Résumé
L’incidence d’échelle est examinée dans le contexte d’une police de développement de bassin versant (WSD) conformément à la politique WSD en Inde, qui, en améliorant la ressource naturelle de base, vise à améliorer les revenus des communautés rurales par une production durable. Ceci a généralement été pratiqué à une très petite échelle de moins de 500 ha, car on considérait que cette échelle encouragerait une gestion participative. Il y a eu quelque inquiétude, cette surface de terrain pouvant être trop petite et conduire à des résultats hydrogéologiques, économiques et à des revenus inférieurs à l’optimum. Comme résultat, une évolution pour créer des lignes directrices correspondant à des WSD d’échelle moyenne supérieure à 5,000 ha dans une tentative d’amélioration des résultats. Une équipe pluridisciplinaire a été constituée pour évaluer l’approche à échelle moyenne. En développant une méthodologie adaptée à l’évaluation, il est bientôt clairement apparu que l’échelle par elle même n’était pas le seul facteur déterminant de succès. L’effet d’échelle géographique (ou l’échelon) sur le WSD est déterminée par la variation d’autres facteurs qui vont influencer le WSD, telles les conditions hydrogéologiques, l’occupation du terrain et le cadre institutionnel en vigueur. Comment ceci devrait être interprété à différents niveaux à la lumière des interactions entre des échelles biophysiques et socio-économiques est discuté.
Resumen
Se examina el tema de la escala en el contexto de una política de desarrollo de cuencas hidrográficas (WSD) en India. Las metas de la política de WSD, para el mejoramiento de la base de los recursos naturales, apuntan a mejorar los medios de subsistencia de las comunidades rurales a través de un incremento sustentable de la producción. Esto generalmente se ha practicado en un micro nivel de menos que 500 ha, porque que esta era una escala que podría alentar la gestión participativa. Ha existido cierta preocupación que esta superficie de terreno fuera demasiado pequeña y que pudiera conducir a resultados hidrológicos, económicos y de equidad menos que óptimos. Como resultado se produjo un movimiento para crear directrices para la meso-escala de WSD de más de 5,000 ha en un esfuerzo por mejorar los resultados. Un equipo multidisciplinario se reunió para evaluar este enfoque de propuesta a meso-escala. Al desarrollar una metodología adecuada para la evaluación pronto se hizo evidente que la escala en sí mismo no era el único factor determinante del éxito. El efecto de la escala geográfica (o nivel) sobre WSD está determinado por la variación de otros forzantes que influencian en el éxito del WSD, tales como las condiciones hidrológicas, el uso de la tierra y las estructuras institucionales disponibles. Se discute como esto podría ser interpretado en diferentes niveles a la luz de las interacciones entre las escalas biofísicos y socioeconómicos.
摘要
规模问题包括在印度流域发展政策(WSD)的内容中。通过提高自然资源的基数,WSD政策的目标旨在靠增加的可持续开采来提高农村社区的生活。在不到500公顷的微级水平已经普遍实践了,这被认为是鼓励参与管理的规模。其它方面,考虑到土地面积太小可能会导致小于最理想的水文,经济和公平产出。本次结果将推动建立,在尽量提高产出的条件下,大约5000公顷的中尺度WSD的准则。召集多学科的团队评估拟议中尺度方法。开发适当的方法计算就会很快清楚自身的规模并不是成功的唯一决定因素。WSD的地理尺度的作用由其它因素的变量决定,其也将影响WSD的成功,例如水文条件,土地利用和现有的体制结构。在不同水平下,鉴于生物物理学和社会经济学规模之间的相互作用,讨论上述应该如何解释。
Resumo
A questão da escala de análise das bacias hidrográficas é examinada no contexto do desenvolvimento de uma política de gestão de bacias hidrográficas (watershed development – WSD) na Índia. Os objectivos da política de WSD são o melhoramento das formas de vida das comunidades rurais, através da valorização dos recursos naturais de base e do aumento sustentável da produção. Esta política tem sido geralmente aplicada a uma micro-escala de menos de 500 ha, uma vez que se constatava que esta escala encorajava a gestão participativa. No entanto, existe uma preocupação crescente de que esta escala seja demasiado pequena, podendo mesmo conduzir a resultados não optimizados do ponto de vista hidrológico, económico e da igualdade. Nesse sentido, e com o objectivo de melhorar os resultados obtidos, tem surgido uma nova tendência para que sejam criadas recomendações para a utilização de meso-escalas de WSD superiores a 5,000 ha. Neste contexto, foi criada uma equipa multidisciplinar para avaliar esta nova proposta de metodologia que, no entanto, rapidamente concluiu que a escala não era o único factor determinante do sucesso da metodologia. O efeito da escala geográfica (ou nível) na WSD é determinado pela variação de outras variáveis que determinam o seu sucesso, nomeadamente as condições hidrológicas, o uso do solo e as estruturas institucionais disponíveis. Neste artigo é discutido como é que estas variáveis podem ser interpretadas a diferentes níveis e à luz das interacções entre as escalas biofísicas e socioeconómicas.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References
Bardossy A (2007) Calibrating hydrological models for ungauged catchments. Hydrol Earth Syst 11(2):703–710
Batchelor CAK, Singh CH, Rama Mohan Rao C, Butterworth C (2003) Watershed development: a solution to water shortages or part of the problem? Land Use Water Resour Res 3:1–10
Bergstrom S, Graham LP (1998) On the scale problem in hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 211(253):265
Biggs TW, Gaur A, Scott CA et al (2007) Closing of the Krishna Basin: irrigation, streamflow depletion and macroscale hydrology. IWMI research report 111, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, 4 pp
Birner R, Wittmer H (2004) On the ‘efficient boundaries of the state’: the contribution of transaction-costs economics to the analysis of decentralisation and devolution in natural resource management. Environ Plan C: Gov Pol 22:667–685
Brown JC, Purcell M (2005) There’s nothing inherent about scale: political ecology, the local trap and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum 36:607–624
Calder IA (2005) Blue revolution, integrated land and water resource management, 2nd edn. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA
Calder IA, Gosain MS, Rama Mohan Rao C et al (2008a) Planning rainwater harvesting in India: 1, biophysical and societal impacts. Environ Dev Sustain 10:537–557
Calder IA, Gosain MS, Rama Mohan Rao C et al (2008b) Watershed development in India. 2. New approaches for managing externalities and meeting sustainability requirements. Environ Dev Sustain 10:427–440
Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes P, Garden L et al (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(4):8
De Groot WT, Tadepally H (2008) Community action for environmental restoration: a case study on collective social capital in India. Environ Dev Sustain 10:519–536
Dore J, Lebel L (2010) Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance. Environ Manage 46:60–80
Ebrahim A (2004) Institutional preconditions to collaboration: Indian forests and irrigation policy in historical perspective. Adm Soc 36:208–242
Enters T (1997) The token line: adoption and non-adoption of soil conservation practices in the highlands of northern Thailand. In: Sombatpanit S, Zobbisch M, Sanders DW, Cook MG (eds) Soil conservation extension: from concepts to adoption. Science Publisher, Enfield, NH
Farrington J, Turton C, James AJ (1999) Participatory watershed development: challenges for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, New Delhi
Folke C, Pitchard L, Berkes F et al (2007) The problem of goodness of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol Soc 12(1):30
Gibson C, Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32:217–239
Government of India (2008) Common guidelines for watershed development projects. http://www.eSocialSciences.com/data/articles/Document1812200890.6061823.pdf. Cited 10 March 2011
Huchtemann DH, Frondel M (2010) Increasing the efficiency of transboundary water management: a regionalization approach. JWARP 2:501–506
Kerr J, Milne G, Chhotray V et al (2007) Managing watershed externalities in India: theory and practice. Environ Dev Sustain 9(3):263–281
Klemes V (1983) Conceptualization and scale in hydrology. J Hydrol 65:1–23
Landell-Mills N, Porras IT (2002) Silver bullet or Fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. A component of the International Collaborative Research Project steered by IIED, London
Lee KN (1993) Greed, scale mismatch and learning. Ecol Appl 3:560–564
Lutz E, Pagiola S, Reiche C (1994) The costs and benefits of soil conservation: the farmers’ viewpoint. World Bank Res Obs 9:273–295
Merz R, Parajka J, Bioschl G (2009) Scale effects in conceptual hydrology. Water Res Res 45:W09 405
Oates WE (1972) An essay on fiscal federalism. J Econ Lit 37:1120–1149
Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V, Hahn T, Schulz L (2007) Enhancing the fir through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vatten Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecol Soc 12(1):28
Ostrom E (1999) Coping with tragedies of the commons. Ann Rev Pol Sci 2:493–535
Pagiola S (1999) Economic analysis of incentives for soil conservation. In: Sanders DW, Huszar PC, Sombatpanit S, Enters T (eds) Incentives in soil conservation: from theory to practice. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, pp 41–56
Pagiola S (2002) Paying for water services in Central America: learning from Costa Rica. In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) Selling forest environmental services: market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, London
Pagiola S, Platais G (2007) Payments for environmental services: from theory to practice. World Bank, Washington, DC
Reddy VR, Reddy MG, Galab S, Soussan J, Springate-Briganski O (2004) Participatory watershed development in India: can it sustain rural livelihoods? Dev Chang 35:297–326
Reddy VR, Reddy GM, Soussan J (2010) Political economy of watershed management: policies, institutions, implementation and livelihoods. Rawat, Jaipur, India
Savenije HHG (2009) The art of hydrology. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:157–161
Scoones I (1999) New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement? Ann Rev Sociol 28:479–5007
Sivapalan M, Grayson R, Woods R (2004) Scale and scaling in hydrology. Hydrol Proc 18:1369–1371
Skogen K (2003) Adapting adaptive management to a cultural understanding of land use conflicts. Soc Nat Res 16:435–450
Viney NR, Sivapalan M (2004) A framework for scaling of hydrological conceptualizations based on a disaggregation-aggregation approach. Hydro Proc 18:1395–1408
Vreudenhil H, Slinger J, Kater E, Thissen W (2010) The influence of scale preferences on the design of a water innovation: the case in Dutch river management. Environ Manage 46:29–43
White TA, Runge CF (1995) The emergence and evolution of collective action: lessons from watershed management in Haiti. World Dev 23(10):1683–1698
World Bank (2007) Watershed management approaches, policies and operations: lessons for scaling-up (draft report). Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, DC
Young O (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial and intellectual support of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Syme, G.J., Reddy, V.R., Pavelic, P. et al. Confronting scale in watershed development in India. Hydrogeol J 20, 985–993 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0824-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0824-0
Keywords
- Watershed
- Scale
- Groundwater/surface-water relations
- Socio-economic aspects
- India