Hydrogeology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 1923–1926 | Cite as

Interdisciplinary and participatory approaches: the key to effective groundwater management

  • Roland Barthel
  • Stephen Foster
  • Karen G. Villholth
Open Access
Essay

Abstract

The challenges of a changing world, which are progressively threatening sustainable use of groundwater resources, can only be rationally and effectively addressed through close collaboration between experts and practitioners from different disciplines. Furthermore, science and management need to build on stakeholder opinions and processes in order to generate useful knowledge and positive outcomes in terms of sustainable and equitable groundwater management. This essay provides a discussion of the status of and vision for participatory and inter-disciplinary approaches to groundwater evaluation and management as well as a conceptual framework and relevant research questions that will facilitate such approaches.

Keywords

Groundwater management Participatory approaches Interdisciplinary research Socio-economic aspects 

Approches interdisciplinaires et participatives: la clé d’une gestion efficace des eaux souterraines

Résumé

Les enjeux d’un monde en changement, qui mettent progressivement en péril l’utilization durable des ressources en eau souterraine, ne peuvent être abordés rationnellement et efficacement que par la collaboration étroite entre experts et praticiens de différentes disciplines. En outre, la science et la gestion doivent se construire sur les opinions des acteurs et les processus pour générer un savoir utile et des résultats positifs en termes de gestion durable et équitable des eaux souterraines. Cette étude fournit une discussion de l’état et de la vision des approches participatives et interdisciplinaires pour l’évaluation et la gestion des ressources en eau souterraine ainsi qu’un cadre conceptuel et des questions de recherche pertinentes qui faciliteront de telles approches.

Enfoques interdisciplinarios y participativos: la clave para una gestión eficaz del agua subterránea

Resumen

Los desafíos de un mundo cambiante, que amenaza progresivamente el uso sostenible de los recursos hídricos subterráneos, sólo pueden abordarse racional y eficazmente mediante una estrecha colaboración entre los expertos y profesionales de diferentes disciplinas. Además, la ciencia y la gestión deben basarse en las opiniones y los procesos de las partes interesadas para generar conocimientos útiles y resultados positivos en términos de gestión sostenible y equitativa del agua subterránea. Este ensayo ofrece una discusión sobre el estado y la visión de los enfoques participativos e interdisciplinarios para la evaluación y gestión del agua subterránea, así como un marco conceptual y preguntas de investigación pertinentes que facilitarán tales enfoques

跨学科和参与式方法:有效地下水管理的关键

摘要

不断变化的世界的挑战正在逐步威胁到地下水资源的可持续利用,只有通过不同学科的专家和实践者之间的密切合作才能合理有效地处理。此外,科学和管理需要利用利益攸关方的意见和进程,以便在可持续和公平的地下水管理方面产生有用的知识和积极成果。本文提供了对地下水评估和管理的参与式和跨学科方法的现状和愿景的讨论,以及将促进这种方法的概念框架和相关研究问题。

Abordagens inerdisciplinares ee participatórias: a chave para uma gestão eficaz das águas subterrâneas

Resumo

Os desafio de um mundo em mudanças, que estão progressivaente ameaçando o uso sustentável dos recursos hídricos subterrâneos, só podem ser acessados racional e efetivamente por meio de uma colaboração próxia entre experts e profissionais de diferentes disciplinas. Além disso, ciência e extensão precisam ser contruidas a partir das opções e processos das partes interessadas a fim de gerar um conhecimento útil e resultados positivos em termos de gestão sustentável e equitativa das águas subterrâneas. Esse ensaio apresenta uma discussão do status e da visão de abordagens participatórias e interdisciplinares para análise das águas subterrâneas e também de gestão como um arcabouço conceitual e questões científicas relevantes que facilitarão tais abordagens.

Scope of the essay

Groundwater is a vital source of water for human survival and livelihoods worldwide. Yet, it is confronted with huge challenges in terms of sustainable management, which will only grow as dependence on the resource and degradation impacts increase with global changes. There is a growing consensus that the challenges of the changing world—not only those related to global warming, but also land and water-use changes arising from social, political and demographic pressures—can only be rationally and effectively addressed through collaboration between experts and practitioners from different disciplines (Holm et al. 2013; Nature 2015). Furthermore, there is growing agreement that science needs to build on stakeholder opinions and processes in order to generate useful knowledge that may lead to positive outcomes in terms of sustainable and equitable groundwater management (Borowski and Hare 2007; Fritsch 2016; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Effective social organization is a prerequisite for the promotion of sound governance of groundwater resources (Garduño et al. 2010; Lopez-Gunn and Cortina 2006; Mukherji and Shah 2005; van Steenbergen 2006). This is because sustainable groundwater management requires both a sense of resource ownership and accountability, and close cooperation between diverse private stakeholders and the public administration. The concept of public participation in water resources management is included in key policy documents and regulatory initiatives such as the European Water Framework Directive (Quevauviller et al. 2005) and the US Clean Water Act (Carr et al. 2012; Mostert 2006). ‘Social participation’ is also an essential pillar of Integrated Water Resources Management (Foster and Ait-Kadi 2012). As a key challenge in the twenty-first century, integrated groundwater management efforts at various scales will significantly benefit from informed multidisciplinary approaches and local stakeholder involvement (Maheshwari et al. 2014; Villholth 2006). With this in mind, the authors convened a special session on Transdisciplinary and Participatory Approaches in Groundwater Research and Management at the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) 43rd Congress in Montpellier, France (September 2016).

Framing groundwater assessment and management processes

Groundwater management and assessment of the resource can take various forms depending on the context, in terms of drivers, stakeholders involved, prevailing environmental and political boundary conditions, aquifer systems in question, issues at hand, and previous experience. The type of management can logically be identified by who is initiating and supporting the process, and the level and scale of engagement. This could be the government, local stakeholders and groundwater users themselves, or some external organization, like a non-governmental organization (NGO), bilateral donors or research organizations (Kool and van Steenbergen 2017). While these types of approaches may not be exclusive, and ideally integration of them could enhance the overall outcome, this distinction forms a framework for description and analysis, and has implications for how such participatory processes may play out as indicated in the following.

Social science and participatory processes in groundwater management

It is necessary to explore how social science can be integrated into active groundwater management along with other key disciplines, like hydrogeology, economics and institutional law. With a view to attain broader water and environmental management goals, the interaction of hydrogeologic and social science will be critical in the discussion of: future resource scenarios, the identification of management targets, the evaluation of management interventions, the implementation of specific management measures, the monitoring of groundwater system response and the periodic review of progress and adaptation of agreed action plans. Unfortunately, there are indications that in particular the scientific groundwater community has not yet responded sufficiently to the challenge of integrating social science into the assessment and management of groundwater resources (Barthel and Seidl 2017; Seidl and Barthel 2017).

Addressing the challenges of groundwater management through hydrogeological as well as social characterization need to include: (1) the classification and understanding of groundwater use, users and potential polluters, (2) the mapping of stakeholder influences and interests, (3) the assessment of pre-conditions and previous experiences with management of natural resources, and in particular groundwater resources and associated infrastructure (e.g. for domestic water supply or irrigation systems), and (4) the evolution of practical methods of social engagement, including systematic tools and metrics for socio-economic surveys.

This characterization should lead in turn to the identification of hydrogeologic and socioeconomic typologies, as well as feasible arrangements and necessary external support for participation, which are well suited to match the requirements of different contexts (Shah 2012). This should form the foundation, on which management interventions are developed through a more top-down approach, but also serve to strengthen already ongoing, more spontaneous, local participatory processes.

It will be important to differentiate clearly between two essentially distinct situations:
  • Groundwater systems that are already subject to significant physical depletion and/or quality degradation, where there is an urgent need to support stakeholders around the agreement and implementation of a ‘sustainability intervention plan’, which will involve significant modification to existing groundwater withdrawals and land use in the longer term common interests of the entire community

  • Groundwater systems that are only subject to light anthropogenic stress, where the need will be to find social mechanisms to define and adopt ‘managed development plans’

The latter situation should in general be socially easier to tackle than the former in the sense that yet no vested interests have become established. On the other hand, dealing with a crisis may, as in the first situation, be a strong trigger for creating incentives for collaboration around shared issues.

In both cases, it should be accepted that supporting a constructive social dialogue around groundwater management will gain from experienced, yet sensitive and adaptive, facilitation skills, either from external sources or from local champions. A clear focus on a specific key objective (like preventing the pollution of a drinking-water supply, halting a falling water table, protecting an ecosystem and its services, or developing a new groundwater-dependent economic activity) will help to obtain the required level of social commitment. Throughout the social dialogue and support to action on groundwater management, it is important to attract the attention of the holders of political power at various levels, and incorporate and align wider political key decision processes with local initiatives.

Enabling institutional framework for participatory groundwater management

Supporting the creation of recognized coherent social institutions, whether formal or informal, is a cornerstone, which facilitates effective decision-making and constructive conflict-resolution. Creation of the type of stakeholder platform needed for participatory groundwater management will require:
  • Sustained funding from public sources, groundwater abstraction charges or external sources

  • Functioning, or at least supportive, legal authority within the provincial and national institutional framework for water resources management

  • Securing and sustaining political interest and support

  • Seeking active engagement and representation of all relevant stakeholders, including representatives of ‘vulnerable groups’ and of ‘environmental interests’ in decision making, and not isolating local stakeholders from higher-level governance

  • Institutionalized, structured and transparent processes to facilitate evidence development, dialogue and decision making on key issues and potential conflicts

  • Continuously building stakeholder knowledge and capacity for proactive participation in groundwater management, so as to create public ownership of the shared resource and compliance with agreed rules and regulations

Pilot experiences in the promotion of institutions for sustainable groundwater management on a quite widespread geographical basis confirm that some appropriate form of ‘stakeholder participation’ is an essential prerequisite for successful management interventions, but that management by stakeholder initiative alone is only occasionally sustainable under a combination of exceptional conditions. For example, where a small clearly defined aquifer system is being exploited by a socially homogenous group of users, and supported by local entrepreneurs or champions, it may be feasible (Maheshwari et al. 2014), but even then it will need to be nurtured by technical and logistic support from higher levels. In more extensive aquifer systems with major storage reserves experiencing competitive stress from large-scale withdrawals for urban utility and/or industrial water-supply and for irrigated agriculture, there is a greater need for a government agency to take the initiative on regulating groundwater use and potentially contaminating discharges, after reaching agreement on the social need for such an action plan from the bulk of stakeholders in the balance of community interests.

Lessons learned and recommendations for the scientific community

This essay does not necessarily represent all the results and opinions presented in the Montpellier Congress session. However, some important observations on the state-of-art of participatory and inter-disciplinary approaches in groundwater management could be made:
  • The concept of ‘participation’ has a wide range of facets, and scientific contributions range from case studies reporting on an actual participatory process to more generic considerations of communication and knowledge transfer, or suggestions for a complete framework for participatory approaches

  • The uniqueness of the experiences presented was striking—no two case studies used the same strategy, with major differences depending on environmental problems addressed, scale of issue (from village to national level), and level of capacity and experience with proactive management of groundwater.

It is concluded that social participation in groundwater management remains a challenge, and documented coordinated efforts are required for guidance (Kool and van Steenbergen 2017). Participatory groundwater management needs to be merged as part of a coordinated bottom-up and top-down approach. It is important to understand the drivers and stakeholders for these types of processes, and to evaluate how they actually perform. Local management sometimes develops in response to poor formal management arrangements, as a coping mechanism and outside recognized institutional structures (van Steenbergen and Shah 2003). It is important to reconcile such processes and make them mutually re-enforcing, rather than antagonistic.

Significant boundary conditions and challenges to sustainable groundwater management such as links to land tenure, energy policies, and lack of delegated authority, finances and capacity to the local level, all impede or influence the scope for participatory groundwater management. Also, when facilitated by external parties, careful consideration needs to be given to long-term sustainability of participatory processes (Verma et al. 2012). It is also important to distinguish between different stages and contexts of development.

The Montpellier discussions revealed that there is no one model for inter-disciplinary and participatory research that fits all challenges to sustainable and equitable groundwater management, and despite an ever-growing number of pilots (successful or otherwise), it is unlikely to be able to distil or prescribe a standard ‘best practice’ recipe. The role of groundwater scientists ranges from pure observation to genuine partaking. Concomitantly, the existing group of scientists analysing the findings is relatively small and somewhat disconnected (Barthel et al. 2016). Despite a growing number of useful guidelines on participatory integrated modelling (e.g. Seidl 2015; Voinov and Bousquet 2010, Voinov and Gaddis 2008), there is a tendency to develop increasingly specialized tools, which may be difficult to take up among stakeholders.

The scientific groundwater community should become involved in exploring participation in a more systematic manner, to support those concerned with questions of practical management as well as policy making with robust guidelines on successful social participation, supporting coherent and sustainable groundwater management.

The following research questions need to be evaluated systematically and in well-defined contexts:
  • Who should push for (stronger) participation and how does this affect the outcome, sustainability and integrated benefits of the process?

  • Which types of external involvement (information, facilitation, financing, etc.) are most successful in which context?

  • Who should assume which role in the process; what are the incentives to assume various roles, and how can roles be adjusted to meet the goals of the process?

  • What is the most feasible way to communicate and integrate uncertainties within highly complex systems and anticipated long-term impacts of management actions into decision-making?

  • Which approaches have been successful in given hydrogeological and societal contexts, and what aspects are universal and can be transferred and up-scaled?

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their thanks to the following who presented their work-in-progress on this subject to the IAH 43rd Congress: Richard Taylor (UK), John Thompson (UK), Rene Lefebvre (Canada), Sean Burke (UK), Viviana Re (Italy) and Peter Penning (The Netherlands), and to Patrick Lachassagne (France) for facilitating the successful programming of the corresponding sessions, and to the large audience who enlivened the debate.

References

  1. Barthel R, Seidl R (2017) Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences: status and trends exemplified in groundwater research. PLoS One 12:e0170754. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthel R, Seidl R, Nickel D, Buttner H (2016) Global change impacts on the upper Danube catchment (Central Europe): a study of participatory modeling. Reg Environ Chang 16:1595–1611. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0895-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borowski I, Hare M (2007) Exploring the gap between water managers and researchers: difficulties of model-based tools to support practical water management. Water Resour Manag 21:1049–1074. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9098-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr G, Bloschl G, Loucks DP (2012) Evaluating participation in water resource management: a review. Water Resour Res 48:W11401. doi:10.1029/2011wr011662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foster S, Ait-Kadi M (2012) Integrated water resources management (IWRM): how does groundwater fit in? Hydrogeol J 20:415–418. doi:10.1007/s10040-012-0831-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fritsch O (2016) Integrated and adaptive water resources management: exploring public participation in the UK. Reg Environ Chang 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-0973-8
  7. Garduño H, van Steenbergen F, Foster S (2010) Stakeholder participation in groundwater management enabling and nurturing engagement. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Holm P, Goodsite ME, Cloetingh S, Agnoletti M, Moldan B, Lang DJ, Leemans R, Moeller JO, Buendia MP, Pohl W, Scholz RW, Sors A, Vanheusden B, Yusoff K, Zondervan R (2013) Collaboration between the natural, social and human sciences in global change research. Environ Sci Pol 28:25–35. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kool M, van Steenbergen F (2017) Local groundwater management: update on global experiences. Groundwater Mag 4:34Google Scholar
  10. Lopez-Gunn E, Cortina LM (2006) Is self-regulation a myth? Case study on Spanish groundwater user associations and the role of higher-level authorities. Hydrogeol J 14:361–379. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0014- CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maheshwari B, Varua M, Ward J, Packham R, Chinnasamy P, Dashora Y, Dave S, Soni P, Dillon P, Purohit R, Hakimuddin, Shah T, Oza S, Singh P, Prathapar S, Patel A, Jadeja Y, Thaker B, Kookana R, Grewal H, Yadav K, Mittal H, Chew M, Rao P (2014) The role of transdisciplinary approach and community participation in village scale groundwater management: insights from Gujarat and Rajasthan, India. Water 6:3386–3408. doi:10.3390/w6113386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mostert E (2006) Participation for sustainable water management. In: Giupponi C, Jakeman AJ, Karssenberg D, Hare M (eds) Sustainable management of water resources: an integrated approach. The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Series on Economics, the Environment and Sustainable Development. Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 153–176Google Scholar
  13. Mukherji A, Shah T (2005) Groundwater socio-ecology and governance: a review of institutions and policies in selected countries. Hydrogeol J 13:328–345. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0434-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nature (2015) Why interdisciplinary research matters (news feature). Nature 525:305. doi:10.1038/525305a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pahl-Wostl C, Craps M, Dewulf A, Mostert E, Tabara D, Taillieu T (2007) Social learning and water resources management. Ecol Soc 12Google Scholar
  16. Quevauviller P, Balabanis P, Fragakis C, Weydert M, Oliver M, Kaschl A, Arnold G, Kroll A, Galbiati L, Zaldivar JM, Bidoglio G (2005) Science-policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environ Sci Pol 8:203–211. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seidl R (2015) A functional-dynamic reflection on participatory processes in modeling projects. Ambio 44(8):750–765. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0670-8
  18. Seidl R, Barthel R (2017) Linking scientific disciplines: hydrology and social sciences. J Hydrol. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.008
  19. Shah T (2012) Community response to aquifer development: distinct patterns in India’s alluvial and hard rock aquifer areas. Irrig Drain 61:14–25. doi:10.1002/ird.1656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Steenbergen F (2006) Promoting local management in groundwater. Hydrogeol J 14:380–391. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0015-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Steenbergen F, Shah T (2003) Rules rather than rights: self-regulation in intensively used groundwater systems. In: Llamas R, Custodio E (eds) Intensive use of groundwater: challenges and opportunities. Balkema, Lisse, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Verma S, Krishnan S, Reddy VA, Reddy KR (2012) Andhra Pradesh farmer managed groundwater systems (APFAMGS): a reality check. IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program. Water Policy Research Highlight 37, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanke, 11 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Villholth KG (2006) Groundwater assessment and management: implications and opportunities of globalization. Hydrogeol J 14:330–339. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0476-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25:1268–1281. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Voinov A, Gaddis EJB (2008) Lessons for successful participatory watershed modeling: a perspective from modeling practitioners. Ecol Model 216:197–207. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Barthel
    • 1
  • Stephen Foster
    • 2
  • Karen G. Villholth
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.OxfordUK
  3. 3.International Water Management Institute (IWMI)PretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations