Nile, Africa (Reddy and Syme, 2015). Thus, the Zambezi, Niger and Lake Victoria, which is increasing variability of current weather patconsidered the world’s second largest lake. terns creates a situation wherein crops and Despite this, Africa is the second driest conti- harvests are more prone to being affected by nent in the world, with millions of inhabitants droughts and floods. The combined impact suffering from water shortages throughout of droughts, floods and desertification is greater in terms of both economic and human the year. life losses due to crop failure and starvation. Unfortunately, most rural African comWater scarcity in Africa munities are currently not tapping into their With water playing such a central role in irrigation potential. For many regions in all aspects of daily life, the ramifications of Africa, there is a lack of financial and human water scarcity within society are far-reaching resources to support the infrastructure and and complex. technology required for proper crop irrigaHealth: People living in water-deprived tion, which in turn has a direct impact on food regions often have no choice but to resort to security. A study commissioned by the World unsafe water resources, which contribute to Bank (Bain et al., 2013) found that individuals the spread of waterborne diseases including who suffer from malnutrition lose 10 percent typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery and diarrhea. of their potential lifetime earnings. Additionally, water scarcity causes many peoConflict: Africa’s susceptibility to potenple to store water within the household, which tial water-induced conflict can be separated increases the risk of household water contam- into four regions: the Nile, Niger, Zambezi ination and incidences of malaria and dengue and Volta basins. Running through Egypt, 345

346  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Ethiopia and Sudan, the Nile’s water has the potential to spark conflict and unrest (Simpkins, 2010). The Nile River has had a major impact on the interstate politics of the Nile basin region through the years, as it is the only reliable source for renewable water supplies in the area. The Entebbe Agreement shifted control over the Nile away from Egypt and Sudan, two countries that previously had a monopoly over the river’s resources as a result of colonial agreements. The Nile’s impacts on North African politics have been significant and can spark transboundary conflicts, which could potentially destabilize the whole area. New tensions emerged about a decade ago when Ethiopia started building Africa’s largest hydroelectric power plant, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), on the Blue Nile. The Blue Nile originates at Lake Tana in Ethiopia and amounts to 85  percent of the Nile flow. However, Egypt and Sudan account for most of the water consumption. Tensions over the river are high, and all countries involved see the competition for control as a zero-sum game. Ethiopia has described control of the waters as an ‘existential need’, while Egypt and Sudan speak of an ‘existential’ or ‘national security’ threat (Pinto, 2021). While successive negotiations have failed, all parties are aware of the enormous costs involved in a potential armed conflict within the region. In the Lake Chad region, severely dwindling water resources have driven the riparian communities to decades-long conflicts over arable land, pasture and fishing. This has since not only created fertile ground for the emergence of terrorist groups such as Boko Haram but has also influenced migratory patterns from the region (Okpara et al., 2015; Iceland, 2017). The Niger River basin extends from Guinea through Mali and down to Nigeria. Especially for Mali – one of the world’s poorest countries – the river is vital for food, water and transportation. Currently, its overuse is contributing to an increasingly polluted and unusable water source. In Southern Africa, the Zambezi River basin is one of the world’s most overused river systems, and so Zambia and Zimbabwe compete fiercely over it. Within the Volta River basin, Ghana is dependent on its hydroelectric output but plagued by regular droughts which affect the production of electricity from the Akosombo Dam. This puts a limit on Ghana’s ability to provide power for the area, which could potentially contribute to regional instability.

Women and girls: In most African societies, women are seen as the collectors, managers and guardians of water, especially within the domestic sphere that includes household chores, cooking, washing and child rearing. The daily role of African women (especially in rural and semi-urban settings) in clean water retrieval often means carrying containers of water that can weigh up to 18 kg when full for an average of 6  km daily. This has health consequences such as permanent skeletal damage. For schoolaged girls, it can translate to a physical strain that contributes to increased stress, increased time spent in health recovery and decreased ability to physically attend educational facilities and mentally meet academic demands.

Approaches to sustainable water management The African Forest Forum commissioned a study on the broad area of forest–water relations, covering the eight sub-humid West African countries of Benin, Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Togo. The issues addressed in the study include: the extent of shared commitment and desire to promote synergy and strengthen the cooperation of the member states on water issues in the sub-region; this includes the water supply in the region as related to forest ecosystems, learning and sharing of experiences and best practices, the potential for collaboration in managing and using water resources and related forest ecosystems in the sub-region. Among other things, the study proffers the use of adaptive technologies to enhance water yield and use in addition to improvements in knowledge and information sharing (Popoola, 2011). The African Policy Framework for the water sector comprises a series of high-level declarations, resolutions and programs of action on the development and use of the continent’s water resources for socioeconomic development, regional integration and the environment (UNESCO, 2016). These include the African Water Vision  2025 and its Framework of Action, the African Union (AU) Extraordinary Summit on Water and Agriculture, the AU Sharm El Sheikh Declaration on Water and Sanitation and, most importantly, the Agenda 2063 – The Africa We Want. These policy instruments are buttressed by strategies and programs, including the New Partnership for African Development Program (NEPAD), the

ebun akinsete, labode popoola and femi oyeniyi

water management in africa  347 Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) and many others, which include the integrated development of Africa’s water resources for socioeconomic development and poverty alleviation and eradication. Some other ongoing efforts to achieve water stability include an emphasis on infrastructural development and improvements in wells, rainwater catchment systems and clean water storage tanks. These are commitments that can address the sub-optimal water situation in many African countries if sincerely addressed. Underpinning these initiatives is a drive for sustainability, enshrined in the implementation of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). SDG 6 aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, while SDG 14 aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. Although these two SDGs can be highlighted as the most relevant for water management, water remains an integral factor in activities related to several of the other SDGs; from food production (SDGs  2 and 15) to energy generation (SDGs 7 and 13), the manufacture of goods (SDGs 8, 9 and 12) and the all-round well-being of our communities (SDGs  3, 11 and 16). As such, sustainable water management approaches need to adopt an equally holistic view of water as a resource. Integrated water resources management (IWRM) as an approach, attempts to take into consideration broad elements of socioeconomic and environmental interests in the equitable allocation and management of water resources (Perry, 1999; Agarwal et  al., 2000; Jønch-Clausen, 2004; Lenton and Muller, 2012; Biswas, 2008). More recently, IWRM approaches that adopt a water–energy–food (WEF) nexus framework provide a basis to consider the cross-sectoral dimension of water resources management considering three key sectors that are often in competition for the same resource: agriculture, power generation and water for domestic or commercial use (Muller, 2015; Mabhaudhi et al., 2016; Akinsete et al., 2022a). Additionally, the cross-sectoral nature of the WEF nexus approaches encourages a move away from siloed thinking and promotes dialogue between a broad spectrum of key stakeholders with varied and beneficial insights into the utility of the resource and the potential for its sustainable management (Melloni, 2020; Akinsete et al., 2022b).

Conclusion Globally, climate-resilient policies need to be developed for allocating water and planning for water availability in the future. In Africa, this need is even more urgent given the acute state of the water crisis. Such policies require a good understanding of the current and future hydroclimatic situation and improved accessibility to climate information for both policymakers and industry practitioners alike to make informed water management decisions. This would imply that wide-ranging collaborative efforts must be deployed within and among countries on the continent. In addition, a cross-sectoral approach is crucial in order to adequately address the scale of the challenge; in particular, major consumers of water such as the agricultural sector must be engaged in the discourse. Adaptive capacity in water management systems can also aid in the mitigation of some negative impacts of climate-related events and increase climate resilience. Stakeholders at various scales, that is, from small urban utilities to national governments, need to have access to reliable information that details regional climate and climate change. Significantly, indigenous knowledge needs to be integrated into the policymaking process to enhance resilience building in water resources management. Ebun Akinsete, Labode Popoola and Femi Oyeniyi

References Agarwal, A., delos Angeles, M. S., Bhatia, R., Chéret, I., Davila-Poblete, S., Falkenmark, M., Villarreal, F. G., Jønch-Clausen, T., Kadi, M. A., Kindler, J. and Rees, J. (2000). Integrated Water Resources Management. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership. Akinsete, E., Koundouri, P., Kartala, X., Englezos, N., Lautze, J., Yihdego, Z., Gibson, J., Scholz, G., van Bers, C. and Sodoge, J. (2022b). “Sustainable WEF Nexus Management: A Conceptual Framework to Integrate Models of Social, Economic, Policy, and Institutional Developments.” Frontiers in Water 4: 79. Akinsete, E., Koundouri, P. and Landis, C. (2022a). “Modeling the WEF Nexus to Support Sustainable Development: An African Case.” In: Cavalli, L. and Vergalli, S. (eds.), Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals: The WEF Nexus. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Cham: Springer.

ebun akinsete, labode popoola and femi oyeniyi

348  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Bain, L. E., Awah, P. K., Geraldine, N., Kindong, N. P., Sigal, Y., Bernard, N. and Tanjeko, A. T. (2013). “Malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Burden, Causes and Prospects.” Pan African Medical Journal 15: 120. DOI: 10.11604/ pamj.2013.15.120.2535. Biswas, A. K. (2008). “Integrated Water Resources Management: Is It Working?” International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(1): 5–22. DOI: 10.1080/07900620701871718. Iceland, C. (2017). “Water Stress is Helping Drive Conflict and Migration How Should the Global Community Respond?” https:// www​ .wri​ .org​ /news​ / water​ - stress​ -helping​ -drive​-conflict​-and​-migration (Accessed 3 February 2021; 20 September 2022). Jønch-Clausen, T. (2004). Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005: Why, What and How? Stockholm: Global Water Partnership. Lenton, R. and Muller, M. (2012). Integrated Water Resources Management in Practice: Better Water Management for Development. London: Routledge. Mabhaudhi, T., Chibarabada, T. and Modi, A. (2016). “Water-Food-Nutrition-Health Nexus: Linking Water to Improving Food, Nutrition and Health in SubSaharan Africa.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(1): 107. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13010107. Melloni, G., Turetta, A., Bonatti, M. and Sieber, S. (2020). “A Stakeholder Analysis for a Water-Energy-Food Nexus Evaluation in an Atlantic Forest Area: Implications for an Integrated Assessment and a Participatory Approach.” Water 12: 1. DOI: 10.3390/w12071977. Muller, M. (2015). “The ‘Nexus’ as a Step Back Towards a More Coherent Water Resource Management Paradigm.” Water Alternatives 8(1): 675–694. OECD. (2020). “Policy Brief: Water and Agriculture.”  https://issuu​ . com ​ / oecd​ .publishing​/docs​/water​_ and​_ agriculture (Accessed 25 September 2022). Okpara, U. T., Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J. and Bila, M. D. (2015). “Conflicts About Water in Lake Chad: Are Environmental, Vulnerability and Security Issues Linked?” Progress in Development Studies 15(4): 308–325. DOI: 10.1177/1464993415592738.

Perry, C. J. (1999). “The IWMI Water Resources Paradigm – Definitions and Implications.” Agricultural Water Management 40(1): 45–50. Pinto, T. N. (2021). “The Struggle for Control Over Nile Waters.” Geopolitical Intelligence Services AG. https://www​.gisreportsonline​ .com​/r​/grand​-renaissance​-dam/. Popoola, L. (2011). “Forest-Water Relations in Sub-Humid West Africa.” African Forest Forum Working Paper Series 1: 37. Reddy, R., Reddy, M. and Soussan, J. (2004). Water and Poverty: A Case of Watershed Development in Andhra Pradesh, India in: Water and Poverty: The Realities: Experiences From the Field. Asian Development Bank Publication Series (Water for All). Reddy, R. and Syme, J. (2015). Integrated Assessment of Scale Impacts of Watershed Intervention: Assessing Hydrogeological and Bio-Physical Influences on Livelihoods. Elsevier Inc. Roy, J. and Crow, B. (2004). Gender Relations and Access to Water: What We Want to Know About Social Relations and Women’s Time Allocation. UC Santa Cruz: Center for Global, International and Regional Studies. https://escholarship​.org​/ uc​/item​/0m5033gv. Sheikh, M., Fakhrul, I. and Zahurul, K. (2019). “World’s Demand for Food and Water: The Consequences of Climate Change.” In Desalination - Challenges and Opportunities, edited by M. H. D. Abadifarahani, V. Vatanour and A. Hooshangtaheri. DOI: 10.5772/ intechopen.8519. Simpkins, G. (2010). “Africa Faces Water War Threats.” Africa Rising. http:// africarising2010​ .blogspot ​ .com ​ / 2010 ​ / 02 ​ / africa​-faces​-water​-war​-threats​.html. Soussan, J. (2006). “Understanding the Relationship Between Poverty and Water Security.” ID21 Development Research Reporting Service. TWP. (2012). “The Water Project. Water Scarcity and the Importance of Water.” https://thewaterproject​.org​/water​-scarcity/. UNEP. (2021). “Our Work in Africa.” https:// www​.unenvironment​.org ​/regions​/africa ​/ our​-work​-africa (Accessed 25 September 2022). UNESCO. (2016). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2016: Water and Jobs. Paris: UNESCO.

ebun akinsete, labode popoola and femi oyeniyi

79. Water Markets in California: Punching Below Its Weight California requires vast amounts of water. As of 2022, it is the fifth largest economy in the world with a gross domestic product of approximately $3 trillion, grows over $42 billion worth of agricultural products, much of which relies on nearly 9  million acres of irrigated cropland, and is the most populous state in the United States with approximately 40 million people. With estimates of the average total amount of annual ‘unimpaired’ available water in California of approximately 77  million  acre-feet (ac-ft) (Mount, 2019), it would seem that California has enough water to meet its oversized demand. Yet, water scarcity is an ever-present challenge in California and one that will likely increase dramatically in the ensuing years. Changes in climate and the consequent effects on the availability and reliability of water in California, as well as changes in institutional rules and regulations (particularly concerning groundwater and concerns over the environment), continue to affect supply and demand. Because water markets incentivize water movement to locations with higher-value uses under assumptions regarding market failures, they offer water managers another tool among a portfolio of strategies to reduce the costs of water scarcity and climate change, which portends more frequent and intense drought and aridity. This chapter aims to discuss California’s experience with water markets and identify factors that complicate and limit California’s evolution toward a more efficient and robust system, thus emphasizing the need for reform. To understand water markets in California, or anywhere for that matter, you need to understand the specifics of the water rights (which define the type of ‘property’ held and potentially transferred), as well as market conditions (e.g. supply and demand; institutions and regulations). In understanding these issues in the California context, we can begin to understand how the conditions for a well-functioning market fall far short of the requirements that students might read about in an elementary microeconomics textbook. Approximately two-thirds of the water used in California is sourced from surface waters,

while around one-third is sourced from groundwater, a ratio that typically reverses itself during drought. In recent years, recycled water has become increasingly available to augment supplies, supplying about 15 percent of the water used during the 2015 drought. In general, 50  percent of the overall supply of water in California goes to the environment, while of the remaining 50 percent, 80 percent goes to irrigated agriculture and 20  percent goes to urban uses, with significant temporal and spatial variations. Water rights in California can be divided into three main categories: riparian rights, appropriative rights and groundwater rights. Riparian water rights are associated with lands contiguous with rivers or lakes and are limited to use on that specific land. These ‘rights’ are not quantified, don’t require a permit, are not lost to non-use and generally are not transferable, although they can be transferred to instream use with state approval (Littleworth and Garner, 2019). Appropriative water rights – often known by the well-worn phrase, ‘first in time, first in right’ – are established rights to divert and use a specific amount of water based on prior appropriation. The entity that first uses the water for a beneficial and reasonable purpose has a right that takes priority over entities that appropriate the water later. In 1913, California passed legislation indicating that all unappropriated water was the state’s property and that the state would be in charge of doling out use permits for any future use of this water. However, water that was appropriated before 1914 (labeled pre-1914 water) is not under the control of the state, does not require a permit and is not measured, monitored or quantified. While post-1914 water rights are quantified, historically their monitoring and reporting has been infrequent and, at times, the state would not have an accurate understanding of when, where and how much water was actually being used. Finally, groundwater rights are typically confined to what is termed ‘overlying rights’, in which anyone who has land overlying groundwater can drill and pump from the groundwater without a permit (see Littleworth and Garner [2019] for other less common types of groundwater rights categories). Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), groundwater pumping will need to meet requirements laid out by specified groundwater sustainability agencies so that each groundwater basin

349

350  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management meets sustainability requirements by 2040 or 2042, depending on certain conditions. For all of the water rights described above, under California’s Reasonable Use Doctrine (Gray, 2015) the state requires that all water must be for reasonable and beneficial use, terms that are both dynamic and malleable. As motivation to understand how California may have underperformed with respect to water market activity, but one that provides some optimism for the future, consider the fact that California’s water trading comprises approximately 2  percent of its overall water use. For comparison, trading activity in Arizona – a contiguous state with similar climate and water scarcity challenges – comprises approximately 4  percent of all water use, which is double that of California. Trading in Australia and Chile account for nearly 30 percent and 14 percent of all water use, respectively (Schwabe et al., 2020; Bureau of Meteorology, 2022). While those percentages may be considered low, the sheer volume and value of trades, coupled with the timing of the trades, highlight the value of water markets in California and their possibilities. Much of the analysis of California water markets focuses on surface water trades, given both monitoring and data availability, as well as the fact that (i) surface water comprises nearly two-thirds of the water supply in California in non-drought years and (ii) additional restrictions on groundwater transfers limit their presence in water markets (Park, 2017). Water market activity in the form of surface water trades in California began to experience appreciable volumes in the late 1980s and early 1990s, during which time California was wrestling with a severe drought that lasted from 1987 through 1992. Sales grew from approximately 100 000 ac-ft in the early 1980s to nearly 1.2 million ac-ft in 1992. In 1993, water trades declined to about half of what was transacted in 1992, and then increased until the early 2000, where it hovered around 1.4 million ac-ft annually for most years since (Mount and Hanak, 2019). While the quantity of water traded has remained relatively constant over the past decade, the types of water traded and the value of the water traded have changed significantly. Since the early 2000s, the volume of water trades in California has become increasingly dominated by long-term leases and, although on a much smaller scale, permanent water sales kurt schwabe and mehdi nemati

relative to short-term leases, which dominated water trading up to the 2000s (Hanak et al., 2021). As an example, in the year 2000, long-term leases comprised approximately 20  percent of water trades, whereas shortterm leases comprised around 80 percent; in contrast, in 2020, long-term leases comprised over 50  percent of water trades (in volume) whereas short-term leases made up around 30 percent, with permanent sales comprising approximately 20 percent. By focusing more on the value of the trades rather than the number of trades, we see how water markets are indeed helping to move water to higher-valued uses during times of excessive scarcity and minimizing its impacts. During the severe drought that gripped California from 2013 through 2016, for example, the value of water trades more than doubled even though the volume of transactions did not change appreciably. In 2012, the year prior to the start of the drought, the value of water trades in California was slightly less than $300  million, while during the peak of the drought – 2015 – the value of water trades rose to nearly $800 million. As measured in dollars, this increase in water market value is driven by rising prices that reflect water scarcity. During the height of the drought, the lease price of water rose to $446 per ac-ft, double the value in 2012 ($224  per ac-ft). Similarly, the price per acre-feet of permanent water was $9700 during the drought, more than double the value in 2012 ($3692 per ac-ft). While the volume of water exchanged did not change significantly prior to, during and after the drought, the price of water – whether leased or permanently sold – certainly did. Furthermore, while only 2 percent of the water used in California in any particular year is appropriated through some form of transfer or trade, over the past decade more than $3.9 billion of water has been exchanged in California (Schwabe et al., 2021). Many challenges and barriers exist to more widespread and efficient use of water markets in California (Ayres et al., 2021; Brewer et al., 2007; Hanak et al., 2021; Sellers et al., 2015).1 One of the first issues to consider is ensuring that the property rights to water are clearly defined, secure and transferable. Uncertainty regarding what is actually being traded will limit market participation, certainly over time, as will perceptions regarding the security of the water right. Developing a robust, timely and accurate monitoring system is necessary.

water markets in california  351 A second issue that has likely inhibited a more robust water market in California, especially on the smaller users’ side, relates to the high transaction costs on sellers and buyers associated with engaging in the trade, including search costs and legal transaction costs (time and effort for approval). The approval process for water trades in California is complex and fragmented, and no centralized transparent platform (i.e. ‘a one-stop shop’) is in place to reduce search costs. While improving the regulatory process and informational asymmetries will help lower the opportunity costs associated with water markets and thus likely lead to increased participation, so will improvements in the hydrologic infrastructure to expand the market by linking more potentially interested buyers and sellers of water with the physical infrastructure necessary to move water to its higher-value uses. While this list is not exhaustive, a final issue relates to recent developments in California’s groundwater regulations, a source that up until 2014 was largely unregulated and without substantive water use monitoring (except in a small fraction of California’s 515 groundwater basins that were adjudicated). Groundwater basins are likely to play a significant role in helping California adapt and mitigate its increasing water scarcity, much more so if they are regulated with clearly defined and transparent water rights within a framework that includes an accurate accounting system and in a manner that allows flexibility regarding who can trade what and when with clear recognition of possible third-party effects. While reducing these barriers and addressing these challenges will take time, resources, compromise and collaboration and will require extensive monitoring and data collection, the opportunity costs of the status quo are high and will certainly rise with climate change, thereby justifying water rights and water market reform. Kurt Schwabe and Mehdi Nemati

Note 1.

