Water Resources Management

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 1677–1708 | Cite as

Identification of Major Sources of Uncertainty in Current IWRM Practice. Illustrated for the Rhine Basin

  • P. van der Keur
  • H. J. Henriksen
  • J. C. Refsgaard
  • M. Brugnach
  • C. Pahl-Wostl
  • A. Dewulf
  • H. Buiteveld
Article

Abstract

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) can be viewed as a complex process in which the effect of adopted water management measures must be monitored and adjusted in an iterative way as new information and technology gradually become available under changing and uncertain external impacts, such as climate change. This paper identifies and characterises uncertainty as it occurs in the different stages of the IWRM process with respect to sources, nature and type of uncertainty. The present study develops a common terminology that honour the most important aspects from natural and social sciences and its application to the entire IWRM process. The proposed framework is useful by acknowledging a broad range of uncertainties regarding data, models, multiple frames and context. Relating this framework to the different steps of the IWRM cycle is helpful to determine the strategies to better handle and manage uncertainties. Finally, this general framework is illustrated for a case study in the transboundary Rhine river basin.

Keywords

Uncertainty Integrated Water Resources Management Adaptive Management Rhine basin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aerts JCJH, Droogers P (eds) (2004) Climate change in contrasting river basins. Adaptation strategies for water, food and eenvironment. Cabi Publishers, Wallingford, UK, p 260Google Scholar
  2. Bromley J (ed) (2005) Guidelines for the use of Bayesian networks as a participatory tool for Water Resources Management. A MERIT report. CEH, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Bromley J, Medema W (2005) Review of current IWRM practices in the Newater river basins. Report of the newater project. www.newater.info
  4. Bromley J, Medema W (2006) Needs of end-users for enhancement of existing tools. NeWater reportGoogle Scholar
  5. Bromley J, Jackson NA, Clymer OJ, Giacomello AM, Jensen FV (2005) The use of HUGIN to develop Baysian networks as an aid to integrated planning. Environ Model Softw 20:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwer R (2005) Uncertainties in the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive. Report number E05-03. July 14, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/IVMGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JD (2004) Knowledge, uncertainty and physical geography: towards the development of methodologies for questioning belief. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 29:367–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JD, Heuvelink GBM, Refsgaard JC (2005) An integrated framework for assessing and recording uncertainties about environmental data. Water Sci Technol 52(6):153–160Google Scholar
  9. Brugnach M, Pahl-Wostl C (2007) A broadened view on the role for models in natural resources management. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Kabat P, Möltgen J (eds) Adaptive and integrated water management. Coping with complexity and uncertainty. Springer-Verlag, Berlin ISBN 978–3–540–75940–9Google Scholar
  10. Brugnach M, Dewulf A, Pahl-Wostl C, Taillieu T (2007) Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: incorporating the human dimension. Paper presented at the International Conference in Adaptive and Integrated Water Management, 12–15 November 2007, BaselGoogle Scholar
  11. Buck W, Felkel K, Gerhard H, Kalweit H, Van Malde J, Nippes K-R, Ploeger B, Schmitz W (1993) Der Rhein unter der Einwirkung des Menschen-Ausbau, Schifffahrt, Wasserwirtschaft CHR report 1-11. Available from: www.chr-khr.org
  12. De Bruijn KM, Klijn F (2001) Resilient flood risk management strategies. In: Guifen L, Wenxue L (eds) Proceedings of the IAHR Congress, September 16–21 September Beiiing China. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing, pp 450–457Google Scholar
  13. DEP (2005) US’s total maximum daily load regulatory program. Available at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm
  14. Dewulf A, Craps M, Bouwen R, Pahl-Wostl C (2005) Integrated management of natural resources dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Sci Technol 52(6):115–124Google Scholar
  15. Easterling DR, Meehl GA, Parmesan C, Changnon SA, Karl TR, Mearns LO (2000) Science 22 289(5487):2068–2074Google Scholar
  16. Enserink B, Kamps D, Mostert E (2003) Public participation in river basin management in the Netherlands. (Not) Everybody’s concern. HarmoniCOP WP4 reportGoogle Scholar
  17. Frijters ID, Leentvaar J (2003). Rhine case study. UNESCO, IHP, WWAP. IHP-VI, Technical Documents in Hydrology. No. 17Google Scholar
  18. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 229Google Scholar
  19. GWP (2000) Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005. Why, What and How? TEC Background Papers No. 10. Global Water Partnership, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  20. Henriksen HJ, Rasmussen P, Brandt G, von Bülow D, Jensen FV (2006) Public participation modelling using Baysian Networks in management of groundwater contamination. Environmental Modelling & Software, 1-13Google Scholar
  21. Heuvelink GBM, Pebesma EJ (1999) Spatial aggregation and soil process modelling. Geoderma 89:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill T, Westbrook R (1997) SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recall. Long Range Plan 30(1):46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hooijer A (2004) Effecten van maatregelen in het stroomgebied van de Rijn. Report WL/Delft HydraulicsGoogle Scholar
  24. Jønch-Clausen T (2004) Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005. Why, What and How ? TEC Background Paper No 10. Global Water Partnership, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  25. Kallis G, Videira N, Antunes P, Santos R (2004) Integrated deliberative decision processes for water resources planning and evaluation. Guidance document. Advisor Project. Available from http://ecoman.dcea.fct.unl.pt/projects/advisor
