Integrating biophysical and socioeconomic model outputs


Published on

Presented by Dr. Randall Ritzema (IWMI) at the Nile BDC Symposium on Modeling in the Blue Nile Basin, Addis Ababa, 12 November 2012

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Integrating biophysical and socioeconomic model outputs

  1. 1. Integrating Biophysical andSocioeconomic Model Outputs Dr. Randall Ritzema IWMI Nile BDC Symposium on Modeling in the Blue Nile Basin Addis Ababa, 12 November 2012
  2. 2. Background• Goal of Nile Basin Development Challenge Project 4 (N4) is to assess potential impacts- both biophysical and socioeconomic- at the basin scale resulting from implementation of Rainwater Management Strategies• To assess impacts, need to link biophysical and socioeconomic processes• Modeling has proceeded along disciplinary lines, and at differing scales: – Hydrologic: SWAT, APEX – Water resource management: WEAP – Economic: ECOSAUT – Crop: CropWat, AquaCrop – Livestock: ILRI livestock water productivity model• This presentation: initial ideas on model integration
  3. 3. Basin-level BP/SE integration frameworks Sectoral Linkage Explicit Integration To link and extrapolate BP and SE processes Resource Management Typology
  4. 4. Resource Management Typology• Delineate population segment which manages BP resources in target catchment• Partition population segment into RM units – Assumption: Economic decisions made at HH level – Livelihood Profiles suggest different HH production systems w/i Livelihood Zones – HH’s can therefore be aggregated into RMUs based on BP and SE attribute similarities – Assumption: Access/benefit/cost is equitably distributed within RMU• Water/Land “management” mapping- establish BP resource flows from/to RMUs
  5. 5. Resource Management Typology• FEWSNET/LIU Livelihood Zones/Profiles: natural RMU definitions• Ethiopian Rural Economic Atlas: population/HH distributions• Full spatial / economic coverage: satisfies need for extrapolation
  6. 6. Sectoral Linkage Approach: BP-initiated BP Tools N3 Feasibility SWAT AquaCROP Mapping HDM via RMUs Flows ( ECOSAUT) (unimpaired)Considerations:•Potential of fragmented WEAPlinkages•Use of MCA to understandinteractions•Feedbacks? Flows SE Impact Sediment (impaired) Indicators
  7. 7. Sectoral Linkage Approach: SE initiated Verification of assumptions? Expected yield & BP Tools water use Other econ inputs Apex- verified AquaCROP SWATRMU HDM: RMU Land SISMcharac- (modified DDM use to (modifiedterization ECOSAUT) HRU’s Flows Irrigation HDM) (unimpaired) Demand Carry-over water availability WEAP Considerations: •Use of N3 mapping to constrain RMU decision-making SE Impact Flows •One “optimal” decision set per set of imposed Sediment (impaired) Indicators conditions •Feedbacks?
  8. 8. Explicit Integration Approach N3 Feasibility Mapping Systems Dynamics integrated model Apex- Flow/sediment response verified module characterization SWAT (subcatchment) RMU charac- terization Crop response / irrigation AquaCROP demand module characterizationConsiderations:•Feedbacks embedded; addresses fragmented linkages•Potential to assess many scenarios, uncertainty SE Impact•Depends upon effective modules Sediment Flows Indicators