Environmental Management

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 484–493 | Cite as

Integrating Environmental and Socio-Economic Indicators of a Linked Catchment–Coastal System Using Variable Environmental Intensity

  • John R. Dymond
  • Tim J. A. Davie
  • Andrew D. Fenemor
  • Jagath C. Ekanayake
  • Ben R. Knight
  • Anthony O. Cole
  • Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia
  • Will J. Allen
  • Roger G. Young
  • Les R. Basher
  • Marc Dresser
  • Chris J. Batstone
Article

Abstract

Can we develop land use policy that balances the conflicting views of stakeholders in a catchment while moving toward long term sustainability? Adaptive management provides a strategy for this whereby measures of catchment performance are compared against performance goals in order to progressively improve policy. However, the feedback loop of adaptive management is often slow and irreversible impacts may result before policy has been adapted. In contrast, integrated modelling of future land use policy provides rapid feedback and potentially improves the chance of avoiding unwanted collapse events. Replacing measures of catchment performance with modelled catchment performance has usually required the dynamic linking of many models, both biophysical and socio-economic—and this requires much effort in software development. As an alternative, we propose the use of variable environmental intensity (defined as the ratio of environmental impact over economic output) in a loose coupling of models to provide a sufficient level of integration while avoiding significant effort required for software development. This model construct was applied to the Motueka Catchment of New Zealand where several biophysical (riverine water quantity, sediment, E. coli faecal bacteria, trout numbers, nitrogen transport, marine productivity) models, a socio-economic (gross output, gross margin, job numbers) model, and an agent-based model were linked. An extreme set of land use scenarios (historic, present, and intensive) were applied to this modelling framework. Results suggest that the catchment is presently in a near optimal land use configuration that is unlikely to benefit from further intensification. This would quickly put stress on water quantity (at low flow) and water quality (E. coli). To date, this model evaluation is based on a theoretical test that explores the logical implications of intensification at an unlikely extreme in order to assess the implications of likely growth trajectories from present use. While this has largely been a desktop exercise, it would also be possible to use this framework to model and explore the biophysical and economic impacts of individual or collective catchment visions. We are currently investigating the use of the model in this type of application.

Keywords

Integrated modelling Environmental intensity Catchment performance Policy development Model coupling Catchment vision Futures modelling 

References

  1. Andrew RM, Dymond JR (2007) A distributed model of water balance in the Motueka catchment, New Zealand. Environmental Modelling and Software 22:1519–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basher LR (2006) Fine sediment in the Motueka River. Soil Horizons 14:8–9Google Scholar
  3. Basher LR, Barringer JRF, Bowden WB, Davie T, Deans NA, Doyle M, Fenemor AD, Gaze P, Gibbs M, Gillespie P, Harmsworth G, Mackenzie L, Markham S, Moore S, Phillips CJ, Rutledge M, Smith R, Thomas JT, Verstappen E, Wynne-Jones S, Young R (2003) The Motueka and Riwaka catchments. Landcare Research, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs BJF (2000) New Zealand periphyton guideline: detecting, monitoring and managing enrichment of streams. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, 122 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolte JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, Smith C (2006) Modeling biocomplexity—actors, landscapes and alternative futures. Environmental Modelling and Software 22:570–579Google Scholar
  6. Cao W, Bowden BW, Davie T, Fenemor A (2006) Multi-variable and multi-site calibration and validation of SWAT in a large mountainous catchment with high spatial variability. Hydrological Processes 20(5):1057–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole A (in prep) Futures model of the Motueka catchment based on genuine progress indicatorGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies-Colley RJ, Nagels JW, Smith RA, Young RG, Phillips CJ (2004) Water quality impact of a dairy cow herd crossing a stream. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dymond JR, Betts HD, Schierlitz CS (2010) An erosion model for evaluating land-use scenarios in New Zealand. Environmental Modelling and Software 25:289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fenemor AD, Deans NA, Davie TJ, Allen W, Dymond J, Kilvington M, Phillips C, Basher L, Gillespie P, Young R, Sinner J, Harmsworth G, Atkinson M, Smith R (2008) Collaboration and modelling–tools for integration in the Motueka Catchment. Water South Africa 34(4):448–455Google Scholar
  11. Forrest BM, Gillespie PA, Cornelisen CD, Rogers KM (2007) Multiple indicators reveal river plume influence on sediments and benthos in a New Zealand coastal embayment. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research 41:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herzig A (2008) Design and implementation of the Land Use Management Support System (LUMASS). International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, Barcelona, 7-10 July: 1835–1842Google Scholar
  13. Huppes G, Ishikawa M (2005) Eco-efficiency and its terminology. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(4):43–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. James D, Chambers J (1986) Managing environmental impacts of energy development: air quality in the Hunter Region, New South Wales, Australia. Environmental Management 10(3):421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jowett IG (1992) Models of the abundance of large brown trout in New Zealand rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knight B (2008) Modelling catchment indicators in the coastal environment, Presentation to the NZ Association of Impact Assessment (NZAIA) Conference, 27th Nov 2008, http://icm.landcareresearch.co.nz/knowledgebase/publications/public/NZCIA08_ICM_Coastal_Modelling_Nov08.pdf
  17. Knight B, Jansen J, Batstone C (2009) Marine production modelling and economic analysis: prepared for ICM Programme. Cawthron Report No. 1558, 36 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. McIntosh BS, Jeffrey P, Lemon M, Winder N (2005) On the design of computer-based models for integrated environmental science. Environmental Management 35(6):741–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Montes de Oca Munguia O, Harmsworth G, Young R, Dymond J (2009) The use of an agent-based model to represent Maori cultural values. MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia, 13–17 July 2009Google Scholar
  20. Shearer KA, Young RG (in review) Interacting influences of geology and land use on macroinvertebrate communities. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchGoogle Scholar
  21. Tuckey B, Gibbs M, Knight B, Gillespie P (2006) Tidal circulation in Tasman and Golden Bays: implications for river plume behaviour. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research 40:305–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Delden H, Luja P, Engelen G (2007) Integration of multi-scale dynamic spatial models of socio-economic and physical processes for river basin management. Environmental Modelling and Software 22:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van den Belt (2004) Mediated modelling: a system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilkinson J (2008) Faecal indicator organism modelling: application to Motueka River. Cawthron Report No. 1454. Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand, 52 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilkinson J, Kay D, Wyer M, Jenkins A (2006) Processes driving the episodic flux of faecal indicator organisms in streams impacting on recreational and shellfish harvesting waters. Water Research 40:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wood PJ, Armitage PD (1997) Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young RG, Collier KJ (2009) Contrasting responses to catchment modification among a range of functional and structural indicators of river ecosystem health. Freshwater Biology 54:2155–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Young RG, Huryn AD (1996) Interannual variation in discharge controls ecosystem metabolism along a grassland river continuum. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 53:2199–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young RG, Quarterman AJ, Eyles RF, Smith RA, Bowden WB (2005) Water quality and thermal regime of the Motueka River: influences of land cover, geology and position in the catchment. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39:803–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. Dymond
    • 1
  • Tim J. A. Davie
    • 7
  • Andrew D. Fenemor
    • 3
  • Jagath C. Ekanayake
    • 2
  • Ben R. Knight
    • 5
  • Anthony O. Cole
    • 6
  • Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia
    • 1
  • Will J. Allen
    • 2
  • Roger G. Young
    • 5
  • Les R. Basher
    • 3
  • Marc Dresser
    • 4
  • Chris J. Batstone
    • 5
  1. 1.Landcare ResearchPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  2. 2.Landcare ResearchLincolnNew Zealand
  3. 3.Landcare ResearchNelsonNew Zealand
  4. 4.Landcare ResearchHamiltonNew Zealand
  5. 5.Cawthron InstituteNelsonNew Zealand
  6. 6.Pansophy LtdPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  7. 7.Environment CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations