project planning: putting it all 13 together€¦ · project planning: putting it all 13 together...

13Project Planning: Putting It AllTogether

Water resources planning and managementissues are rarely simple. Projects focused onaddressing and finding solutions to these issuesare also rarely simple. These projects too need tobe planned and executed in ways that will max-imize their likelihood of success, i.e., will lead touseful results. When decision-makers and otherstakeholders disagree over what they want, andwhat they consider useful and helpful, the chal-lenge facing project planners and managers iseven more challenging. This chapter offers somesuggestions on project planning and manage-ment. These suggestions reflect years of experi-ences the writers and their institutions, have hadplanning and participating in various waterresources development projects, at variousscales, in many river basins and watershedsthroughout much of the world.

Each water resources system is unique, andthe specific application of any planning andanalysis approach needs address the particularissues of concern as well as adapt to the politicalenvironment in which decisions are made. Whatis important in all cases is that such planning andanalyses activities are comprehensive, systematicand transparent, and are performed in full andconstant collaboration with the region’s planners,decision-makers, and the interested and affectedpublic.

13.1 Water ManagementChallenges

Managing water is important. The effectivenessof strategies for dealing with water availability,quality, and variability is a major determinant ofthe survival of species, the functioning andresilience of ecosystems, the vitality of societies,and the strength of economies. Humans havebeen managing water and adapting to surplusesand shortfalls since the dawn of civilization, andespecially since the early origins of agriculture.There is evidence across the globe of thousandsof years of dam building and canal constructionto direct water toward crops of various kinds.Though the tools and infrastructure water man-agers can use today are dramatically moresophisticated than those used in the past and thescale on which water managers work is muchlarger in almost all cases, the activities are stillvery much the same: managing floods anddroughts through harvesting and storing waterabove or underground, delivering water acrosslong distances through pipelines and canals,treating, distributing water supplies to where theyare needed, collecting, and treating the resultingwastewaters all designed to meet a variety ofeconomic, public health, environmental, andsocial objectives.

© The Author(s) 2017D.P. Loucks and E. van Beek, Water Resource Systems Planning and Management,DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1_13

567

In regions witnessing increasing human pop-ulations demanding more energy and more foodtogether with a more uncertain climate has led toa complicated dynamic interconnected web ofphysical, economic, and social components withmany opportunities for intelligent adaptivemanagement interventions. These interventionsthat change the distribution of water quantitiesand qualities over time and space can result insubstantial economic, environmental, and socialbenefits. They can also introduce unexpectedcosts and risks. The constraints are physical (aswith the large inputs of energy required fordesalination), geographical (depending on theavailable suitable locations for reservoirs),financial (building, operating and maintaininginfrastructure required to manage water isexpensive), political (nobody wants to relinquishrights to scarce water without compensation),and ethical (what uses deserve to be prioritized,and how they relate to the needs of theenvironment).

Trade-offs are fundamental when allocatingwater to various sectors of society. Water islinked to the production of energy, food, indus-trial products and to human health and the con-dition of the broader environment. For manykinds of water uses, allocating water to one useusually means less water available for other uses.Consumptive use for agriculture, industry, orcities almost always involves trade-offs, as domandates for instream flows to protect ecosys-tems or fisheries. But even consumptive uses donot diminish the total amount of global water.Consumption shifts water to a different part ofthe hydrological cycle: for example, from liquidto vapor, from clean to contaminated, or fromfresh to salty.

Choices about managing water trade-offsinvolve more than hydrology and economics.They involve people’s values, ethics, and prior-ities that have evolved and been embedded insocieties over thousands of years. The juxtapo-sition of hydrology, economics, and values is atthe crux of the water–climate–food–energy–en-vironmental and society (people) nexus. While it

is unreasonable to think that models of waterresource systems will or even should includeeach component of this interconnected interde-pendent nexus of components, analysts must becognizant that the part of system that they modelis interacting with and being influenced by thosecomponents assumed exogenous to the system.

13.2 Water Resources SystemComponents, Functions,and Decisions

13.2.1 Components

For the purposes of planning and managementwater resource systems include threecomponents:

• The natural resource system (NRS) compo-nent consists of the streams, rivers, lakes, andtheir embankments and bottoms, and thegroundwater aquifers, and thewater itself. Thisincludes the abiotic or physical, biological, andchemical (“ABC”) components in and abovethe soil. It also includes the infrastructureneeded to collect, store, treat, and transportwater such as canals, reservoirs, dams, weirs,sluices, wells, pumping stations, pipes, sewers,andwater andwastewater treatment plants, andthe policies or rules for operating them.

• The socioeconomic system (SES) componentis the water using and water-related humanactivities. This component can also includethe stakeholders, i.e., the interested andaffected public.

• The administrative and institutional system(AIS) component are the institutions that areresponsible for the administration, legislationand regulation of the supply (NRS) and thedemand (SES) components of the waterresource system (WRS). This componentincludes those institutions that plan and buildand operate the infrastructure required toinsure that water is where and when and in thecondition needed in ways beneficial to society.

568 13 Project Planning: Putting It All Together

13.2.2 Functions

Table 13.1 presents a framework of waterresource system functions. This framework dis-tinguishes between tangible and intangiblefunctions. Tangible functions can be describedquantitatively. For example, hydropower gener-ation or municipal water supply, may be assigneda monetary value. Intangible functions areactivities such as nature conservation or pre-serving a beautiful view that are hard to quantifyin monetary terms. In between are environmentalfunctions, some of which may be given quanti-tative values and others valued only indirectly,such as by using the opportunity cost associatedwith a particular target. The self-purificationprocess of a river, for example, may be assigneda value by comparing this “work done by nature”with the costs of the least cost alternative thataccomplishes the same results, such as con-structing, maintaining and operating a wastewa-ter collection and treatment system.

13.2.2.1 Subsistence FunctionsCommunities depend to a large extent on waterfor household uses, and for irrigating home gar-dens and community outdoor green and recre-ation areas. They may also use streams, paddyfields, ponds, and lakes for fishing. These usesare often neglected in national economicaccounts, as they are not marketed or otherwiseassigned a monetary value. However, if the WRSbecomes unable to provide these products orservices, this may well be considered an eco-nomic loss.

13.2.2.2 Commercial FunctionsCommercial uses of water resources are reflectedin national economic accounts because they aremarketed or otherwise given a monetary value,e.g., the price to be paid for domestic water sup-plies. Catching fish for sale by individuals andcommercial enterprises is an example. These useshave a commercial value and most are also con-sumptive in nature. The concept of

Table 13.1 Functions of the water resources system

13.2 Water Resources System Components, Functions, and Decisions 569

“nonconsumptive use” should be regarded withcertain reservations. Nonconsumptive water usemay alter the performance of the WRS in variousways. For example, consider reservoirs built forhydropower. Reduced sediment and fish passageand increased evaporation losses may impactdownstream ecosystems and users. Second,operation of the reservoirs for the production of“peak power” may alter the flow regimes down-stream, and this can adversely affect downstreamecological habitats and users. Finally, waterquality problems resulting from reservoirs mayimpact users and ecosystems. Another example ofpartly nonconsumptive use is inland water trans-portation. Oil and chemical pollution caused bywater transport activities can affect other usersand the ecosystem that depend upon the waterresources. Moreover, inland water transportationmay involve a real consumptive demand forwater. If water depths are to be maintained at acertain level for navigational purposes, releasesfrom reservoirs may be required which provideno value to other water users. An example is theLower Nile system, where water is released fromLake Nasser to enable navigation and energygeneration during the so-called winter closure.This water could otherwise remain stored for(consumptive) use by agriculture during thegrowing season.

13.2.2.3 Environmental FunctionsThe drainage basin of a river fulfills a series ofenvironmental functions that require no humanintervention, and thus have no need of regulatorysystems. These functions include self-purificationof the water and recreational and tourism uses. Itis sometimes difficult to assign values to envi-ronmental functions. They may be assessed byusing opportunity costs, calculated as the costs ofproviding similar functions in other ways, e.g.,the cost of additional wastewater treatment.Lower bounds on recreational and tourism valuesmay be estimated by assessing the economicbenefits accruing from the use of tourist facilitiesincluding hotels, and/or the revenue obtainedfrom the sale of fishing licenses.

13.2.2.4 Ecological FunctionsRivers, streams, and lakes and their associatedwetlands, floodplains, and marshes offer an envi-ronment for aquatic species. Land–water ecotones(transition areas between adjacent ecologicalcommunities) are known to harbor a rich assem-blage of species, and are also important for thediversity of adjacent ecological communities.These ecological entities have an intrinsic eco-logical value irrespective of actual or potentialhuman use. There are many concepts and expres-sions that describe this ecological value: “heritagevalue,” “aesthetic value,” “nature value,” “optionvalue,” “existence value,” among others.

Box 13.1. DefinitionsPolicy goal: what do we want toaccomplish?

Strategy: how do we want to do it?Decision: what are we going to do?Scenario: the external economic, envi-

ronmental, or political situation affectingour strategy and decision.

13.2.3 Goals, Strategies, Decisions,and Scenarios

In planning projects the terms goal, strategy,decision, and scenario are frequently used. Inpopular use their distinction is often confusing.In this book we have used the followingmeanings:

• A goal defines what is to be achieved or howsome target is to be met. Goals identify needs,prioritize issues and define targets and con-straints on the actions to be taken to meet thetargets. Goals may define preferred courses ofaction. For example, the goal might be toapply user-oriented demand managementmeasures rather than relying on large-scalewater supply infrastructure development.


• A strategy is defined as a logical combinationof individual measures or decisions thataccomplishes the stated goals and satisfies theconstraints imposed on the WRS. For exam-ple, the construction of a reservoir plus thewidening of the canal downstream and theincrease of the intakes of the irrigation systemall in an effort to reduce the risk of damage tothe agriculture sector in a drought prone areais one strategy. An alternative strategy mightbe to implement a cropping pattern that usesless water.

• A decision is the implementation of a par-ticular strategy or course of action. A distinc-tion can be made between:– Technical (structural) measures: modifi-

cations of elements of the water resourcesinfrastructure such as canals, pumpingstations, reservoirs, and fish ladders.Technical measures often include man-agerial measures such as better ways ofusing the infrastructure.

– Ecological (nonstructural) measures toimprove the functioning of ecosystems,for example, by introducing fish fry inspawning areas, or large herbivores.

– Economical measures to induce waterconsumers to alter their use of water bychanging the price of the resource use(through charges, taxes, or subsidies).

– Regulatory measures to alter the use ofwater (through land-use zoning, permits,pollution control and other forms ofrestrictive legislation).

– Institutional measures specifying whichgovernmental agencies are responsible forwhich functions of the WRS, and speci-fying the necessary interactions betweenthe public and private sectors involved.

• A scenario is defined as the environmentexogenous to the water system under consid-eration that cannot be controlled. Examples ofscenario variables include rainfall and otheraspects of the climate, demographical trendsand changes, production functions (includingcrop water requirements), and most economic

variables relating to benefits and costs. Whatshould be considered as a scenario and what asa decision variable may depend on the systemboundaries that have been defined.

13.2.4 Systems Approaches to WRSPlanning and DecisionMaking

Literature on the systems approach to planningoften emphasizes the mathematical techniquesused by practitioners of this approach. This bookis no exception. Most of it is devoted to modelingwater systems. The use of mathematical tools,however, is only part of what constitutes a sys-tems approach. The approach applied to complexsystems of many interdependent components,involves:

– building predictive models to explain systembehavior,

– devising courses of action (strategies) thatcombine observations with the use of modelsand informed judgments,

– comparing the alternative courses of actionavailable to decision-makers,

– communicating the results to thedecision-makers in meaningful ways,

– recommending and making decisions basedon the information provided during theseexchanges between analysts, planners, anddecision-makers and stakeholders, and

– monitoring and evaluating the results of thestrategies implemented.

Systems analysis and policy analysis are oftenconsidered as being the same. If a distinction isto be made, one might define systems analysis asbeing applicable to more than just policy issuesor problems. It can be applied to any system onewants to analyze for whatever reason. Systemdiagrams or conceptual models identifying sys-tem components and their linkages are importanttools in systems analysis. A system diagram

13.2 Water Resources System Components, Functions, and Decisions 571

represents cause–effect relations among thecomponents of the overall system. An exampleof the use of system diagrams in analyzing waterresources problems is presented in Fig. 13.1.

As Fig. 13.1 shows, water using activities mayface two problems. First, the quantity demandedmay be greater than the supply; second, theyadversely impact the natural system (e.g., gener-ate pollution or alter the water level). The per-ception of these problems can motivate analysisand planning activities, which in turn can result inmanagement actions. The figure shows that theproblems can be addressed in two ways: either byimplementing demand-oriented measures (ad-dressing the water use, i.e., SES), or by devel-oping infrastructure that impacts the NRS).Demand-oriented measures aim to reduce wateruse and effluent discharge per unit of output.Supply-oriented measures on the other hand areaimed at increasing the water supply so that themagnitude and frequency of shortages arereduced or at increasing the assimilative capacityof the receiving water bodies. Which measure orcombination of measures is most effectivedepends on the criteria selected by the imple-menting authority.

13.3 Conceptual Descriptionof WRS

Water resources management aims to increasethe benefits to society from the existence and useof water (NRS). Just how best to do it is society’s(SES) choice, commonly made through its gov-erning institutions (AIS). These three “entities”are depicted in Fig. 13.2.

The management actions among the com-ponents of a WRS system are depicted by thearrows shown in Fig. 13.2. The arrows repre-sent only the actions, not the information flows.There must be information feedbacks, otherwiseeffective management would be impossible.Each of the three systems is embedded withinits own environment. The NRS is bounded byclimate and physical conditions; the SES isformed by the demographic, social, and eco-nomic conditions of the surrounding econo-mies; and the AIS is formed and bounded by theconstitutional, legal, and political system itoperates within. Boundary conditions are usu-ally considered fixed, but in some cases theymay not be. For example, climatic conditions

Fig. 13.1 Identification of a water resources management (WRM) problem


may be considered to be changing due to globalwarming. Similarly for laws and regulations.Whether and, if so, when to consider the pos-sibility of changes in this “external” environ-ment should be decided at the start of anyplanning project.

Consider, for example, regional economic .This predicted growth is often treated as given. Ifthe water resources available cannot sustain thisprojected growth (or only at very high costs), itmay be appropriate to reconsider this assumedgrowth. By learning the consequences of unre-stricted growth at the regional level, planners canconsider the desirability of other options thatmight be considered at higher (usually national)planning levels. This is represented in Fig. 13.2by the border frame “socioeconomic develop-ment plans”. In fact, the arrow pointing inwardsto the SES is reversed in such a case: the analysisprovides information to a higher planning levelthat can change the boundary conditions.

13.3.1 Characteristicsof the NaturalResources System

The natural resources system (NRS) is defined byits boundaries, its processes, and its controlmeasures.

13.3.1.1 System BoundariesThe study area of a planning project will oftencoincide with an administrative boundary (state,county, district, province, etc.). However, a WRSis typically defined by its hydrologic boundary.These political and hydrologic boundaries candiffer. Clearly, any planning project for a WRSmust include the larger of these boundaries, butnot necessarily everything within them depend-ing on the purpose of the study and the particularWRS. The consideration of problem sheds thatcontain the components that impact water shedsis often useful.

Fig. 13.2 Context forwater resources planninginvolving the naturalresource, socioeconomicand administrative–institutional systems

13.3 Conceptual Description of WRS 573

For the purposes of modeling it has oftenproven useful to subdivide the NRS into smallerunits with suitable boundaries. Examples aresubdivisions into a groundwater and a surfacewater system, subdivision of a surface watersystem into catchments and sub-catchments, andsubdivision of a groundwater system into differ-ent aquifers or aquifer components. The defini-tion of (sub) systems and their boundaries shouldbe done in such a way that the transport of wateracross area boundaries can be reasonably deter-mined and modeled.

13.3.1.2 Physical, Chemical,and BiologicalCharacteristics

The physical processes in anNRS are transport andstorage within and between its subsystems. For thesurface water system, a distinction is usually madebetween the infrastructure of rivers, canals, reser-voirs, and regulating structures (the open channelnetwork) and the catchments draining to the openchannel network. The biological and chemicalcharacteristics define the biological and chemicalcomposition of groundwater and surface water andthe transport, degradation and adsorption pro-cesses that may influence this composition. Thelevel of detail to which these characteristics areconsidered will depend on the requirements andthreats they impose on the water using andwater-based activities.

13.3.1.3 Control MeasuresBy adding or changing the values of systemparameters defining design and operating policyoptions of NRS, water resources managers canchange the state of the system. An example is therule curve defining how much water to releaseand when for different purposes. Another exam-ple is the flow capacity of feeder canals.Increasing the capacity of these canals permitsgreater allocations of water to farmers. Anexample of nonphysical control that changes thestate of the biotic system is the release ofpredator fish in reservoirs to reach a desiredbalance of species in the ecosystem.

13.3.2 Characteristicsof the SocioeconomicSystem

Like the NRS, the SES has its boundaries, pro-cesses, and control measures.

13.3.2.1 System BoundariesThe economic and social system generally doesnot have a physical boundary like that of thenatural system. Economic and social activities ina river basin, for example, are connected to theworld outside that basin through the exchange ofgoods, people, and services. The factors thatdetermine the socioeconomic activities to includein a project planning exercise will depend on thecontext of the problems and developmentopportunities being considered. Outside theboundary of the socioeconomic system are fac-tors or conditions that are beyond the control ofthe WRS decision-makers.

13.3.2.2 System Elementsand Parameters

The socioeconomic part of the WRS can bedefined by identifying the main water using andwater-related activities, the expected changes anddevelopments in the study area, and the param-eters whose values define these changes anddevelopments. Examples of activities or eco-nomic sectors that may be relevant and of thetype of information that has to be obtained to beable to describe the SES include:

• Agriculture and fisheries: present practice,location and area of irrigated agriculture,desired and potential developments, water useefficiency, and so on.

• Power production: existing and plannedreservoirs and power stations, operation andcapacity, future demands for electric energy.

• Public water supply: location of centers ofpopulation and industrial activities, expectedgrowth, alternative resources.

• Recreation: nature and location, expected anddesired development, water quality conditions.


• Navigation: water depths in relevant parts ofthe open channel system.

• Nature conservation: location of valuable andvulnerable areas and their dependence onwater quality and quantity regimes.

Some examples of important system parame-ters of the SES are labor force and wage rates,price levels in relation to national and interna-tional markets, subsidies, efficiency of produc-tion and water use, and income distribution.

When identifying and analyzing activities inthe study area, it is important to consider possiblediscrepancies between the opinions of individualactors or stakeholders and their representatives.For example, individual farmers may have dif-ferent interests than suggested by the officialagricultural organizations.

13.3.2.3 Control MeasuresThe functioning of the SES can be influenced bylegislative and regulatory measures, and the priceof water may be a particularly important factor indeciding how much is demanded. This price canbe influenced by the water resources managersand used as a control variable. When the cost ofwater use represents only a small portion of thetotal cost of an activity, however, an increase inits price may have little if any impact on wateruse. In some cases water use is a necessity of lifeno matter how high the costs. In such cases, theprice of water (or taxation for waste water dis-charges) may not be an acceptable control vari-able (except perhaps to inform stakeholders onthe consequences of possible cost reductionmeasures).

13.3.3 Characteristicsof the Administrativeand InstitutionalSystem

The AIS, like the NRS and SES, has its bound-aries (its authority or limits) and its processesincluding its ways of reorganizing for improvedperformance.

13.3.3.1 System ElementsAdministrative and institutional settings vary withscale, and with the way governing institutionsexist and operate. In many countries, but certainlynot all, the institutional framework consists of:

• the central government, divided into sectorssuch as public works, irrigation, agriculture,forestry, environment, housing, industry,mining, and transport

• a coordinating body, for example, a nationalwater board, to coordinate actions by varioussectors of the national government

• regional bodies based upon the normal sub-divisions of government, for example, pro-vinces, districts, cities, and villages

• regional bodies based on a division accordingto the physical characteristics of the area,such as river basin authorities

• water user organizations, representing theinterests of directly involved stakeholders, forexample, in irrigation districts.

When initiating broad comprehensive waterplanning projects knowing the following infor-mation is useful:

• the ministries and coordinating bodies havingauthority and responsibilities related to waterresources management

• the agencies involved in the preparation ofwater resources development plans

• existing national and regional water resourcesdevelopment plans and the authoritiesresponsible for implementing these plans,establishing and enforcing regulations, andoverseeing infrastructure construction andoperation

• the existing legislation (laws and regulations)concerning water rights, allocation of waterresources, water quality control, and the finan-cial aspects of water resources management.

Other often useful information includes thepolicies and plans of various water-related sec-tors such as environment, agriculture, economy,transportation, urban development and energy.

13.3 Conceptual Description of WRS 575

13.3.3.2 Control MeasuresFrom a systems point of view, the decision orcontrol variables that can be changed in the AISare less clear than in the case of the NRS andSES. Often measures can be taken to improve thefunctioning of the system, for example, byestablishing coordinating bodies when these arenot present, shifting responsibilities toward lowerlevels of government, privatization, and othermeasures. If they cannot be changed, at leastpossible beneficial changes can be identified andpresented to those responsible for makingdecisions.

13.4 Framework for Analysisand Implementation

A water resources planning study generallycomprises five general phases, as illustrated inFig. 13.3. Although we do not suggest the use ofany rigid framework, some distinct phases andactivities can be recognized and used to structurethe analysis as a logical sequence of steps. Thedescription of these phases, the activities in themand the interactions among the activities in them,is referred to as the analysis framework. A co-herent set of models is typically used for thequantitative analyses aimed at identifying andevaluating alternative beneficial measures andstrategies.

A decision process is not a simple linearsequence of steps as suggested in Fig. 13.3, butinvolves feedbacks to earlier steps. Part of theprocess is thus iterative. Feedback loops areneeded when:

• solutions fail to meet current criteria• new insights change the perception of the

problem and its solutions• essential system components and links have

been overlooked• goals and objectives or the scope of study

change (e.g., due to changing political,international, developments in society).

Communication and interaction with thedecision-makers are essential throughout the

duration of a planning project and the imple-mentation of the selected development. Toignore this increases the risk of generating plansand policies that are no longer relevant or ofinterest to the client. Regular reporting (incep-tion and interim reports, etc.) helps in effectivecommunication, but a continuous dialogue isimportant throughout all stages or phases of theanalysis.

Decision makers and stakeholders should beinvolved in each of the five (idealized) stages ofthis framework. Otherwise there is a risk of theplanning project producing results that thosepotentially impacted will not support. Stake-holder involvement brings both knowledge andpreferences to the planning process—a processthat typically will need to find suitable compro-mises among all decision-makers and stake-holders if a consensus is to be reached.

The framework involves a series of decisionsat the end of each stage. The divergence–con-vergence process for involving stakeholders indecision-making on the five analysis stages isillustrated in the rhombus approach of Fig. 13.4.

The first inception stage of the process iden-tifies the subject of the analysis (what is to beanalyzed and under what conditions), the objec-tives (the desired results of the analysis), andconstraints (its limitations). On the basis of thisanalysis, during which intensive communicationwith the decision-makers is essential, an agree-ment on the approach for the remainder of theanalysis needs to be achieved. The results of theinception stage can be presented in an inceptionreport, which includes the work plan for the otherphases of the analysis.

In the situational analysis stage, the tools forthe analysis of the water resource system areselected or developed. Major activities in thisphase typically include data collection andmodeling. The models will be used to quantifythe present and future problems in the system.Scenarios will be developed to describe thefuture boundary conditions for the system.Identifying and screening of alternative decisionscan occur in this phase. If possible no regretmeasures will be identified for immediateimplementation. A gradual improvement of the


understanding of various characteristics of theWRS is often obtained as the study progressesfrom limited data sets and simple tools to moredetailed data and models. Interaction with thedecision-makers will be greatly enhanced if they

or those they trust and communicate with areinvolved as part of the analysis team. More for-mal interaction can be structured through pre-sentations of results in meetings and in interimprogress reports.

Problem

Socio-Economic

system

Natural Resources

system

system

and Criteria

ReferenceCase

Preferred Strategy

Investment Planning

Feasibility and EIA

Data and

(Modelling) Tools

/ Scorecard

No regrets

Measures / Screening

III – Strategy Building

Base case Analysis

Monitoring and

ScenarioAnalysis

Design

Defining Analysis Stakeholder

Process

Stak

ehol

ders

and

Dec

ision

-mak

ers /

Cap

acity

Bui

ldin

g

Management Analysis

Fig. 13.3 Framework for analysis and implementation of water resources projects

13.4 Framework for Analysis and Implementation 577

In the strategy building stage alternativestrategies will be developed and discussed withthe decision makers/stakeholders. This willinclude adaptive management elements to ensurethat the preferred strategy is sufficient robust andflexible in case the future develops differentlythan expected.

In the action planning stage the selectedstrategy will be prepared for implementation. Animplementation plan will be developed thatdescribes what will be done, by who, how it willbe financed, etc. This stage often requires alsoadditional work on components of the strategy(such as feasibility and design studies), andenvironmental impact assessments (EIA). Pro-motion of the he selected strategy is needed to“sell” the proposed measures to public. Finally,institutional arrangements will have to be madeto ensure a smooth implementation.

Finally, in the implementation stage the actualimplementation will take place. Continuousmonitoring and evaluation is needed to adjust the

implementation plan when this appears to beneeded, for example, because the conditions(e.g., finances, social pressures, political mood)change.

Each stage or phase needs to provide theinformation desired by those institutions whowill decide on what is best to do, and when, andhow. What those governing institutions need toknow to be better informed before making theirdecisions will of course vary among differentplanning projects. But whatever that informa-tion is the purpose of performing analyses is tocreate and communicate it. The results of theanalyses performed in a planning project shouldbe of no surprise to those reading them in a finalproject report. Again, communication betweenthe project and the requesting institutions, andthe affected public—the stakeholders—isessential throughout the project. This commu-nication may not guarantee a consensus but itcan certainly help the project team in theirefforts to find it.

deci

sion

deci

sion

deci

sion

deci

sion

start end

analysisIII. Strategy

building planningV. Implemen-

level of knowledge

Divergence

Convergence

Fig. 13.4 Divergence—convergence process in decision-making


13.4.1 Step I—Inception Phase

Water resources planning studies are often trig-gered by specific management problems such asthe need to increase power production or watersupply reliability, the occurrence of droughts orfloods, or the threat of water quality deterioration.The need for water resources planning in relationto other sector planning efforts may also be atrigger. Which parts of the WRS are studied andunder what conditions follows primarily from theobjectives of the study (and from the availablebudget, data, and time). The initiators of the studygenerally have more or less concrete ideas aboutthe objectives and purpose of the analysis.However, these can change during a study.

The client’s ideas about the problems andissues to be addressed will usually be describedin a Project Formulation Document (PFD) orTerms of Reference (ToR). The very first activityof the project is to review and discuss the con-tents of these documents. If the subject (whatneeds analyzing) and objectives (what is to beaccomplished) are adequately described in theToR, the next step of the study is to specify andagree on the approach (how).

In many situations, however, the next task ofthe project will be to assist the decision-makersin further specifying the objectives and subject of

the analysis. For this activity, intensive commu-nication is required with authorities involved inwater resources planning and the stakeholders.They can provide information on the require-ments of various interest groups related to waterand on expected problems. It is not uncommon tohave the stated objectives of a study differ fromthe actual (often unstated) objectives of the client(including just stalling for time hoping stake-holders will lose interest in a particular issue).Furthermore, objectives can change over time.As emphasized above, constant and effectivecommunication between analysts and their cli-ents is absolutely essential to the success of anyplanning project. We mention this often as it isnot always easy given busy time schedules andoften having to learn the differences in themeanings of various words or expressions (jar-gon) used by all parties.

13.4.1.1 The Enabling ConditionsIn order to successfully carry out a good planningstudy certain conditions should be met. Most ofthese conditions are external to the projectactivities. This means that they should have beenset before the planning exercise starts. A genericdescription of the enabling conditions for inte-grated planning is given in Background Paper no.4 (GWP 2000) and is illustrated in Fig. 13.5.

Fig. 13.5 Enablingconditions (the “pillars”)for IWRM


• Enabling environment at national level:– national water legislation and national

policies that guide the planning processand enables enforcement.

• Institutional framework:– existence of water institutions at national

and regional level with qualified staff;– in case of river basin studies, existence of

some kind of river basin organization(RBO) at river basin level.

• Management instruments:– availability of data, information, and tools

that enables informed decision making.

In the Inception stage it should be determinedwhich conditions are relevant for the specificplanning exercise. This depends on the issuesinvolved. If needed, institutional measures can bepart of the planning project.

13.4.1.2 Setting Up the StakeholderInvolvement Process

The very first step is to set up the stakeholderinvolvement process. Which stakeholders toinvolve and how will depend on the specificbasin and the issues to be addressed. In generaltwo categories of stakeholders can be identified:

• the people and organizations that will beaffected by the plan; and

• the people and organization that are needed toimplement the plan.

In some cases a stakeholder analysis might beneeded to determine the best stakeholderinvolvement process. More detail on involvingstakeholders is given in Sect. 13.5.1.

13.4.1.3 Defining Analysis ConditionsIn addition to the more legal and institutionaloriented conditions as described in Sect. 13.4.1.1it is necessary to get agreement on the analysisconditions for the planning study. This includes:

• The base year for the study:– the most recent year for which basic data

on the present situation is available;

• The time horizon(s) for the study:– this may include short term (e.g., 5 years),

medium term (e.g., 20 years) and longterm (>25 years);

• The discount rate to be applied in the eco-nomic analysis:– taken as specified by (e.g.) the Ministry of

Finance or Economic Affairs, or by thefinancier of the planned investments (e.g.,ADB, World Bank and JICA);

• System boundaries of NRS, SES, and AIS—the components and the level of detail thatwill be included:– e.g., will the coastal zone be included in a

river basin study?– are the results to be presented at local

government unit level?• Time periods based on within- and over-year

variability of systems processes and inputs• Scenario assumptions concerning factors

external to the WRS, such as the growth ofpopulation, food and energy consumption andprices. See also Sect. 13.4.2.4.

• System assumptions. These concern factorsinternal to the WRS, such as the response ofcrop production to improved cultivationpractices, or the effectiveness of price incen-tives on per capita water consumption. Thesesystem assumptions can be subject of addi-tional (sensitivity) analysis.

• Data, time, and budget constraints. Studieshave to be executed within constraints ofavailable data, time, and budget.

The choice of the time horizon is often giveninsufficient attention. Official planning horizons(e.g., 5, 10, and 25 years) are typically used astime horizons for elements of the analysis.However, one should also consider the time-scales of the system and the processes within it.System components will have characteristic timescales. For example:

• Economic activities have life cycles that areusually determined by the amortization periodof the investments. Time horizons of planningprocesses can be based on these conditions.


• Social institutions have time horizons thatdepend on the pace of legal/institutional andpolitical decision making.

• Physical–chemical systems have time scalesthat depend on the response or restorationtimes of the systems. Restoration of pollutedrivers, for example, may be achieved within afew months, while the restoration of a pol-luted groundwater aquifer may take decades.

• Ecosystems may have a time scale of a fewweeks (algae blooms) or tens of years(degradation of mangrove forests), dependingon the type of process or intervention.

To study the sustainability and ecologicalintegrity of the resource system, time horizonsshould be tuned to the response times of thesystem rather than to a planning horizon only.Although more attention is now paid to sustain-ability, no operational procedure has been gen-erally adopted to properly consider long-termeffects in the evaluation process.Decision-makers tend to focus on short-rangedecisions even if they impose possible risks inthe long term, because their political time hori-zons are often limited to (or renewable in) shortterms and hence they prefer short-term politicalgains.

13.4.1.4 Objectives and CriteriaAn essential activity in the inception phase is thetranslation of general objectives, as described inthe ToR or in policy documents, into operationalobjectives that can be quantified. Examples ofobjectives and criteria are discussed throughoutthis book and especially in Chap. 9. The objectivesand criteria used in a water resources managementstudy in West Java, Indonesia are presented as anillustration at the end of this chapter.

National and regional developmentobjectivesAn essential component of an integrated plan isthe connection of the plan and its objective tonational development goals as well as to com-mon international goals (e.g., the SustainableDevelopment Goals—SDGs). The plan should

refer to national policy priorities and indicate thecontribution the plan will make to the variousdevelopment goals. Required information isusually described in various national policydocuments. In addition to the national policydocuments any existing regional/provincial pol-icy documents need to be taken into account.Each plan need to have an agreed objective thatnot only focuses on the main, but also expressesthe relation with above mentioned national andother sector plans, as well as the contribution thebasin can make in realizing these higher levelplans.

Operational objectives, criteria and targetsIf needed, the general objectives as stated in thenational policy documents have to be translatedinto operational objectives for the specific areaunder consideration, e.g., a river basin. Thisshould be done by specifying them in socioeco-nomic terms, amongst others, which are mean-ingful to the decision makers and stakeholders.For each objective evaluation criteria should bedefined as a measure of how far the definedobjectives have been achieved and, if possible,clear targets should be specified. Monitoring willindicate how far the objectives have actuallybeen achieved. This process, illustrated inFig. 13.6, is discussed in more detail in Chap. 9.

The evaluation criteria need to be compre-hensive (i.e., sufficiently indicative of the degreeto which the objective is achieved) and measur-able. The criteria do not all have to be expressedin a single measurement scale. Criteria can beexpressed in monetary and nonmonetary terms.

It may be useful to incorporate sustainabilityas an objective, and if so, it may also be useful torelate them to the UN Sustainable DevelopmentGoals (SDGs), the SDG targets and the indica-tors, that have been selected to monitor theSDGs.

Illustrative river basin caseTable 13.2 presents a scorecard that summarizesresults of an analysis for a river basin case. Theresults of the Inception step (i.e., the objectivesand criteria), for this river basin are given in the


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1_9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1_9

first two columns of the table. They show that forthis case five objectives were formulated. Foreach objective 2 or 3 criteria were identified thatexpresses in how far the objective is or will beachieved:

• Objective 1: Provide safe water and sanitationfor the people;– % people access to safe drinking water;– % people access to sanitation facilities;

• Objective 2: Increase food production;– Irrigation area (ha);– Number of animal water points (#);

• Objective 3: Support economic sectors—in-dustry and energy;– Water supplied to mining (% of demand);– Water supplied to industry (% of

demand);– Hydropower generated (MWh);

• Objective 4: Protect the Environment;– Protected watershed area (km2);– Number of springs/sources protected (#);– Average class water quality rivers (class A

to D);• Objective 5: Decrease vulnerability to floods

and droughts;– Vulnerability to floods—average damage

($/year);– Vulnerability to droughts—average dam-

age ($/year).• In addition two implementation-related crite-

ria were formulated to evaluate the strategies:

(e.g. food security)

(e.g. achieve self-sufficiency in rice)

(e.g. self-sufficiency index in %)

Target(e.g. 100 %)

(e.g. 80 %)

Fig. 13.6 Making objectives operational

Table 13.2 Example of a scorecard showing objective values associated with various strategies

BaseYearObjectives and criteria

unit 2010 2020 2030 Perfect 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030Obj.1: Water and Sanitation

% people access to safe drinking water % 50% 63% 73% 100% 63% 73% 63% 73% 63% 73%% people access to sanitation facilities % 30% 50% 70% 100% 50% 70% 50% 70% 50% 70%

Obj.2: Food productionIrrigation area 1000 ha 24 30 35 40 26 28 28 31 30 35# animal water points # 300 500 900 1000 400 700 500 900 500 900

Obj.3: Industry and EnergyWater supplied to mining % 30% 80% 90% 100% 40% 50% 50% 70% 80% 90%Water supplied to industry % 70% 80% 90% 100% 70% 70% 80% 90% 80% 90%Hydropower generated MWh 34 80 120 120 34 34 70 110 80 120

Obj.4: EnvironmentProtected watershed area km2 1200 2500 3500 3500 2000 2500 2500 3000 2500 3500Number of springs/sources protected # 300 600 900 900 400 600 500 700 600 850Average class water quality rivers I - V II III IV V II III III III III IV

Obj.5: VulnerabilityVulnerability to floods - average damage m€/yr 120 < 78 < 50 0 100 80 100 80 78 50Vulnerability to droughts - average damage m€/yr 200 < 50 < 30 0 160 120 80 40 50 30

Implementation information0021006056004---€mRequired investments

1.12.12.13.1-2,1>3,1>-B/C ratio economic categories (Obj.2, Obj.3)

Alternative (investment) strategiesTargets Ref. case (no action) Strategy 1 Strategy 2


– Required investments ($);– Benefit/Cost ratios of economic categories

(</>).

13.4.1.5 Work Planand Decision-Making

Once it is clear “what” will, as well as what willnot, be analyzed and “why”, analysts can specify“how” this will be done. A description of thesystem to be analyzed includes the conditionsand the assumptions under which the analysiswill be performed.

All required activities can be combined in awork plan. It is often advantageous to develop acritical path network of the various analysistasks. Critical path networks define the sequenceof various tasks required to complete an analysis,or indeed the entire planning project, and theirstart and finish times. This will guide the allo-cation of personnel and identify the time neededto perform such tasks. These networks can beupdated as the project proceeds. Such networksare useful for scheduling activities and personnelinvolved in the project, and for ensuring (or atleast increasing the probability) that data andpersonnel will be available for each activity whenneeded and when decision-makers and stake-holders are to be involved in the analyses or inworkshops or meetings focused on improvedunderstanding of project progress and goals.

Data AvailabilityAn important boundary condition for studies isoften the availability of data and other informa-tion required for the study. The availability ofdata determines the level of detail and accuracythat can be achieved in the analysis. If few dataare available, a more qualitative analysis mayhave to be performed. The required level of detailwill primarily depend on the problems to beaddressed and the objectives to be satisfied.

Level of detail One of the main tasks of aproject leader is to motivate and manage theexperts from various disciplines. Not stayingfocused on the appropriate level of detail is oneof the most common causes for project failure. Ifthe needed level of detail is underestimated at the

start of the project, the study will have to obtainthe additional detail needed fulfill the objectivesof the analyses. Sometimes the right level ofdetail is chosen, but team members may betempted to spend too much time addressing moredetailed questions of interest to them and fail tocome up with the information desired within theavailable time. Maintaining the proper level ofdetail is one of the main reasons for feedbackloops in the analysis process.

Computational RequirementsAn important element of the work plan will bethe determination of the computational resourcesneeded for the analysis. This includes mathe-matical models, databases, GIS, and the like.Together these must be used in a way thatdescribes the system and permits an evaluation ofpossible measures and strategies under differentscenarios at the level of detail desired. Often acombination of simulation and optimizationmodels has proven useful.

For the purposes of analysis, the study area istypically subdivided over space and time intosmaller units considered to be homogeneous withrespect to their characteristic parameters. Eachunit can be included in mathematical model(s).The number of elements required for the analysisdepends on the issues being addressed, thecomplexity of the study area, the measures to bestudied and the availability of data. It generally iswise to start with a preliminary schematizationwith the minimum number of elements. If morespatial or temporal detail is required model ele-ments can be subdivided. The assumptions andconditions under which analyses are undertakenshould be specified in close cooperation withthose institutions overseeing and contributing tothe study.

Work PlanThe results of the inception phase are docu-mented in an inception report. This report canserve as a reference during the execution of thestudy. An essential part of the report is the pro-posed work plan, in which time, budget andhuman resource allocations to various activities


are specified. This work plan typically includesbar charts (possibly derived from critical pathanalyses) for activities and staffing, time sched-ules for deliverables, milestones, reporting pro-cedures and similar features. The report shouldinclude a communication plan that describes theinteraction between the decision-makers andstakeholders and the analysis team.

Inception ReportAn inception report is a specific and concreteresult of the inception phase. It contains thefindings of and decisions made during the incep-tion phase. It should make clear what will bestudied, and why and how. In many cases it willalso specify what will not be studied and why. Thecontent of the inception report follows the sub-jects mentioned above. It is an important productbecause it contains all that has been learned in thisfirst inception phase and that has been agreedupon between the analyst and the “client” (thedecision-makers and the stakeholders).

A possibly even more important result of theinception phase, however, is the interactionbetween the analyst and the client that took placeduring this phase. It should state the client’sviews about problems, objectives and otheraspects. Project analysts must understand theclient’s concerns, problems and objectives. Cli-ents should feel they “own” the results of theinception phase and view the inception report astheir own product, not merely a report of theplanners, analysts or consultants. To achievesuch ownership, frequent interaction must havetaken place among the analysts, thedecision-makers and stakeholders, to a muchgreater extent than is indicated in Fig. 13.3. Thiscan be done in specific workshops, such as thosedevoted to the problem statement or to thespecification of objectives and criteria.

13.4.2 Step II—Situation Analysis

In the situation analysis phase the study starts todig deeper in the water resource system. Itsvarious components will be studied in detail, data

will be collected and where necessary and pos-sible the system components will be captioned inmodels. As much as possible this should be donein close collaboration with the stakeholders toensure that the analysts and stakeholders have thesame understanding of the system. Once thesemodels are available a structured analysis can becarried out to quantify the present and futureproblems and a start can be made with identify-ing measures to address these problems.

13.4.2.1 Understandingand Describingthe Water ResourcesSystem

A WRS comprises:

• Natural (Resources) System (NRS);• Socioeconomic System (SES); and• Administrative and Institutional System

(AIS).

Each of the three systems is embedded withinits own environment. The Natural ResourcesSystem is bounded by climate and (geo)physicalconditions. The SES is formed by the demo-graphic, social and economic conditions of thesurrounding economies. The AIS is formed andbounded by the constitutional, legal and politicalsystem. The interlinkages of the three systemsare illustrated in Fig. 13.7.

It is important that the plan includes a gooddescription of the integrated elements of the

Fig. 13.7 Systems components of a WRS


WRS. Most decision-makers and stakeholderswill be nontechnical or only know about a lim-ited part of the overall system. To be able tomake balanced decisions they should understandhow the overall system functions and howinterventions in one part of the system willimpact other systems elements.

The situational analysis starts with an inven-tory of the characteristics of the WRS. Thisrequires the reduction of a complex reality into acomprehensible description of system compo-nents and linkages. Choices have to be madeabout what (the detail that) should be includedand what can be ignored. Such choices requireengineering and economic judgment in combi-nation with an understanding of the problems andpossible measures that can be taken to improvesystem performance. The next step will be aninventory of the activities and ongoing develop-ments that will determine how the system willperform in the future and what kind of additionalactivities can be expected. This can includeautonomous developments (such as populationand urban growth) as well as policy decisionsthat have been or may be taken that couldinfluence the characteristics and performance ofthe WRS. An inventory of policies and institu-tions is helpful for identifying who is involved inthe management and development of the system(and hence who should be involved in the anal-yses) and their objectives and opinions. Thisknowledge will contribute to the development ofscenarios for the analyses.

Analysis of the Natural Resources System(NRS)The NRS comprises the natural and engineeredinfrastructure, including the hydrometeorologicalboundary conditions. Models can be used tosimulate the processes of water distributionthrough the infrastructure, taking into account thestorage of water and water withdrawals to satisfythe demands of water-using activities. Suchmodels have been introduced in many of theprevious chapters of this book.

The results of the water quantity modelingmay be the inputs for water quality models. Theanalysis of chemical components in the water

system is used to study the influence they have onthe user functions or the biological system. Thecomponents and processes that are to be consid-ered in the analysis should have been selected inthe inception phase. The analysis of the biologicalsystem aims to determine the response of theecosystems to water resources management (seeChap. 10). Since often there is too little exactinformation on individual biotic components andtheir behavior under different hydrologic andchemical regimes, models of ecosystems typicallydepend on habitat parameters.

Analysis of the Socioeconomic System(SES)Developments in the SES determine the waydemands on theNRSmay change. Conversely, thedevelopment of economic activities within thestudy areamay depend on the availability of water.For example, good supplies of relatively cheapsurface water may stimulate the development ofirrigated agriculture, or attract industrial activitiesthat require large quantities of water for theirproduction processes. Another example is thedevelopment of water-based recreation activitiesadjacent to a reservoir. These SES developmentsin turn increase the water demands. Economists orplanners may be able to estimate future levels ofthe activities dependent on water discharges andstorage levels. These relations can be incorporatedinto water resource planning models.

The starting point for an analysis of the SES isan assessment of the present economic situationwith respect to the water-related activities and thefactors that determine these activities. Past trendscan help provide information on factors that havebeen decisive in bringing about the present sit-uation and that may give clues about the likelyimpacts of future developments. One’s attentionshould be on the most important factors thatdetermine relevant water-related activities ratherthan on analyses of the total economy. However,the difficulty in forecasting economic develop-ment is the uncertainty about which factors willbe decisive for this development.

Part of the data needed to develop planningmodels is the relation between the economic


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1_10

activities and their water use. Data are neededthat define the type and amount of water used byvarious activities. Data are needed identify thefollowing with respect to each identified activity:

• the amounts of water (quantity and quality)demanded and consumed during which peri-ods of the year and at which locations

• the amounts of water discharged and thepollution loads during which periods of theyear and at which locations

• the benefits to the user if these amounts aremade available

• the damage to the user if these amounts arenot available

• costs that can be recovered by having the userpay for the water and its influence (both at theintake and the discharge sites of his activity)on the water use pattern.

All these data should be able to contribute tothe estimates of future water demands, con-sumption and wastewater discharges per unit ofactivity. As well as the level of activities and theresulting water demands, knowledge of the geo-graphical location of water using activities (thepattern of activities) is necessary. If the pattern ofactivities is not expected to change, the analysiscan be focused on the present situation in thestudy area. If new activities are expected todevelop within the study area and their water usecharacteristics are unknown, it may be necessaryto study the water use characteristics of similaractivities in other regions.

The resulting water demand data need notalways be considered as “given.” Water-usecoefficients can be changed through measuressuch as water pricing that aim at reaching asocially preferred use pattern. Technologicaldevelopments may result in less water use andpollution load per person or unit of product. Ifsupplies and demands are matched before theeffects of such incentives are analyzed then onemay over estimate needed capacities, because the“given” demands may be lower if water users areconfronted with the costs as well as the benefitsof water use. This type of internal feedbackshould be considered in the study.

Future water demands are often dependent onfuture scenarios. A water demand scenario is alogical but assumed combination of basic SESparameters and their effects on water-relatedactivities, including the resulting water demands.An understanding of the functioning of the SESdeveloped through the assessment of past andpresent trends is often helpful when formulatinga limited number of consistent scenarios.Box 13.2 is an example of one such scenario.

Box 13.2. Example demand scenarioThe water demand in an agricultural areadepends largely on the availability of landand the crops being irrigated. The demandfor agricultural products, however, willdevelop in an autonomous way. If theavailability of water resources in a region islimited, the autonomous development ofthe agriculture sector will be limited aswell, and one would predict a smallincrease in agricultural water demand. If thedemand for agricultural products increasesconsiderably and self-sufficiency in foodproduction is an objective, then the politicalpressure for agricultural development tomeet this objective may be considerable.The water demand corresponding to thisdesired agricultural development couldshow the need for further development ofthe water resources in the region.

Analysis of the Administrative and Institu-tional System (AIS)An analysis of the AIS is required to identify anylegal or regulatory or institutional constraints onwater resources management. Attention must begiven to the interaction between various author-ities involved in water resources managementand to the effectiveness of the AIS. Arrange-ments made in the past concerning the use ofwater (water rights) should be identified, sincethese may significantly constrain the options forwater resources development.

Water resources management studies are oftenlimited to the preparation of policies for a certain


agency. In this situation, the analysis of the AISwill mainly serve to identify measures that theagency can implement effectively. The respon-sible agency should be aware of the possible rolethey may have in solving the managementproblems. Sometimes, the analysis of the AISmay result in recommendations for institutionaland legal changes.

13.4.2.2 Data and ModelingThe result of the data collection and modelingactivities is a quantitative representation of theWRS at an appropriate level of detail. Theframework is designed to assess the effects ofindividual measures or combinations of mea-sures, expressed in values for the evaluationcriteria chosen. If computer programs for runningmodels have to be developed or if existingcomputer programs have to be adapted in a sig-nificant way, a considerable effort may berequired which may consume a large part of theavailable budget and time. Careful selection ofthe phenomena to be represented by the models,tuned to the needs of the project, is important.

During the modeling activity, more informa-tion on the study area and the type of measures tobe considered may become available. This couldlead to changes in model structure. The modelsshould therefore be flexible and adaptable to newinformation.

Model IntegrationThe various models and components developedfor the NRS and SES describe parts of the totalsystem. Some models may produce output that isneeded as input for another model. For example,the output of a water quantity model may be theinput to a water quality model requiring differentspatial and temporal resolutions. Some modelsmay include links to various sub-models and runinteractively, others not. Depending on the mod-els and the problem situation, single or multiplelinked models may be included within an inter-active decision support system. In other cases, aclear description of information flow from oneindependent model to another may be sufficient.

Figure 13.8 provides an example in whichvarious simulation models are combined to

analyze a river basin under drought conditions.The reservoirs in the system involve sedimenta-tion and hydropower generation. The core of thismodeling framework is formed by the “coremodels” block in the upper right corner of thefigure. In this block the demand for water isdetermined, followed by a balancing of supplythrough water allocation decisions. Links amongthese core models are automatic. Other modelsare linked through file transfer. This applies tothe required input on macroeconomic andhydrometeorological conditions (generated byscenarios) as well as the side analysis of thesedimentation and water quality in the reservoirs.The last parts of the computational frameworkare the modules that determine the financial andeconomic aspects (investments, operation andmaintenance, benefit–cost, etc.) and support amulti-criteria analysis.

At various places in this modeling framework,one can change the values of input parameters.Scenarios can be analyzed by changing themacroeconomic and hydrometeorologicalconditions.

Figure 13.8 is just an example. Other problemsituations may require different modelingframeworks. The goal in creating such modelframeworks is to make them as simple andtransparent as possible, and still adequatelyaddress the problems to be solved. Sometimescomplexity is necessary. In any event it savestime and money to start as simple as possible andonly add more detail when necessary to carry outa proper analysis.

Collaborative modelingInvolving decision-makers and stakeholders inthe analysis process has till recently been limitedto the more general analysis about problems andsolutions. The quantitative information, e.g.resulting from models, was provided by the ana-lysts (e.g., consultants) as input for the discus-sions. More and more we see that stakeholders donot accept this black box approach anymore. Theywant to understand what went into the model, howthe models work and, preferably, they want to“play” with the model themselves. This is apromising development as this will increase the


understanding of the stakeholders on how thesystem works and let them see the opportunitiesand constraints of that system. Having stake-holders involved in the development and runningof the models requires that these models are mademore accessible and intuitive, in particular theirinput/output interfaces. It requires also a differentattitude of the modelers. Various approaches to

collaborative modeling are currently beingdeveloped, sometimes under different names suchas Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support(e.g., shared vision modeling), Mediated Model-ing, Group Model Building, Companion Model-ing, Interactive Modeling, NetworkedEnvironments for Stakeholder Participation orModel-supported Collaborative Planning.

Fig. 13.8 Example of typical computational framework of simulation models


13.4.2.3 The Need for a StructuredQuantified AnalysisProcess

Decision making on measures and strategies toimprove the performance of the WRS should bebased on quantified information about the presentproblems (e.g., average flood damage) and theimpacts of proposed measures (e.g., the reductionin flood damage) and the costs of these measures.To be able to produce this quantified informationthe following is needed:

• a structured analysis process (this section);and

• a computational framework (see previoussection).

The analysis process starts with a quantifiedproblem description. The analysis of the presentsituation is called the Base Case analysis. To beable to predict possible future problems scenariosshould be defined on how this future mightdevelop. The computational framework willcalculate the impacts (the future problems) ofthese possible external developments. This isoften called the Reference Case analysis.

Base caseThe performance of the WRS is studied for theinfrastructure and water demands in the basecase. The base case is based on the base year,which is the most recent year for which a com-plete set of data can be collected. The base casedescribes thus the performance of the WRS in thepresent situation. A comparison of the base casewith the criteria (and possible targets) specifiedin the WRM objectives will result in a quantifiedproblem statement.

Scenario conditionsA good plan should also address the expectedwater-related problems in the future. The analysisfor the future time horizon(s) should includedifferent scenario conditions. Possible scenarioconditions for WRM are socioeconomic devel-opments (change in demand and pollution) andclimate change (including sea level rise). See the

next section on more information about devel-oping scenarios.

Reference caseThe reference case addresses the future situationby considering the present infrastructure, to whichmeasures are added that have already been decidedor are being executed, together with selected sce-nario conditions. In the reference case an analysisof the performance of the WRS is undertaken ifpresent policies and regulations are continued andfollowed by the government and the water users.

Problem description—present and futureThe problem description should be carried outbased on the results obtained from the base andreference case analyses in combination with theproblems and issues perceived by thedecision-makers and stakeholders. A problemanalysis should be expressed as far as possible interms of the socioeconomic and environmentalimpacts that have a meaning to the decisionmakers and stakeholders. An integrated approachis crucial for a solid understanding of the systemand its associated problems. The integratedapproach can only be achieved if the plan definesthe main problems and issues in the basin and itsinterlinkages. For this, it is important that theplan is aligned with other related plans such asWatershed Plans (erosion), Flood Risk Manage-ment (FRM), and Integrated Coastal Zone Man-agement (ICZM), amongst others.

Inventory of potential measures and selec-tion of promising measuresOnce the present and future problems are knownmeasures (including “no regrets” that canimmediately be implemented) can be identifiedthat will address these problems. An inventoryshould be made of all the measures that thestakeholders are planning or considering. Basedon the quantified problem analysis additionalmeasures might be formulated. The computa-tional framework can be used to determine theimpacts of these measures. The most promisingmeasures will be kept for detailed analysis in thenext step: Strategy Building.


The above described structured analysis pro-cess is illustrated in Fig. 13.9.

13.4.2.4 Scenario AnalysisA good plan should not only address the presentproblems but should also prepare for problemsthat might arise in future. To predict the futurescenario assumptions have to be made. Scenariosare possible developments external to the WRS,i.e., outside the control of the decision makersinvolved in the project. The most usual scenariocomponents for water resources studies aresocioeconomic developments (e.g., growth ofpopulation and economic activities) and climatechange (including sea-level rise). For the

economic evaluation of the plan it might beneeded to make assumption about the futureprices of energy and food. Changes in diet (e.g.,the consumption of more meat) can also beimportant.

The most used combination of scenario ele-ments are presented in a quadrant of low andhigh economic growth versus slow and fast cli-mate change. Ideally the whole analysis shouldbe carried out for all kind of scenario combina-tions and the selection of the best strategy shouldbe based on the evaluation which strategy is ableto cope with all these possible future develop-ments. In reality most analyses are carried out forthe most likely scenario based on a trend analysis

base case analysis reference case analysis

expected future problems and issues

presentproblems and issues

promising measuresinventory of measures

scenario analysis

…. to Strategy Building phase

No-regret measures

Planning phase

Fig. 13.9 Structured analysis process


or Business-As-Usual (BAU). The strategy thatfollows out of this is then analyzed in a “scenarioanalysis,” to test that strategy on robustness andflexibility for other possible futures. See alsoSect. 13.4.3.2 on adaptive management analysis.

13.4.2.5 Quantified Problem AnalysisA problem analysis should address and beexpressed in terms of the socioeconomic andenvironmental or ecosystem impacts that are ofinterest to the decision makers. Not all stake-holders may be able to relate to predicted changesin flows, water levels, or pollutant concentrations.Some may want to know how much money isinvolved, the rate of shore line erosion, the rela-tive change in fish population, or the number ofpeople affected by flooding. Expressing outcomesin terms of socioeconomic impacts makes it easierto relate the problems to the (socioeconomic)development objectives that decision-makershave formulated for the particular region or sys-tem under consideration.

A good problem analysis will also indicate themeasures that can be taken to eliminate, reduceor alleviate the identified problems or to takeadvantage of new beneficial opportunities. Theidentification of measures not only helps toclarify the problems and possible solutions; butalso helps in the design of the computationalframework and the data collection activities.These activities should be designed in such a waythat the measures can be evaluated in the analysisphases of the study.

On completion of the initial analysis, projectstaff (and the decision makers/stakeholders)should have a clear idea about what will bestudied in subsequent phases, for what purposeand under what conditions.

13.4.2.6 Identification and Screeningof Potential Measures

Once the base and reference cases have beendefined, and the problems and bottlenecks iden-tified, measures to address resource managementproblems can be considered. Measures can bedivided into different categories. An inventory of

all possible kinds of actions that can be taken willin general result in hundreds of discrete possi-bilities. In most cases it will not be practicable toanalyze all of them in detail. A screening processis needed to select the most promising ones. Thiscan be done in several ways. As mentioned invarious chapters of this book, separate opti-mization models can be used to eliminate lessattractive or less promising alternatives. It canalso be done by using the modeling frameworkdeveloped for the project but limiting the analy-sis to a few criteria, such as economic or envi-ronmental ones. A third kind of screeninganalysis is to apply judgment as to criteriaeffectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and sustain-ability. Box 13.3 describes these criteria.

Box 13.3. Criteria for screeningEffectiveness. Measures to be taken arethose which solve the most serious prob-lems and have the highest impact on theobjectives. Measures to prevent problemswill be preferred to those that solve them.Similarly, measures that solve problemswill be preferred to those that only controlthem.

Efficiency. Measures to be taken shouldnot meet the explicit objectives at theexpense of other implicit objectives. Thecost–benefit analysis (at the national level)is one indicator of efficiency. An exampleis to create a law that forces industrial firmsto incur the full cost of end-of-pipewastewater treatment. In Egypt, thiswould improve the Nile system waterquality, and thus improve health of thosewho drink it and reduce environmentaldamage. On the other hand it might imposehigh costs to the firms, possibly resulting inloss of employment. An efficient decisionmay be to opt only for cost sharing ratherthan full cost recovery.

Legitimacy. Measures to be included inthe strategy should not rely on uncertainlegal/institutional changes. Measuresshould also be as fair as possible, thus


reducing public opposition so that they willbe favored by as many stakeholders aspossible.

Sustainability. Measures to be taken arethose that improve (or at least do notdegrade) the present environmental andsocioeconomic conditions for futuregenerations.

The aim of the screening process is to identifythose measures that should be further analyzed.The screening of measures is a cyclic process.Assessing the measures will contribute to a betterunderstanding of their effectiveness and new onesmay be identified (comprehension loop). Combi-nations of measures may be considered forspecific parts of the WRS, for instance for solvingthe water quality problems in a subbasin. Theresult of the screening process is a set of promis-ing measures that can be used for strategy design.The whole process of base case and reference caseanalysis and screening is depicted in Fig. 13.9.

No regretsA special category of promising measures are the“no regrets.” More realistic we should speak of“likely no regrets” and “low-regret” measures.These are measures on which there is a very largeagreement among the decision-makers andstakeholders that these should absolutely beimplemented, preferably as soon as possible. Itshould be ascertained that these measures willnot have negative impacts on other measures orwill prevent other possible promising measuresto be implemented. The reason to define such noregret measures is that in quite some situationsthere is a huge pressure to actual implementmeasures and not to wait till (another) big inte-grated study has been completed and accepted inits full extend. In particular in developing coun-tries there is a big need for proposals for suchmeasures. These measures can proceed immedi-ately to step IV on Action Planning.

13.4.3 Step III—Strategy Building

In the Strategy Building step, promising measuresare combined into strategies. The effects of variousstrategies are assessed and a limited set ofpromising ones is defined. For these promisingstrategies, the effects are assessed in more detail.The sensitivity of these effects to the valuesassigned to the uncertain model parameters is thenassessed. Finally, the results of the selected strate-gies should be presented to the decision-makers.The selection process is depicted in Fig. 13.10.

13.4.3.1 Strategy Design and ImpactAssessment

Strategy design involves the development ofcoherent combinations of promising measures tosatisfy the management objectives and meet themanagement targets if possible. As there aregenerally many criteria related to these objec-tives, and probably many expressed in differentunits, strategy design is not a simple process.Relations among combinations of measures andtheir scores on the evaluation criteria are com-plex. The optimum combination may depend onwho is asked. Trade-offs among the values ofdifferent criteria, and disagreements among var-ious stakeholders, are inevitable.

The design of strategies is an iterative process.One can start by developing strategies on thebasis of a single objective such as, for example,reliability of food and energy production ormaximum net economic benefits. These strate-gies define the boundaries of the solution space.Comparison of the impacts of these strategies canlead to the construction of compromise strategiesby changing elements in the strategy. A resultingloss with respect to one criterion is then com-pared with gains to another.

Evaluation of Alternative StrategiesStrategies can be compared based on their criteriavalues or scores. To facilitate the comparison, thenumber of evaluation criteria should be limited.Criteria have to be comprehensive (sufficiently


indicative of the degree to which the objective ismet) and measurable, i.e., it should be possible toassign a value on a relevant measurement scale.Where possible, criteria should be aggregated;for example, some financial criteria might beprocessed into a single value when distributionissues are not going to be important.

It is usually impossible to express all criteriain a single measurement scale such as a monetaryvalue. (We say this recognizing the manyattempts to do so by highly respected econo-mists.) Criteria related to environmental qualityor ecosystem vitality or the beauty of a scenicview can often be expressed quantitatively but innonmonetary terms. This should, however, bedone in such a way that a ranking is possible onthe basis of the chosen criteria.

Generally, there will not be a single strategythat is superior to all other ones with respect toall criteria used in the assessment. That meansthat an evaluation method is required for theranking of alternative strategies.

Scenario and Sensitivity AnalysisBefore drawing conclusions from planning pro-jects involving uncertain information, and indeedpredictions of possible futures, one should ana-lyze the effects of changes in the uncertainassumptions made throughout the analyses. If theselection of a different scenario would signifi-cantly change the attractiveness of a selectedstrategy, then additional study may be required toreduce the uncertainties in that scenario. Thesensitivity of the results to changes in model

analysis

promising measures

design of

scenarios on future developments

impact assessment

comparison of strategies

promising strategies

preferred strategy

ranking of strategies based on achieving

and flexibillity

Fig. 13.10 Activities inthe strategy building phase


parameter values and assumptions should bedetermined and addressed in a similar way.

13.4.3.2 Adaptive ManagementAnalysis

The analysis approach described in the previoussection is based on the assumption that it isknown what will happen in future. Predictionsare made on how population growth, economicgrowth, spatial developments (e.g., urbanization)and climate change will take place. Some ofthese developments are quite certain, e.g., pop-ulation growth for which one can make reason-able good projections. Other developments aremuch more uncertain such as economic growthand climate change. While we want to be pre-pared for these future conditions we do not wantto run the risk that huge infrastructural invest-ments are being made which later appear to havebeen overdesigned or even unnecessary.

The way to deal with future uncertainty is tofollow an adaptive management approach. Anadaptive management approach has to replacethe traditional approach of master plans for the

basin. The development of implementingstand-alone projects to adaptive management isillustrated in Fig. 13.11.

The message on how to follow an adaptivemanagement approach is given in the right twocolumns of Fig. 13.11 and is the logicalfollow-up from the project oriented develop-ments in the two first columns. The figureexplains that:

• The project-based approach is straightforwardand easy to implement. This approach doesnot consider the (positive and negative)interaction of the project with other projects.

• The interaction is taken into account whenrelated projects are considered in a package ofprojects. However, the overall system is notintegrated yet and not optimized.

• The traditional master planning tries to opti-mize the overall system. The projects areimplemented as components of an integratedstrategy. The implementation of the strategyincludes an optimization of the various pro-jects over the planning period which is usu-ally between 15 and 30 years, for which acost–benefit analysis usually applies. Such a

Fig. 13.11 Planning approaches in water resources management


master planning approach does not considerthe long-term uncertainties that are involvedin socioeconomic developments and climatechange. If the predicted changes in socioe-conomic conditions and climate do notmaterialize this might lead to “future regret.”

• To reduce future regret a planning period ofup to 50 or even 100 years needs to be con-sidered. As the lifetime of most structuralmeasures (dikes, floodways, reservoirs, etc.)are designed for a period of 50–100 years, itis wise to incorporate future uncertainties inboundary conditions in their designs andmake them part of a dynamic strategy. Theadaptive approach not only tells us what to donow but also gives directions on what to dowhen the conditions develop differently.

Adaptive pathwaysVarious methods have been developed that enableus to deal with future uncertainties. Recentmethods include Decision Trees (Ray and Brown2015) and Dynamic Adaptation Policy Pathways(DAPP; Haasnoot et al. 2013). The DecisionTrees is a repeatable method for evaluation of

climate change risks to new development pro-jects. DAPP identifies tipping points that deter-mine in time when a certain policy or action is nolonger acceptable and (another) action is needed.By exploring all possible actions you can developadaptation pathways that will minimize the regret.The Adaptive Pathway Approach is illustrated inFig. 13.12. The approach requires that manyconditions are explored (pathways, scenarios,long time series). For that reason the models usedin an adaptive pathway analysis are sometimeslimited versions (meta-models) of the onesdescribed in this book. See Haasnoot et al. (2014).

Following an adaptive pathways approachbasically means that two additional criteriashould be considered in decision-making:

• Robustness: how robust is the existingstrategy when the future develops differentlythan expected? Will the strategy then stillachieve the objectives?

• Flexibility: how changeable is the strategywhen it appears that the future develops dif-ferently than expected and we need to changethe strategy?

Fig. 13.12 Adaptive pathways approach


Robustness and flexibility often have a strongrelationship with costs. A robust strategy can bemore costly (big reservoirs, high dikes, etc.).A flexible strategy (many small reservoirs, buildin time) can also appear to be more expensive inthe end. These costs need to be taken intoaccount when deciding on a strategy.

13.4.3.3 Presentation of Results—Preferred Strategy

Presentation of the selected promising strategiesto decision-makers may be by means of brief-ings, presentations, and summary reports amongother means. The level of detail and the wayproject results are presented should give anoverview of the results at an appropriate level ofdetail for the audience involved. Visual aids suchas score cards and interactive computer presen-tations of study results are often very helpful forpromoting a discussion of the results of theanalysis.

The results of selected strategies can be pre-sented in matrix form on “scorecards.” The col-umns of the scorecard represent the alternativecases used in the analysis. The rows represent theimpact of different alternatives with respect to agiven criterion. An example is depicted inTable 13.2. Scorecards can contain numbersonly, or the relative value of the criteria can beexpressed by plusses and minuses, or a color orshading. The purpose of scorecard presentationsis to present a visual picture of the relativeattractiveness of the alternatives based on variouscriteria. Scorecards can also help viewers detectclusters of criteria for which alternatives have aconsistently better score. The presentation of theresults in scorecards allows a decision-maker togive each impact the weight he considers mostappropriate.

13.4.4 Steps IV and V—ActionPlanningand Implementation

Once the preferred strategy has been selected thisstrategy should be translated into concreteactions. Careful planning and coordination is

required as many authorities will be involved inthe implementation. The action plan will have an“open” and “rolling” character, meaning that it isnot static or prescriptive, and leaves room forindividual decision-makers to further elaborateupon in relation to their own responsibilities. Onthe other hand, the action plan should be con-crete, by assigning clear responsibilities for car-rying out the activities involved. It also shouldinclude the budgetary requirements for theimplementation, including investments andrecurrent costs.

13.4.4.1 Investment and Action PlanThe action plan translates the selected strategy inconcrete actions. For each of these actions itshould be clear:

• what: concrete actions that have to be carriedout for each of the measures included in thestrategy to get it implemented?

• who: the prime decision-maker/stakeholderresponsible for carrying out the action andwho will take the lead in the implementation;

• how: the steps to be taken and the consulta-tive process involved;

• when: the time planning; and• financing: where will the money to implement

the action come from?

WhatAn integrated planning analysis is usually carriedout at pre-feasibility level. A rough description ofthe measures will been included in the strategyand the assessment was based on first estimates ofcosts and benefits. Depending on the type ofmeasure, feasibility studies should be completedbefore the measures can actually be implemented.Often these feasibility studies are combined withdetailed (technical) design of the measures.

Who and HowThe Action Plan aims to stimulate the coordi-nated development and management of the waterresources. This is illustrated in Fig. 13.13, whichpresents the Implementation Plan for waterresource development in Central Cebu in the


Philippines. The measures included in the planwill involve or affect many stakeholders. Allthese stakeholders (based on the outcomes of thestakeholder analysis and designed participatoryplanning process) should therefore be included insome way in the implementation process in orderto guarantee a successful implementation and a

sustainable benefit of the particular measure. Ingeneral the following roles can be distinguished:

• Responsible: the stakeholder has the firstresponsibility for the implementation of themeasure but will co-operate with and/orconsult other stakeholders in this process. In

Fig. 13.13 Implementation plan (taken from Cebu study)


Fig. 13.13 this is indicated by the symbol:“●”.

• Co-operate: the stakeholder has an importantsay in the implementation of the measure butis not the first responsible and is expected towork with other stakeholders in this matter. Inthe figure this is indicated by the symbol: “○”.

• Consult: the stakeholder has an interest in theimplementation of the measure and will beconsulted by the first responsible. In certaincases permission will be needed before theimplementation can take place. In the figurethis is indicated by the symbol: “x”.

WhenThe action plan should also specify the timing ofthe implementation. When will (the preparationof) the implementation start, and when should theimplementation be finalized. This information isneeded for the overall investment plan but alsobecause some measures will depend on thecompletion of other measures.

13.4.4.2 Financing—Investment PlanAn important, if not the most important, part of theAction Plan is to determine how the action will befinanced. The sources of the financing will largelydepend on the type and size of the measure. Aswater resources management is mainly a govern-mental task, most of the finances will come frompublic sources. These can be from the nationalbudget (possibly supported by donor funds) or

from local (province, municipality) budgets. Insome cases private funding can be considered inPPP (Public Private Participation) constructions.This seems in particular attractive when there is agood possibility for payment by the stakeholdersof the services that will be provided. Exampleswhere PPPs can be considered are urban publicwater supply and hydropower production.

The investment plan should also address howthe recurrent costs (operation and maintenance) ofthe implemented projects will be recovered.Preferably this should be done based on fees to bepaid by the people that benefit from the project.

13.4.4.3 Feasibility Studiesand EnvironmentalImpact Assessment

A feasibility study should include a moredetailed study of the projects (measures) pro-posed in the plan. Commonly a feasibility studyincludes some 5 areas of feasibility:

• technical• social/environmental• political/legal• financial/ economic• operational and scheduling

A feasibility study for a good implementationplanning will often include a more detailedassessment of the possible socioeconomic andenvironmental impacts of some of the measures

Fig. 13.14 Applying SEA(OECD 2006)


that comprise the preferred strategy. There areseveral types of assessment depending on thefocus of the study. As depicted in Fig. 13.14 themost well-known are: Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA, for infrastructure projects),Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA,mainly used in policy development) and Sus-tainability Appraisal (SA).

13.4.4.4 PromotionAfter the action plan has been established oneneeds to find ways to increase the influence ofstakeholder groups that favor the implementationof the action but lack influence; to change theattitude of influential groups that are opposingthis action; and to use the positive attitude ofinfluential groups that are in favor of this action.The results of the stakeholder analysis are usedfor the identification of the stakeholder groups.As illustrated, the matrix highlights the strategytoward project acceptability or appreciation andtherefore smooth implementation.

To create maximum awareness, enthusiasmand support for selected projects within theAction Plan the selected stakeholder groups needto be provided with the right information on theproject. Additionally, involving a selection ofstakeholders in project preparation and

implementation will assist in making thementhusiastic about the project. To do this effec-tively, a mix of marketing options can be used.Appropriate marketing options might be:

• mass one-way communication for the generalpublic (such as newspapers, radio, televisionplus more traditional media in the more ruralareas);

• selective one-way communication for selectedstakeholders groups (direct mail, brochureswith more specific information dedicated forthe selected group); and

• personal two-way communication betweenthe project promoter and selected stakehold-ers groups (education method, outreachmethod or more risky word-of-mouthmethod).

13.4.4.5 Monitoring and EvaluationAn overview of the implementation framework isgiven in Fig. 13.15. This implementationframework applies for both Steps IV (ActionPlanning) and V (Implementation). The actualimplementation of most of the measures will takeplace by decentralized agencies of nationalministries or at local governmental level and theirrelated utilities, districts, and associations. Where

Monitoring-evaluation- progress- effectivity

Action Plan

Implementation

Feasibility studies / project prep.

Technical Secretariat

Implementing partners

Promotion

Fig. 13.15 Implementation framework


needed feasibility and engineering studies will becarried out before the actual implementationand/or construction can take place.

Above the implementation level there shouldbe a guidance and coordination level, e.g., aTechnical Secretariat (TS) at basin level. Peri-odically a monitoring report compiled by the TScan track the progress made in implementing themeasures of the Action Plan and the effectivenessof these measures in meeting their objectives.Insufficient progress may lead to an adjustmentof the Action Plan. The TS may also provideassistance to the implementing partners, e.g. thelocal government agencies, as they carry outfeasibility studies. The TS should be able tosupport them by providing data and possiblyother relevant information from their Manage-ment Information System (MIS).

13.5 Making It Work

The framework of analysis presented in Fig. 13.3includes next to the five steps of analysis twocrucial blocks that play a role in several of thesesteps and deserve special attention. The first oneis the stakeholder engagement in the analysis.Involving stakeholders and making sure that theirideas and suggestions are taken into account is anabsolute requirement to develop a consensus andsupport for the ultimate plan that is to beimplemented. There is no guarantee that a con-sensus will be reached, however. Involvingstakeholders in each stage of the planningframework takes extra time and money, but ifany ultimate plan is to be accepted and provesustainable, there is no other choice. At a mini-mum, any plan that is derived from this processshould be an informed one, based on inputs fromall affected stakeholders and decision makers.

13.5.1 Stakeholder Engagement

The stakeholders that should be involved in aplanning process will depend on the specific basin

that is being addressed. In general the stakehold-ers will be all people and/or organizations that:

• will be effected by the plan; and• are needed to implement the plan.

An integrated plan and its implementationdepend to a large extend on the acceptance andownership of the plan by the decision makers andstakeholders at national and basin levels. A par-ticipatory planning process is therefore indis-pensable for sustainable WRM. A participatoryplanning process is the results of a set of steps, asdepicted in Fig. 13.16. However, the order of thesteps can vary according to the local situationand conditions. The prerequisite for the design ofa participatory planning process is a goodstakeholder analysis. The stakeholder analysis isa supporting planning tool that supports theidentification of stakeholders and its engagement.Particularly, this analysis technique supports thetask of identifying and in some occasions clas-sifying the stakeholders according to their func-tions, capacities, interests, concerns and needs, aswell as their dependencies (including powerrelations among them).

Based on the results of the stakeholder analysisthe participatory planning process is defined. First,it is crucial to define the levels of participation ofthe various stakeholders. The level of participationof each group of stakeholders varies depending onthe stakeholder analysis and on the maximumlevel of participation that the client of the studywants to achieve. The second step is the design ofthe participatory process. This will be adapted tothe agreed levels of participation and stakeholdersinvolved. The design of the participatory processneeds to take into account the modeling approach(informed decision making) so it is carried out in aparticipatory manner (step 3). Finally, as illus-trated in Fig. 13.16, the design of the participatoryplanning process needs to consider the informa-tion and communication tools used for dissemi-nating and communicating the information to thevarious groups of stakeholders as illustrated in thepower-interest matrix of Fig. 13.17.


Stakeholder analysisA stakeholder analysis provides a better under-standing of the perceptions, concerns, roles,interests, and needs of the stakeholders andcontributes to a better approach to the solution. Italso helps reduce the possibility of forgettingimportant risks. Finally, this technique increasesthe chance that the various groups of stakehold-ers are willing to cooperate in solving the iden-tified problems and issues.

A good stakeholder analysis should contain atleast the following steps:

(1) Situation analysis as point of departure.(2) Inventory of the stakeholders involved (e.g.,

primary, secondary and tertiarystakeholders).

(3) Mapping of formal relations according totheir functions and responsibilities.

(4) Inventory of interests, perceptions, andneeds.

(5) Mapping of interdependencies.

Levels of ParticipationThe various stakeholders are grouped into thedifferent levels of participation according to the

Stakeholder mapping

Interests and needs

Dependency analysis

Stak

ehol

der a

naly

sis

Fig. 13.16 Steps in astakeholder analysis andparticipatory planningprocess

13.5 Making It Work 601

outcomes of the stakeholder analysis, as illus-trated in Fig. 13.18:

• Ignorance: where a stakeholder is not awareof what is happening;

• Awareness: where a stakeholder is aware thatsomething is happening;

• Informed: where a stakeholder has beenspecifically provided with information and isleft to decide what to do with it. The emphasisis on the one-way provision of information,with no formal option for the stakeholder toprovide feedback, negotiate, or participate inthe decision-making process;

• Consultation: where a stakeholder is asked toprovide information inputs to the planningprocess. Information flows are likewiseone-way, but in the opposite direction. Thatis, information is extracted from stakeholdersalthough no commitment is given to use it;

• Discussion: at this level are fully participat-ing and are asked to give advice and recom-mendations. Here information flows in bothdirections between stakeholders operatingwith different interests and levels of influence,and also between these stakeholders and theorganizing team (technical team). Sincetwo-way interactions occur, there is room for

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 13.17 Power-interest matrix


alternative ideas, solutions and/or strategies toemerge;

• Co-Design: at this level stakeholders areactively involved in problem analysis andproblem design, which fosters ownership, butwhere final decision-making powers residewith the governing agencies;

• Co-Decision-Making: here decision makingpowers are shared with those participatingstakeholders, leading to their empowermentwith respect to the policy/planning decisiontaken. Typically decisions in these contextswould emerge from a process of stakeholdernegotiation.

The first levels (from Ignorance to Consulta-tion) could be thought of as top-downmanagement/planning approaches toward partic-ipation, where stakeholders have little controlover the decision-making process. The final threelevels are more appropriately considered asbottom-up approaches toward participationwhere stakeholders are much more active andhave much more control over thedecision-making process.

Design of the participatory planningprocessThe design of the participatory planning processneeds to take into consideration the River Basinplanning framework and the data and modeling

tools used. Participatory planning tools andtechniques enable participants (stakeholders) toinfluence development initiatives and decisionsaffecting them. The tools promote sharing ofknowledge, building up commitment to the pro-cess and empower the group to develop sus-tainable strategies.

The participatory and informed planningprocess makes use of the “Circles of Influence”model (Fig. 13.19) that enables to structure par-ticipation to limit numbers but not the influenceof specific groups of stakeholders (Cardwell et al.2008; Bourget 2011). Under this model trust isdeveloped in concentric circles; planners andmanagers work to develop trust with leaders andorganizations that other stakeholders alreadytrust. That is, those most directly involved inpolicy analysis activities (i.e., planners, man-agers, and modelers who do most of the actualwork; Circle A) who communicate with trustedleaders and major stakeholder representatives atthe next level (Circle B). These stakeholders thenin turn provide a trusted link to all other inter-ested parties, who have much less directinvolvement (Circle C). Ideally, Circle B partic-ipants would be active in professional orissues-oriented organizations and provide links toothers whose interests they represent. Hence,Circle C stakeholders should see their interestsrepresented in Circle B, and have formal

Fig. 13.18 Levels of participation


opportunities to shape the work of Circles A andB via these representatives. The levels ofinvolvement of those stakeholders in Circle Ccan vary from Consultation to Awareness.A fourth circle (Circle D) includes decisionmakers such as agency heads and elected offi-cials, who have been given the authority toaccept or reject the recommendations of thepolicy analysis. For a good participatory andinformed planning process it should be clearlyidentified and engaged throughout the planningprocess with direction and information flowspossible to and from all circles.

Other aspects to be considered for the designof the participatory planning process are:

• Timing of stakeholder involvement. This willbe dependent on the Circles of Influence andlevels of participation.

• Stakeholder participation in the modelingprocess (Participatory Modeling). Mainlythose stakeholders in the Circles A and B willbe regularly involved in some of the phases ofthe modeling process. The involvement canbe concentrated in (i) early and later stages of

the modeling process, (ii) construction of themodel, (iii) some of the activities prior tomodel construction, or (iv) only after the finalmodel has been built.

• Type of stakeholder involvement. This can beeither individually, with homogeneous(stakeholders with similar interests andproblem perceptions) or heterogeneousgroups.

• Information and communication tools. Infor-mation dissemination (e.g. face-to-face work-shops or online platforms) and communicationtools need to be adapted to the backgroundconditions of the various groups of stake-holders. This is particularly important forparticipatory model construction and use, aswell as, for the promotion of the plan. Theselected marketing options for creatingawareness, enthusiasm and support for selec-ted projects within the action plan by stake-holders will vary depending on the results ofthe stakeholder analysis (Fig. 13.17) andlevels of stakeholder involvement(Fig. 13.18). For more information about planpromotion see Sect. 13.4.4.3.

Fig. 13.19 Participatoryplanning structure based oncircles of influence (sourceCardwell et al. 2008)


13.5.2 Using Models in a PlanningProcess

13.5.2.1 Managing Modeling ProjectsThere are some steps that, if followed in model-ing projects, can help reduce potential problemsand lead to more effective outcomes. These stepsare illustrated in Fig. 13.20. Some of the stepsillustrated in Fig. 13.20 may not be relevant inparticular modeling projects and if so, these partsof the process can be skipped. Each of thesemodeling project steps is discussed in the nextseveral sections.

Creating a Model JournalOne common problem of modeling projects oncethey are underway occurs when one wishes to goback over a series of simulation results to see

what was changed, why a particular simulationwas made or what was learned. It is also com-monly difficult if not impossible for third partiesto continue from the point at which any previousproject terminated. These problems are caused bya lack of information on how the study wascarried out. What was the pattern of thought thattook place? Which actions and activities werecarried out? Who carried out what work andwhy? What choices were made? How reliable arethe end results? These questions should beanswerable if a model journal is kept. Just likecomputer-programming documentation, projectdocumentation is often neglected under thepressure of time and perhaps because it is not asinteresting as running the models themselves.

Initiating the Modeling ProjectProject initiation involves defining the problemto be modeled and the objectives that are to beaccomplished. There can be major differences inperceptions between those who need informationand those who are going to provide it. Theproblem “as stated” is often not the problem “asunderstood” by either the client or the modeler.In addition, problem perceptions and modelingobjectives can change over the duration of amodeling project.

The appropriate spatial and time scales alsoneed to be identified. The essential natural systemprocesses must be identified and described. Oneshould ask and answer the question of whether ornot a particular modeling approach, or evenmodeling in general, is the best way to obtain theneeded information. What are the alternatives tomodeling or a particular modeling approach?

The objective of any modeling project shouldbe clearly understood with respect to the domainand the problem area, the reason for using aparticular model, the questions to be answered bythe model, and the scenarios to be modeled.Throughout the project these objective compo-nents should be checked to see if any havechanged and if they are being met.

The use of a model nearly always takes placewithin a broader context. The model itself canalso be part of a larger whole, such as a network

Fig. 13.20 The modeling project process is typically aniterative procedure involving specific steps or tasks


of models in which many are using the outputs ofother models. These conditions may imposeconstraints on the modeling project.

Proposed modeling activities may have to bejustified and agreements made where applicable.Any client at any time may wish for some jus-tification of the modeling project activities.Agreement should be reached on how this justi-fication will take place. Are intermediate reportsrequired, have conditions been defined that willindicate an official completion of the modelingproject, is verification by third parties required,and so on? It is particularly important to recordbeforehand the events or times when the clientmust approve the simulation results. Finally, it isalso sensible to reach agreements with respect toquality requirements and how they are deter-mined or defined, as well as the format, scopeand contents of modeling project outputs (datafiles) and reports.

Selecting the ModelThe selection of an existing model to be used inany project, as opposed to developing a new one,depends in part on the processes that will bemodeled (perhaps as defined by the conceptualmodel), the data available and the data requiredby the model. The available data should includesystem observations for comparison of the modelresults. They should also include estimates of thedegree of uncertainty associated with each of themodel parameters. At a minimum this might onlybe estimates of the ranges of all uncertainparameter values. At best it could include sta-tistical distributions of them. In this step of theprocess it is sufficient to know what data areavailable, their quality and completeness, andwhat to do about missing or outlier data.

Determining the boundaries of the model is anessential consideration in model selection anduse. These boundaries define what is to beincluded in a model and what is not. Any modelselected will contain a number of assumptions.These assumptions should be identified and jus-tified, and later tested.

Project-based matters such as the computersto be used, the available time and expertise, themodeler’s personal preferences, and the client’s

wishes or requirements may also influence modelchoice. An important practical criterion is whe-ther there is an accessible manual for operatingthe model program and if help is available toaddress any possible problems.

The decision to use a model, and which modelto use, is an important part of water resourcesplan formulation. Even though there are no clearrules on how to select the right model to use, afew simple guidelines can be stated:

• Use the simplest method that will yield ade-quate accuracy and provide the answer toyour questions.

• Select a model that fits the problem ratherthan trying to fit the problem to a model.

• Question whether increased accuracy is worththe increased effort and increased cost of datacollection.

• Consider model and computational cost.Today computing costs are rarely an issueexcept perhaps for some groundwater man-agement problems.

• Do not forget the assumptions underlying themodel used and do not read more significanceinto the simulation results than is actuallythere.

Analyzing the ModelOnce a modeling approach or a particular modelhas been selected, its strengths and limitationsshould be assessed. The first step is to set up a planfor testing and evaluating the model. These testscan include mass (and energy) balance checks andparameter sensitivity analyses (see Chap. 8). Themodel can be run under extreme input data con-ditions to see if the results are as expected.

Once a model is tested satisfactorily, it can becalibrated. Calibration focuses on the comparisonbetween model results and field observations. Animportant principle is: the smaller the deviationbetween the calculated model results and thefield observations, the better the model. This isindeed the case to a certain extent, as the devi-ations in a perfect model are only due to mea-surement errors. In practice, however, a good fitis by no means a guarantee of a good model.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1_8

The deviations between the model results andthe field observations can be due to a number offactors. These include possible software errors,inappropriate modeling assumptions such as the(conscious) simplification of complex structures,neglect of certain processes, errors in the math-ematical description or in the numerical methodapplied, inappropriate parameter values, errors ininput data and boundary conditions, and mea-surement errors in the field observations. Todetermine whether or not a calibrated model is“good,” it should be validated or verified. Cali-brated models should be able to reproduce fieldobservations not used in calibration. Validationcan be carried out for calibrated models as longas an independent data set has been kept aside forthis purpose. If all available data are used in thecalibration process in order to arrive at the bestpossible results, validation will not be possible.The decision to leave out validation is often ajustifiable one especially when data are limited.Philosophically, it is impossible to know if amodel of a complex system is sufficiently “cor-rect”. There is no way to prove it. [“All modelsare wrong but some are useful” Box (1976).]

Experimenting with a model, by carrying outmultiple validation tests, can increase one’sconfidence in that model. After a sufficientnumber of successful tests, one might be willingto state that the model is “good enough”, basedon the modeling project requirements. The modelcan then be regarded as having been validated, atleast for the ranges of input data and fieldobservations used in the validation.

If model predictions are to be made for situ-ations or conditions for which the model hasbeen validated, one may have a degree of con-fidence in the reliability of those predictions. Yetone cannot be certain. Much less confidence canbe placed on model predictions for conditionsoutside the range for which the model was vali-dated. While a model should not be used forextrapolations as commonly applied in predic-tions and in scenario analyses, this is oftenexactly the reason for the modeling project. Whatis likely to happen given events we have not yet

experienced? A model’s answer to this questionshould also include the uncertainties attached tothese predictions.

Using the ModelOnce the model has been judged ‘good enough’,it may be used to obtain the information desired.One should develop a plan on how the model isto be used, identifying the input to be used, thetime period(s) to be simulated, and the quality ofthe results to be expected. Again, close com-munication between the client and the modeler isessential, both in setting up this plan andthroughout its implementation, to avoid anyunnecessary misunderstandings about whatinformation is wanted and the assumptions onwhich that information is to be based.

Before the end of this model use step, oneshould determine whether all the necessarymodel runs have been performed and whetherthey have been performed well. Questions to askinclude:

• Did the model fulfill its purpose?• Are the results valid?• Are the quality requirements met?• Was the discretization of space and time

chosen well?• Was the choice of the model restrictions

correct?• Were the correct model and/or model pro-

gram chosen?• Was the numerical approach appropriate?• Was the implementation performed correctly?• Are the sensitive parameters (and other fac-

tors) clearly identified?• Was an uncertainty analysis performed?

Some of these questions may not apply, but ifany of the answers to these questions is no, thenthe situation should be corrected. If it cannot becorrected, then there should be a good reason forthis.

Interpreting Model ResultsInterpreting the information resulting from sim-ulation models is a crucial step in a modeling


project, especially in situations in which the cli-ent may only be interested in those results andnot the way they were obtained. The modelresults can be compared to those of other similarstudies. Any unanticipated results should bediscussed and explained. The results should bejudged with respect to the modeling projectobjectives.

The results of any water resources modelingproject typically include large files of time seriesdata. Only the most dedicated of clients will wantto read those files, so the data must be presented ina more concise form. Statistical summaries shouldexplicitly include any restrictions and uncertain-ties in the results. They should identify any gaps inthe domain knowledge, thus generating newresearch questions or identifying the need formore field observations and measurements.

Reporting Model ResultsAlthough the results of a model should not be thesole basis for policy decisions, modelers have aresponsibility to translate their model results intopolicy recommendations. Policymakers, man-agers, and indeed the participating stakeholdersoften want simple, clear and unambiguousanswers to complex questions. The executivesummary of a report will typically omit much ofthe scientifically justified discussion in its mainbody regarding, say, the uncertainties associatedwith some of the data. This executive summary isoften the only part read by those responsible formaking decisions. Therefore, the conclusions ofthe model study must not only be scientificallycorrect and complete, but also concisely formu-lated, free of jargon, and fully understandable bymanagers and policymakers. The report shouldprovide a clear indication of the validity,usability and any restrictions of the modelresults. The use of visual aids, such as graphs andGIS, can be very helpful.

The final report should also include sufficientdetail to allow others to reproduce the modelstudy (including its results) and/or to proceedfrom the point where this study ended.

13.5.2.2 Evaluating Modeling SuccessThere are a number of ways one can judge theextent of success (or failure) in applying modelsand performing analyses in practice. Goeller(1988) suggested three measures as a basis forjudging success:

1. How the analysis was performed and pre-sented (analysis success).

2. How it was used or implemented in theplanning and management processes (appli-cation success).

3. How the information derived from modelsand their application affected the systemdesign or operation and the lives of those whouse the system (outcome success).

It is often hard to judge the extent to whichparticular models, methods and styles of pre-sentation are appropriate for the problem beingaddressed, the resources and time available forthe study, and the institutional environment ofthe client. Review panels and publishing inpeer-review journals are two ways of judging. Nomodel or method is without its limitations. Twoother obvious indications are the feelings thatanalysts have about their own work and, veryimportantly, the opinions the clients have aboutthe analysts’ work. Client satisfaction may not bean appropriate indicator if, for example, the cli-ents are unhappy only because they are learningsomething they do not want to accept. Producingresults primarily to reinforce a client’s priorposition or opinions might result in client satis-faction, but, most would agree, this is not anappropriate goal of modeling.

Application or implementation successimplies that the methods and/or results developedin a study were seriously considered by thoseinvolved in the planning and management pro-cess. One should not, it seems to us, judge suc-cess or failure on the basis of whether or not anyof the model results (the computer “printouts”)were directly implemented. What one hopes foris that the information and understanding


resulting from model application helped definethe important issues and identify possible solu-tions and their impacts. Did the modelling helpinfluence the debate among stakeholders anddecision-makers about what decisions to make oractions to take? The extent to which this occurs isthe extent to which a modeling study will haveachieved application or implementation success.

Outcome success is based on what happens tothe problem situation once a decision largelyinfluenced by the results of modeling has beenmade and implemented. The extent to which theinformation and understanding resulting frommodeling helped solve the problems or resolvethe issues, if it can be determined, is a measure ofthe extent of outcome success. It is clear thatsuccess in terms of the second or third criteriawill depend heavily on the success of the pre-ceding one(s). Modeling applications may bejudged successful in terms of the first two mea-sures but, perhaps because of unpredicted events,the problems being addressed may have becomeworse rather than improved, or while those par-ticular problems were eliminated, their elimina-tion may have caused other severe problems. Allof us can think of examples where this hashappened.

For example, any river restoration projectinvolving the removal of engineering infrastruc-ture is a clear indication of changing objectivesor new knowledge. Who knows whether or not abroader systems study might have helped earlierplanners, managers, and decision-makers foreseethe adverse ecological consequences of convert-ing rivers to canals, and whether or not anyonewill care. Hindsight is always clearer than fore-sight. Some of what takes place in the world iscompletely unpredictable. We can be surprisednow and then. Given this, it is not clear whetherwe should hold modelers or analysts, or evenplanners or managers, completely responsible forany lack of “outcome success” if unforeseenevents that changed goals, or priorities orunderstanding did indeed take place.

Problem situations and criteria for judging theextent of success will change over time, ofcourse. By the time one can evaluate the results,the system itself may have changed enough forthe outcome to be quite different than what waspredicted in the analysis. Monitoring the perfor-mance of any decision, whether or not based on asuccessfully analyzed and implemented model-ing effort, is often neglected. But monitoring isvery important if changes in system design,management and operation are to be made toadapt to changing and unforeseen conditions.

If the models, data, computer programs, doc-umentation and know-how are successfullymaintained, updated, and transferred to and usedby the client institutions, there is a good chancethat this methodology will be able to provideuseful information relevant to the changes thatare needed in system design, management, oroperation. Until relatively recently, the success-ful transfer of models and their supporting tech-nology has involved a considerable commitmentof time and money for both the analysts and thepotential users of the tools and techniques. It hasbeen a slow process. Developments in interactivecomputer-based data-driven decision supportsystems that provide a more easily understoodhuman–model–data–computer interface havesubstantially facilitated this technology transferprocess, particularly among model users. Thesetechnology developments have had, and we thinkwill continue to have, a major impact on the stateof the practice in using models in support ofwater resources planning and managementactivities.

13.6 Conclusions

The effectiveness of strategies for dealing withissues of water quantity and quality, and theirvariability, has amajor impact on thewell-being ofliving species, and even the survival of some. Howwell water is managed also impacts the function-ing and resilience of ecosystems, the vitality of


societies, and the strength and growth of econo-mies. Fortunately we humans can determinewhich water resources development and man-agement strategy will work best in a given situa-tion, not only for the immediate future but in thelong-run as well. And if conditions change, ourstrategies can adapt. To accomplish this we needto identify and evaluate the effectiveness of thewater resources development and managementalternatives available to us in an economic,hydrologic and sociopolitical environment thatseems to be a constantly changing. We can do thisthrough the use of various models, developingpreferred strategies based in part on their results,and informed by the concerns and objectives ofstakeholders and the decision making institutions.

This book has focused on ways of developingand using various optimization and simulationmodeling methods for analyzing and evaluatingwater resource development and managementalternatives. This final chapter has presentedsome guidelines for carrying out water resourcesplanning projects, including its modeling com-ponents. Such projects are typically very com-plex and challenging.

Water management planning projects mustaddress a complex and interconnected web ofscience, engineered infrastructure, legal regula-tions governing water use, societal expectations,and institutional structures and authorities thathave evolved over time. Much of the currentcomplexity that exists in various regions of theworld has developed over time in response tochanging interests and objectives of water usersand environmental considerations. Although theimpacts of changes in the climate on water sup-plies and demands are generally recognized,

these ongoing changes as well as the linkagesbetween environmental and societal factors inspecific basins and regions all lead to majoruncertainties in the future.

The guidelines discussed in this chapter havebeen developed and used by Dutch experts inDeltares to assess water resources systems and todevelop plans and strategies for managing them.Deltares has been actively involved in numerouswater resources planning and management pro-jects throughout the world. The approachdescribed in this chapter illustrates how theseprojects are conducted, and the major factors thatare considered while conducting them. Theeffects and impacts of some of their projects havebeen relatively local and required considerationof only a few sectors of the economy. Other,more comprehensive projects have had nationalor international impacts, and led to transbound-ary (international) compacts.

Clearly each water resources system is uniquewith respect to its management issues and prob-lems and its institutional environment. Projectplanning and analysis approaches must adapt tothese situations. Hence, each project will differ,and will no doubt need to deviate from the sug-gested guidelines presented in this chapter. Otherapproaches are possible and may be equally ef-fective. What remains important in all cases isthe establishment of a comprehensive, systematicprocess of planning and analysis together withconstant communication among planners,decision-makers and the interested and affectedpublic. The end result should be an improved,more sustainable, and equitable water resourcesdevelopment plan and management policy,appropriate for the region and its people.


Objectives Evaluation criteria

Socio-economic objectives and criteria

1. Improve employment (–) Increase of employment by WRM strategies– Number of permanent jobs (#)– Number of temp. jobs (mn-year)

2. Increase income of people– Improve income position of farmers– Improve equity in income distribution

∙ Farmer net income (Rp/year)∙ Difference in benefits of WRM strategies per capitabetween:

– Kabupatens (%)– Urban/rural areas (%)– Income groups (%)

3. Increase the non-oil export production(shrimps, tea, and rubber)

– Export value (Rp/year)

4. Support economic development in an economicallyefficient way

– Total annual. benefits (Rp/year)– Total annualized costs (Rp/year)– B/C ratio (–)– IRR (%)– NPV (Rp/year)– Total capital required (Rp)– Foreign currency required (%)– Total construction costs (Rp)– Total O&M costs (Rp)– Sectoral value added (Rp/year)– GRP (Rp/year)

User-related (sectoral) objectives and criteria

1. Increase agricultural production(3% per year)

– Padi (ton/year)– Palawija (ton/year)– Export value of crops (or import substitution)(Rp/year)

– Unit costs water supply (Rp/m3)– % failure meeting demand (%)

2. Increase power production (–) – Installed capacity (MW)– Power production (GWh/year)– Failure meeting firm power (%)– Price of power prod. (Rp/Kwh)– Energy production value (Rp)

3. Increase fish production (–) – Fish produced (ton/year)– Fish pond area (ha)– Export value (Rp/year)

4. Support industrial development∙ Water supply for industry (full supply)∙ Provision of opportunity for discharge of waste water

– Amount of supply (m3/s)– Cost of water supply (Rp/year)– Unit costs water supply (Rp/m3)– % failure meeting demand (%)– Cost to maintain water quality standards (Rp/year)

5. Enhance water-related recreation

Environmental and public health related objectives and criteria

1. Improve public health∙ Improve drinking water supply

urban: BNA, IKK and major city programs:60 l/cap/day, serving 70 %

rural: 55 %∙ improve flushing

(1 L/s/ha in urban area)

– Supply (1/day/ capital)– % of people connected (Rp/m3)– Price of drinking water (%)– % failure meeting demand (%)– Volume of flushing water (m3/s)– Unit costs (Rp/m3)– % failure meeting demand (%)

(continued)

Box 13.4. Example 1: Objectives and criteria adopted in West Java WRM study

13.6 Conclusions 611

Objectives Evaluation criteria

2. Improve/conserve natural resources and environment∙ Erosion and sedimentation control

(erosion <1 mm/year)∙ Conservation of nature∙ Water quality

– Area severely eroding (ha)– Erosion (mm/year)– Sediment yield (tons/year)– Reafforestated area (ha)– Replanted area (ha)– Terraced area (ha)– % external wood supply to total wood demand (%)– Concentration water quality parameters (ppm)

3. Provide flood protection(return period: depending on value of endangered area)

- return period [years]- flood alleviation benefits (reduced damage)[Rp/year]- flood control cost [Rp/year]- number of people in endangered areas [#]- flooded area [ha]

Planning and implementation related objectives and criteria

1. Take care of maximum agreement with existing policiesin other fields of planning (e.g. economic regional planning)

– Deviations from/conflicts with existing policies

2. Maximize flexibility of proposed strategy – Degree to which strategy can be adjusted to changesin demands, standards, technological innovations

3. Maximize reliability of proposed strategy – Degree of certainty with which proposed strategywill meet the realization of objectives

4. Provide sufficient acceptance of proposed strategy bypublic, interest groups and executing authorities

– Degree of acceptance by parties involved

5. Takes care of maximum agreement of proposed strategywith existing competence and responsibilities of agenciesconcerned

– Deviations from/conflicts with existing competenceand responsibilities

aKabupaten = Indonesian administrative unitbPadi = Rice cropcPaliwija = Non-rice cropdRp = Rupiah

Unit 1997base

2017 referencecase

Strategy facing thechallenge

General (middle scenario)

Population Million 59.3 83.1 83.1

Urbanization Ratio 0.44 0.48 0.48

GDP at economic growth of 6% Billion LE 246 789 789

Economic development objectives

Agriculture: irrigation area Mfeddan 7.985 11.026 10.876

Gross production value Billion LE 34.46 35.76 38.50

Crop intensity Ratio 2.1 1.5 1.7

Net value production per feddan LE/feddan 2812 2075 2153

Net value production per unit of water LE/m3 0.64 0.66 0.60

Export/import value Ratio 0.09 0.12 0.20

(continued)

Box 13.5 Example 2: Score-card Egyptian National Water Resources Plan study


Unit 1997base

2017 referencecase


Industry: costs polluted intake water LE/m3 0.65–1.10

0.65–1.10 2.00

Wastewater treatment costs LE/m3 0.22–0.50

0.22–0.50 1.00

Fishery: production (index 100 in1997)

Index 100 86 95

Tourism: navigation bottlenecks Index 100 114 0

Social objectives

Create living space in desert areas % of tot.pop

1.5% 23% 22%

Employment and incomeEmployment in agriculture

M pers.year

5.01 6.24 7.30

Employment in industry M pers.year

2.18 4.99 4.99

Average income farmers LE/year 5362 4629 4309

Drinking water supplyCoverage

Percentage 97.3% 100% 100%

SanitationCoverage

Percentage 28% 60% 60%

EquityEquity water distribution in

agriculture

−, 0, + 0 + +

Self-sufficiency in food: cereals Percentage 73% 53% 46%

Meeting water needs

Water resources developmentAvailable Nile water

BCM 55.8 55.5 55.5

Abstraction deep groundwater BCM 0.71 3.96 3.96

Water use efficiency Nile systemOutflow to sinks from Nile system

BCM 16.3 17.6 12.5

Overall water use efficiency Nilesystem


Water in agricultureSupply/demand ratio (1997 assumed1.0)

Ratio 1.00 0.80 0.92

Water availability per feddan Nilesystem

m3/feddan/yr

4495 3285 3866

Public water supplyUFW losses


Supply/demand ratio Ratio 0.67 0.76 1.00

Health and environment

Pollution and healthE. coli standard violation

(1997 = 100)

Index 100 121 110

(continued)

13.6 Conclusions 613

References

Bourget, L. (Ed.). (2011). Converging waters: Integratingcollaborative modeling with participatory processesto make water resources decisions. Institute for WaterResources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Box, G. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of theAmerican Statistical Association, 71, 791–799. doi:10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949.

Cardwell, H., Langsdale, S., & Stephenson, K. (2008).The shared vision planning primer: How to incorpo-rate computer aided dispute resolution in waterresources planning. Alexandria, VA: Institute forWater Resources. IWR Report 08-R-02 (2008).

Goeller, B. F. (1988). A framework for evaluating successin systems analysis. Report P-7454. Santa Monica:Rand Corporation.

GWP. (2000). Integrated water management, TEC Back-ground Paper no. 4. Stockholm: GWP.

Haasnoot, M., Van Deursen, W. P. A., Guillaume,J. H. A., Kwakkel, J. H., Van Beek, E., & Mid-delkoop, H. (2014). Fit for purpose? Building andevaluating a fast, integrated model for exploring waterpolicy pathways. Environmental Modelling & Soft-ware, 60, 99–120. ISSN 1364-8152.

Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H.,Walker,W. E., &Maat, J. T.(2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A methodfor crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertainworld.Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–498.

OECD. (2006). Applying strategic environmental assessment—Good practice guidance for development co-operation.www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/applying-strategic-environmental-assessment_9789264026582-en

Ray, P. A., & Brown, C. M. (2015). Confronting climateuncertainty in water resources planning and project

design, the decision tree framework. Washington,United States: World Bank.

Additional References(Further Reading)

ADB, GIWP, UNESCO, WWF. (2013). River basinplanning, principles, procedures and approaches forstrategic basin planning.

Asian Water Development Outlook. (2013). Measuringwater security in Asia and the Pacific.

Bousset, J.-P., Macombe, C., & Taverne, M. (2005).Participatory methods, guidelines and good practiceguidance to be applied throughout the project toenhance problem definition, co-learning, synthesisand dissemination. SEAMLESS.

Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Frame-work Directive. (2000/60/EC). Guidance document 8 onpublic participation in relation to the water frameworkdirective. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm

GWP. (2005). Integrated water resources managementplans—Training manual and operational guide.Stockholm: GWP.

GWP Toolbox www.gwp.org/ToolBox/GWP, INBO. (2009). A handbook for IWRM in basins.

Stockholm/Paris: GWP/INBO.NSMC. (2010). What is social marketing? www.thensmc.

com/content/what-social-marketing-1UNESCO-IHP, NARBO, WWAP. (2009). IWRM guideli-

nes at River Basin level. http://www.unesco.org/water/Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with

stakeholders. Environmental Modelling and Software,25(11), 1268–1281.

Unit 1997base

2017 referencecase


Water quality shallow groundwater −, 0, + 0 − −

Ecology and sustainabilitySustainability: use of deep groundw.

Abstr/pot 0.15 1.00 1.00

Condition Bardawil (Ramsar site) −, 0, + + − +

Condition coastal lakes −, 0, + 0 − 0aUFW = Unaccounted for water (the water that is lost in the system)bfeddan = 0.42 hacLE = Egyptian pound


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/applying-strategic-environmental-assessment_9789264026582-en

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/applying-strategic-environmental-assessment_9789264026582-en

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm

http://www.gwp.org/ToolBox/

http://www.thensmc.com/content/what-social-marketing-1

http://www.thensmc.com/content/what-social-marketing-1

http://www.unesco.org/water/

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the termsof the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercialuse, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproductionin any medium or format, as long as you give appropriatecredit to the original author(s) and the source, provide alink to the Creative Commons license and indicate ifchanges were made.

The images or other third party material in thischapter are included in the work's Creative Commonslicense, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; ifsuch material is not included in the work’s CreativeCommons license and the respective action is not per-mitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtainpermission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt orreproduce the material.

References 615

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

project planning: putting it all 13 together€¦ · project planning: putting it all 13 together...

Documents