One outcome of such barriers to trade – which also highlights the potential benefits to trade – is

significant differences in the marginal value of water across agents. Brewer et al. (2005) highlight this issue in their comparison of the value of an acre-foot of water in the semi-conductor industry of around $980 000 in gross state revenues whereas an acre-foot used to grow alfalfa or cotton generates approximately $60 (in 2005 USD).

References Ayres, A., Hanak, E., Gray, B., Sencan, G., Bruno, E., Escriva-Bou, A., and Gartell, G. 2021. Improving California’s Water Market. Report. Water Policy Center, Public Policy Institute of California, p. 42. Brewer, J., Glennon, R., Kerr, A., and Libecap, G. 2007. Transferring Water in the American West: 1987–2005. University of Michigan Journal of Law Review 40(1021). Bureau of Meteorology. 2022. Australian Water Markets Report 2020–21. Australian Government, Melbourne, VIC, p. 59. Gray, B. 2015. The Reasonable Use Doctrine in California Law and Policy. In Allison Lassiter (Ed.), Sustainable Water: Challenges and Solutions From California. University of California Press. Hanak, E., Sencan, G., and Ayres, A. 2021. California’s Water Market. Fact Sheet. Water Policy Center, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, p. 2. Littleworth, A. L., and Garner, E. L. 2019. California Water. 3rd Ed. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, San Francisco, CA. Mount, J., and Hanak, E. 2019. Water Use in California. Just the FACTS. Water Policy Center, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, p. 6. Park, D. 2017. California Water Reallocation: Where’d You Get That? Natural Resources Journal 183, p. 37. Schwabe, K., Nemati, M., Landry, C., and Zimmerman, G. 2020. Water Markets in the Western United States. Water 23, p. 15. Sellers, S., Zaragoza-Watkins, M., Babbitt, C., Gracia Briones, A. L., Hayden, A., and Festra, D. 2015. Better Access: Healthier Environment. Prosperous Communities: Recommended Reforms for the California Water Market. Environmental Defense Fund, Sacramento, p. 27.

kurt schwabe and mehdi nemati

80. Water Markets: Institutions, Issues and Remedies Introduction Markets have emerged to deal with water scarcity, especially in rapidly growing arid and semi-arid regions. Water markets can be either formal or informal. Formal markets mainly involve transactions of permanent or fixed-term water rights. The volume and share of water to be traded are well specified, and trading can occur over large areas. Formal trades in water rights are enforced through legal or administrative systems subject to a set of state and federal laws and rules [6]. Informal markets usually involve trading the right to short-term water access. Water traded in these markets can be unmeasured surface water flows or groundwater for near-term use. Informal markets are usually operated based on rules developed at the community level to allow water trade among neighbors [3,5].

Formal markets Formal markets allow for transactions involving permanent water transfers between different sectors and jurisdictions. As nonagricultural water demands have grown, water sales from agriculture to other sectors have become more frequent. Formal markets are likely to become even more important in the future. Trades in permanent water rights through formal markets provide certainty to buyers, encouraging long-term investment in efficient water use systems. In the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, severe drought in the 1950s led to the adjudication of surface water rights in 1971. The Rio Grande Watermaster was subsequently formed to manage water rights and facilitate trading. Trades in the region are relatively unrestricted, leading to active transactions in the valley; 99  percent of trades are from the agricultural sector to non-agricultural users in anticipation of future growth. While inter-sectoral transfers are simple, the lease market remains segmented due to a priority disparity between municipal and irrigation rights. Lease prices for municipal water see little fluctuation since municipal rights are virtually secure. In contrast, lease prices vary

dramatically for agricultural rights since they absorb any annual shortfall in supply during drought years [10]. Chile enabled markets with the 1981 National Water Law, which allows private transferable water rights separate from the land. Most of the transactions occurred in the semi-arid Limarí basin in north-central Chile. Although most trades are intra-sectoral, there are substantial gains from trade since the transfer of water rights guarantees certainty for expanding the production of higher-value permanent crops such as grapes [7,11,12]. A critical first step to establishing formal water markets is to define water rights. Surface water rights are usually well defined due to early development, while groundwater rights remain attached to the land in most regions, leaving open access to all landowners overlying an aquifer. In the 1940s, groundwater users in southern California began to adjudicate their groundwater rights by limiting total pumping rights within the safe yield of groundwater aquifers. Pumping rights holders form water user associations to manage their rights. The watermaster accounts for each party’s pumping rights and serves as an intermediary to trade water. Some basins even track storage units for unused pumping rights and artificial recharge, which can also be traded [1,2]. In Australia, water market developments started in the 1980s due to drought and water rights over-allocation. A major reform occurred in 1994 when water rights were separated from land ownership and changed to entitlements to a defined volume of water from a consumptive pool. Groundwater rights were regulated in the late 1990s, with a permissible annual volume determined for each groundwater management area based on the longterm sustainable yield of the aquifer system. In Victoria, where farmers hold 85 percent of groundwater licenses, trade of entitlements was allowed in 2002–2003. Groundwater usage in the state has stayed below 50 percent of licensed volume even in the driest years due to the high cost of pumping and the low yield of certain aquifers, suggesting potential gains from trade. Yet, groundwater markets in the state experienced difficulties because of inter-zonal trade restrictions and burdensome infrastructure development requirements. As a result, less than 3  percent of total entitlements have traded annually [9].

352

water markets  353 The Victorian government imposes rights restrictions that hamper trade which are concerned with third-party impacts and aquifer drawdown in intensive pumping regions. Similarly, 1997 legislation in Texas determined that water rights would immediately become junior to other existing rights in the originating basin after an inter-basin transfer [10]. Restrictions on formal trade also widely exist in Spain. In particular, water rights are divided into private and public rights, consumptive and non-consumptive use rights, and sectoral rights with priority from domestic, environmental, agricultural to hydropower or industrial use. Private rights are defined by the type of use, location, withdrawal prerequisites and return flow points which cannot be changed through trading without approval. The regulation also forbids trade between consumptive use and non-consumptive use rights, and only allows transfers to higher priority sectors [24].

Informal markets Regulatory restrictions and prerequisite conditions result in high transaction costs to trade water rights through formal markets. Therefore, if long-term water security is not the major concern, as in most intra-basin and intra-sectoral transactions, informal markets are sufficient to produce gains from trade at a much lower cost. Informal markets have developed to improve efficiency in irrigated areas where water rights are not well defined and recorded. In India, landowners possess overlying rights to groundwater, while poor farmers may not have rights or capacity to draw groundwater for irrigation. After irrigating their own land, well owners with surplus water sell pumped water to resource-poor farmers, who pay back with cash, share of crops or share of inputs (labor, land, etc.) [18]. To facilitate water trading, the government charges a lump sum for power or fully subsidizes farm electricity to induce a zero marginal cost for pumping [26]. Similar practices have been widely observed in South Asia [15,19,25]. In northern China, villages with surplus pumping capacity also engage in water trade with resourceconstrained neighbors [14,27]. While the informal markets improve the efficiency of pumping facilities, they also cause inefficient groundwater overdrafts.

The lack of well-defined water rights also causes groundwater overdrafts and other thirdparty issues through informal water market trading in developed countries. In the Central Valley of California, agricultural districts with groundwater access sell surface water delivery to districts without groundwater and then increase extraction, leading to a critical overdraft of groundwater aquifers [31]. After a prolonged drought, the California Drought Water Bank was established in 1991 to deal with the water crisis in urban regions. The bank procured water from agricultural communities and then sold it to urban users at a flat rate. A third of the surface water traded came from groundwater substitution by farmers. Moreover, the California Drought Water Bank served inter-regional and inter-sectoral water transfers, producing severe third-party effects in exporting regions [13]. Nevertheless, the informal markets suffer less from third-party effects than formal markets as the water transfers are temporary. They also allow for trades when water rights are not well defined. However, effective water management requires well-defined water rights for informal markets to function without degrading the environment. In the Westlands Water District of California, water rights are entitlements to water delivered by the Central Valley Project. Regulatory constraint prevents the establishment of a centralized exchange. However, water rights holders can negotiate privately and report water rights exchange or short-term water delivery to the district. The authority has recorded frequent trades among users. Analysis of the transaction data shows that water is reallocated from low-value to high-value crops [4].

Summary of issues and remedies A well-functioning market requires clearly defined property rights, no significant externalities and few restrictions on trading. Water markets rarely meet these requirements. Water markets with poorly defined groundwater rights can lead to overdrafts. As groundwater mostly remains an open-access common pool resource, allocating shares to the common pool subject to its sustainable yield is the critical first step for markets to function. The adjudication of groundwater rights in California and Texas sets an example of how well-defined water rights achieve long-term sustainability in a basin [23].

hao zhao, david porter and stephen rassenti

354  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Moreover, an integrated exchange system, simultaneously accounting for both surface and groundwater, is necessary to avoid the substitution effects of surface water trade on groundwater depletion and vice versa. Regulators put many restrictions on water transfers to avoid third-party consequences. Incorporating proper compensation mechanisms for third parties into the market institutions has promise [20]. For example, water markets in Nebraska include a discount for surface flow depletion [4]. Australia has developed a plan that puts aside water rights for system maintenance and the environment [28]. In Spain, the government purchases water rights from private rights holders through the water bank to address environmental concerns [5,24]. Some economists also advocate the assignment of instream flow rights to environmental groups, who might be willing to sell/rent part of those rights [22]. Monopoly power can be an issue. Communities with water markets in Spain before the 1950s generated less equity and lower efficiency than communities without a water market due to the monopoly of water rights by ‘water lords’. Large water rights owners strategically supported the expansion of farming acreage to increase demand. At the same time, these suppliers intentionally blocked the building of new dams and the sinking of new wells to restrict water supply expansion [8]. In Texas, river authorities monopolize all water from the Rio Grande basin, making open water markets infeasible [10]. Increasing the number of participants in the market is important. Current water trades largely rely on private intermediaries or social networks. Strictly bilateral markets, like that enforced by California’s Westlands Water District, are weak in this regard. Water exchanges implemented through large intermediaries with secondary objectives, such as those conducted by the California Drought Water Bank, can hinder efficiency. Centralized exchanges with well-engineered rules and information flows can significantly improve efficiency. In Chile, a new internet platform for spot market transactions in the Limarí basin canal system was launched in 2012. Australia has introduced centralized exchanges that implement sealed-bid double auctions and employ bulletin boards in thinner markets. As an alternative to bilateral trades, economists have suggested an all-in-auction

or a consignment auction to deal with any lack of sellers in the market [16,30]. Such a market would require all rights holders to offer their rights for sale and buy them back at the market price if they chose, a revenue neutral proposition that would force the recognition of water value. An example can be found in Oman where communities allocate water rights through an ascending bid auction [29]. Water rights priority disparity also limits potential market participants as some regions forbid trades across priorities. Australia resolves this issue by converting all rights to a defined volume of water from a consumptive pool. Lastly, water transportation can add a substantial trading cost. Governments can invest in conveyance infrastructure only if the costs can be justified by significant gains in efficiency resulting in higher tax revenue from higher-valued use. A ‘smart’ water market design that incorporates transportation capacity rights into the market (similar to natural gas or electricity network markets) can make the value of water conveyance infrastructure explicit, incentivizing private parties to invest [21]. Hao Zhao, David Porter and Stephen Rassenti

References 1. Ayres, A. B., Edwards, E. C., & Libecap, G. D. (2017). How transaction costs obstruct collective action: Evidence from California’s groundwater (Tech. Rep.). National Bureau of Economic Research. 2. Blomquist, W. A. (1992). Dividing the waters: Governing groundwater in southern California. 3. Brozovic, N., Carey, J. M., & Sunding, D. L. (2002). Trading activity in an informal agricultural water market: An example from California. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 121(1), 2. 4. Brozović, N., & Young, R. (2014). Design and implementation of markets for groundwater pumping rights. In Water markets for the 21st century (pp. 283– 303). Springer. 5. De Stefano, L., & Hernández-Mora, N. (2016). Informal water markets in Spain: An overview. Working Paper. 6. Easter, K. W., Rosegrant, M. W., & Dinar, A. (1999). Formal and informal markets

hao zhao, david porter and stephen rassenti

water markets  355 for water: Institutions, performance, and constraints. The World Bank Research Observer, 14(1), 99–116. 7. Edwards, E. C., Cristi, O., Edwards, G., & Libecap, G. D. (2018). An illiquid market in the desert: Estimating the cost of water trade restrictions in northern Chile. Environment and Development Economics, 23(6), 615–634. 8. Garrido, S. (2011). Governing scarcity: Water markets, equity and efficiency in pre-1950s eastern Spain. International Journal of the Commons, 5(2). 9. Gill, B., Webb, J., Stott, K., Cheng, X., Wilkinson, R., & Cossens, B. (2017). Economic, social and resource management factors influencing groundwater trade: Evidence from Victoria, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 550, 253–267. 10. Griffin, R. C., & Characklis, G. W. (2011). Issues and trends in Texas water marketing. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 121(1), 5. 11. Hearne, R., & Donoso, G. (2014). Water markets in Chile: Are they meeting needs? In Water markets for the 21st century (pp. 103–126). Springer. 12. Hearne, R., & Easter, K. W. (1997). The economic and financial gains from water markets in Chile. Agricultural Economics, 15(3), 187–199. 13. Howitt, R. E. (1994). Empirical analysis of water market institutions: The 1991 California water market. Resource and Energy Economics, 16(4), 357–371. 14. Huang, Q., Wang, J., Rozelle, S., Polasky, S., & Liu, Y. (2013). The effects of well management and the nature of the aquifer on groundwater resources. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(1), 94–116. 15. Jacoby, H. G., Murgai, R., & Ur Rehman, S. (2004). Monopoly power and distribution in fragmented markets: The case of groundwater. The Review of Economic Studies, 71(3), 783–808. 16. Khezr, P., & MacKenzie, I. A. (2018). Consignment auctions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 87, 42–51. 17. Libecap, G. D. (2009). Chinatown revisited: Owens valley and Los Angeles—Bargaining costs and fairness perceptions of the first major water rights exchange. The Journal of Law,

Economics, & Organization, 25(2), 311–338. 18. Manjunatha, A., Speelman, S., Chandrakanth, M. G., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011). Impact of groundwater markets in India on water use efficiency: A data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(11), 2924–2929. 19. Meinzen-Dick, R. S. (1998). Groundwater markets in Pakistan: Institutional development and productivity impacts. In Markets for water (pp. 207–222). Springer. 20. Murphy, J. J., Dinar, A., Howitt, R. E., Mastrangelo, E., Rassenti, S. J., & Smith, V. L. (2006). Mechanisms for addressing third-party impacts resulting from voluntary water transfers. In John A. List (ed.), Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics (pp. 91–112). Edward Elgar Publishing. 21. Murphy, J. J., Dinar, A., Howitt, R. E., Rassenti, S. J., & Smith, V. L. (2000). The design of “smart” water market institutions using laboratory experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 17(4), 375–394. 22. Murphy, J. J., Dinar, A., Howitt, R. E., Rassenti, S. J., Smith, V. L., & Weinberg, M. (2009). The design of water markets when instream flows have value. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1089–1096. 23. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. 24. Rey, D., Garrido, A., & Calatrava, J. (2014). Water markets in Spain: Meeting twenty-first century challenges with twentieth century regulations. In Water markets for the 21st century (pp. 127– 147). Springer. 25. Saleth, R. M. (1998). Water markets in India: Economic and institutional aspects. In Markets for water (pp. 187–205). Springer. 26. Saleth, R. M. (2014). Water markets in India: Extent and impact. In Water markets for the 21st century (pp. 239– 261). Springer. 27. Wang, J., Zhang, L., Huang, Q., Huang, J., & Rozelle, S. (2014). Assessment of the development of groundwater market in rural China. In Water markets for the 21st century (pp. 263–282). Springer.

hao zhao, david porter and stephen rassenti

356  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management 28. Young, M. D., & McColl, J. C. (2009). Double trouble: The importance of accounting for and defining water entitlements consistent with hydrological realities. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(1), 19–35. 29. Zekri, S., Powers, D., & Al-Ghafri, A. (2014). Century old water markets in

Oman. In Water markets for the 21st century (pp. 149–162). Springer. 30. Zetland, D. (2013). All-in-auctions for water. Journal of Environmental Management, 115, 78–86. 31. Zhao, H. (2019). The market and common-pool resource problem: Surface water trading and groundwater depletion in California. SSRN 3469257.

hao zhao, david porter and stephen rassenti

81. Water Policy in Water-Scarce Countries: Insights from the Middle East Introduction The Emirate of Abu Dhabi (EAD) is the largest political state in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a federation of seven emirates in the Middle East. The EAD is located in an arid region and covers 67 340 km2 (about 87  percent of the UAE’s total area). The emirate has about 700  km of coastline on the Arabian Gulf. It shares its boundary with Oman in the east, Saudi Arabia to the south and west and the Arabian (Persian) Gulf and the emirate of Dubai in the north (Figure 81.1). The climate of the EAD is subtropical with hot summers and mild to cool winters with scant rainfall (RF) of less than 100  mm annually (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2018). The maximum temperature averages above 40°C (104°F) during the summer period, and the atmosphere is humid during most of the year. The overall population has increased more than six times since 1975 (Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi, 2018) to reach about 2.7 million in 2020, which is about 30  percent of the UAE’s population (Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi, 2020).

Characteristics of the water sector in Abu Dhabi The framework of Abu Dhabi’s water system is composed of water supply–demand elements and external components that drive demand and supply. A schematic representation of all the water inflows, outflows and storage and transfer components, showing the interactive relationships between them is illustrated in Figure  81.2. According to previous studies, the main driving forces are population growth, economic development and changes in lifestyle that have increased the water demand for irrigation, human consumption and industrial processes (Kizhisseri et  al., 2021; Mohamed et  al., 2020). Several public policies have intensified this water demand: the expansion of agriculture with a view to protecting the rural heritage and making Abu Dhabi less dependent on imported

food; desert greening policies with a view to providing a habitat for wild animals and stabilizing the sand around roads; the development of public parks to enhance the aesthetic value of outdoor spaces; residential and commercial megaprojects with a view to catering for the local population and the growing tourism industry; and industrialization driven by the government’s diversification effort into non-oil industries (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2009, 2012, 2014). Water resources in Abu Dhabi The EAD is characterized by limited natural water resources, a limitation that is overcome by depending largely on non-conventional sources: desalinated water (DW) produced from seawater and treated sewage (TS) produced from wastewater. Groundwater (GW) is the main conventional source in the EAD. The EAD has no rivers or any sort of perennial surface water bodies. The other prevalent types of conventional water sources, namely, RF and runoffs are also not abundant due to very low RF (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2018). In addition, as most of the terrain is flat, sandy soil with scattered dunes and some low elevation sabkhas (flat area with salt deposits), little runoff is generated that can be collected and stored for a water supply (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2014). The share of various resources in the EAD are as follows: GW (60.3 percent), TS (4.85 percent), DW (34.6 percent) and RF (0.2 percent) (Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Company, 2018; Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi, 2018). The total reserve of GW is estimated at 642 000  million cubic meters (MCM), and is mainly in shallow aquifers, of which 340 000 MCM is of a quality considered usable (RTI International, 2015). GW accounts for about 60  percent of Abu Dhabi’s water supply (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2018) and is mainly used for agriculture (83  percent) and afforestation (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2018). Most of the shallow aquifers are brackish (18  percent), saline or brine (79 percent), while fresh water with total dissolved solids (TDS) less than 1000  ppm is only 3  percent. Only around 5  percent of the GW that is used annually is recharged through the movement of GW from Oman (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2014). At the current rates of abstraction (2100 MCM), the Emirate’s usable GW (fresh and brackish water) may only last for

357

358  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Figure 81.1   Geographical situation of Abu Dhabi

around 50 years (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2018). DW from the sea is the sole water source to meet potable demands; namely, residential, municipal, commercial and industrial water uses in Abu Dhabi. DW is also used for agricultural irrigation and GW recharge. The UAE is the world’s second largest producer of desalinated water, contributing 14 percent of the world’s production, and Abu Dhabi has the highest share of it (67  percent) (Zekri, 2020). The production of desalination plants accounts for 31  percent of total water use (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2021). Desalination plants are located at strategic locations along the coasts of the Gulf of Arabia and the Gulf of Oman, within or outside the EAD (Figure 81.1). The three prominent technologies for DW production in the region are multiple-effect distillation (MED), multistage flash distillation (MED) and reverse osmosis. In addition, DW plants in the EAD are installed as co-generation plants producing both electricity and water. TS is another non-conventional source of water in the EAD. Total TS production stood at

352 MCM in 2020, of which 63 percent is used in landscaping, the irrigation of public parks, green spaces and forests, while the remaining 207 MCM (37 percent) is disposed of into the sea (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2021). Thus, TS use accounts for 8 percent of total water use in Abu Dhabi. Even though Abu Dhabi has a well-developed sewerage network, about 72 percent of consumed water does not re-enter the sewage system, leading to a low return-to-sewer of used DW water (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2021).​ Water use in Abu Dhabi Water demand in the EAD has risen dramatically in recent decades, owing to the rapid population increase and economic development (Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi, 2015). Despite the fact that the EAD is a waterscarce state, the domestic water consumption rate in Abu Dhabi is among the highest in the world, averaged at 590  liters per capita, which is three times the world average (Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Company, 2018). According to the Statistics Center of Abu Dhabi (SCAD), in 2020, the total water

mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

water policy in water-scarce countries  359

Potable

TS

1.Residential 2.Municipal 3.Commercial 4.Industrial

Air Non-Potable

WTP

1.Forestry 2.Amenities Rainfall

DW

Potable and Non-Potable (Mixed) 1.Agriculture Storm Water

Surface Aquifer Deep Aquifer

GW

Sea

Evaporation/evapotranspiration reaching air

Water Source

Water extraction from supply sources

Water Demand Sectors

Rainfall Component reaching sea

Water supply to demand sectors from supply sources Flow Connection ‘to and out” of wastewater treatment Plants (WTP) Infiltration to shallow aquifer from various components

Water Transfer Components

External Water Storage Source:  Kizhisseri et al. (2021).

Figure 81.2   Components of Abu Dhabi water system

demand in Abu Dhabi Emirate was about 3415  MCM. The SCAD has categorized this demand type into the following demand sectors: agriculture (50  percent), forestry (11  percent), public realm amenities (10  percent), residential (16  percent), commercial

(4 percent), government or municipal (8 percent) and industrial (0.5  percent) (Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi, 2020). Figure 81.3 shows the projected growth in water demand until 2050 if the current water demand rates continue and the population continues to grow in

mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

360  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Sectorwise Demand MCM/yr

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Amenities

Forestry

Agriculture

Industrial

Commercial

Municipal

Residential

0

Demand Sectors Source:  Kizhisseri et al. (2021).

Figure 81.3   Projected water demand in all sectors until 2050 for business as usual growth of Abu Dhabi, 2020 (first bars), 2030 (second bars) and 2050 (third bars)

line with a balanced environment and gradual economic development.

History of water administration in Abu Dhabi An analysis of the water governance and policies of Abu Dhabi shows that the institutional framework of water management has evolved over time with significant transformations (Abu Dhabi Council for Economic Development, 2009; Alsharhan & Rizk, 2020a; Al-Zubari, 2009; Dawoud, 2007; Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2012, 2014; Ministry of Climate Change and Environment, 2021; Ministry of Environment and Water, 2014, 2014). In Abu Dhabi, the responsibility for water is shared by the UAE federal government and local government in the EAD, and each has its own roles and responsibilities. As per the structure of the UAE, the Abu Dhabi government is responsible for managing its natural water resources through local legislation and regulations. However, the federal government is responsible for decision-making at the country’s strategic level on both conventional and non-conventional water resources. The water sector regulations in Abu Dhabi are in the form of water laws and decrees at federal and emirate level, and by establishing competent authorities and institutions to manage water resources. A number of laws and decrees were issued to protect, conserve and improve the management of the environment and water resources (Table 81.1).

Water governance reform at federal level The history of the environmental management and policies of the UAE federal government can be summed up in four phases (Ministry of Climate Change and Environment, 2021; Ministry of Environment and Water, 2014, 2015). Each phase marked the improvement in the environment and water conservation strategy of the country. In the early phase, the UAE focused on promoting environmental protection and development by developing action plans at the federal and local levels. Initially, two ministries, namely, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) and the Ministry of Electricity and Water (MEW), established as early as 1971, shared the main responsibilities for the water sector. MAF was responsible for activities related to agriculture, surface water and GW resources and fisheries, while MEA was established to look into the electricity and municipal water needs of the UAE. This was followed by a phase in which laws, legislation and regulations for the environment were drafted with the involvement of ministries, agencies and organizations pertinent to the environment, for which the Supreme Committee of the Environment was established in 1975. In 1980, at the federal level, in order to coordinate municipal affairs with all emirates’ municipalities and to manage treated wastewater, the General Secretariat of Municipalities (GSM) was formed. In 1981, the General Water Resources Authority (GWRA) was established directly

mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

water policy in water-scarce countries  361 Table 81.1   Various water laws applicable for water management in Abu Dhabi Laws/orders applicable for Abu Dhabi water sector

Relevancy to water sector

Federal Law No. (21) of 1981

Establishment of General Water Resources Authority (GWRA)

Federal Law No. (7) of 1993

To establish Federal Environment Agency to oversee the issues at federal level

Federal Law No. (24) of 1999 for Protection and Development of the

Cover various water resources management

Environment

including protection of aquifer systems, wastewater discharges and marine environment protection

Federal Law No. (23) of 1999 on Exploitation, Protection and

For protecting the habitats of aquatic plants and

Development of Living Aquatic Resources in Waters of the State of UAE

animals

Federal Law No. (11) of 2006

Amending certain provisions of Law No. (24) of 1999

UAE Cabinet Decree No. (37)

To give power to MOE to regulate desalinated water production and distribution

Federal Law No. (6) of 2007

Establishment of National Center of Meteorology and Seismology for information related to climatic conditions

Federal Law No. (28) of 2001

To control bottled water business

Law No. (2) in 1998 by Abu Dhabi government

To establish the Regulatory and Supervision Bureau in Abu Dhabi

Law No. (6) of 2006 by Abu Dhabi government

Regulation of water-well drilling and groundwater extraction and protection

Law No. (17) of 2007 by Abu Dhabi government

ADSSC as joint public stock company to look into all sewerage services

Revised Law No. (5) of 2016 by Abu Dhabi government

To strengthen the legislation in order to achieve the objectives of conserving groundwater

Note:   Compiled from various sources.

under the prime minister’s office with the clear objectives to develop a comprehensive water resources policy. However, this was not realized because of a lack of coordination between agencies and departments responsible for managing water resources. In the next level of reform, the UAE began to see the environmental issue as a federal subject, and the Federal Environmental Agency (FEA) was established through Federal Law No. (7) of 1993. A new beginning was marked in 2006 when the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW) was formed with the goals of environment protection, water security and sustainability. The MOEW is now renamed the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment (MOCCAE) based on the restructuring of the UAE federal government in 2016. MOCCAE focuses on the

implementation of the UAE green agenda 2015–2030 by improving the coordination and cooperation of federal and local authorities. In addition, MOCCAE is responsible for managing international and national aspects relevant to global warming and climate change. The MEW, renamed the Ministry of Energy (MOE) in 2004, was given the roles of planning, coordination and supervision of water resources affairs. A brief discussion on the roles of various water-related ministries and federal agencies in the UAE is given in Figure 81.4. Water governance reform at Emirate level An analysis of the local government institutional management of the water sector showed that multiple local authorities are responsible for managing water resources (Alsharhan &

mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

362  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Rizk, 2020a, 2020a, 2020b; Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi, 2015, 2021; Ministry of Environment and Water, 2015) (see Figure 81.4). The Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi (EAAD) is responsible for shaping the emirate’s overall environment policy for the Abu Dhabi government in coordination with various government entities, the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The EAD aims to achieve sustainable development, raise environmental awareness and ensure environmental protection. The priorities of the EAD include environmental information, policy and regulations and environment sustainability. For sustainable water governance in Abu Dhabi, various drivers are to be considered and these are summarized in Table  81.2. The EAD works on GW conservation and contributes to integrated water resources management (IWRM) in Abu Dhabi emirate. Three partners are involved in water governance in Abu Dhabi: government (federal and local governments), society (public, media and environment organizations) and business (industries, financial sector and

investors) in desalinated plants and wastewater treatment facilities. They are thus accountable for the management of natural water resources in the Emirate. Until 2018, the government authority responsible for the provision of DW in Abu Dhabi was the Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority (ADWEA). Since 2018, it is the responsibility of the Department of Energy (DoE). It has five subsidiaries to generate, transmit and distribute water and electricity. Firstly, the water and electricity generation companies (WEGC), mostly from the private sector, are responsible for power production and water desalination to meet the demands of Abu Dhabi. Another subsidiary is Emirates Water and Electricity Company (EWEC), formerly known as Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Company (ADWEC), and it is responsible for the analysis of consumption patterns and for the procurement of power and water from WEGCs. The procured water and power by ADWEC is transmitted to the distribution companies by Abu Dhabi Transmission and Despatch Company

Figure 81.4  Various institutions linked to water policy and administration in Abu Dhabi

mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

water policy in water-scarce countries  363 Table 81.2   Abu Dhabi’s key water policy drivers for future water policymaking Key drivers for water governance Supply drivers

Demand drivers

Demographic drivers

Environmental drivers

Socioeconomic drivers

• GW abstraction rate

• Consumption rates

• National population

• Rain

• Land use policy

• DW supply rate

• Quality

• Temperature

• Environmental vision

• Humidity

• Sustainability

• Evaporation rate

• GW use policy

• GW recharge rate

• TS use policy

• Infiltration

• Industrialization

• IS recycle ratio

requirements

• Leak and loss

• Crop water needs

• Rainfall rate

• Irrigation efficiency

growth rate • Non-national population growth rate

• • Living standards

(TRANSCO). Abu Dhabi Distribution Company (ADDC) and Al Ain Distribution Company (AADC) are responsible for the distribution of water and electricity in the zones of Abu Dhabi and Al Ain in the EAD, respectively. In addition, Abu Dhabi Power Corporation (ADPC) oversees the financial and operational performance of TRANSCO, ADDC, AADC and EWEC. Another authority in Abu Dhabi, the Regulation and Supervision Bureau of Abu Dhabi (RSB), was vested with regulatory powers to oversee the economic and technical activities of water, wastewater and electricity companies that are licensed to operate in the EAD. However, with the formation of the DoE in 2018, the RSB was dissolved and all their functions are now under the DoE. It has responsibilities to the general public, including the assurance of a safe and efficient drinking water supply, and regulations have been introduced with this primary aim in mind. The regulations are intended to provide for the supply of wholesome drinking water to consumers throughout the EAD and reflect the current guidance of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The RSB was founded by Law No. (2) in 1998. In 2005, the RSB was entrusted with regulating the sewerage services throughout the EAD. In cooperation with the distribution companies, the RSB published a revised tariff structure, effective 1 January 2015, to provide incentives to large users to use water more efficiently. The most transparent, comprehensive and potentially effective standards are those introduced by the RSB in Abu Dhabi which were developed within an institutional and regulatory framework of effective monitoring and enforcement. Another important agency is related to the collection, treatment, distribution and use of

TS in Abu Dhabi and is under the Abu Dhabi Sewerage Services Company. As per the law, the company owns all sewerage service utilities and facilities, including the sewerage network, pipelines and pumping stations in the emirate, which were owned by the Department of Urban Planning and Municipalities.

Conclusions and recommendations Currently, water use in the EAD is unsustainable. The major water problems in the EAD are the overexploitation of GW resources, lack of integrated water resources management, natural variability, uncoordinated utilization of shared water resources and water pollution. To achieve sustainable development, it is necessary to have a deep understanding of all related issues. Based on the assessment of the current state of the water and the environment, there is a need to develop a long-term general environmental policy that is viable for improvement and governance, to be adopted and applied at national and local levels. The water policy in Abu Dhabi has shown progress; however, due to the increasing water demand for various purposes, there is a need for the efficient management of water resources through legislative powers. In addition, the efforts of governments alone cannot achieve the goal of sustainability for Abu Dhabi. Overall, a comprehensive water policy that can address all the technical, social, environmental and economic aspects of water management is necessary to overcome the current shortcoming of the existing scattered water sector legislation. The EAD government has already taken steps toward a comprehensive policy for dealing with the Emirate’s natural resources. It is worthwhile noting that researchers can contribute to Abu Dhabi’s sustainable

mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

364  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management water management largely by investigating new technologies and methods to improve the water supply, policy, legislation and decisionmaking. Therefore, new research projects that address the water challenges of the emirate are essential to achieve a comprehensive water resources policy. Another key focus must be to improve the public’s awareness of resources utilization, especially unsustainable GW withdrawals. Similarly, the use of TS in applications such as aquifer recharge can be implemented instead of discharging it into the sea. Moreover, policies that encourage water harvesting and conservation can be adopted considering the high water consumption pattern of the UAE. As dependency on desalination cannot be avoided in an arid region like Abu Dhabi, a desalination policy needs to be formulated so that desalination capacity can be expanded only after evaluating the environmental impacts. It is also recommended to consider decision-making tools as assets that need regular improvement to identify the most appropriate future water strategies. Mohamed Mostafa Mohamed and Mohamed Ibrahim Kizhisseri

Dawoud, M. A. (2007). Water Scarcity in the GCC Countries: Challenges and Opportunities (In GRC Research Papers) [In GRC Research Papers]. Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. (2009). Abu Dhabi Water Resources Master Plan. https://www​ . ead ​ . ae ​ / Pages ​ / Resources ​ / Publications​.aspx. Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. (2012). Environment Vision 2030. https://www​.ead​ .ae​/ Publications​/ Environment​%20Vision​ %202030​/ Environment​-Vision​-2030 ​-Eng​ .pdf. Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. (2014). The Water Resources Management Strategy for the Emirate of Abu Dhabi (2015–2020), Strategy and Action Plan. https://www​ . ead​ . ae​ / Documents​ / PDF​ -Files​/ Executive ​-Summary​- of​-The​-Water​ -Resources​-Management​-Strategy​-for​-the​ -Emirate ​ - of​ -Abu​ -Dhabi​ -2014 ​ -2018 ​ - Eng​ .pdf. Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. (2015). A Water Budget Approach for the Emirate of Abu Dhabi Policy Brief. Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. (2018a). Annual Report 2017. https://www​.ead​.ae​/ Publications. Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. (2018b). References Groundwater Atlas of Abu Dhabi Emirate​ Abu Dhabi Council for Economic .pd​f. Development. (2009). The Abu Dhabi Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. (2021). Economic Vision 2030. https://www​ Annual Report 2021. .ecouncil​ . ae ​ / PublicationsEn ​ /economic​ Kizhisseri, M. I., Mohamed, M. M., -vision​-2030​-full​-versionEn​.pdf. El-Shorbagy, W., Chowdhury, R., & Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Company. McDonald, A. (2021). Development of a (2018). ADWEC Statistical Reports. http:// Dynamic Water Budget Model for Abu www​.adwec​.ae​/Statistical​.html. Dhabi Emirate, UAE. PLoS ONE, 16(1), Alsharhan, A. S., & Rizk, Z. E. (2020a). Water e0245140. https://doi​.org​/10​.1371​/journal​ Governance in the UAE. In A. S. Alsharhan .pone​.0245140. & Z. E. Rizk (Eds.), Water Resources and Ministry of Climate Change and Environment. Integrated Management of the United Arab (2021). The UAE General Environmental Emirates (Vol. 3, pp. 725–754). Springer Policy-2021. International Publishing. https://doi​.org​/10​ Ministry of Environment and Water. (2014). .1007​/978​-3​-030​-31684​-6​_26. UAE State of Green Economy. Alsharhan, A. S., & Rizk, Z. E. (2020b). Water Ministry of Environment and Water. (2015). Resources and Integrated Management of MoEW, State of Environment Report the United Arab Emirates (Vol. 3). Springer UAE. International Publishing. https://doi​.org​/10​ Mohamed, M. M., El-Shorbagy, W., .1007​/978​-3​-030​-31684​-6. Kizhisseri, M. I., Chowdhury, R., & Al-Zubari, W. K. (2009). Water Resource McDonald, A. (2020). Evaluation of Policy Management Challenges in the GCC Scenarios for Water Resources Planning Countries: Four Scenarios. In Exploiting and Management in an Arid Region. Natural Resources Growth, Instability, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, and Conflict in the Middle East and Asia 32, 100758. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.ejrh​ (pp. 3–19). The Henry L. Stimson Center. .2020​.100758. mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

water policy in water-scarce countries  365 RTI International. (2015). Economic Valuation of Groundwater in the Abu Dhabi Emirate. Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi. Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi. (2015). Statistical Yearbook of Abu Dhabi – 2015. https://www​.scad​.gov​.abudhabi ​/en ​/pages​ /GeneralPublications​ . aspx​ ? pubid​ = 79​ &themeid​=7. Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi. (2018). Statistical Yearbook of Abu Dhabi – 2018. https://www​.scad​.gov​.abudhabi ​/en ​/pages​

/GeneralPublications​ . aspx​ ? pubid​ = 79​ &themeid​=7. Statistics Centre – Abu Dhabi. (2020). Statistical Yearbook of Abu Dhabi – 2020. https://www​.scad​.gov​.abudhabi​/en ​/ pages​/GeneralPublications​.aspx​?pubid​=79​ &themeid​=7. Zekri, S. (Ed.). (2020). Water Policies in MENA Countries (Vol. 23). Springer International Publishing. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-3​-030​-29274​- 4.

mohamed mostafa mohamed and mohamed ibrahim kizhisseri

82. Water Quality Forecasting to Support DecisionMaking in the European Drinking Water Supply Sector Environmental forecasting Environmental forecasting is a process that aims to predict future characteristics of environmental systems that are likely to have impacts on societal interests (Armstrong & Trevarthen, 1999). Environmental forecasting can be used for predicting both shortterm and long-term changes in natural systems that can have relevance for management and implementation targets (Lewis et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2019). These outputs have been shown to improve the understanding and reach of different sectors including ecology (Bodner et al., 2021), flood risk management (Bischiniotis et al., 2020), seismology (Beroza et  al., 2021), marine sciences (Wu et al., 2019) and drinking water supply (Stańczyk et al., 2022). Over the last years, forecasting methods have become more widely used due to important technological and computational advances (Bodner et  al., 2021; Peng et  al., 2019). The implementation of ecological forecasting has increased alongside the use of complementary systems, such as automatic high-frequency monitoring in the environment (Marcé et al., 2016; Seifert-Dähnn et al., 2021). Environmental forecasting frameworks generally combine high-frequency monitoring with modeling and forecasting techniques. Such frameworks can work in real or near-to-real-time applications providing a powerful set of methods enabling the proactive management of human and environmental activities (Bischiniotis et  al., 2020; Peng et  al., 2019). However, despite numerous improvements and an increased emphasis on the prediction of environmental processes, the potential for forecasting to support decision-making remains relatively under-realized (Lewis et  al., 2022). Most decisions at national scales are made before any formal modeling or forecasting. Spain and Portugal, for example, suffered one of

their driest periods of the century in 2022, with severe implications for both food production and tourism (Cresswell-Clay et  al., 2022). Effective environmental forecasts estimating the impacts on agriculture and natural resources could have been used to improve resilience strategies and diminish the negative impacts. However, it should be noted that, for a forecast to be used effectively, it should be prepared before decisions are made and should provide an adequate time window to be effectively considered in the planning. Additionally, not only the expected outcome, but also other likely outcomes (such as the worst and best outcomes) should be included in the forecast. If the worst outcome poses significant risk, forecast scenarios should be made for alternative interventions. Additionally, the forecast uncertainty should also be communicated to the users and addressed properly in the planning. Useful forecasts not only allow an estimation of future conditions but can also inform on challenging existing expectations (Armstrong & Trevarthen, 1999; Bodner et  al., 2021). Therefore, they have immense value because they allow preventive and corrective actions to be taken with wide applicability in management, strategy development, policymaking and industry, at both local and large scales.

Water quality forecasting Within the environmental forecasting sphere, water quality forecasting is a component that has gained increased relevance over the last years due to increased pressures and associated risks for aquatic systems (Bodner et al., 2021; Peng et  al., 2019). Pressures include those associated with changes in climate and anthropogenic pressures (e.g. water use and water pollution) affecting water bodies such as rivers and lakes. In the water quality context, therefore, forecasting is now beginning to be applied with an emphasis on adaptation and protection strategies for water bodies (Alam & Dutta, 2021; Bischiniotis et al., 2020) and is also being implemented at industry levels for water use activities ( Stańczyk et  al., 2022; Peng et al., 2019). The development and growth of water quality forecasting also reflect an increased emphasis on prediction in fundamental natural processes, that is, ecology (Bodner et al., 2021). This also allows a better understanding of natural processes, which can foster both new ecological theories and novel research questions (Lewis et al., 2022).

366

water quality forecasting to support decision-making in drinking water  367 Generally, water quality forecasts provide a quantitative demonstration of the scientific method to represent a natural process of interest. Initially, a hypothesis of this natural process is represented in a model which can fall anywhere on the spectrum from empirical to fully process based (Lewis et al., 2022; Bodner et al., 2021). Then, a qualitative prediction is made about the future based on that hypothesis, preferably including quantified uncertainty. Lastly, the forecast can be tested with measured data, allowing an evaluation of the model and a refinement of the proposed hypothesis. This process is generally iterative and carried out in a forecasting framework as new data are collected (generally by high-frequency monitoring). The forecasting outputs will then provide an insight into what is to come regarding the problem of interest, thereby supporting decision-making regarding its solution.

Water quality forecasting to support DBPs formation Within the drinking water supply sector, water disinfection is an essential treatment phase for safeguarding drinking water quality. Harmful pathogens in water are eliminated during water disinfection using disinfectants such as chlorine. However, some naturally occurring organic matter and anthropogenic contaminants can contribute to the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) through chemical reactions. Many DBPs can be formed and some of the most common are trihalomethanes (THMs), bromate and haloacetic acids (HAAs). DBPs are known for their negative implications on human health (e.g. carcinogenic, cytotoxic) in the long term (Wang et  al., 2019; WHO, 2011). The formation of DBPs is associated with raw water disinfection as an unintended consequence and few DBPs are regulated in drinking water quality directives around the world. Nevertheless, the health implications and impacts of regulated and non-regulated DBPs are an emerging concern for many countries (Gilca et al., 2020; Krasner, 2009). THMs can be one of the most prevailing DBPs and are formed when chlorine compounds that are used to disinfect water react with organic matter following drinking water pre-treatment (O’Driscoll et  al., 2018). In Europe, the concentrations of THMs in drinking water should be under the parametric

value of 100 µg/L to be considered safe. This value was established in the Drinking Water Directive (Directive 98/83/EC). However, some water supply networks in Europe have been found to be non-compliant regarding the concentrations of THMs in some of its drinking water supply zones over several years. For instance, in 2018, the European Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Ireland for failures regarding THMs in some of its drinking water supply networks (MEMO-18-4486). A reasoned opinion followed in May 2020 (INF/20/859). The reasoned opinion concerned 44 water supply zones across Ireland. In November 2021, 30  drinking water supply zones serving a population of more than 200  000 citizens continued to exceed the parametric value of THMs. Because of this, the European Commission decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failure to comply with the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive (IP/21/5356). Such high and persistent THM values have been correlated to catchment characteristics from where water is abstracted for drinking water. Land use, slope, local and regional climate have a strong influence on increasing dissolved organic matter (DOM) (Doyle et al., 2019, 2021), and hence on THMs formation (O’Driscoll et  al., 2018). Changes in climate also drive processes that lead to increases in levels of DOM (Jennings et  al., 2010). The importance of determining raw water quality prior to treatment is therefore increasingly relevant since water treatment capacities and practices (e.g. treatment dosages) directly influence the reduction of organic matter and the formation of THMs. This is also directly related to monitoring programs, source protection plans, infrastructure capacity, methods implemented in drinking water treatment plants (WTPs), distribution networks and mitigation measures. Different national programs in different countries are taking place at both local and large scales to tackle THMs issues. Some of these are focused on river basins and ecosystems that aim for an improvement in raw water quality. Others are focused on WTPs with a focus on upgrades in infrastructure and water treatment methods. However, lack of coordination within programs often arises due to different implementation periods and actions’ duration. Instruments such as water quality forecasting frameworks can be of great relevance as adaptation strategies to fill

ricardo marroquin paiz, eleanor jennings and valerie mccarthy

368  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management coordination gaps and support decision-making within the drinking water cycle. For instance, water quality forecasting related to dissolved organic carbon predictions (often used to quantify DOM) can gain relevance since DOM in source waters is considered an important precursor of DBPs, especially in those regions where high loads of organic matter are exported from catchments into lakes and river intakes that are used as a source of drinking water. Moreover, an increase in DOC exports from catchments to inland water bodies can also have negative environmental implications. For instance, high DOC exports from catchments are often associated with an increase in water color in the receptor water bodies (Doyle et al., 2019; Xiao & Riise, 2021). This increase in color can affect physical and biological cycles in water bodies such as lakes, ultimately affecting ecosystem biodiversity (Horppila et  al., 2022). An increase in water color in a lake or

reservoir can reduce sunlight radiation penetration to deeper layers, affecting and modifying biological cycles (e.g. mixing patterns), negatively impacting the layer’s biodiversity (Arvola et al., 2010) and making the process of drinking water disinfection more difficult. For both drinking water supply and the ecological health of water bodies, the capability to produce forecasts of DOC exports from catchments is of paramount importance for informing both water and catchment managers as well as policymakers. Furthermore, not just the outputs of the forecasting framework could be used to inform, but also high-frequency monitoring can provide some real-time indicators of the source’s water quality status (Marcé et al., 2016). Any forecasting framework should therefore consider and be able to be applied at different scales protecting not just water consumers but water sources. This would result in better and more useful case-to-case information for

Source:   Author’s own.

Figure 82.1   DOC forecasting framework and its implications for water management

ricardo marroquin paiz, eleanor jennings and valerie mccarthy

water quality forecasting to support decision-making in drinking water  369 authorities and, hopefully, the application of more effective mitigation measures. Relevant points at which information could support mitigation measures can include (1) source waters, (2) drinking water treatment phases, (3) storage reservoirs and (4) water distribution networks. The potential links between management and a prospective DOC forecasting framework are shown in Figure 82.1, which is based on information compiled for relevant environmental mitigation measures at national scales in Europe. The DOC forecasting framework’s reach and management targets are therefore centered on small and large mitigation measures that are currently applied by water authorities. Both highfre­quency monitoring and the DOC forecast resulting from the framework could support decision-making regarding such mitigation measures. Current applications of similar frameworks are serving as exploratory studies for the effectiveness of the different components of the framework, some of which have already proven to be useful in real-time applications (Lewis et  al., 2022; SeifertDähnn et al., 2021; Bodner et al., 2021; Marcé et al., 2016). Ricardo Marroquin Paiz, Eleanor Jennings and Valerie Mccarthy

References Alam, M. J., & Dutta, D. (2021). Modelling of Nutrient Pollution Dynamics in River Basins: A Review With a Perspective of a Distributed Modelling Approach. Geosciences, 11(9), 369. https://doi​.org​/10​ .3390​/geosciences11090369 Armstrong, J. S., & Trevarthen, J. A. (1999). Forecasting for Environmental Decision Making. In V. H. Dale & M. R. English (Eds.), Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making (pp. 192–230). Springer, New York. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-1​ -4612​-1418​-2_7 Arvola, L., George, G., Livingstone, D. M., Järvinen, M., Blenckner, T., Dokulil, M. T., Jennings, E., Aonghusa, C. N., Nõges, P., Nõges, T., & Weyhenmeyer, G. A. (2010). The Impact of the Changing Climate on the Thermal Characteristics of Lakes. In G. George (Ed.), The Impact of Climate Change on European Lakes (pp. 85–101). Springer Netherlands. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-90​- 481​-2945​- 4_6

Beroza, G. C., Segou, M., & Mostafa Mousavi, S. (2021). Machine Learning and Earthquake Forecasting—Next Steps. Nature Communications, 12(1), 4761. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41467​-021​-24952-6 Bischiniotis, K., de Moel, H., van den Homberg, M., Couasnon, A., Aerts, J., Guimarães Nobre, G., Zsoter, E., & van den Hurk, B. (2020). A Framework for Comparing Permanent and Forecast-Based Flood Risk-Reduction Strategies. Science of the Total Environment, 720, 137572. https://doi ​ .org ​ /10​ .1016 ​ / j​ . scitotenv​. 2020​ .137572 Bodner, K., Rauen Firkowski, C., Bennett, J. R., Brookson, C., Dietze, M., Green, S., Hughes, J., Kerr, J., Kunegel‐Lion, M., Leroux, S. J., McIntire, E., Molnár, P. K., Simpkins, C., Tekwa, E., Watts, A., & Fortin, M. (2021). Bridging the Divide Between Ecological Forecasts and Environmental Decision Making. Ecosphere, 12(12), 1–13. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1002​/ecs2​.3869 Cresswell-Clay, N., Ummenhofer, C. C., Thatcher, D. L., Wanamaker, A. D., Denniston, R. F., Asmerom, Y., & Polyak, V. J. (2022). Twentieth-Century Azores High Expansion Unprecedented in the Past 1,200 Years. Nature Geoscience, 15(7), 548–553. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41561​ -022​-00971-w Doyle, B. C., de Eyto, E., Dillane, M., Poole, R., McCarthy, V., Ryder, E., & Jennings, E. (2019). Synchrony in Catchment Stream Colour Levels is Driven by Both Local and Regional Climate. Biogeosciences, 16(5), 1053–1071. https://doi​.org​/10​.5194​/ bg​-16​ -1053​-2019 Doyle, B. C., de Eyto, E., McCarthy, V., Dillane, M., Poole, R., & Jennings, E. (2021). Late Summer Peak in pCO2 Corresponds With Catchment Export of DOC in a Temperate, Humic Lake. Inland Waters, 11(2), 234–249. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1080​/20442041​.2021​.1893098 Gilca, A. F., Teodosiu, C., Fiore, S., & Musteret, C. P. (2020). Emerging Disinfection Byproducts: A Review on Their Occurrence and Control in Drinking Water Treatment Processes. Chemosphere, 259, 127476. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .chemosphere​.2020​.127476 Horppila, J., Pippingsköld, E., & Estlander, S. (2022). Effects of Water Colour on the Pigment Content of a Floating-Leaved

ricardo marroquin paiz, eleanor jennings and valerie mccarthy

370  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Macrophyte—Implications of Lake Brownification. Aquatic Botany, 181, 103540. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.aquabot​ .2022​.103540 Jennings, E., Järvinen, M., Allott, N., Arvola, L., Moore, K., Naden, P., Aonghusa, C. N., Nõges, T., & Weyhenmeyer, G. A. (2010). Impacts of Climate on the Flux of Dissolved Organic Carbon From Catchments. In G. George (Ed.), The Impact of Climate Change on European Lakes (pp. 199–220). Springer Netherlands. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-90​- 481​-2945​- 4​_12 Krasner, S. W. (2009). The Formation and Control of Emerging Disinfection By-Products of Health Concern. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367(1904), 4077– 4095.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1098​/ rsta​. 2009​ .0108 Lewis, A. S. L., Rollinson, C. R., Allyn, A. J., Ashander, J., Brodie, S., Brookson, C. B., Collins, E., Dietze, M. C., Gallinat, A. S., Juvigny‐Khenafou, N., Koren, G., McGlinn, D. J., Moustahfid, H., Peters, J. A., Record, N. R., Robbins, C. J., Tonkin, J., & Wardle, G. M. (2022). The Power of Forecasts to Advance Ecological Theory. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. Advance online publication. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1111​/2041​-210X​.13955 Marcé, R., George, G., Buscarinu, P., Deidda, M., Dunalska, J., de Eyto, E., Flaim, G., Grossart, H.-P., Istvanovics, V., Lenhardt, M., Moreno-Ostos, E., Obrador, B., Ostrovsky, I., Pierson, D. C., Potužák, J., Poikane, S., Rinke, K., Rodríguez-Mozaz, S., Staehr, P. A., & Jennings, E. (2016). Automatic High Frequency Monitoring for Improved Lake and Reservoir Management. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(20), 10780–10794. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1021​/acs​.est​.6b01604 O’Driscoll, C., Sheahan, J., Renou-Wilson, F., Croot, P., Pilla, F., Misstear, B., & Xiao, L. (2018). National Scale Assessment of Total Trihalomethanes in Irish Drinking Water.

Journal of Environmental Management, 212, 131–141. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .jenvman​.2018​.01​.070 Peng, Z., Hu, W., Liu, G., Zhang, H., Gao, R., & Wei, W. (2019). Development and Evaluation of a Real-Time Forecasting Framework for Daily Water Quality Forecasts for Lake Chaohu to Lead Time of Six Days. Science of the Total Environment, 687, 218–231. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2019​.06​.067 Seifert-Dähnn, I., Furuseth, I. S., Vondolia, G. K., Gal, G., de Eyto, E., Jennings, E., & Pierson, D. (2021). Costs and Benefits of Automated High-Frequency Environmental Monitoring – The Case of Lake Water Management. Journal of Environmental Management, 285, 112108. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.jenvman​.2021​.112108 Stańczyk, J., Kajewska-Szkudlarek, J., Lipiński, P., & Rychlikowski, P. (2022). Improving Short-Term Water Demand Forecasting Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 13522. https://doi​.org​/10​.1038​/s41598​-022​ -17177-0 Wang, Y., Zhu, G., & Engel, B. (2019). Health Risk Assessment of Trihalomethanes in Water Treatment Plants in Jiangsu Province, China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 170, 346–354. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1016​/j​.ecoenv​.2018​.12​.004 World Health Organization. (2011). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. World Health Organization, 216, 303–304. Wu, M., Stefanakos, C., Gao, Z., & Haver, S. (2019). Prediction of Short-Term Wind and Wave Conditions for Marine Operations Using a Multi-Step-Ahead DecompositionANFIS Model and Quantification of Its Uncertainty. Ocean Engineering, 188, 106300. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.oceaneng​ .2019​.106300 Xiao, Y., & Riise, G. (2021). Coupling Between Increased Lake Color and Iron in Boreal Lakes. Science of the Total Environment, 767, 145104. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2021​.145104

Supplementary material for this chapter is available online at: https://www.e-elgar.com/textbooks/koundouri

ricardo marroquin paiz, eleanor jennings and valerie mccarthy

83. Water Resources Management in Central Asia Central Asia (CA) is one of the few regions in the world where water resources management is highly intertwined with economic development. The CA region comprises an extensive geographical area of about 4  million  km2 bordering Russia and China in the north and eastern parts, the Caspian Sea and Iran and Afghanistan on the western and southern fringes. The population of CA is nearly 65  million inhabitants spread over the five countries of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. If Afghanistan is included in the CA territorial area, as it is arguably considered part of the region, then CA expands up to Pakistan on the southern front with over 100  million inhabitants. The region is often acknowledged as the Eurasian corridor with large endowments of water reserves unevenly distributed among CA countries. The highlands of CA, which are shared by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan, host the Pamir and Tien Shan mountain ranges with peaks of about 7000 and 4000 m above sea level (masl). The Pamirs and Tien Shan mountains are considered the ‘water towers’ of the entire region, hosting the largest number of glaciers of the two poles (Manandhar et al., 2018). Precipitation from the mountain ranges feeds an extensive network of rivers which traverse the CA region, mostly the southern parts. The river network is interconnected with different tributaries to the two major rivers of Amudarya and Surdarya, which supply the Aral Sea (Djumaboev et  al., 2019). The north and north-east areas of CA, mainly Kazakhstan, host many transboundary rivers shared with China and Russia. The Caspian Sea, situated in the western regions of CA, is the largest inland water body in the world, and is shared between two CA countries (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan), Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia. In Figure 83.1, the area of the CA region is demarcated as well as the boundaries of the Aral basin with the significant river networks and the categorization of upstream and downstream countries.

The Soviet past has left a massive footprint on the water resources of CA due to intensive consumption, primarily for agricultural and secondary for industrial purposes (Peterson, 2019). The conversion of arid lands such as the ‘Hungry Steppe’ to irrigated areas, mainly for cotton plantations, was achieved through hydraulic engineering advancements in the 1950s and 1960s, many of which are still in operation today. The irrigated areas were fed with groundwater from deep drilling or through the combined use of surface, groundwater, drainage and return flows (Thurman, 2001). The increased regulation of river networks and significant water abstraction for agriculture came at the cost of Aral Sea desiccation, which had devastating impacts on human welfare and the environment of the entire region (Peterson, 2019). Inter-basin transfer was also a Soviet practice of diverting huge volumes of water into lengthy canals to water-scarce river basins. The Irtysh Canal, with a total length of 451 km, is an example of a multipurpose water project constructed in the 1960s, connecting two rivers in north-east Kazakhstan (Krasnoyarova et  al., 2019). Inter-basin transfers are still practiced today either with the aged facilities of the Soviet legacy or with newer infrastructure, especially in Kazakhstan. Today, each CA country has developed river basin management (RBM) plans to supervise the water volume within their national boundaries by overseeing the transboundary effects in basin planning. However, national water basin policies cannot be adequately implemented without bilateral or regional coordination due to the transboundary context of the river network in CA. In particular, the upstream countries of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are heavily investing in constructing large hydropower stations with reservoirs to improve the national capacity and export the surplus to neighboring countries (Xenarios et al., 2021). Negotiations are ongoing with downstream countries on the operation mode of the hydropower stations to avoid flooding events from water releases in winter when energy is needed for Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. There are also discussions at governmental level on water releases in summer to irrigate agricultural lands in downstream countries (Assubayeva, 2021). In parallel, the downstream countries of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are constructing reservoirs to retain the released discharges

371

372  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management

Source:   Adelphi and CAREC (2017).

Figure 83.1   Central Asia region, Aral basin and overview of upstream and downstream countries

upstream in the winter and utilize the stored water in the hot summer months for cultivation (Yakubov, 2021). The reservoirs are primarily being developed on the border areas between CA countries, often by engaging local communities in discussions on water allocation in transboundary catchments. The need for water policy coordination between CA countries has become more urgent due to weather extremes. Climate change has intensified weather extremes, especially droughts across the entire region (Alamanos & Zeng, 2021). Although there are no clear precipitation trends for CA in the literature, there is some evidence that prolonged heat in the southern and western mountain peaks can cause glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) events (Hoelzle et  al., 2019). The transboundary nature of most CA rivers and stefanos xenarios

river basins causes an additional burden to managing natural disasters. There are cases where the acceleration and high intensity of natural disasters in one country have significantly affected the livelihoods of local communities in neighboring countries (Third Pole, 2020). Advanced climate change models have been developed for the cryosphere areas in CA to better understand the changes in permafrost, glacial volume and precipitation patterns to mitigate climate-induced disasters. Studies indicate that small glaciers (below 5000 masl) will disappear in the next 20–30  years with larger glaciers disappearing at a slower pace, greatly disturbing the hydrological balance in the region (UngerShayesteh et  al., 2013; Hoelzle et  al., 2019). Several sophisticated hydrological models

water resources management in central asia  373 have also been developed mainly through remote sensing rather than local stations, to estimate future hydrological flows in CA. Many hydrological studies containing climate and socioeconomic analyses have concluded that water security has become a high priority in all CA countries partly due to the weather extremes over the last decade (Xenarios et  al., 2019, 2020; Zhang et  al., 2019; Su et al., 2021). Scholars and water professionals practicing in the region differ on the water security priorities to be pursued in CA. Scholars seem to prioritize the environmental dimensions of water security, especially the conservation of rivers and RBM. The professionals are concerned with the economic dimension of water security, particularly the rehabilitation and expansion of irrigation networks, reservoirs and hydropower systems (Assubayeva et al., 2020). Both scholars and professionals seem to agree on the water security priorities set by each CA country. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with high exposure to agriculture, prioritize irrigation management, while Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, with water quality problems, prioritize drinking water challenges. Kyrgyzstan has prioritized water-related hazards due to mudflow events and droughts in recent years. Kazakhstan places higher importance on RBM probably because of its increased dependence on the volume received from transboundary water systems (nearly 50  percent of yearly consumption). Scholars and water professionals also agree that the existing water regional organization and mechanisms (IFAS, ICWC1) should be upgraded while new interregional cooperation schemes are also encouraged. Significant efforts have been made mainly by international donors and agencies to support integrated water resources management (IWRM) and RBM initiatives in the region.2 However, most CA countries perceive water systems as a leverage to improve energy efficiency (Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) and the agricultural sectors (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) by providing institutional support to relevant ministries. Kazakhstan has recently shifted its focus to the environmental dimensions of water basin management by asking the Ministry of Ecology, Geology and Natural Resources to supervise quality- and quantityrelated problems; however, the relevant agencies have limited experience and capacity.

Also, CA countries still lack a labor market for water professionals, which could improve water use management in agricultural, industrial, urban and environmental systems. All CA countries agree on the need to prioritize water resources management. At the same time, scholars and professionals agree on the increasing significance of water systems on livelihoods which will become more pronounced due to weather extremes. The future of water resources management in the region mainly depends on joint coordination among the CA states and the adoption of new technological practices supported by institutional reforms, which seem to be slowly but steadily emerging in the region. Stefanos Xenarios

Notes 1.

2.

The two main regional organizations for water resources management in CA are the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia (ICWC) and the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS). The highest support is coming from the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ).

References Adelphi & CAREC. (2017). Rethinking water in Central Asia: The costs of inaction and benefits of water cooperation. https:// carececo​ .org ​ /en ​ /main ​ /ckh ​ / publications ​ / pereosmyslenie​-vodnoy​- problematiki​-v​ -tsentralnoaziatskom​-kontekste​-ushcherb​ -ot​-bezdeystviya​-i​-preimu/ Alamanos, A., & Zeng, Q. (2021). Managing scarce water resources for socially acceptable solutions, through hydrological and econometric modeling. Central Asian Journal of Water Research, 7, 84–101. https://doi​.org​/10​.29258​/CAJWR​/2021​-R1​ .v7​-1​/84​-101​.eng Assubayeva, A. (2021). Experts’ perceptions of water security in Central Asia: Results from a Delphi study. Central Asian Journal of Water Research, 7(1), 50–69. https://doi​ .org​/10​.29258​/CAJWR​/ 2021​-R1​.v7​-1​/50​ -69​.eng Djumaboev, K., Anarbekov, O., Holmatov, B., Hamidov, A., Gafurov, Z., Murzaeva, M., Sušnik, J., Maskey, S., Mehmood, H., & Smakhtin, V. (2019). Surface water resources. In The Aral Sea Basin: Water stefanos xenarios

374  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management for Sustainable Development in Central Asia (pp. 25–38). Routledge. https://doi​.org​ /10​.4324​/9780429436475 Hoelzle, M., Barandun, M., Bolch, T., Fiddes, J., Gafurov, A., Muccione, V., Saks, T., & Shahgedanova, M. (2019). The status and role of the alpine cryosphere in Central Asia. In The Aral Sea Basin: Water for Sustainable Development in Central Asia (pp. 100–121). Routledge. https://doi​.org​/10​ .4324​/9780429436475 Krasnoyarova, B. A., Vinokurov, Y. I., & Antyufeeva, T. V. (2019). International water development problems in the transboundary Irtysh River basin: “new” solutions to old problems. IOP Conference Series: Earth Environmental Science, 381, 012049. Manandhar, S., Xenarios, S., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Hergarten C., & Foggin, M. (2018). Climate vulnerability and adaptive capacity of mountain societies in Central Asia. Research Report 1, Mountain Societies Research Institute, University of Central Asia, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Peterson, M. (2019). Pipe Dreams: Water and Empire in Central Asia’s Aral Sea Basin (Studies in Environment and History). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/9781108673075 Su, Y., Li, X., Feng, M., Nian, Y., Huang, L., Xie, T., Zhang, K., Chen, F., Huang, W., Chen., J., & Chen, F. (2021) High agricultural water consumption led to the continued shrinkage of the Aral Sea during 1992–2015. Science of the Total Environment, 777, 145993. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1016​/j​.scitotenv​.2021​.145993 Third Pole. (June 23, 2020). Uzbekistan dam collapse was a disaster waiting to happen. https://www​.thethirdpole​.net​/en​/regional​ -cooperation ​/uzbekistan​-dam​-collapse/ Thurman, M. (2001). Irrigation and poverty in Central Asia: A field assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

Unger-Shayesteh, U., Vorogushyn, S., Farinotti, D., Gafurov, A., Duethmann, D., Mandychev, A., & Merz, B. (2013). What do we know about past changes in the water cycle of Central Asian headwaters? A review. Global and Planetary Change, 110(A), 4–25. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​ .gloplacha​.2013​.02​.004 Xenarios, S., Assubayeva, A., Xie, L., Sehring, J., Amirkhanov, D., Sultanov, A., & Fazli, S. (2020). A bibliometric review of the water security concept in Central Asia. Environmental Research Letters, 16(1), 013001. https://doi​.org​/10​.1088​/1748​-9326​/ abc717 Xenarios, S., Gafurov, A., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Sehring, J., Manandhar, S., Hergarten, C., Shigaeva, J., & Foggin, M. (2019). Climate change and adaptation of mountain societies in Central Asia: Uncertainties, knowledge gaps, and data constraints. Reg Environmental Change, 19, 1339–1352. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s10113​-018​-1384-9 Xenarios, S., Laldjebaev, M., & Shenhav, R. (2021). Agricultural water and energy management in Tajikistan: A new opportunity. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 37(1), 118– 136. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/07900627​.2019​ .1642185 Yakubov, M. (2021). Small basin governance scheme: Linking water sector reforms and governance in the Aral Sea Basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development. Advance online publication. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/ 07900627​. 2021​ .1926936 Zhang, J., Chen, Y., Li, Z., Song, J., Fang, G., Li, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2019). Study on the utilization efficiency of land and water resources in the Aral Sea Basin, Central Asia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 51, 101693.  https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.scs​.2019​ .101693

Supplementary material for this chapter is available online at: https://www.e-elgar.com/textbooks/koundouri

stefanos xenarios

84. Water Resources System Analysis for Addressing Growing Water Management Challenges Growing water management challenges Global water withdrawals have been increasing rapidly during the last decades in order to sustain growing food and energy demands and increasing standards of living (Liu et al., 2017). As a result, many basins around the world have experienced pervasive water scarcity conditions and related water management challenges (Kahil et  al., 2015). These challenges are expected to become more critical in the coming decades driven by growing competition over water resources among sectors, increasing water pollution levels and the imminent impacts of climate change (Greve et al., 2018). As such, policymakers in vulnerable basins need to anticipate how to adapt water planning and management to secure a reliable future water supply that can meet the demands of different sectors while protecting the environment. However, the choice of water management options is often associated with biophysical, economic and social impacts and tradeoffs across multiple water-related systems such as food production, energy supply and ecosystem services, as well as across space and time (Hurford et al., 2014). The inappropriate choice of water management options could lead to the degradation of valuable assets such as non-renewable groundwater resources and water-dependent ecosystems (Pastor et al., 2014). Thus, the appropriate choice of these options calls for the development of a systems approach, depicting the biophysical and socioeconomic factors that determine the future dynamics of river basins, including the key interactions among water, energy and agricultural systems, and environmental requirements, while considering the uncertainty related to future climate change impacts and socioeconomic developments (Wada et al., 2017).

Water resources system analysis (WRSA) WRSA is the study of water resources systems using a combination of methods that represent

both the natural and human components of the water system, including the interactions between them, to improve system understanding and identify solutions to problems in water resources planning and management. A water resources system is defined as the whole made from connected hydrologic, infrastructure, ecologic and human processes that involve water. It encompasses biogeophysical processes, including elements of the hydrologic cycle and ecosystem functioning, and human processes, including the development and operation of infrastructure, and other human decisions such as water withdrawal and use (Brown et al., 2015). WRSA originated with the Harvard Water Program (HWP), led by Arthur Maass, for the systematic evaluation of water infrastructure plans and designs. The HWP introduced the use of optimization for the systematic evaluation of alternative designs for investments in water infrastructure. The optimization problem consisted of an objective function that specifies the goal of the planner in mathematical terms, decision variables which represent alternative choices (e.g. dam locations and sizes) and constraints, which enforced physical laws like mass balance and the benefits and costs of different actions. The HWP is largely remembered for applying optimization to water planning, but its more important contribution was the concept of multi-objective analysis. Multiobjective analysis expanded the typical single economic objective of water resources planning (maximize net economic benefits) by adding environmental and social objectives (Lund et al., 2006). WRSA has been applied to a broad range of water issues, including optimal planning of multi-objective water infrastructure investments, understanding of coupled human and hydrologic processes and their interactions, adaptation to climate change and extreme events such as floods and droughts, water distribution networks and, more recently, the water–food–energy nexus. Different modeling approaches have been used such as hydro-economic models (HEMs), systems dynamics, multi-objective optimization, robustness analysis and game theory (Rosenberg & Madani, 2014). A major recent application of WRSA is the nexus of water, food and energy. In recent years, the concept of nexus thinking has been gaining ground, providing an opportunity to shift from a sectoral focus on production maximization to improving cross-sector

375

376  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management efficiencies (Hof, 2011). This approach gives equal importance to each sector (or component of a system) and aims to better understand the tradeoffs and synergies involved in meeting the future demands of interconnected resources. Water is a key component in the nexus system, given that all the other components are affected either directly or indirectly by water availability (Kahil et al., 2019). Thus, WRSA methods were wellsuited for nexus analysis and enabled the concurrent integration of the different component objectives and resource constraints, rather than looking at the water component in isolation. Examples include consideration of ecosystem functioning and benefits for sustainable water management using hydroeconomic modeling (Crespo et al., 2022); the assessment of impacts of socioeconomic and climatic changes on the water–food–energy nexus using a systems dynamics approach (Wu et al., 2021); the management of national water and food security under global change using a multi-objective simulation-optimization framework (Abdelkader & Elshorbagy, 2021); the identification of adaptive and robust water system design alternatives able to consider nexus tradeoffs using a real options-based planning framework (Pachos et  al., 2022); the simulation of the impacts of water resources management decisions on the food–water–energy–environment nexus at basin scale using agent-based modeling (Khan et al., 2017); and the allocation of joint benefits among different water users using cooperative game theory (Kahil et al., 2016). HEMs have been shown to be the most relevant method for the application of WRSA (Harou et al., 2009). HEMs have emerged as an important tool for informing basin-scale water resources management and planning because they include an integrated representation of the main features of the water resources system (Kahil et  al., 2015), covering multiple water-related economic activities (e.g. irrigation, hydropower), infrastructure (e.g. reservoirs, irrigation systems) and environmental requirements. These features are usually represented using a set of physical and management constraints, with optimization algorithms used to choose a set of feasible decisions from the perspective of specific policy objectives (Booker et al., 2012). HEMs have been very useful for conducting integrated water resources management. HEMs have also been extended to modeling nexus taher kahil

systems by adding the physical–economic relationships of food and energy on a large scale and linkages to more sectoral-oriented models (Cai et  al., 2018). In recent years, socio-hydrological models (e.g. agent-based and systems dynamics models) were introduced as a new way to apply WRSA. These bottom–up models represent the reciprocal interactions and co-evolution of the human and natural water systems. They also describe the heterogeneous behaviors of numerous agents in one system that interact with and influence each other, learn from their experiences and adapt their behaviors (Macal & North, 2010). Socio-hydrological models aim to provide a more realistic and effective representation of complex social systems (e.g. water-sharing mechanisms between agents, water allocation priority among sectors, reservoir operation rules), beyond the optimized behavior of HEMs (Kahil et al., 2019).

A look forward Despite the significant advances in modeling water resources and supporting water planning and management, many challenges still face the development of efficient WRSA methods capable of concurrently integrating the different components and interactions within water resources systems. One important challenge is related to WRSA methods that vary in response to the scale, sectors and research priorities. This limits the generalizable insights that can be derived from many analyses. It is also an obstacle to addressing the global nature of ongoing and future water challenges, including the effects of agricultural trade and the cascading effects of hydroclimatic extremes. The recent applications of WRSA to nexus issues showed the need to shift toward a system-of-systems modeling approach that represents the water system together with other systems such as food and energy within a single more complex system, including a more realistic representation of complex social behaviors and of the indirect effects of interventions beyond the modeled system. Moreover, WRSA methods should allow more interactive participation of practitioners and stakeholders to incorporate their needs and interests and for co-identifying implementable solutions. WRSA should also consider the increasing uncertainty related to climatic and socioeconomic conditions and thus allow for sensitivity analysis of

water resources system analysis   377 performance rather than search for a single definitive solution. These improvements in WRSA methods could increase the quality of the results, but it could also introduce obstacles related to the high modeling complexity, user-unfriendly interfaces and extensive data requirements. The sustainable implementation of any WRSA method will require greater flexibility and accessibility such that they may be more widely deployed by practitioners and used to address both ongoing and imminent water challenges. Taher Kahil

References Abdelkader, A., & Elshorbagy, A. (2021). ACPAR: A framework for linking national water and food security management with global conditions. Advances in Water Resources, 147, 103809. Booker, J.F., Howitt, R.E., Michelsen, A.M., & Young, R.A. (2012). Economics and the modeling of water resources and policies. Natural Resource Modeling, 25, 168–218. Brown, C.M., Lund, J.R., Cai, X., Reed, P.M., Zagona, E.A., Ostfeld, A., Hall, J., Characklis, G.W., Yu, W., & Brekke, L. (2015). The future of water resources systems analysis: Toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management. Water Resources Research, 51, 6110–6124. Cai, X., Wallington, K., Shafiee-Jood, M., & Marston, L. (2018). Understanding and managing the food-energy-water nexus – Opportunities for water resources research. Advances in Water Resources, 111, 259–273. Crespo, D., Albiac, J., Dinar, A., Esteban, E., & Kahil, T. (2022) Integrating ecosystem benefits for sustainable water allocation in hydroeconomic modeling. PLoS ONE, 17(5), e0267439. Greve, P., Kahil, T., Mochizuki, J., Schinko, T., Satoh, Y., Burek, P., Fischer, G., Tramberend, S., Burtscher, R., Langan, S., & Wada, Y. (2018). Global assessment of water challenges under uncertainty in water scarcity projections. Nature Sustainability, 1, 486–494. Harou, J., Pulido, M., Rosenberg, D., Medellín, J., Lund, J., & Howitt, R., (2009). Hydroeconomic models: Concepts, design, applications, and future prospects. Journal of Hydrology, 375, 627–643.

Hoff, H. (2011). Understanding the nexus. In Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute. Hurford, A., Huskova, I., & Harou, J. (2014). Using many-objective trade-off analysis to help dams promote economic development, protect the poor and enhance ecological health. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 72–86. Kahil, T., Albiac, J., Fischer, G., Strokal, M., Tramberend, S., Greve, P., Tang, T., Burek, P., Burtscher, R., & Wada, Y. (2019). A nexus modeling framework for assessing water scarcity solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 40, 72–80. Kahil, T., Dinar, A., & Albiac, J. (2015). Modeling water scarcity and droughts for policy adaptation to climate change in arid and semiarid regions. Journal of Hydrology, 522, 95–109. Kahil, T., Dinar, A., & Albiac, J. (2016). Cooperative water management and ecosystem protection under scarcity and drought in arid and semiarid regions. Water Resource and Economics, 13, 60–74. Khan, H., Yang, E., Xie, H., & Ringler, C. (2017). A coupled modeling framework for sustainable watershed management in transboundary river basins. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21, 6275–6288. Liu, J., Yang, H., Gosling, S.N., Kummu, M., Flörke, M., Pfister, S., Hanasaki, N., Wada, Y., Zhang, X., Zheng, C., Alcamo, J., & Oki, T. (2017). Water scarcity assessments in the past, present, and future. Earth’s Future, 5(6), 545–559. Lund, J.R., Cai, X., & Characklis, G.W. (2006). Economic engineering of environmental and water resource systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 132(5), 399–402. Macal, C.M., & North, M.J. (2010). Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 4, 151–162. Pachos, K., Huskova, I., Matrosov, E., Erfani, T., & Harou, J. (2022). Trade-off informed adaptive and robust real options water resources planning. Advances in Water Resources, 161, 104117. Pastor, A.V., Ludwig, F., Biemans, H., Hoff, H., & Kabat, P (2014). Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments. Hydrology and Earth System Science, 18, 5041–5059. taher kahil

378  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Rosenberg, D.E., & Madani, K. (2014). Water resources systems analysis: A bright past and a challenging but promising future. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 140(4), 407–409. Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P., De Roo, A., Dirmeyer, P.A., Famiglietti, J.S., Hanasaki, N., Megan Konar, M., Liu, J., Müller Schmied, H., Oki, T., Pokhrel, Y., Sivapalan, M., Troy, T.J., van Dijk, A.I.J.M., van Emmerik, T., Van Huijgevoort,

taher kahil

M.H.J., Van Lanen, H.A.J., Vörösmarty, C.J., Wanders, N., & Wheater, H. (2017). Human-water interface in hydrological modelling: Current status and future directions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(8), 4169–4193. Wu, L., Elshorbagy, A., Pande, S., & Zhuo, L. (2021). Trade-offs and synergies in the water-energy-food nexus: The case of Saskatchewan, Canada. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105192.

85. Water Rights and Legal Pluralism Water rights and legal pluralism Legal pluralism is a term used to denote the coexistence of more than one legal or institutional system with regard to the same set of activities. State law may coexist with customary law and practices, social relationships and local systems of property rights and tenurial systems. These different institutions have different bases of legitimacy. Statutory institutions draw their legitimacy from the institutions of the state, while non-statutory institutions draw their legitimacy from systems of social sanction, customs or religion. Thus, legal pluralism could be considered to be a situation concerning the plurality of legality. To characterize a situation as being one of legal pluralism requires us to understand the different institutions, norms and practices associated with that activity as well as their bases of legitimacy and the relationship among the various institutions and legal systems. Legal pluralism is pervasive and at any point in time, we can find the existence of more than one set of laws or institutions with regard to the same activity. Legal pluralism provides an analytical framework for the analysis of the interface of statutory and non-statutory institutions. A common example is the case of such natural resources as water or fisheries where customary rights may coexist with statutory rights. Often this may lead to situations of conflict and ambiguity. Likewise, state law may come into conflict with religious laws. The premise of legal pluralism is widely applied in the context of discussion of rights and entitlements more broadly for natural resources, as well as specifically for water. First, it can help in a better understanding of property rights. Customary rights are often found to coexist along with rights sanctioned by the state. This can be a cause of conflicts over natural resources. Further, legal pluralism helps us question the premise that no property rights exist. A situation where there are no state-sanctioned rights could be interpreted to be a situation of ‘no property rights existing’, when in practice, there may be a system of rights and mutually constitutive

obligations devised and followed by the community, with a strong system of social sanction. That is, there may be no rights defined by the state; however, there may be well-defined norms and rights devised and understood by the community and strongly enforced and sanctioned by what we may choose to call the community’s collective conscience. The concept of legal pluralism has been widely applied to studies of water rights. National and international water policies, legislative frameworks and water reform programs commonly assume that irrigation water rights and rural water management institutions are framed, enacted and governed by the state or by market actors (Boelens & Vos, 2014). However, worldwide most irrigation systems are managed by smallholder communities and farmer groups that have developed their own traditional, diverse and often ‘hybrid’ water rights and management frameworks. The role of property rights is highly recognized in shaping how people manage natural resources (Meinzen-Dick & Pradhan, 2001). The legal pluralistic perspective on water rights highlights the coexistence and interaction among multiple legal orders such as state, customary, religious, project and local laws, all of which provide bases for claiming property rights in water. These multiple legal frameworks also facilitate considerable flexibility for people to manipulate in their use of the resource. In many parts of the world, water rights are dynamic, flexible and subject to frequent negotiations because of uncertain water supply, damage to intake structures due to floods and landslides, and social, economic and political changes. Multiple, flexible and dynamic legal orders are more responsive to these uncertainties and changes than a single, fixed legal system with a static property regime. The coexistence of different normative frameworks for accessing water allows greater flexibility to users to maintain their claims over water. Rather than seeking a single, hegemonic type of water law or valuation of water it is crucial to recognize not only the pluralistic viewpoint but also one that can lead to more productive negotiations over water rights and water use (Pradhan & Meinzen-Dick, 2003). For instance, in the warabandi irrigation system prevalent in north-west India and Pakistan, water rights are defined by the state. These rights are defined in terms of the time

379

380  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management for taking water. Each irrigator gets a turn to irrigate on a certain day and time of the week. These rights have their legitimacy in state law. However, there may be a mismatch between the time allotted to an irrigator and the water requirement of their crop. This leads to a system of time exchanges wherein irrigators exchange their turns for taking water from the irrigation system (Narain, 2003). Although these are prohibited under state law, they are legitimized widely on the basis of what is locally called bhaichara – indicating a sense of brotherhood. Thus, though the water right is defined by the state, it is realized through another normative system outside of state law, that of a bhaichara-based organization. Thus, the concept of legal pluralism helps us understand the difference between the allocation of water and its actual distribution. In other words, it points to a difference between the concretization of the water right and its materialization. Water may be allocated by the state, but distributed on the basis of legal and normative systems outside the state. Water rights may be concretized by the state, but materialized through normative systems outside the state. Similarly, in recent research in peri-urban Gurgaon in north-west India, it was found that in order to use wastewater for irrigation from a wastewater canal, irrigators have to apply to the irrigation department for a pipe outlet (Narain & Singh, 2017). Once the application is sanctioned, the irrigator is allowed to use the wastewater for irrigation. However, the wastewater is used by several irrigators other than the one who applied for the outlet. There are norms of cooperation in irrigating from wastewater; irrigators take turns to irrigate; they also cooperate in maintaining furrows. These norms of cooperation are legitimized on the basis of bhaibandi, once again implying a sense of cooperation. Taking a legal pluralistic perspective, Meinzen-Dick and Nkonya (2005) show how water rights are embedded in local norms and social contracts. Drawing on several examples across Asia and Africa, they argue that secure property rights are required to provide incentives to invest in a resource and to reduce conflict during scarcity. Rights to water include water withdrawal, labor for maintenance work and maintaining the quality of the environment. Rights could be classified into two broad categories: use rights to determine access and withdrawal and decision-making rights to regulate control vishal narain

of water use and users. The state devises national and international laws for the allocation of shared water. However, communities often have their own tradition for using different water sources; religion as a source of legitimacy adds to the plurality of legality in water rights. Community-sanctioned principles often allow people to use water in ways that are against government regulations, during times of hardship. Water allocation thus depends as much on local institutions, as it does on formal state laws. These institutions are a result of local history and circumstances. Legal pluralism explicitly recognizes that multiple legal and normative frameworks coexist (Bruns & Meinzen-Dick, 2001). It recognizes that national legislation, religious laws, development project rules and unwritten local norms may all address who should receive water, from which sources and for what purposes. A legal pluralist perspective helps to illuminate how, within localities, water rights may be managed very differently than stipulated in state law. Local arrangements benefit from local knowledge of the physical environment and the social capital of local institutions, and hence can manage water allocation with much lower transaction costs than the formal apparatus of courts and bureaucracies. Bruns and Meinzen-Dick (2001) have identified four contexts where negotiation and legal pluralism may help improve water resources management: renegotiating rights during project interventions as water resource projects usually restructure local water rights risking already existing water allocation institutions; formalization of rights by increasing pressure on government whether related to national government sovereignty or attempts to devolve resource management to communities; basin governance emphasizing the need for better coordination among multiple users sharing water sources; and negotiating intersectoral transfers where cities and industries seek to serve their growing demands by shifting water from agriculture without any compensation. Often, attempts to formalize water rights without recognizing the interdependence of communities may trigger conflict. Policies for water rights reform should utilize opportunities to build on existing water rights that are backed by social institutions (Meinzen-Dick & Nkonya, 2005). Vishal Narain

water rights and legal pluralism  381

References Boelens, R., & Vos, J. (2014). Legal pluralism, hydraulic property creation and sustainability: The materialized nature of water rights in user-managed systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 11, 55–62. Bruns, B. R., & Meinzen‐Dick, R. S. (2001, February). Water rights and legal pluralism: Four contexts for negotiation. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1–10). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Meinzen-Dick, R., & Nkonya, L. (2005, January). Understanding legal pluralism in water rights: Lessons from Africa and Asia. In African Water Laws Workshop: Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural Water Management in Africa. Johannesburg.

Meinzen‐Dick, R. S., & Pradhan, R. (2001). Implications of legal pluralism for natural resource management. IDS Bulletin, 32(4), 10–17. Narain, V. 2003. Institutions, Technology and Water Control. Water Users’ Associations and Irrigation Management Reform in Two Large-Scale Irrigation Systems in India. Narain, V., & Singh, A. K. (2017). Flowing against the current: The socio-technical mediation of water (in) security in periurban Gurgaon, India. Geoforum, 81, 66–75. Pradhan, R., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2003). Which rights are right? Water rights, culture, and underlying values. Water Nepal, 9(19), 37–61.

vishal narain

86. Water Security in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region Introduction Water security describes the reliable availability of water in quantity and quality adequate to meet the needs of a given community or country, while protecting ecological assets. Water security also incorporates managing the risk of water-related extreme events such as floods and droughts (Grey & Sadoff, 2007). Perhaps the issue of water security is most pressing in the largely arid and semi-arid Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. It is in this region where the agricultural revolution started more than 10 000  years ago, when humans harnessed natural resources to produce more reliable food stocks, heralding an era when food became closely linked with the consistent supply of water. Innovations of water transfer and storage were made to secure water for an ever-increasing population. Today, the MENA region is facing a dire water security issue, as natural water resources are not capable of meeting the high water demand driven by a phenomenal increase in population and improving living standards. This water imbalance has been exacerbated by climatic changes that have increased the scarcity and variability of water resources. The MENA region is home to the largest deserts in the world. Most of the population is concentrated in the Nile Valley and Mesopotamia which rely on river systems that originate outside their boundaries; the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean coastal plains which receive most precipitation during the winter months; and south-western Arabia. Immense oil revenues have transformed the historically lightly populated Arabian Peninsula to host growing and affluent urban centers with accompanying growth in demand for all resources, particularly water. Achieving a balance between water supply and demand requires effective demand management and the provision of reliable supplies. Earlier development in the region favored the latter, where large water infrastructure projects were constructed such as the Aswan Dam

in Egypt and extensive irrigation systems in Iraq. Also, many countries have extensively utilized and depleted vast and largely nonrenewable groundwater sources. Saudi Arabia is believed to have depleted most of its fossil water reserves (National Geographic, 2012), which were recharged several millennia ago when the region’s climate was much wetter. Most of the water in the MENA region is used for agriculture including in countries where agriculture does not contribute significantly to gross domestic product. Even in countries with a substantial agricultural sector, such as Egypt and Syria, food production falls short of meeting the exponentially growing demand fueled by the phenomenal growth in population and changing diet habits. It is worth noting that the agricultural sector in some countries employs large segments of the population, making these groups highly vulnerable to reductions in water supplies. Risk to water security in the MENA region can be related to several factors: extreme scarcity and high inter-annual and intra-annual variability of precipitation accentuated by climatic changes; dependency on transboundary surface and groundwater resources; high demand driven by a growing population with higher living standards; significant irrigation requirements due to high evapotranspiration rates and low soil moisture content; and economic dependency of large segments of the population on agriculture (Assaf et al., 2012). Water security is highly intertwined with food security in the MENA region as substantial amounts of water are required for agriculture due to the region’s high evapotranspiration rates and low precipitation levels. Many countries in the MENA region have also opted to reallocate water from agriculture to meet the rising domestic water demand. However, this has come at the expense of relying on food imports to satisfy the burgeoning population. Egypt, for example, is the world’s largest wheat importer. Recently, the country has faced a serious gap in meeting its food demand as most of its imports were obtained from Ukraine and Russia which are embroiled in vicious warfare that has devastated Ukraine’s capacity to produce and export many essential food commodities. A global food crisis has ensued and has been exacerbated by concurrent climate change– driven drought and heat events in other major food producing countries (The Guardian, 2022).

382

water security in the middle east and north africa (mena) region  383 Energy is also strongly linked with water supply. Energy is used in extracting, treating and transporting water. For example, 25 percent of Jordan’s energy use is dedicated to the water supply. The MENA region also hosts the largest desalination capacity worldwide. Desalination is an energy-intensive process that releases warm brine stream that has a detrimental impact on marine life.

Enhancing water security in the MENA region Achieving water security in a water-scarce region such as the MENA region is a daunting task given the limited and highly variable supply and the rapidly increasing demand. Consequently, water security strategies should focus on reducing demand, enhancing supply and managing its variability. Successful strategies will be an array of complimentary solutions that in combination provide flexibility, reliability and stability in maintaining a balance between demand and supply. Below are brief descriptions of these solutions. Water demand management Water demand management including enhancing efficiency and regulations is generally the most effective water management approach, particularly under scarce water conditions. Technological innovations in remote sensing, artificial intelligence (AI), smart metering, hydrological simulation and modeling offer great opportunities to enhance water use efficiency and reduce losses. A key component of water demand management is pricing water to capture its true value, provide funds for the maintenance and development of water supply systems and send a signal to consumers to optimize their water use. Water pricing can be structured in multitiered rates with a low-cost base to soften the economic impact on the poorer sectors of the population. Differential pricing of fresh water and treated wastewater could be used to incentivize farmers to use treated wastewater instead of fresh water which can be reallocated to urban users. Storage Storage has been recognized for millennia as an effective method for managing water intra- and inter-annual variability. Dams on the Nile and the Euphrates rivers have

contributed to the phenomenal growth in the agricultural sector by providing a reliable and steady source of irrigation. They provide a significant amount of hydroelectric generation and attenuate the impact of major floods and extended droughts. However, they require significant capital investment, political support and technical innovation to execute. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) has recently been developed to provide strategic reserves of water during drought and is resistant to evaporation. The Emirates of Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have developed large-scale ASR systems to store desalinated water, increasing strategic reserves from a few days to several months (Stuyfzand et al., 2017). Several Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are following suit given the vulnerability of desalination plants to interruptions due to potential environmental and man-made shocks (e.g. red tide and oil spill contamination). Treated wastewater Several countries in the MENA region have increased their capacity to treat and use wastewater. Depending on the level of treatment, treated wastewater can be used in irrigation, groundwater recharge and industrial applications, and has been injected into the drinking water system in a few places around the world (e.g. Singapore). Treated wastewater is generally a reliable water supply that is not impacted by climatic conditions. Reusing treated wastewater is more economical than desalination. However, desalination satisfies most drinking water requirements, while treated wastewater is more suitable for irrigation and other non-drinking requirements given the psychological and cultural barriers to drinking it. Desalination Desalination is an energy-intensive process that produces high-quality water from seawater and brackish water. However, desalination is prohibitively expensive for most countries, and is mostly restricted to drinking even in the most wealthy nations. It offers a reliable and economical source of drinking water for coastal cities, or those in close proximity to brackish aquifers, which otherwise lack access to other sources of fresh water. The process results in highly saline and warm brine that has a detrimental impact on marine hamed assaf

384  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management life when it is released to sea bodies. The GCC countries house most of the world’s desalination capacity (the UAE alone produces 14  percent of desalinated water worldwide). The technology has offered GCC countries a reliable source of fresh water that has enabled phenomenal socioeconomic development and the emergence of large and modern cities such as Dubai. The UAE has also developed substantial desalination capacity on the Arabian Sea to hedge against potential interruptions to desalination plants on the Arabian Gulf. Reducing economic dependency on agriculture Given the MENA region’s high aridity and climatic variability, it is prudent to reduce economic dependency on agriculture by diversifying the economy and providing the rural population with adequate education and capacity development toward more water-resilient industries. This recommendation may not be received positively given the region’s already high dependency on food imports and the dramatic shock to global food trade triggered by the conflict in Ukraine and the earlier impact of Covid-19. In fact, some experts are already calling for enhanced domestic food production to mitigate the impact of these disruptions on food security. This would be a short-sighted measure that will only exhaust current freshwater supplies and aggravate water insecurity. As discussed later, there are other measures to enhance food security while reducing the yield of water-intensive food crops. Reallocation of water from agriculture to the domestic and industrial sectors It is worth noting that not only is agriculture the largest user of water, but its water use is highly consumptive as most of the water used in agriculture is lost to the atmosphere as evapotranspiration. In contrast, the domestic sector which has a much lower water share is mostly a non-consumptive water user, where over 85  percent of the water delivered to homes is captured as sewage, which can be further treated and reused. Consequently, even relatively small water savings in agriculture can substantially increase the share of water available for the domestic and industrial sectors. For example, the agricultural sector in the MENA region uses over 85 percent of the freshwater resources, whereas the domestic sector uses only 6 percent of these resources hamed assaf

(World Bank, 2022). Consequently, reallocating 10  percent of water currently used in agriculture to the domestic sector would more than double the domestic share. Reducing agricultural water allocation can be achieved by several methods including: employing technology to improve irrigation efficiency, crop election and genetic enhancement; reducing economic dependency on agriculture via economic diversification and workforce training; effective pricing of water in agriculture, and developing a water market where farmers can sell their allocations, which would encourage them to move away from low-cost water-intensive crops to highvalue less water-intensive crops; and enhancing trade to meet the national demand for food and other water-intensive commodities. Actions in the non-water sectors As alluded to earlier, food security is closely linked to water security. Consequently, measures to enhance food security should be developed in tandem with those regarding water security. As earlier civilization realized, storing food during a time of plenty – wet seasons and years – would stave off hardship and starvation in drier times. Stored food is a reservoir of water or ‘virtual water’ as coined by Allan (1996). Stored food could be produced during wet times or traded with other communities and nations. In fact, nomadic tribes were known to trade fur and reserved meat for crops such as rice and wheat produced in well-watered sedentary regions. It is interesting to note that this was an earlier form of virtual water trade. Fur, dairy products and reserved meat are a product of livestock consuming grass that utilizes soil moisture spread over a large area which required a nomadic style of living. In contrast, crops required a more consistent supply of water obtained from river flow and rainfall. In modern times, grain storage silos provide multiyear storage of virtual water and other inputs (labor and energy), and consequently contribute to the security of these strategic assets. The same can be applied to developing a reliable and cost-effective trade in water-intensive crops – and other products such as textiles – rather than producing them domestically at the expense of squandering scarce water resources. The recent disruptions to global trade may have weakened this argument, but the MENA region can leverage its strategic location and abundant energy resources to hedge the risk of these

water security in the middle east and north africa (mena) region  385 disruptions by enhancing its relations with several producers of water-intensive products.

Summary and conclusion The water-scarce MENA region faces an uphill battle in enhancing its water security, which is closely linked to food security and energy security. Depending on each country’s socioeconomic and current water resources conditions, a range of measures can be adopted to address water security. These measures should be integrated to collectively achieve a balance of reliability, economic cost and minimum impact on the environment. Water demand management is superior to supply-based solutions in terms of reliability and cost-effectiveness, but requires compliance and the implementation of regulations. Groundwater is a natural storage that can sustain a multi-year water supply even during extended droughts. However, this could come at the expense of depleting stocks if they are not sustainably managed. A key factor in water security is the availability of longterm storage to mitigate the impact of water variability. Historically, dams offered a stable water supply in addition to flood control and hydroelectric generation. More recently, the ASR systems offer reliable and evaporationproof storage. Desalination is an expensive, yet reliable source – given secure access to energy – of water that is decoupled from the natural hydrological cycle. Treated wastewater is a drought-proof water supply available throughout the year. In desalination-centered water supply systems, wastewater treatment offers a more economically and environmentally effective solution to increasing desalination capacity to meet rising water demands. Each country in the MENA region would benefit from a different mix of water management solutions selected based on a marginal economic analysis, with the least-cost approach selected first (low hanging fruit approach). Water demand management should be considered first. In countries with access to surface water, such as Egypt and Iraq, storage and conveyance would enhance the reliability of the water supply. A coastal city such as Dubai with a dense urban population in a super arid region would certainly benefit from water use efficiency measures such as pricing and smart metering but would also require reliable desalination in addition to using treated wastewater to provide a sustainable water

supply. There should be a balance between the type of water use, quality requirements and efficiency. Secondary- or tertiary-treated wastewater can be readily used in agriculture. Using it for drinking water requires further costly treatment and buy-in from consumers. Brackish water can be used for irrigation and could be desalinated – at a much lower cost than seawater – to be used as drinking water. Addressing water security in the MENA region should be a multisectoral approach. In particular, food security, energy security and economic dependency on agriculture should be considered. A primary target of these efforts is the reduction in water allocated to agriculture, which could significantly increase the water available to the more waterproductive domestic and industrial sectors. Hamed Assaf

References Allan, J. A. (1996). Policy responses to the closure of water resources. In Water Policy: Allocation and Management in Practice, edited by P. Howsam and R. Carter. London: Chapman and Hall. Assaf, H., Erian, W., Gafrej, R. Herrmann, S., McDonnell, R. and Taimeh, A. (2012). Chapter 3: Adaptation to a changing climate in the Arab countries. In Climate Change Contributes to Water Scarcity, edited by D. Verner. Washington, DC: World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-9458-8. Grey, D. and Sadoff, C. W. (2007). Sink or swim? Water security for growth and development. Water Policy, 9(6): 545–571. DOI: 10.2166/wp.2007.021. National Geographic. (2012). Saudi Arabia’s great thirst. Accessed August 3, 2022. https://www​ . nationalgeographic​ . com​ / environment​/article​/saudi​-arabia​-water​-use. Stuyfzand, P. J., Smidt, E., Zuurbier, K. G., Hartog, N. and Dawoud, M. A. (2017). Observations and prediction of recovered quality of desalinated seawater in the strategic ASR Project in Liwa, Abu Dhabi. Water, 9(3): 177. DOI: 10.3390/w9030177. The Guardian. (2022). Ukraine war has stoked global food crisis that could last years, says UN. The Guardian. https:// www​.theguardian​.com​/world​/2022​/may​/19​ /ukraine​-war​-has​-stoked​-global​-food​-crisis​ -that​-could​-last​-years​-says​-un. World Bank. (2022). World Bank data. https:// data​.worldbank​.org​/indicator​/er​.h2o​.fwag​.zs. hamed assaf

Index 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) 122–4 1977 Agreement on Sharing of Ganges 123 1981 National Water Law 352 1996 Ganges Water Sharing Treaty 123 1997 UN Watercourses Convention 288 2005 Water Reform 320 2010 Twitchell Canyon Fire 28 2019 terrorist attack, Pulwama 124 Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority (ADWEA) 362 Addo, I.B. 206–7 Africa sustainable water management 346–7 water management in 345 water scarcity 345–6 African National Congress (ANC) 126 African Policy Framework 346 African Risk Capacity (ARC) 72 African Water Vision 2025 346 Afrikaner nationalism 126 agent-based models (ABMs) 280 agricultural irrigation 68 agriculture in Africa 345 integrated water resources management (IWRM) 319 policies and water management climate change 16 demand-side strategies 17 economic instruments in 17–18 environmental degradation and pollution 16 food security 16 irrigation expansion 17 irrigation water use 16 nature-based solutions (NBS) 18 physical and virtual reallocation of water 17 refurbishing irrigation projects 17 sustainable management practices 18 water use efficiency 18 tradable groundwater permits 284–6 water conservation technologies 321 water management policies 319 water markets 320 water pricing 319–20 Western US agriculture climate change 267–8 crops and livestock 267 drip irrigation 267 environmental and ecological aspects 268

infrastructure 266–7 institutional evolution 266–7 remote-sensing and global positioning system (GPS)-based farm machinery 267 water markets 268–9 water property rights 265–6 see also Ethiopian agriculture Akerlof, G.A. 301 Alam, M.F. 302 Alamanos, A. 230 Albers, H.J. 33 Al-Jawad, J.Y. 139 Allan, J.A. 384 Andersson, A. 160 anionic polyacrylamide (PAM) 28–9 anti-India foreign policy 123 Anzaldi, G. 139 appropriative rights 265, 349 aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) 383 aquifer susceptibility 101 area-of-origin effects 320 armed conflict impacts on water resources 340–41 informal water service provision 341 international humanitarian law (IHL) 342 transboundary water cooperation 342 water infrastructure in 340 water management and governance 340–42 water supply systems 341 weaponize water 340 Artner-Nehls, A. 51 Ashworth, M.F. 33 Autio, E. 171 availability minus the demand (AMD) 1 available water remaining (AWARE) method 1, 2 Badía, D. 28 Bailey, R.W. 20 Ballestero, E. 285 Baltas, I. 180 Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) 65–7 Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) 65, 66, 159, 161, 161 n.1 Baltic Sea eutrophication environmental economics 159–61 environmental protection 161 flexible quota system 161

386

index  387 HELCOM1 Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) 159, 161, 161 n.1 management of 159–61 nitrogen loading 159 non-point pollution 161 nutrient abatement allocations 160–61 pollution sources 159–60 symptoms of 159 Banerjee, Mamta 123 Barreteau, O. 247 Basu, Jyoti 123 Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) model 206–7 Bennett, N.J. 32 Bernauer, T. 122 best management practices (BMPs) 133, 183, 198 Beutler, L. 105–6 bhaichara-based organization 380 bias adjustment 7–8 biodiversity, definition 305 Bjornlund, H. 239 Böhmelt, T. 122 Bonabeau, E. 280 Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference 295 Borman, E.H. 12 Bossaerts, P. 90 Boulay, A.-M. 1 Boulding, Kenneth 62 Bracken, L.J. 312 Braun, M. 90 Brochmann, M. 122 Brock, W.A. 180 Bruns, B.R. 380 Burritt, R.L. 327 California, water markets 349–51 California Drought Water Bank 353–4 California Environmental Quality Act 266 California’s MPA management 33 California’s Reasonable Use Doctrine 350 California’s Westlands Water District 354 Camarero, M. 225 Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) 72 catchment management agencies (CMAs) 126–7 Central Asia (CA), water resources management 371–3 certified operators 176 channel treatments 21 Charpentier, A. 71 chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) answer to the question 37, 38 coding/software 38

data 37 description 37 limitations 37 usefulness 37, 38 weaknesses 37 writing 38–9 Cheesman, J. 240 chemical oxygen demand (COD) 196 Chile’s Water Law of 1981 127 China, water pollution control ammonia nitrogen 196 best management practices (BMPs) 198 chemical oxygen demand (COD) 196 domestic and industrial wastewater treatment 196, 198 laws and plans 196–8 municipal wastewater discharge treatment 196, 198 plans and guidelines 196–8 regional water management strategies 198 regulations 196–8 river water quality levels 196, 199 water ecological restoration 196–7 Christ, K.L. 327 Christie, P. 33 Christou, C. 180 classic index-based method (GALDIT-I) 101 climate change communication climate threats 45 for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 45 in Ireland 46–7 means of communication 46–7 public awareness 45 Coase theorem 284 Coelho, A. 139 Colglazier, E.W. 289 committee machine intelligence system (CMIS) model 102 common midpoint impact indicators 2, 3 common pool resources 277–8 community ecology 12 Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST) 33 computational social science (CSS), human– water research agent-based modeling (ABM) 50–51 challenges 51 data mining algorithms 50 definition 50 natural language processing (NLP) 50–51 social-ecological systems 50 social media data 50 social network analysis (SNA) 50–51 web resources 50–51

388  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Conca, K. 237–8 conducts 62 Connor, J. 240 consumption to availability ratio (CTA) 1 cooperation theory 237–8 coordinated regional climate downscaling experiment (CORDEX) initiative 7 correlative rights 265–6 Covid-19 crisis 213, 271, 384 Crawford, B. 31 Croke, J. 312 crowdfunding system 70 customary rights 379 Daniel, D. 301–2 Daoudy, M. 340 Darwin’s evolution theory 189 Davis, M.S. 45 Dearden, P. 32 DeBano, L.F. 20 decision-support systems (DSS) 183 De Koning, M. 33 delta change approach 8 demand to availability ratio (DTA) 1 DENUZ reactive N transport model 102 Desai, Morarji 123 desalination 383–4 detention reservoirs 234 Díaz-Raviña, M. 28 Di Baldassarre, G. 280 Diedrich, A. 32 Dionne, G. 72 disaster analysis and management 182–3 domestic wastewater treatment systems (DWWTSs) centralized systems 261 conventional treatment system 261–2 decentralized systems 261 Ecoinvent v3.6 database 261 in Ireland 261 life cycle assessment (LCA) 261 life cycle costing (LCC) 261 life cycle inventory 261 nature-based solution treatment systems 261–2 packaged treatment system 261–2 primary settlement systems 263 sustainability of 261 willow evapotranspiration system 261, 263 drinking water decentralized gray water treatment systems 253 drinking water treatment residuals (DWTRs) 252–3 economic policy instruments (EPIs) 253

gray water reuse 253 legal regimes 252 original allocation of water rights 252 prioritization of personal and domestic use 252 quality standards 252 tariff models 254 urban water pricing policies 253 volume of water 252 Drinking Water Directive (Directive 80/68EEC) 68 Drinking Water Directive, Directive (EU) 2020/2184 68 drinking water treatment residuals (DWTRs) 252–3 drip irrigation technology 303 drought management approaches adjusting crop choices 56 groundwater use 55–6 irrigation canal management 53–5 Du, K. 225 DWWTSs see domestic wastewater treatment systems (DWWTSs) dynamical downscaling methods 6–7 EAD see emirate of Abu Dhabi (EAD) eco-efficiency 328 Eco-Innovation Action Plan 224 Eco-Innovation Observatory 225 economics-oriented conceptual models 178 ecosystem business ecosystems 171 characteristics of 171 definition 171 entrepreneurial ecosystems 171 innovation ecosystems 171 knowledge ecosystems 171 natural ecosystem 171 platform ecosystems 171 smart city ecosystems 171 typology of 171 value creation 171 ecosystem-based management plan 31 Eeckhoudt, L. 72 Einav, L. 72 emirate of Abu Dhabi (EAD) climate of 357 geographical situation of 357–8 overall population 357 public policies 357 Statistics Center of Abu Dhabi (SCAD) 358–9 water administration laws and decrees 360–61 water governance reform at emirate level 361–3

index  389 water governance reform at federal level 360–62 water sector regulations 360 water policy drivers 362–3 water resources 357–8 water system components 357, 359 water use in 358–60 Endangered Species Act 266 Entebbe Agreement 346 Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi (EAAD) 362 environmental and resource costs (ERCs) 80–83, 315 environmental forecasting 366 environmental information systems 63 environmental management control systems action controls 63 conducts 62 cultural controls 63 diagnostic controls 63 digital water activities 63 end-of-life products 62 environmental assessments 63 environmental costing 63 environmental economics 66 environmental information systems 63 institutionalized platforms 63 interactive controls 63 interdisciplinary teams 62–3 International Integrated Reporting Council 62 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 62 ISO 14002-2 62 ISO 14007 63 key performance indicators 63 life cycle assessments (LCAs) 63 managerial opportunism 62 natural capital 62 natural resources 62 not in my back yard (NIMBY) effect 62 not in my term of office (NIMTOF) effect 62 personnel controls 63 resource budgeting 63 resource flow analyses 63 water quality standards 63 water-related crises 62 environmental priority strategies (EPS) 2 Environmental Quality Incentive Program 321 Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) 306 ERC Grant Smart Water Futures 231 n.1 Ernst, A. 50 erosion rates 20

estuaries Baltic Sea 75 definition 75 freshwater inflow management 77–8 hydrology characteristics 75 climatic conditions 75 drainage systems 75–6 evapotranspiration 76 human water use and reuse 76 natural hydrological parameters 77 negative/inverse estuaries 75 neutral estuaries 75 positive estuaries 75 water balance 75, 77 water budget 76 water cycle processes 75–6 Mediterranean Sea 75 nutrients and sediments 75–6 primary natural forces 75 salinity modifiers 77 subcomponents 75 Ethiopian agriculture breaching practices 332 Cole I Irrigation Water Users’ Association (IWUA), Toke Kutaye district 330–33 farmers’ eligibility criteria 332 irrigation water governance 330 network structure 331–2 operational rules 332 qualitative research design 330 rules and norms 334 socio-ecological system (SES) framework 330 water potential 330 water resource allocation 332 EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 68 EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive 65 EU policies and innovation financing financing tools 69–70 Green Deal 69–70 investment capital and funding 68 policy frameworks 69–70 water policies and strategies 68–9 EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard 224 Europe 2020 Strategy 224 European biodiversity ecosystems BIC criterion 307 biogeographical regions 306 cultural services 305 economic strategy 305 Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) 306 freshwater ecosystems 306

390  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) typology 306 marginal WTP (MWTP) 307–10 marine ecosystems 306 meta-regression analysis function transfer 306 meta regression estimates 307–8 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 305 natural capital 305 Newey–West HAC standard errors 307 policy decisions 305 provisioning services 305 regulating services 305 supporting services 305 sustainable development 308–10 terrestrial ecosystems 306 total economic value (TEV) 306 value on 305–6 willingness to pay (WTP) 306–9 European Economic Area (EEA) 317 European Green Deal 224, 279, 311 n.1 European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) 69 European Sustainable Development Report 2021 43 European Union (EU-28) average growth rates 225–6 average water productivity 225–6 club formation 225 convergence analysis 225 data 224–5 Eco-Innovation Action Plan 224 eco-innovation convergence clubs 225, 227 Eco-Innovation Observatory 225 EU Resource Efficiency Scoreboard 224 Europe 2020 Strategy 224 European Green Deal 224 Resource Efficiency Flagship Initiative 224 resource productivity convergence clubs 225, 227 three-tier system 224 eutrophication 2, 12–13, 65–6, 133, 159–61, 253 Evans, K. 31 expected utility theory (EUT) 129–30 Farakka Barrage, Ganges River 123 Federal Environmental Agency (FEA) 361 Fernández, C. 27 Finkelstein, A. 72 fire-related sediment yields 20 flood insurance 129, 130 degree of psychological stability 71 economic perspective 71–2

in Germany 71 psychological perspective 72 resilience 71 risk-based premiums 71 social justice perspective 72–3 flood protection 20, 21, 26–9, 130, 268, 273 food and energy price crises bioenergy 213 causes 213 Covid-19 213 GDP growth for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) 213–14 water resources adverse climate change impacts 213 California Water Price Index 213, 215 environmental uses of water 213 global water storage gap 214 hydropower generation, Sri Lanka 214 incentive-based tools 216 megadrought, South-Western United States 213 water availability for agriculture 213 water pollution 214 water scarcity 214 water’s growing impact reduction 214, 216 food-water-energy-environment nexus 376 Forel, F.A. 12 Forggensee reservoir mathematical simulation model 235 rainfall-runoff submodel 234 stream sediment transport submodel 235 universal soil loss equation (USLE) 235 formal markets 352–3 Foster, G.R. 235 freshwater ecosystems 13, 68, 306, 308–9 freshwater inflow management 77–8 Frey, F. 121, 122 Friedman, Milton 127 Fryirs, K. 312 Fuentealba, M. 164 full cost of water accounting practices 85 actual vs. efficient costs 81 capital expenditure 85 capital remuneration 81 compensative payments 83 cost-reflective charges 83 depreciation costs 81 direct methods 81 economic analysis 83 environmental and resource costs (ERC) 80–84 environmental costs 80, 83, 85 financial cost 80 financial sustainability 84

index  391 fixed costs 85 full cost recovery (FCR) 83 grants-in-aid 81 indirect methods 81 liability principle 83 marginal costs 84–5 polluter-pays principle (PPP) 83 preference methods 81 pricing rule 84 public contributions 81 public funds 85 reconstruction costs 81 reimbursing loans 81 resource cost 80, 85 semi-fiscal systems, France 84 subsidies 84 ‘3T’ approach 84 water framework directive (WFD) 82, 83 water services 83 ‘with-without’ approach 80 Galán, J.M. 51 Ganges River Agreement 238 Ganguli, M. 97 gender climate change 95 definition 94 gendered norms 94 gender relations 95 identity 94 inequalities 193 intersectionality 94 land use change 95 local structural norms 95 local water management committees 95 mainstreaming 95 male migration 95 non-statutory laws 94 sexual orientation 94 statutory laws 94 urbanization 95 water collection 94 water governance institutions 95 water security 94–5 water supply interventions 94 women’s water burdens 94 General Algebraic Modeling Systems (GAMS) 189 general omputable equilibrium model (CGE) 107 genetic algorithms (GAs) 189 Gerhardinger, L. 32 Giakoumakis, S. 234 Girsanov theorem 179 Gleditsch, N.P. 121 global climate change projections

bias adjustment 6–7 floods and droughts 5 global climate models (GCMs) 5–6 global warming 5 hydrological models 8 regional climate models (RCMs) 6–7 statistical downscaling 7–8 water cycle variability and extremes 5 weather generators 6–7 global climate models (GCMs) 5–6 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 327 global-scale hydrological models 8 Global Sustainable Development Report 2022 43 global warming 5, 16, 164, 361 Global Water Partnership (GWP) 324 goal programming (GP) 189 Goffman, E. 45 governing water in Global South centrally managed water supply 97 equity and access 97–8 groundwater 97 physical expansion of cities 97 population growth 97 regional water balance 98 rural thirst 97 sewer system 97 traditional water knowledge 97–8 urban water conflict 98 water crisis 97 water transfers 98 Grafton, R.Q. 240 Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) 176, 346 Greece, groundwater management affected coastal aquifers 272, 274 aquifer systems 271 climate crisis 273–5 current status of 271–3 decline in groundwater levels 271–2 5R principles 274–5 groundwater contamination 272 and groundwater governance 272–3 instruments and tools 272–3 karst aquifers 271 overpumping 271–3 ‘resource-oriented’ sustainable development goal (SDG)-6 271 water consumption 271–2 water resources 271 Griffin, R.C. 285 Groen, A.H. 28 Groom, B. 180 groundwater management 97 aquifer susceptibility 101 artificial intelligence (AI) methods 101–2

392  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management classic index-based method (GALDIT-I) 101 committee machine intelligence system (CMIS) model 102 geostatistical models 101 Greece affected coastal aquifers 272, 274 aquifer systems 271 climate crisis 273–5 current status of 271–3 decline in groundwater levels 271–2 5R principles 274–5 groundwater contamination 272 and groundwater governance 272–3 instruments and tools 272–3 karst aquifers 271 overpumping 271–3 ‘resource-oriented’ sustainable development goal (SDG)-6 271 water consumption 271–2 water resources 271 groundwater-level prediction 102 hydrochemical facies evolution diagrams 101 hydrodynamic and hydrogeochemical parameters 101 index-based analysis 101 key contamination sources 100 multivariate analysis 101 numerical modeling 102 physicochemical analyses 101 quality parameters 101 reconnaissance 100 resilience 100 support vector machine-firefly algorithm 101 typology 100–101 water-level measurements 101 groundwater rights 265, 349, 352–3 Group of Lisbon 127 growing water management 375–7 Guo, W. 144 Gutiérrez-Martín, C. 320 Haensch, J. 241 Hamilton–Jacobi–Belmann–Isaacs (HJBI) equation 180 Han, S. 151 Hansen–Sargent-type variational utilities 179 Harbaugh, A.W. 143 Hardin, G. 277 Haro-Monteagudo, D. 139 Harvard Water Program (HWP) 243, 375 Hasina, Sheikh 123 HELCOM1 Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) 159, 161, 161 n.1

Hensel, P. 122 Hoekstra, A.Y. 1 Huang, H. 32 Huang, K.D. 151 Hughes, N. 240 hydroclimatic stresses 335 hydrodiplomacy 288 hydro-economic models (HEMs) 105, 376 hydro-economics 87, 183–4 hydro-hegemony 121–4 hydrological hazards climate change 112 definition 112 depth-damage functions 113 direct monetary hazard loss 113 drought hazards 112 evaluation of 113 flood hazards 112 fuzzy logic 114 geographic information system (GIS) 112 hazard independent vulnerability 114 hazard risk assessment 113 hydro-meteorological risk (HRM) 114 integrated risk management 114 inundation mapping 112 lumped/distributed hydrological models 113 meteorological anomalies 112 modeling of hydrological extremes 112 parallel computing methods 113 probabilistic approaches 113–14 rainfall 112–13 regionalization techniques 113 remote sensing technology 112–13 resistance-based tactics 114 risk management 112 hydrological models 5, 8, 112–13, 372 hydrology characteristic river basin 118–19 characteristics 75 climatic conditions 75 definition 118 drainage systems 75–6 evapotranspiration 76 global water distribution 118, 120 groundwater hydrology 118 human water use and reuse 76 hydrological cycle 118–19 natural hydrological parameters 77 negative/inverse estuaries 75 neutral estuaries 75 physical hydrology 118 positive estuaries 75 probabilistic hydrology 118 stochastic hydrology 118 surface water 118

index  393 water balance 75, 77, 118–19 water budget 76 water cycle processes 75–6 water resources engineering 120 hydro-politics and hydro-diplomacy basin power asymmetries 121 bilateral and multilateral treaties 122 bilateral treaty 122 cross-border configuration 122 domestic politics 122 power matrix model 121 in South Asia 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) 122–4 1977 Agreement on Sharing of Ganges 123 1996 Ganges Water Sharing Treaty 123 anti-India foreign policy 123 Bangladesh 122–3 India 122–4 Jammu and Kashmir 123 Nepal 122 Pakistan 122–4 water-sharing agreement on Teesta River 123 upstream-downstream/through-border river configuration 121–2 water disputes 122 water quantity and allocation 121 water-related scarcity 121 water variability 121 hydro-social research 280 Inbar, A. 29 index-based analysis 101 informal markets 353 input-output model (IOM) 107, 110 integrated and sustainable water resources management (ISWRM) ANEMI model 139 cost-benefit analysis (CBA) 138 decision-making 133, 138 decision support systems (DSS) 139 DiAS DSS 139 environmental and socioeconomic models 137 expert knowledge–based modeling 139 human-environmental systems 137 institutional/policy regulatory aspects 134 integrated modeling approaches 137 intermediate approach 133 least-cost approach 138 multicriteria analysis (MCA) 138 natural subsystem 134 optimization 138 socioeconomic problems and conflicts 133 socioeconomic subsystem 134

sustainability and resilience 134–5 sustainable development goals (SDGs) 168 systemic approach 133–5 water management modeling 139 water resource systems 133 integrated simulation and management system (ISMS) 142–3 complexity of 142–3 EPIC/APEX family 143 flow chart 142–3 geomorphology data 143 LAK3 model 142–3 longitudinal dispersivity (αL ) 144 MODFLOW groundwater simulation model 143–4 MT3DMS model 144 optimum management strategies 144 parameter estimation (PEST) 143 satellite map of water district of Thessaly 144–5 SEAWAT model 144 transverse dispersivity (αΤ) 144 UTHBAL surface water balance model 142 integrated water resources allocation and management (IWRAM) analytical tools 105 economic and regulatory management 106 food–energy–water (FEW) nexus studies 105 general omputable equilibrium model (CGE) 107 global demand for agricultural products 105 hydro-economic models 105 input-output model (IOM) 107, 110 integrated economic platform 105–6 network-based models 106–7, 110 new hybrid models 105 objectives of 105 optimization models 106 in Pernambuco state, Brazil 107, 109–10 policy evaluation tool 105 reallocation water policy 107 spatial decision support systems (SDSS) 105, 107 stakeholders 105 transaction matrix (Z) 107–8 water quantity and quality 105 water use efficiency (WUE) 110 integrated water resources management (IWRM) 40, 105, 147, 319, 321, 323, 347, 362, 373 inter-basin transfers 371 International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC) 290 n.1

394  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management international humanitarian law (IHL) 342 International Integrated Reporting Council 62 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 62 irrigation canal management 53–5 irrigation expansion 17 irrigation water use 16 Islam, G. 33 ISMS see integrated simulation and management system (ISMS) ISO 14002-2 62 ISO 14007 63 ISO 14046 Environmental management 328 ISWRM see integrated and sustainable water resources management (ISWRM) IWRAM see integrated water resources allocation and management (IWRAM) Iyengar, S. 98 Jevons, Stanley 243 Jiang, W. 240 Jodha, N.S. 277 Jones, P. 33 Kaffas, K. 221, 236 Keesstra, S. 312 key performance indicators 63 Khadim, F.K. 53, 55 Klinger, T. 31 Koner, K. 98 Koundouri, P. 180, 230 Kranton, R.E. 301 Krishnamurthy, C.K.B. 178 Kuhlback–Leibler entropy 179 Kusumawati, I. 32 LANCA v2.5 method 2 land treatments 21 Langevin, C.D. 144 large hydro-wind-photovoltaic (PV) hybrid generation system (HWPGS) with cascade hydropower stations 151–2 climate-hydrology-operation framework 151 complementarity and risks 151–2 definition of 151 global and regional estimated potential of 151, 153 intermittency and uncertainty 151 operation of 155–6 planning of 151–4 schematic diagram 151–2 schematic diagram of 151–2 Latinopoulos, D. 285

layered water rights 266 LCAs see life cycle assessments (LCAs) legal pluralism 379–80 Leisher, C. 32 levee effect/safe development paradox 243 Li, R. 100 life cycle assessments (LCAs) 63 definition 1 ISO 14040:2006 standards 1 ISO 14046:2014 standards 1 water quality assessment 2–3 water quantity assessment 1–2 Likens, G.E. 12 Limarí basin canal system 354 limnology 12–13 LINDO systems software 189 linear programming (LP) 189 Linkola, L. 50 living labs (LLs) 147–9 Loch, A. 320 Loukas, A. 142 Lovreglio, R. 27 Lucas-Borja, M.E. 27 Lund, J. 87 Lutz, W. 234 macroeconomic policies 230 Magliocca, N.R. 280 Mandala theory 287 Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) typology 306 Margat, J. 272 marine ecosystems 306 marine-protected area (MPA) bottom-up management approaches 32 community leaders 32 decision support systems (DSS) 33 education-related issues 32 human activities 31 marine conservation zones (MCZ) 31 ‘mixed’ approach 32–3 top-down management approaches 31–2 marine protection Baltic Sea marine policy environmental economics 65 institutions of 65–6 socioeconomic action plan 65 definition 65 design and implementation of 65 economic efficiency 65 Marks, D.F. 206 megadroughts 164–5, 213 South-Western United States 213 Meinzen-Dick, R.S. 380 Mercer, K.L. 206 mGROWA water balance model 102

index  395 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, water security desalination 383–4 economic dependency reduction 384 non-water sectors 384–5 reallocation of water 384 risk factors 382 storage 383 treated wastewater 383 water demand management 383 Millennium Drought 239–40 Millennium Ecological Assessment (MEA) 311 n.2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 305 Ming, B. 151 Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW)/Ministry of Climate Change and Environment (MOCCAE) 361 Misra, Anupam 98 Mitchell, S. 122 Mitraka, Z. 139 MODFLOW groundwater simulation model 143–4 MODFLOW numerical model 55–6 monopoly power 354 MPA see marine-protected area (MPA) MT3DMS model 144 multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) 168–9, 230 municipal wastewater discharge treatment 196, 198 Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), water trading farm-level observations 241 n.2 micro-econometric studies 240 reallocations of water 241 n.1 regional socioeconomic characteristics 241 socioeconomic changes 240 Naff, T. 121 Najafabadipour, A. 102 Narain, V. 94, 95 Nash equilibrium 179 National Water Forum of Ireland 168 National Water Policy Afrikaner nationalism 126 catchment management agencies (CMAs) 126–7 Chile’s Water Law of 1981 127 communal management 127–8 Department of Water Affairs 126 National Water Act 126 National Water Resources Strategy, third edition (NWRS-3) 127 radical economic justice 126

social democratic ideology 126 National Water Resources Strategy, third edition (NWRS-3) 127 natural capital 62–3, 87, 305 nature-based solutions (NBS) 18, 312 Nature Sustainability 88 Nehru, Jawaharlal 124 Neighborhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) 69 Newey–West HAC standard errors 307 New Partnership for African Development Program (NEPAD) 346 Nexus ecosystems benefits of 172 features of 172–3 focal point 173 governance 172 interaction and coordination 172 management perspective 173 policies and regulations 172 stakeholders 173 sustainable management 172 water–energy–food–ecosystems (WEFE) nexus 171–2 with water-related stakeholders 173–4 Nikolic, V. 139 Nkonya, L. 380 non-regulated (NREG) irrigation management 54–5 Nordin, N.F.C. 101 not in my back yard (NIMBY) effect 62 not in my term of office (NIMTOF) effect 62 nutrient loading 12 ocean economy blue acceleration 256–7 concentration 256, 258–9 crowded and pressured ocean 256 offshore wind farms 256 ocean grabbing 259 Ollikainen, M. 65 optimal control models ambiguity aversion effects 179 dynamic programming 178, 179 forward-backward stochastic differential equations 179 Girsanov theorem 179 Hamilton–Jacobi–Belmann–Isaacs (HJBI) equation 180 Hansen–Sargent-type variational utilities 179 intertemporal profit function 178 Kuhlback–Leibler entropy 179 linear quadratic case 180 model uncertainty issues 178–9

396  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management Nash equilibrium 179 penalty function 179 Pontryagin maximum principle 179 standard Wiener process 178 state equation 178 static optimization problem 180 structure 178 variational utility problem 179 weighting scheme 179 Oracion, E. 33 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 84, 107, 168, 258, 308 Ostrom, Elinor 277 Oyanedel, R. 32 Pande, S. 87 participatory processes challenges 193–4 climate disruptions 192 collective approaches 192 definition 192 forms of 192–3 individual agency 193 instrumental approaches 192 longitudinal research 193 research 193–4 water conflicts 192 payment for ecosystem services (PES) 315 Payne, D. 46 Pedell, B. 81 Peppin, D. 28 perfect-prognosis statistical downscaling 7 Peterson, D. 240 Petrella, Riccardo 127 Pfister, S. 1 Phillips, P.C. 225 Pincetl, S. 87 Pinios Delta coastal aquifer system 102 Platanovrysi reservoir mathematical simulation model 236 rainfall-runoff submodel 234 soil erosion submodel 235 stream sediment transport submodel 235 polluter pays principle (PPP) 315 Pontryagin maximum principle 179 Poortvliet, P.M. 45 Porse, E. 87 post-fire erosion aerial straw mulch 28 aggradation 20 bioengineering techniques 27 channel treatments 21 chemical treatments 28–9 combusted canopy treatment 27 contour-felled log erosion barriers 27

dam treatments 28 dry ravels 20 effectiveness of 22, 23 erosion rates 20 helimulching 27 hydromulch 26 land treatments 21 mass failures 20 mixed check dams 27 natural regrowth 27 peak flows 20 post-fire rehabilitation treatments 27 road and trail treatments 21, 22 scorched canopy treatments 27 sediment losses 20 sediment trapping 20 sediment yields 27 seeding treatments 28 soil erosion mitigation treatments 20, 26 soil stabilization treatments 27 soil water repellency 20 straw mulch treatment 26, 28 stream degradation 20 wheat straw mulch 26 wood strand mulch 26 post-river agreement 238 Pot, W. 90 Potts, T. 31 Prats, S.A. 28 Pritchard, D.W. 75 privatization of water resources 127 Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) 347 property rights 350, 379 prospect theory (PT) 129–30, 130 n.1 protection motivation theory (PMT) 72 Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) 72 Provencher, B. 285 public acceptance of recycled wastewater direct contact issues 202 disadvantaged communities 202 ecological and aesthetic impacts 202 end uses 201 governance 201–2 objective vs. subjective risk 201 pathogens in 202 public contact 201 real vs. perceived risk 201 risk perceptions 201 social acceptability 202 trust and confidence 201 pumping rights 352 Qiu, W. 33 Quiñonero-Rubio, J.M. 28

index  397 Rafey, W. 240 Rahman, Ziaur 123 rainwater harvesting (RWH) 300 applications agricultural and industrial supply 210 aquifer recharge 210 community-level RWH 210–11 disaster risk reduction 210 human usage 210 urban infrastructure 211 complementary components of 211 design 211 funding 210 maintenance 211 mass curve methods 211 monitoring 211 operation 211 sustainable development goals (SDGs) 210 RAUMIS agro-economic model 102 reallocation water policy 107 ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 method 2 redistribution effects 284 Reed, M.S. 194 n.3 Rees, S. 31 regional climate models (RCMs) 6–7 regional water management strategies 198 regulated (REG) irrigation management 54–5 Regulation and Supervision Bureau of Abu Dhabi (RSB) 363 reservoir sedimentation computation of mean annual sediment 234 downstream of dams 218 global erosion rates 218 hydrologic rainfall-runoff submodel 234–5 mathematical simulation model 234 rainfall/water-induced phenomena 218 Rio di Pusteria reservoir modified universal soil loss equation (MUSLE) 220 Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) 221–2 rainfall erosivity factor 219 R-factor 220 SCS-CN method 220 sedimentation rates 218–19 sediment discharge 221 sediment yields 219–21 soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) 220 soil erosion 220 streamflow 221 topographic factor (LS) 219–20 USLE-SDR model 218–20 river morphology 218 sediment sources 218 soil erosion submodel 235

stream sediment transport submodel 235–6 Resource Efficiency Flagship Initiative 224 retention reservoirs 234 Rey, D. 320 Rio di Pusteria reservoir modified universal soil loss equation (MUSLE) 220 Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) 221–2 rainfall erosivity factor 219 R-factor 220 SCS-CN method 220 sedimentation rates 218–19 sediment discharge 221 sediment yields 219–21 soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) 220 soil erosion 220 streamflow 221 topographic factor (LS) 219–20 USLE-SDR model 218–20 Rio Grande Watermaster 352 riparian rights 265, 349 river basin management (RBM) 60, 193, 231, 316, 371 river sharing agreements 237, 238 road and trail treatments 21, 22 Robichaud, P.R. 22, 26–8 Rogers, P. 80 Roseta-Palma, C. 178 rural thirst 97 RWH see rainwater harvesting (RWH) Safavi, H. 139 safe development paradox 243 Sakki, G.-K. 281 salinity modifiers 77 Samanta, G. 98 Sartzetakis, E.S. 285 Schmidt, J. 235 Schwarz, N. 50 science-supported policies 230–31 Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) 67 SEAWAT model 102, 144 sediment losses 20 Shiri, N. 101 Simonovic, S. 139 Singh, Manmohan 124 Singh, Rajendra 98 socioeconomic stresses 335 sociohydrology 300 interactions and feedback between water and human systems 243–4 safe development paradox/levee effect 243 supply–demand cycle 243–4

398  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management soil erosion mitigation treatments 20 soil water assessment tool (SWAT) 102 Solandt, J. 33 South Asia, hydro-politics and hydro-diplomacy 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT) 122–4 1977 Agreement on Sharing of Ganges 123 1996 Ganges Water Sharing Treaty 123 anti-India foreign policy 123 Bangladesh 122–3 India 122–4 Jammu and Kashmir 123 Nepal 122 Pakistan 122–4 Teesta River 123 water-sharing agreement on water-sharing agreement 123 water-sharing treaty 123 spatial decision support systems (SDSS) 105, 107 stakeholders 266 communicating for scientific understanding 248 conflict 247 engagement 246 general public, communication with 248 highly invested stakeholders 246 knowledge 247 level of participation 247 mental model analysis 247 opinion leadership 248 representation 246–7 role of science and values 247 value-centric messages 248 Stall, J.B. 235 standard Wiener process 178 statistical methods 177 Stein, C. 51 stochastic sociotechnical systems 281 Sul, D. 225 surface water rights 352 sustainable development goals (SDG 6) Agenda 2030 40 benefits of 40 in European Union 41 goals and indicators 40 in Greek regions 41–2 ‘means of achieving’ targets 40 measurement of 40 outcome-oriented targets 40 SDG Tracker 40 sustainable development goals (SDGs) 168, 231, 347 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) 349

sustainable water resources management 147 Swedish Wetland Survey Report 312 Sykora-Bodie, S. 33 systems analysis models 177 Tabellini, G. 301 Tavares, A.O. 46 terrestrial ecosystems 306 Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 224 Thielen, D. 164 Thisavros reservoir mathematical simulation model 235–6 rainfall-runoff submodel 234 soil erosion submodel 235 stream sediment transport submodel 235 Thomas, L.D.W. 171 Toset, H.P.W. 121 tradable groundwater permits, agriculture 284–6 transboundary river basins 237–8 Columbia River 58 feature of 58 game theory 60 international river basins 58–9 Nile River 58 riparian stakeholders 58 water resources system analysis models 60 transboundary water management 183 basin-scale institutions 288 benefit-sharing approach 288 climate change 289 cross-border natural resources 287 earth system tipping points 289 Edge of the Plain 287 geopolitical issues 289 hydrodiplomacy 288 international conflicts 289 international transborder water relations 288 international treaties 288 interstate issues 289 Mandala theory 287 overarching causative forces 289 practical problems 289 river basin organizations 288 theories of statesmanship 287 and transboundary water governance 289–90 ‘warming-world’ scenario 289 water conflicts 288 water diplomacy 289 Tregoning, P. 328 Tsur, Y. 180

index  399 United Nations Environment Programme/ Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/ SETAC) 1 UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN) sustainable development report 308, 310 Upper Blue Nile (UBN) Region of Ethiopia drought management approaches adjusting crop choices 56 groundwater use 55–6 irrigation canal management 53–5 Koga irrigation scheme 53–6 local irrigation schemes 53 rainfed-dominated agriculture 53 water and crop management techniques 53 water stress 53 urban migration 287 urban wetland 312–13 USA–Canada Columbia River Treaty 58 US National Flood Insurance Program 71 UTHBAL surface water balance model 142 Vajpayee, Atal Bihari 124 Van der Gun, J. 272 Van Mierlo, B. 88 Vij, S. 95 virtual water 384 Vollenwieder, R.A. 12 von Hayek, Friedrich 127 von Neumann, J. 90 Vrouhakis, I. 101 Wagenbrenner, J.W. 27 Wagner, P. 46 Wang, P.P. 144 Wang, Z. 151 warabandi irrigation system 379 water, energy, food security and ecosystems (WEFE) nexus advantages 295 assessment 296 evidence 295–6 fundamental principles 295 general constraints 295 interdisciplinary dimension 295 optimization objectives and constraints 297–8 policy dialogue 296, 298 recommendations 298 sustainable development goals (SDGs) 295 transdisciplinary dimension 295 water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE) method 2 water allocation 380

water conservation technologies 45–7, 206–8, 285, 302, 319–21, 323–4, 335, 360 water crisis 97, 122, 198, 353 core sustainability perception 325 economic prosperity 323 education and awareness campaigns 324 4Ps communication 325 Global Water Partnership (GWP) 324 heavy water consumers (HWC) 323 integrated water resources management (IWRM) 323 situational theory of publics (STP) 323 social methods and theories 323–4 theory of planned behavior (TPB) 323–4 water demand management 323 water demand 1, 16, 18, 51, 83–4, 98, 102, 106, 122, 137, 142–4, 180, 182, 206, 207, 319, 323, 335, 337, 352, 357–9, 363, 382–3, 385 water–energy–food (WEF) nexus 183, 347, 376 water–energy nexus agent-based models (ABMs) 280 energy buffer 279 energy consumer 279 energy producer 279 human-induced procedures 280 interdependencies 279 long-term sustainability 279 model uncertainty 281 process uncertainty 281 stochastic sociotechnical systems 281 water footprint 327–8 Water Footprint Assessment Manual 327 water framework directive (WFD) 82, 83 cost recovery principle 315 economic analytical tools 315–16 economic tools and instruments 315 environmental and resource costs (ERCs) 315 European Economic Area (EEA) 317 financial cost recovery 315 interpretation conflicts 315 objectives 315 payment for ecosystem services (PES) 315 polluter pays principle (PPP) 315 water management and policy issues 316 WaterGAP2 2 water infrastructure 182 water innovation 68–9, 201–2, 336, 382 artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML)-enabled software systems 336 decision-making 337 digital twins 335–6

400  elgar encyclopedia of water policy, economics and management reinforcement learning 336 resilience 337–8 ‘smart’ digital technologies 335–6 socio-technical system 337 water interventions adoption of 300–301 agent-based models (ABMs) 302–3 behavioral theories 300–301 feedback effect/reverse causality 300–301 governance indicators 302 household water treatments (HWTs) 301 institutional indicators 302 instrument variables (IVs) 301–2 investments in 300 psychological factors 300, 301 reverse causality 301–2 slow-moving indicators 302 upstream–downstream conflicts 300 Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) 302 water lords 354 water markets agricultural water economics, Western United States 268–9 agriculture 320 in California 349–51 formal markets 352–3 informal markets 353 water pollution control in China ammonia nitrogen 196 best management practices (BMPs) 198 chemical oxygen demand (COD) 196 domestic and industrial wastewater treatment 196, 198 laws and plans 196–8 municipal wastewater discharge treatment 196, 198 plans and guidelines 196–8 regional water management strategies 198 regulations 196–8 river water quality levels 196, 199 water ecological restoration 196–7 water pricing 134, 216, 253–4, 316, 383 agriculture 319–20 market-based pricing 319 non-volumetric tariffs 319 volumetric water tariffs 319 water property rights 265–6 water quality forecasting development and growth 366 disinfection by-products (DBPs) 367–9 scientific method 367 water quality management 183 water quality standards 63 water-related crises 62 water resources allocation 182

water resources management (WRM) Central Asia (CA) 371–3 challenges 87–8 deep uncertainty 89–90 digital water management solutions 89 environmental and socio-technical systems 89 human–technological efficient cooperative intelligence 90 indicative areas 87–8 optimization algorithms behavioral dynamics 183 conflict resolution 183 cutting-edge methods 182 Darwin’s evolution theory 189 decision-making approaches 182 decision variables 189 disaster analysis and management 182–3 dynamic optimization 189 environmental economics 183 genetic algorithms (GAs) 189 goal programming (GP) 189 hydro-economics 183–4 limitations 188–9 linear programming (LP) 189 multilevel planning 182 non-LP 189 objective function 188 optimal investment decisions 183 parameter estimation of hydrological and hydraulic models 182 software 189–90 transboundary water management 183 water–energy–food (WEF) nexus 183 water infrastructure 182 water quality management 183 water resources allocation 182 welfare economics 183 pace-difference phenomenon 89 ‘quantity versus quality’ problems in research 88 redefining multidisciplinary science and innovative collaborations 87–8 science-supported policies 89 utility theory 90 water resources system analysis (WRSA) 375–7 water rights 17, 127, 239, 252, 265–6, 268, 321, 349–54, 379–80 in California 349 water scarcity 237, 252, 319–20, 323, 333, 349 Africa 345–6 and availability-related indicators 2 Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) model 206–7

index  401 regular communication 206 risk communication 206 sample communication approach 207–8 social norms and identity 207 water availability 206 water security 94–5, 97, 100, 147, 196, 201, 203, 253, 254, 273, 289, 323, 333, 353, 361, 373 in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region desalination 383–4 economic dependency reduction 384 non-water sectors 384–5 reallocation of water 384 risk factors 382 storage 383 treated wastewater 383 water demand management 383 watersheds 20, 26 water stress index (WSI) 1 water supply innovations degree of penetration 201 proponents 201 public acceptance of recycled wastewater direct contact issues 202 disadvantaged communities 202 ecological and aesthetic impacts 202 end uses 201 governance 201–2 objective vs. subjective risk 201 pathogens in 202 public contact 201 real vs. perceived risk 201 risk perceptions 201 social acceptability 202 trust and confidence 201 water tariffs 17, 81, 84, 253–4, 319 water trading 284, 285, 320, 350, 353 environmental consequences 239 gains 240 Millennium Drought 239–40 in Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) annual water trading 240 farm-level observations 241 n.2 hydro-economic model 240 micro-econometric studies 240 National Water Commission (NWC) 240 reallocations of water 241 n.1 regional socioeconomic characteristics 241 socioeconomic changes 240 third-party effects 239

water allocations 239 water entitlements 239, 241 n.2 net farm exit 241 socioeconomic consequences 239 water transfers 98, 110, 267, 269, 320, 352–3, 382 water use efficiency (WUE) 18, 110 water use in life cycle assessment (WULCA) 1 weather generators 6–7 WEFE nexus see water, energy, food security and ecosystems (WEFE) nexus Wendland, F. 102 Western United States, agricultural water economics climate change 267–8 crops and livestock 267 drip irrigation 267 environmental and ecological aspects 268 infrastructure 266–7 institutional evolution 266–7 remote-sensing and global positioning system (GPS)-based farm machinery 267 water markets 268–9 water property rights 265–6 Wheeler, S.A. 240–41, 241 n.2 White, Gilbert 243 withdrawal to availability ratio (WTA) 1 Wolf, Aaron 287 Woods, S.W. 28 World Health Organization 68 World Water Day, 2022 271 Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) 302 WRM see water resources management (WRM) Xepapadeas, A. 178 Yang, C.T. 221, 235 Yang, Z. 151 Yermasoyia reservoir mathematical simulation model 235 rainfall-runoff submodel 234 soil erosion submodel 235 stream sediment transport submodel 235 Yoon, J. 50 Yung, L. 90 Zawahri, N. 122 Zheng, C. 144