  26. Krayer von Krauss M (2005) Uncertainty in policy relevant sciences. PhD thesis, Environment & Resources DTU. Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  27. Krupnick A, Morgenstern R, Batz M, Nelson P, Burtraw D, Shih JS, McWilliams M (2006) Not a sure thing: making regulatory choices under uncertainty. Resources for the future. Available at: http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-Rpt-RegulatoryChoices.pdf
  28. Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2006) Managing transitions for sustainable development. In: Olshoorn X, Wieczorek AJ (eds) Understanding industrial transformation: views from different disciplines. Springer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  29. Middelkoop H, Van Asselt MBA, Van Klooster SA, Van Deursen WPA, Kwadijk JCJ, Buiteveld H (2004) Perspectives on flood management in the Rhine and Meuse rivers. River Res Applic 20:327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan GM, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty – a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Newig J, Pahl-Wostl C, Sigel K (2005) The role of public participation in managing uncertainty in the implementation of the water framework directive. Eur Environ 15:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manag 21(1):49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raadgever GT (2005) Analysis of transboundary regimes – Case study basin the Rhine; Appendix to deliverable D.1.3.1 of the NeWater project, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  34. Raadgever GT, Mostert E (2005) Transboundary River Basin Management—state-of-the art review on transboundary regimes and information management in the context of adaptive management. Deliverable 1.3.1 of the NeWater project, RBA centre, TU-DelftGoogle Scholar
  35. Refsgaard JC, Nilsson B, Brown J, Klauer B, Moore R, Bech T, Vurro M, Blind M, Castilla G, Tsanis I, Biza P (2005) Harmonised techniques and representative river basin data for assessment and use of uncertainty information in integrated water management (HarmoniRiB). Environ Sci Policy 8:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Refsgaard JC, Van der Sluijs JP, Højberg AL, VanRolleghem P (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process—a framework and guidance. Environ Model Softw 22:1543–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tutein Nolthenius LA, Voorsluijs EG (2005) Experiences gained from interactive plan development. Proc. Int. Symp. on Flood DefenceGoogle Scholar
  38. UNESCO (2006) Water, a shared responsibility. The United Nations World Water Development Programme, Report 2Google Scholar
  39. Van Asselt MBA, Rotmans J (2002) Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling. From Positivism to Pluralism. Clim Change 54:75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Asselt MBA, Middelkoop H, Van Klooster SA, Van Deursen WPA, Haasnoot M, Kwadijk JCJ, Buiteveld H, Können GP, Rotmans J, Van Gemert N, Valkering P (2001) Development of flood management strategies for the Rhine and Meuse basins in the context of integrated water management. Report of the IRMA-SPONGE project. Maastricht/UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. Van de Langemheen W, Onvlee JRA, Konnen GP, Schellekens J (eds) (2002) Projectie van de Elbe zomer neerslag op de Rijn en Maas. Onderzoek naar aanleiding van recente overstromingen in midden Europa. WL/Delft Hydraulics report nr. Q3352Google Scholar
  42. Van der Brugge R, Rotmans J (2005) The transition in dutch water management. Regional Env Change 5(1)Google Scholar
  43. Van der Sluijs JP, Janssen PHM, Petersen AC, Kloprogge P, Risbey JS, Tuinstra W, Ravetz JR (2004) RIVM/MNP guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication tool catalogue for uncertainty. Utrecht University. Available from www.nusap.net
  44. Van Ierland EC, de Groot RS, Kuikman PJ, Martens P, Amelung B, Daan, N, Huynen M, Kramer K, Szönyi J, Veraart JA, Verhagen A, Van Vliet A, Van Walsum PEV, Westein E (2001) Integrated Assessment of Vulnerability to Climate Change and Adaptation Options in the Netherlands. NOP report 410 200 088Google Scholar
  45. Van Loon E, Refsgaard JC (eds) (2005) Guidelines for assessing data uncertainty in river basin management studies. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Copenhagen, p 182, http://www.harmonirib.com
  46. Van Walsum PEV, Runhaar J, Helming JFM (2005) Spatial planning for adapting to climate change. Water Science and Technology 51(5)Google Scholar
  47. Van Walsum PEV, Aerts J, Ottow B (2006) Integrated water resources management and spatial planning in the Rhine basin. Research action plan for Newater pilot study in the Kromme Rijn sub-basin (Work packages 1.4 ‘Integration of IWRM and spatial planning’ and 3.2 ‘Rhine Case’). Alterra, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  48. Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, Van der Sluijs JP, Van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty. A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model based decision support. Integrated Assessment 4(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weerts AH, Diermanse F, Reggiani P, Werner M, Van Dijk M, Schellekens J (2003) Assessing and quantifyng the combined effect of model parameter and boundary uncertainties in model based flood forecasting. EGS-AGU-EUG abstract # 14564, Nice, April 6–11Google Scholar
  50. Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. van der Keur
    • 1
  • H. J. Henriksen
    • 1
  • J. C. Refsgaard
    • 1
  • M. Brugnach
    • 2
  • C. Pahl-Wostl
    • 2
  • A. Dewulf
    • 3
  • H. Buiteveld
    • 4
  1. 1.Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)CopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of Osnabrück (USF)OsnabrückGermany
  3. 3.Public Administration and Policy GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Rijkswaterstaat Centre for Water ManagementLelystadThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations