Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 199–213 | Cite as

Towards decision support-based integrated management planning of papyrus wetlands: a case study from Uganda

  • I. ZsuffaEmail author
  • A. A. van Dam
  • R. C. Kaggwa
  • S. Namaalwa
  • M. Mahieu
  • J. Cools
  • R. Johnston
Original Paper

Abstract

Management and decision making for wetlands need an integrated approach, in which all ecosystem services are identified, their importance are assessed and objectives are formulated about their desired outputs. This approach has been applied successfully in European wetlands with sufficient scientific data. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the application of this approach in the context of a data-poor, multi-use African wetland. The Namatala wetland in Uganda, a wetland under intense pressure from wastewater discharge, conversion to agriculture and vegetation harvesting, was used as a case study. After characterisation of the wetland ecosystem and stakeholder analysis, three management options, subdivided into 13 sub-options, were identified for the wetland. These options were combined into six management solutions. A set of 15 indicators, subdivided into five categories (livelihood; human health; ecology; costs; risk of failure), were identified to assess the performance of these management solutions. Stakeholders’ preferences were taken into consideration by means of weights attached to the indicators, and a best-compromise solution was derived which consisted of a combination of sustainable agriculture in the upper Namatala wetland, papyrus buffer strips along the Namatala river channel, sustainable land use (vegetation harvesting, fishing) in lower Namatala wetland, and papyrus buffer zones at the waste-water discharge points. Despite differences of opinion among stakeholder groups about the relative importance of the indicators, the same compromise solution resulted for all stakeholders. It was concluded that this systematic approach and the stakeholder dialogue about the management options were beneficial to the management process, although the approach would benefit from more and better data about the wetland system and from model-derived predictions.

Keywords

Decision support Integrated wetland management Namatala wetland Papyrus Sustainable use WETwin project 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was part of the EU-FP7 WETwin project (http://www.wetwin.eu). The assistance of Uganda’s Wetlands Management Department and National Water and Sewerage Corporation in data collection and establishing contacts with stakeholders are gratefully acknowledged. We also thank all stakeholders and Namatala wetland communities for participating in field work and meetings.

Supplementary material

11273_2013_9329_MOESM1_ESM.tif (109 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 108 kb)

References

  1. Brouwer R, Georgiou S, Turner RK (2003) Integrated assessment and sustainable water and wetland management. A review of concepts and methods. Integr Assess 4:172–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:1305–1312PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Confalonieri R, Bocchi S (2005) Evaluation of CropSyst for simulating the yield of flooded rice in northern Italy. Eur J Agron 23:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Groot R, Stuip M, Finlayson M, Davidson N (2006) Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services. Ramsar Technical Report No. 3, CBD Technical Series No. 27. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. de Groot R, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edyegu D (2010) Floods retarding border demarcation. The new vision. http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/615830-floods-retarding-border-demarcation.html. Accessed 4 July 2010
  7. EEA (2005) European environmental outlook. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  8. Gamboa G (2006) Social multi-criteria evaluation of different development scenarios of the Aysén region, Chile. Ecol Econ 59:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giupponi C (2007) Decision support systems for implementing the European water framework directive: the MULINO approach. Environ Model Softw 22(2):248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartter J, Ryan SJ (2010) Top-down or bottom-up? Decentralization, natural resource management, and usufruct rights in the forests and wetlands of western Uganda. Land Use Policy 27:815–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hein T, Blaschke AP, Haidvogl G, Hohensinner S, Kucera-Hirzinger V, Preiner S, Reiter K, Schuh B, Weigelhofer G, Zsuffa I (2006) Optimized management strategies for the biosphere reserve Lobau, Austria-based on a multi criteria decision support system. Int J Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 6:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hes EMA, Niu R, van Dam AA (2011) A simulation model for nitrogen and carbon cycling in natural rooted papyrus wetlands in East Africa. Paper presented at the joint meeting of society of wetland scientists, WETPOL and wetland biogeochemistry symposium, Prague, 3–7 July 2011. Book of abstracts. Available at http://www.sws2011.com
  13. Hirabayashi Y, Kanae S, Motoya K, Masuda K, Döll P (2008) A 59-year (1948–2006) global near-surface meteorological data set for land surface models. Part I: development of daily forcing and assessment of precipitation intensity. Hydrol Res Lett 2:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston R, Cools J, Liersch S, Morardet S, Murgue C, Mahieu M, Zsuffa I, Uyttendaele GP (2013) WETwin: a structured approach to evaluating wetland management options in data-poor contexts. Environmental Science & Policy. Special Issue: Management of wetlands in river basins: the WETwin projectGoogle Scholar
  15. Kansiime F, Nalubega M (1999) Wastewater treatment by a natural wetland: the Nakivubo swamp, Uganda. Processes and implications. PhD Thesis, A. A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Kipkemboi J, van Dam AA, Ikiara MM, Denny P (2007) Integration of smallholder wetland aquaculture–agriculture systems (Fingerponds) into riparian farming systems at the shores of Lake Victoria, Kenya: socio-economics and livelihoods. Geogr J 173:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotze D, Marneweck G, Batchelor A, Lindley D, Collins N (2008) WET-EcoServices: a technique for rapidly assessing ecosystem services supplied by wetlands. WRC Report TT339/08. Water Research Commission, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  18. Liersch S, Cools J, Kone B, Koch H, Diallo M, Aich V, Fournet S, Hattermann FF (2013) Vulnerability of food production in the Inner Niger Delta to water resources management under climate variability and change. Environmental Science & Policy. Special Issue: Management of wetlands in river basins: the WETwin projectGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin YF, Jinga SR, Lee DY, Wang TW (2002) Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater using a constructed wetlands system. Aquaculture 209:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macfarlane D, Kotze D, Ellery W, Walters D, Koopman V, Goodman P, Goge C (2008) WET-health: a technique for rapidly assessing wetland health. WRC Report TT 340/08. Water Research Commission, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Maltby E, Acreman MC (2011) Ecosystem services of wetlands: pathfinder for a new paradigm. Hydrol Sci J 56:1341–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MEA (2005) Ecosystem and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, World Resources Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. MWLE (2004) Nabajjuzi community based wetland management plan (2004–2008). Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Kampala, UgandaGoogle Scholar
  24. Namaalwa S, van Dam AA, Funk A, Ajie GS, Kaggwa RC (2013) A characterization of the drivers, pressures, ecosystem functions and services of Namatala wetland, Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy. Special Issue: Management of wetlands in river basins: the WETwin projectGoogle Scholar
  25. Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) Framing environmental indicators: moving from causal chains to causal networks. Environ Dev Sustain 10:89–106. doi: 10.1007/s10668-006-9040-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paneque Salgado P, Corral Quintana S, Guimares Pereira Ã, del Moral Ituarte L, Pedregal Mateos B (2009) Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Malaga). Ecol Econ 68:990–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pemberton CA, Mader-Charles K (2005) Ecotourism as a means of conserving wetlands. J Agric Appl Econ 37:463–474Google Scholar
  28. Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2010a) Managing wetlands: frameworks for managing wetlands of international importance and other wetland sites. In: Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edn, vol 18. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2010b) Wise use of wetlands: concepts and approaches for the wise use of wetlands. In: Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edn, vol 1. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  30. Rebelo LM, McCartney MP, Finlayson CM (2010) Wetlands of sub-Saharan Africa: distribution and contribution of agriculture to livelihoods. Wetl Ecol Manag 18:557–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rebelo LM, Johnston R, Hein T, Weigelhofer G, DHaeyer T, Kone B, Cools J (2013) Challenges to the integration of wetlands into IWRM: the case of the Inner Niger Delta (Mali) and the Lobau Floodplain (Austria). Environmental Science & Policy. Special Issue: Management of wetlands in river basins: the WETwin projectGoogle Scholar
  32. Rongoei PJK, Kipkemboi J, Okeyo-Owuor JB, van Dam AA (2013) Ecosystem services and drivers of change in Nyando floodplain wetland, Kenya. Afr J Environ Sci Tech 7:274–291Google Scholar
  33. SCBD (2007) An exploration of tools and methodologies for valuation of biodiversity and biodiversity resources and functions. Note by the Executive Secretary, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Technical Series UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/INF/8Google Scholar
  34. Scholz M, Harrington R, Carroll P, Mustafa A (2007) The integrated constructed wetlands (ICW) concept. Wetlands 27:337–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stöckle CO, Donatelli M, Nelson R (2003) CropSyst, a cropping systems simulation model. Eur J Agron 18:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional policy makers. TEEB project documentGoogle Scholar
  37. Thenya T, Wassmann R, Verchot L, Mungai D, Odada EO, Olago DO, Ochola W, Ntiba M, Wandiga S, Gichuki N, Oyieke H (2006) Degradation of the riparian wetlands in the Lake Victoria basin—Yala swamp case study. In: Proceedings of the 11th world lakes conference, vol 2, pp 483–494Google Scholar
  38. Wood A, Dixon A, McCartney M (eds) (2013) Wetland management and sustainable livelihoods in Africa. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Zsuffa I, Cools J (2011) Drivers–States–Impacts–Responses. DSIR analyses at the study sites. WETwin project report. Available at http://www.wetwin.eu/downloads.html
  40. Zsuffa I, Johnston R, Cools J, D’Haeyer T (2012) Final publishable summary report of the WETwin project. European Commission, Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS), http://www.cordis.europa.eu/result/report/rcn/56368_en.html

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Zsuffa
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. A. van Dam
    • 2
  • R. C. Kaggwa
    • 3
  • S. Namaalwa
    • 3
  • M. Mahieu
    • 4
  • J. Cools
    • 5
  • R. Johnston
    • 6
  1. 1.VITUKI Hungary Plc.BudapestHungary
  2. 2.UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water EducationDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.National Water and Sewerage CorporationKampalaUganda
  4. 4.Soil en Water DepartmentBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Milieu Ltd—Law & Policy ConsultingBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.International Water Management InstituteBattaramullaSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations