Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ecosystem services for watershed management, Water Planning,

508 views

Published on

Blal Sdem Esmail Ph.D. defense. Blal talk covers his work on water management seen from the point of view of ecosystem services. He briefly presents two case studies in Germany and Asmara.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Ecosystem services for watershed management, Water Planning,

  1. 1. Ecosystem Services for watershed management and planning Planning for Ecosystem Services Planning and Design for Sustainable Places LabUNIVERSITY OF TRENTO DICAM - Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering Ph.D. Candidate: Blal Adem Esmail Supervisor: Prof Davide Geneletti XXVIII Cycle – THESIS DEFENCE Trento, 8th April 2016
  2. 2. People gather to fetch water from a huge well in the village of Natwarghad in the western Indian state of Gujarat (Reuters)
  3. 3. A woman carries jerry cans to fill them with water from a communal tap in Yemen's capital Sanaa (Reuters)
  4. 4. URBAN WATER SECTOR Water Supply System Sanitation System Drainage System Water utility HUMAN WELLBEING IN CITIES Villagers carry pitchers filled with drinking water after visiting a well at Meni village in the western Indian state of Gujarat (Reuters)
  5. 5. 2030 +2.5 billion urban dwellers 90% in Asia and Africa UN World Urbanization Prospect (2014)
  6. 6. Capacity of ecosystems e.g. half of cities with more than 100.000 inhabitants are located in water scarce basins (Srinivasan et al. 2012, Richter el al 2013) Adequate infrastructural & institutional capacity (Kayaga et al. 2013, Lieberherr & Truffer 2015) Adaptation & Integration (Cortner and Moote 1994, Ward 1995, Gleick 2000, Pahl-Wostl et al 2002, 2007, 2011)
  7. 7.  Participatory management and collaborative decision-making;  Addressing problem sources not effects;  Changing human behavior through “soft” measures;  Open & shared information sources (linking science & decision-making);  Embedded in iterative learning cycles; Adaptation & Integration paradigm
  8. 8. Key challenge to real-life implementation  Linking diverse actors and knowledge systems, across management levels, sectors, and institutional boundaries. (Folke et al 2005, Parker and Corona 2012, Kowalski & Jenkins 2015)
  9. 9. 4 research objectives
  10. 10. Urban water sector & ESs
  11. 11. Spatial considerations THREE KEY ROLES i linking ecosystem service production and benefit areas; ii bridging spatial scales ranging (watershed to household); iii adopting ES-based responses to water vulnerability.
  12. 12. 18/04/2016 Integratingframeworks
  13. 13. 18/04/2016 Urban water sector & ESs
  14. 14. Watershed management and planning SETTING BACKGROUND FOR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
  15. 15. Exploring boundary work
  16. 16. 16 • Set of activities put in place by any organization/individual that seeks to mediate between knowledge and action (Cash et al 2003) KNOWLEDGE ACTION Attributes • Participation • Accountability • “Boundary object” Criteria • Credibility • Saliency • Legitimacy Boundary Work • Active management of tension at the interface between stakeholders with differing views on relevant knowledge (Clark et al. 2011)
  17. 17. “Boundary Work”: Highly context-specific 18/04/2016 17 Clark et al (2011). “Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the CGIAR” C C + S C + S + L
  18. 18. • 300 Km2 - Germany’s largest water protection area • 650.000 people in Hannover & surroundings 18 Fuhrberg watershed management
  19. 19. 19 • 300 Km2 - Germany’s largest contiguous water protection area • 650.000 people in Hannover & surroundings • 1970s groundwater quality problems • 3 decades of research and cooperative implementation with farmers Fuhrberg watershed management
  20. 20. 20 From research to implementation
  21. 21. 21 Investigating boundary work practices THREE RESEARCH QUESTIONS i. Type of barriers for transfer of knowledge into action? ii. Boundary work activities put in place? iii. Effectiveness of boundary work?
  22. 22. 4 step methodology Interviews, Workshop, Field visit Scientificfindings andimplicationsfor management Embedded case study design Boundary work framework (Clark et. 2011)
  23. 23. Critical boundaries in the case study Clarketal.2011
  24. 24. Findings  Context: knowledge Use and Source;  ‘enlightenment’, ‘decision-support’, ‘negotiation-support’;  Boundary work: a dynamic process, not a single-time achievement;  “Contextual” & “contingent” factors, and relative influence (power) of actors.
  25. 25. 18/04/2016 Designing watershed investments
  26. 26. Watershed investments LARGE-SCALE TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGES EROSION CONTROL FLOOD MITIGATION BIODIVERSITY POVERTY ALLEVIATION Multiple-objectives • Financial and governance mechanisms to secure water for cities, involving upstream communities;Activities REVEGETATION AGRICULTURE PROTECTION TERRACING
  27. 27. Toker reservoir • 13 million m3 capacity • US$44 million estimated value Asmara City • 650.000 inhabitants • 50% of urban population Toker watershed
  28. 28. BasedonAbrahametal.2009
  29. 29. BasedonAbrahametal.2009 THREE QUESTIONS i. Which activities yield the greatest returns? ii. How activities affect selected ecosystem services? iii. What is the performance of watershed investment?
  30. 30. Process-based approach
  31. 31. Boundary work needs Saliency relevance to the problem at hand + Legitimacy Unbiased, and respectful of all stakeholders Credibility scientifically adequate handling of evidences
  32. 32. 60 Investment scenario Toker Watershed application 60 SCENARIOS
  33. 33. Three main results
  34. 34. Investment portfolio URBAN WATER SECURITY RURAL POVERTY ALLEVIATION Annualbudget$100,000allocatedcost-effectively
  35. 35. Impact on soil erosion Budget level Budgetallocatedentirelytoagriculturalvegetationmanagement
  36. 36. Budgetallocationmode Investment Objective Synthesis for 38 scenarios
  37. 37. % REDUCTION OF SOIL EROSION AT SUB-WATERSHED LEVEL Sub-watershed Budget level Assessment of investment performance Budget allocated cost-effectively
  38. 38. Results  Science-informed answers to key management questions in a data scarce context:  Addressing concerns of credibility, saliency and legitimacy;  Single ESs, uncalibrated models, no stakeholder involvement.
  39. 39. 18/04/2016 Water utilities as learning organizations
  40. 40. 40 METHODOLOGY Part 1 Investigation of the two case studies WUM-based interview with head of Asmara Utility •11 questions - general information • 23 questions for each attributes • 7 ranking questions Part 2 WUM-based questionnaire For each case study •3 senior mangers •1 informed scientist • “All-inclusive” perspective of institutions as “rules-and-roles” ; • Institutional capacity as “capacity to continuously generate a minimum level and quality of valued outputs, and to prioritize learning” ; • Strong theoretical basis + application-oriented. Initial Basic Proactive Flexible Progressive • Integrative, mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive; • 23 attributes • 5 maturity levels Water utility maturity model(Kayaga,etal.2013).
  41. 41. Influence Hannover Water Utility Asmara Water Utility Policy, legal, regulatory, and political environment Utility has predictive capabilities, and carries out risk/opportunities assessment and management; continuously adaptive to the external environment in near real-time. Leadership passively interested in factors in the external environment, and reacts to them rather than strategically influencing them. Managerial autonomy Utility has full autonomy with respect to all managerial, operational and financial decisions. There is limited managerial and operational autonomy. External accountability Utility has a balanced accountability framework. External accountability mechanisms in place but not effective. Partnerships and networks Partnerships are integrated within business processes. Partnerships and networks may be initiated by individual staff. Supplier communications are limited to tendering, order placement or problem resolution. Corporate image The results of the corporate image scans are integrated into the performance/incentive management system for staff. Leadership is aware of the importance of corporate image; however, it is not monitored or evaluated in a consistent & systematic manner. Findings • Hannover Water Utility = Level 5 “Progressive” • Asmara Water Utility = Level 2 “Basic” • Capacity dimension “ INFLUENCE ”
  42. 42. Overall conclusions Implementing adaptive management
  43. 43. Main research outputs • Paper 1: “Exploring practices of effective boundary work in watershed management for ecosystem services”, submitted to “Ecology & Society”; • Paper 2: “Designing, and assessing watershed investments: An operative approach based on ecosystem services”, submitted to “Environmental Impact Assessment Review”; • Paper 3: “Evaluating institutional capacity of a water utility: An empirical application of the Water Utility Maturity Model”, to be submitted to “Water utilities policy; Acknowledgement
  44. 44. A boy bathes on the side of the road in the southern Indian city of Chennai (Reuters)
  45. 45. RIOS Approach • Need for operative methodologies to support design, and implementation of watershed investments, in a context of adaptive management. (e.g. Tallis et al, 2015, Schultz et al. 2015).
  46. 46. RIOS Investment Portfolio Advisor
  47. 47. RIOS Investment Portfolio Advisor
  48. 48. 48Initial Basic Proactive Flexible Progressive • Integrative, • mutually exclusive, • collectively exhaustive; • 23 attributes • 5 maturity levels (Kayaga,etal.2013).

×