Water Resources Management

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1161–1194 | Cite as

An Operational Model for Support of Integrated Watershed Management

  • Predrag Prodanovic
  • Slobodan P. Simonovic


This paper presents a computer simulation-based methodology for operational support of integrated water resources management. The methodology is based on the systems approach, and use of feedback to capture physical and socio-economic processes occurring within a watershed. The approach integrates well established simulation models of physical processes with simulation models that describe socio-economic processes. The proposed methodology is illustrated by the evaluation of risk and vulnerability to changing climatic and socio-economic conditions in the Upper Thames watershed (south-western Ontario, Canada).The model results indicate that flooding in the watershed will be more severe as a result of climate change, while low flows are expected to remain at their current level. The most significant socio-economic factor in the Upper Thames watershed is water availability, shown to become under climate change a limiting factor for future growth and development.


Integrated water resources management Continuous hydrologic modeling Climate change impact on hydrologic regime Flood and low flow frequency analysis Socio-economic modeling with system dynamics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahmad S, Simonovic SP (2004) Spatial system dynamics: a new approach for simulation of water resources systems. ASCE J Comput Civ Eng 18(4):331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfeld LE, Graham AK (1976) Introduction to urban dynamics. Wright-Allen, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett T (1998) Development and application of a continuous soil moisture accounting algorithm for the Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), Masters thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown D (2001) Groundwater protection study: phase II, County of Oxford, Ontario. Golder, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai X, McKinney DC, Lasdon LS (2002) A framework for sustainability analysis in water resources management and application to the Syr Darya basin. Water Resour Res 38(6):21.1–21.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai X, McKinney DC, Lasdon LS (2003) Integrated hydrologic–agronomic–economic model for river basin management. ASCE J Water Resour Plan Manage 129(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardwell HE, Cole RA, Cartwright LA, Martin LA (2006) Integrated water resources management: definitions and conceptual musings. J Contemp Water Res Educ 135:8–18Google Scholar
  8. Chow V (ed) (1964) Handbook of applied hydrology: a compendium of water-resources technology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunderlik JM, Burn DH (2006) Switching the pooling similarity distances: Mahalanobis for Euclidean. Water Resour Res 42:WO3409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunderlik JM, Simonovic SP (2004) Assessment of water resources risk and vulnerability to changing climatic conditions: calibration, verification and sensitivity analysis of the HEC-HMS hydrologic model. Report no. IV, Department of Civil And Environmental Engineering. The University of Western Ontario, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunderlik JM, Simonovic SP (2005) Hydrological extremes in a southwestern Ontario river basin under future climate conditions. Hydrol Sci 50(4):631–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunderlik JM, Simonovic SP (2007) Inverse flood risk modeling under changing climatic conditions. Hydrol Process 21:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernández JM, Selma MAE (2004) The dynamics of water scarcity on irrigated landscapes: Mazarrón and Aguilas in south-eastern Spain. Syst Dyn Rev 20(2):117–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford A (1999) Modeling the environment, an introduction to system dynamics modeling of environmental systems. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. GWP (2000) Integrated water resources management, global water partnership TAC background paper 4. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  17. GWP (2003) Global water partnership toolbox: sharing knowledge for equitable, efficient and sustainable water resources management. Global Water Partnership Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 14 April 2007Google Scholar
  18. High Performance Systems (1992) Stella II: an introduction to systems thinking. High Performance Systems, Nahover, New HampshireGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoggan D (1996) Computer-assisted floodplain hydrology and hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hufschmidt M, Fiering M (1966) Simulation techniques for design of water-resource systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of the working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Kell R (2004) Middlesex Elgin groundwater study final report. Dillon Consulting, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Koch H, Grünewald U (2007) A comparison of modelling systems for the development and revision of water resources management plans. Water Resour Manag 23(7):1403–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leavesley G, Lichty R, Troutman B, Saindon L (1983) Precipitation-runoff modeling system (PRMS), user’s manual. Tech. Rep. 83-4238, US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  25. Linsley R, Kohler M, Paulhus J (1958) Hydrology for engineers. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Loucks DP, van Beek E (2005) Water resources systems planning and management. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Loucks DP, Stedinger JR, Douglas H (1981) Water resource systems planning and analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Lyneis J, Kimberly R, Todd S (1994) Professional dynamo: simulation software to facilitate management learning and decision making. In: Morecroft J, Sterman J (eds) Modeling for learning organizations. Pegasus Communications, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  29. Maass A, Hufschmidt M, Dorfman R, Thomas H, Marglin S, Fair G (1962) Design of water-resources systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Mainuddin M, Kirby M, Qureshi ME (2007) Integrated hydrologic–economic modeling for analyzing water acquisition strategies in the Murray River basin. Agric Water Manag 93:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maxwell T, Costanza R (1994) Spatial ecosystem modeling in a distributed computational environment. In: van den Bergh J, van der Straaten J (eds) Toward sustainable development: concepts, methods, and policy. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Meadows DH, Richardson J, Bruckman G (1982) Groping in the dark: the first decade of global modeling. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Merry A (2003) Perth county groundwater study final report. Waterloo Hydrogeologic, WaterlooGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell B (2005) Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environ Plan A 37:1335–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitchell B (2006) IWRM in practice: lessons from Canadian experience. J Contemp Water Res Educ 135:51–55Google Scholar
  36. Molina JL, Aróstegui JLG, Benavente J, Varela C, de la Hera A, Geta JAL (2009) Aquifers overexploitation in SE Spain: a proposal for the integrated analysis of water management. Water Resour Manag Ser J. doi: 10.1007/s11269-009-9406-5 Google Scholar
  37. Mortsch L, Kay P, Hebb A, Emerson A (2005) Aspects of vulnerability to droughts and floods in the Upper Thames Watershed: perspectives from the Upper Thames River conservation authority stakeholder engagement, project report VI. Accessed 5 Feb 2008
  38. Nirupama N, Simonovic S (2007) Increase of flood risk due to urbanization: a Canadian example. Nat Hazards 40:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OLWR (2003) Ontario low water response manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen’s Printer for OntarioGoogle Scholar
  40. Palmer RN (1998) A history of shared vision modeling in the ACT-ACF comprehensive study: a modeler’s perspective. In: Whipple W (ed) Proceedings of the special session of ASCE’s 25th annual conference on water resources planning and management and annual conference on environmental engineering, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  41. Powersim Corporation (1996) Powersim 2.5 reference manual. Powersim, HerndonGoogle Scholar
  42. Prodanovic P (2008) Response of water resources systems to climate change. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The University of Western Ontario, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Prodanovic P, Simonovic SP (2007) Assessment of risk and vulnerability to changing climatic conditions: dynamic feedback coupling of continuous hydrologic and socio-economic model components of the Upper Thames River Basin. Tech. Rep. X, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Accessed 6 March 2007
  44. Saysel AK, Barlas Y, Yenigün O (2002) Environmental sustainability in an agricultural development project: a system dynamics approach. J Environ Manag 64:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schroeder WW, Sweeney RE, Alfeld LE (1975) Readings in urban dynamics: volume 2. Wright-Allen Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Sehlke G, Jacobson J (2005) System dynamics modeling of transboundary systems: the bear river basin model. Ground Water 43(5):722–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sharif M, Burn DH (2004) Assessment of water resources risk and vulnerability to changing climatic conditions: development and application of a K-NN weather generating model. Tech. Rep. III, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. Accessed 26 March 2007
  48. Sharif M, Burn DH (2006a) Simulating climate change scenarios using an improved K-nearest neighbor model. J Hydrol 325:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharif M, Burn DH (2006b) Vulnerability assessment of Upper Thames Basin to climate change scenarios predicted by global circulation models. In: EWRI-ASCE international perspective on environmental and water resources conference, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  50. Simonovic SP (2008) Water for our children: system methods and tools for better management of water resources, UNESCO, Paris, France and Earthscan. James & James, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Simonovic SP, Davies EG (2006) Are we modeling impacts of climatic change properly. Hydrol Process 20:431–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simonovic SP, Fahmy H (1999) A new modeling approach for water resources policy analysis. Water Resour Res 35(1):295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simonovic SP, Li L (2003) Methodology for assessment of climate change impacts on large-scale flood protection system. ASCE J Water Resour Plan Manage 129(5):361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. STATCAN (2001) 2001 census: community profiles. Statistics Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  55. Stave KA (2003) A system dynamics model to facilitate public understanding of water management options in Las Vegas, Nevada. J Environ Manag 67:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  57. USACE (2000) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS, technical reference manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, DavisGoogle Scholar
  58. UTRCA (2001) The Upper Thames River Watershed: report cards 2001. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Vennix JAM (1997) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  60. Ventana Systems (1996) Vensim user’s guide. Ventana Systems, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  61. Ward F, Booker J, Michelsen A (2006) Integrated economic, hydrologic, and institutional analysis of policy responses to mitigate drought impacts in Rio Grande Basin. ASCE J Plann Manage 132(6):488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Werick WJ, Whipple W (1994) Managing water for drought. Tech. Rep. IWR Report 94-NDS-8, US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilcox I, Quinlan C, Rogers C, Troughton M, McCallum I, Quenneville A, Heagy E, Dool D (1998) The Thames river watershed: a background study for nomination under the Canadian heritage rivers system. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Riggs Engineering Ltd.LondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations