Ecosystem services for watershed management, Water Planning,

Ecosystem Services

for watershed management and planning

Planning for Ecosystem Services

Planning and Design for Sustainable Places LabUNIVERSITY OF TRENTO

DICAM - Department of Civil,

Environmental and Mechanical Engineering

Ph.D. Candidate: Blal Adem Esmail Supervisor: Prof Davide Geneletti

XXVIII Cycle – THESIS DEFENCETrento, 8th April 2016

People gather to fetch water from a huge well in the village of Natwarghad in the western Indian state of Gujarat (Reuters)

A woman carries jerry cans to fill them with water from a communal tap in Yemen's capital Sanaa (Reuters)

URBAN WATER SECTOR

Water Supply

System

Sanitation

System

Drainage

System

Water utility

HUMAN WELLBEING IN CITIES

Villagers carry pitchers filled with drinking water after visiting a well at Meni village in the western Indian state of Gujarat (Reuters)

2030 +2.5 billion urban dwellers 90% in Asia and Africa

UN World Urbanization Prospect (2014)

Capacity of ecosystems

e.g. half of cities with more than

100.000 inhabitants are located in

water scarce basins

(Srinivasan et al. 2012, Richter el al 2013)

Adequate infrastructural &

institutional capacity

(Kayaga et al. 2013, Lieberherr & Truffer 2015)

Adaptation & Integration(Cortner and Moote 1994, Ward 1995, Gleick 2000, Pahl-Wostl et al 2002, 2007, 2011)

Participatory management and collaborative decision-making;

Addressing problem sources not effects;

Changing human behavior through “soft” measures;

Open & shared information sources (linking science & decision-making);

Embedded in iterative learning cycles;

Adaptation & Integration paradigm

Key challenge to real-life implementation

Linking diverse actors and knowledge systems, across management

levels, sectors, and institutional boundaries.

(Folke et al 2005, Parker and Corona 2012, Kowalski & Jenkins 2015)

4 research objectives

Urban water sector & ESs

Spatial considerations

THREE KEY ROLES

i linking ecosystem service production and benefit areas;

ii bridging spatial scales ranging (watershed to household);

iii adopting ES-based responses to water vulnerability.

18/04/2016

Inte

gra

tin

g f

ram

ew

ork

s

18/04/2016

Urban water sector & ESs

18/04/2016

18/04/2016

Watershed management and planning

SETTING BACKGROUND FOR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

Exploring boundary work

16

• Set of activities put in place by any organization/individual that seeks to mediate between knowledge and action

(Cash et al 2003)

KNOWLEDGE ACTION

Attributes

• Participation

• Accountability

• “Boundary object”

Criteria

• Credibility

• Saliency

• Legitimacy

Boundary Work

• Active management of tension at the interface between stakeholders with differing views on relevant knowledge

(Clark et al. 2011)

“Boundary Work”: Highly context-specific

18/04/201617

Clark et al (2011). “Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the CGIAR”

C C + S C + S + L

• 300 Km2 - Germany’s largest water protection area

• 650.000 people in Hannover & surroundings

18

Fuhrberg watershed management

19

• 300 Km2 - Germany’s largest contiguous water protection area

• 650.000 people in Hannover & surroundings

• 1970s groundwater quality problems

• 3 decades of research and cooperative implementation with farmers

Fuhrberg watershed management

20

From research to implementation

21

Investigating boundary work practices

THREE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

i. Type of barriers for transfer of knowledge into action?

ii. Boundary work activities put in place?

iii. Effectiveness of boundary work?

4 step methodology

Interviews, Workshop, Field visit

Scie

ntific f

indin

gs

and im

plic

ations f

or

ma

nagem

ent

Embedded case study design

Boundary work framework (Clark et. 2011)

Critical boundaries in the case study

Cla

rk e

t al. 2

011

Findings

Context: knowledge Use and Source;

‘enlightenment’, ‘decision-support’, ‘negotiation-support’;

Boundary work: a dynamic process, not a single-time achievement;

“Contextual” & “contingent” factors, and relative influence (power) of actors.

18/04/2016

Designing watershed investments

Watershed investments

LARGE-SCALE

TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGES

EROSION CONTROL

FLOOD MITIGATION

BIODIVERSITY

POVERTY ALLEVIATION

Mu

ltip

le-o

bje

cti

ves

• Financial and governance mechanisms

to secure water for cities, involving

upstream communities;A

cti

vit

ies

REVEGETATION

AGRICULTURE

PROTECTION

TERRACING

Toker reservoir

• 13 million m3 capacity

• US$44 million estimated value

Asmara City

• 650.000 inhabitants

• 50% of urban population

Toker watershed

Ba

se

d o

n A

bra

ha

m e

t a

l. 2

00

9

Ba

se

d o

n A

bra

ha

m e

t a

l. 2

00

9

THREE QUESTIONS

i. Which activities yield the

greatest returns?

ii. How activities affect selected

ecosystem services?

iii. What is the performance of

watershed investment?

Process-based approach

Boundary work needs

Saliencyrelevance to the problem at hand

+

LegitimacyUnbiased, and respectful of all

stakeholders

Credibilityscientifically adequate handling of evidences

60 Investment scenario

Toker Watershed application

60 SCENARIOS

Three main results

Investment portfolio

URBAN WATER SECURITY RURAL POVERTY ALLEVIATION

An

nu

al

bu

dg

et

$

10

0,0

00

all

oc

ate

d c

os

t-e

ffe

cti

ve

ly

Impact on soil erosion

Budget levelBu

dg

et

all

oc

ate

d e

nti

rely

to

ag

ric

ult

ura

l ve

ge

tati

on

ma

na

ge

me

nt

Bu

dg

et

allo

cati

on

mo

de

Investment Objective

Synthesis for 38 scenarios

% REDUCTION OF SOIL EROSION AT

SUB-WATERSHEDLEVEL

Su

b-w

ate

rsh

ed

Budget level

Assessment of investment performance

Budget allocated cost-effectively

Results

Science-informed answers to key management questions in a data

scarce context:

Addressing concerns of credibility, saliency and legitimacy;

Single ESs, uncalibrated models, no stakeholder involvement.

18/04/2016

Water utilities as learning organizations

40

METHODOLOGY

Part 1Investigation of the two case studies

WUM-based interview with head of Asmara Utility

•11 questions - general information• 23 questions for each attributes

• 7 ranking questions

Part 2WUM-based questionnaire

For each case study •3 senior mangers

•1 informed scientist

• “All-inclusive” perspective of institutions as “rules-and-roles” ;

• Institutional capacity as “capacity to continuously generate a minimum level and

quality of valued outputs, and to prioritize learning” ;

• Strong theoretical basis + application-oriented.

Initial Basic Proactive Flexible Progressive

• Integrative, mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive;

• 23 attributes

• 5 maturity levels

Water utility maturity model(K

aya

ga

, e

t a

l. 2

01

3).

Influence Hannover Water Utility Asmara Water Utility

Policy, legal,

regulatory, and

political environment

Utility has predictive capabilities, and carries

out risk/opportunities assessment and

management; continuously adaptive to the

external environment in near real-time.

Leadership passively interested in factors in the

external environment, and reacts to them rather than

strategically influencing them.

Managerial autonomy Utility has full autonomy with respect to all

managerial, operational and financial

decisions.

There is limited managerial and operational

autonomy.

External

accountability

Utility has a balanced accountability

framework.

External accountability mechanisms in place but not

effective.

Partnerships and

networks

Partnerships are integrated within business

processes.

Partnerships and networks may be initiated by

individual staff. Supplier communications are limited

to tendering, order placement or problem resolution.

Corporate image The results of the corporate image scans are

integrated into the performance/incentive

management system for staff.

Leadership is aware of the importance of corporate

image; however, it is not monitored or evaluated in a

consistent & systematic manner.

Findings

• Hannover Water Utility = Level 5 “Progressive”

• Asmara Water Utility = Level 2 “Basic”

• Capacity dimension “ INFLUENCE ”

Overall conclusions

Implementing adaptive management

Main research outputs

• Paper 1: “Exploring practices of effective boundary work in watershed management for ecosystem

services”, submitted to “Ecology & Society”;

• Paper 2: “Designing, and assessing watershed investments: An operative approach based on ecosystem

services”, submitted to “Environmental Impact Assessment Review”;

• Paper 3: “Evaluating institutional capacity of a water utility: An empirical application of the Water Utility

Maturity Model”, to be submitted to “Water utilities policy;

Acknowledgement

A boy bathes on the side of the road in the southern Indian city of Chennai (Reuters)

RIOS Approach

• Need for operative methodologies to support design, and implementation of

watershed investments, in a context of adaptive management. (e.g. Tallis et al, 2015, Schultz et al. 2015).

RIOS Investment Portfolio Advisor

RIOS Investment Portfolio Advisor

48Initial Basic Proactive Flexible Progressive

• Integrative,

• mutually exclusive,

• collectively exhaustive;

• 23 attributes

• 5 maturity levels

(Ka

ya

ga

, e

t a

l. 2

01

3).