The adaptive integrated data information system (AIDIS) for global water research

Chapter

Abstract

Global research programs related to river basin water resources have at least two things in common: (1) they assess and model hydrological process dynamics on a macro scale and (2) research partners jointly working on such research issues are internationally distributed in different institutions. These prerequisites require a sophisticated and scale bridging data assessment and information management comprising geo-referenced distributed data components, measured or simulated time series, and socio-economic information. Networking such international research structures by means of the internet pose new challenges to Geoinformatics in respect to the design of a Web based distributed database system, metadata and GIS-information management, geo-referenced data query and visualization. Such data management must include powerful and efficient data exchanging software tools and information sharing policies to ensure that decision making can jointly be done on the base of the best information available. Geoinformation includes raster and vector GIS coverages, measured process time series data and associated metadata. Furthermore there are needs to integrate multidisciplinary information and research knowledge related to IWRM comprising information obtained by remote sensing, GIS analysis, modeling, and socio-economic assessments for vulnerability and mitigation. Addressing these challenges and to cope with such data organization and management tasks the Adaptive Integrated Data Information System (AIDIS) has been developed by the DGHM at the FSU-Jena. It is based on open source software (OSS) and a multi tier class hierarchy structure. AIDIS has implemented the full ISO 19115 metadata model, and enhances its structure if required e.g. for time series or documents. A first prototype was developed for the Challenge Program “Water and Food” (CPWF) of the CGIAR and has been improved and refined for the Tisza River basin within the “Tisza River” EU-project comprising at present about one hundred GIS maps and more than 5000 measured and simulated time series.

Keywords

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) Adaptive data information system (AIDIS) Object-relational data model Geo-spatial data management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcamo J, Henrichs T (2002) Critical regions: A model-based estimation of world water resources sensitive to global changes. Aquat Sci 64:352–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANZLIC, Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (2000) Discussion and background papers. In: Proceedings of the ANZLIC clearinghouse workshop, 3–4 May, Adelaide, Australia, 2000Google Scholar
  3. Bartel A (2000) Analysis of landscape pattern: towards a ‘top down’ indicator for evaluation of landuse. Ecol Modell 130(1–3):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bongartz K (2003) Applying different spatial distribution and modeling concepts in three nested meso-scale catchments of Germany. Phys Chem Earth 28:1343–1349Google Scholar
  5. Constanza et al. (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387Google Scholar
  6. David O, Busch C, Küspert K, Flügel W-A (1997) Objektorientierte Datenbanken in der Hydrologie: Anwendungsbeispiel OMS. — In: Geiger W, Jaeschke A, Rentz O, Simon E, Spengler Th, Zillox L, Zundel T. (eds) Umweltinformatik’97, 11. Intern. Sympos. der Ges. für Informatik, GI, Bd. 1, Vol. 1:225–234Google Scholar
  7. EPA, Environment Protection Agency (2004) Index of Watershed Indicators: An Overview. — http://www.epa.gov/iwi/iwi-overview.pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. FGDC, Federal Geographic Data Committee (1997) Framework, introduction and guide. Book of federal geographic data committee, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer G, Shah M, van Velthuizen H (2002) Climate Change and Vulnerability. IIASA 152 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Flügel W-A (1996) Hydrological Response Units (HRUs) as modeling entities for hydrological river basin simulation and their methodological potential for modeling complex environmental process systems. DIE ERDE 127:42–62Google Scholar
  11. Flügel W-A (1997) Combining GIS with regional hydrological modelling using Hydrological Response Units (HRUs) — An application from Germany. Math Comput Simulation 43:305–312 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flügel W-A (2000) Systembezogene Entwicklung regionaler hydrologischer Modellsysteme. Wasser and Boden, 52. Jg H 3:14–17Google Scholar
  13. Flügel W-A, Märker M (2003) The response units concept and its application for the assessment of hydrologically related erosion processes in semiarid catchments of Southern Africa, ASTM-STP 1420:163–177Google Scholar
  14. Flügel W-A, Rijsberman F (2003) The challenge program water and food for river basin scale water resources assessment. Proc MODSIM’03 1:434–439 2003Google Scholar
  15. GWP-TAC, Global Water Partnership — Technical Advisory Committee (2000) Integrated Water Resources Management, TAC Background Paper No. 4, 67 pGoogle Scholar
  16. Heathcote IW (1998) Integrated watershed management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 414 pGoogle Scholar
  17. International Organization for Standardization ISO 19115, (2003) (E) Geographic information — metadata. 1st edition, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (1997a) The regional impacts of climate change: An assessment of vulnerability, In: Robert T, Watson RT, Zinyowera MC, Richard H, Moss RH, David J, Dokken D-J (eds) Special report of IPCC working Group II, (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/regional(E).pdf)Google Scholar
  19. IPCC (1997b) An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report. In: Houghton JT, Gylvan Meira Filho L, Griggs DJ, Maskell K (eds) Technical Paper for IPCC WGI, httpr://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.III(D).pdfGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2001a) Climate Change (2001) The scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJX Dai Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881 p (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wgr1/index.htm)Google Scholar
  21. IPCC (2001b) Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaption and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881 p (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm)Google Scholar
  22. IUCN (2000) Vision for Water and Nature. IUCN — The World Conservation Union, Report 2000Google Scholar
  23. Jain SK, Singh VP (2003) Water resources system planning and management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 858 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Krause P (2001) Das hydrologische Modellsystem J2000, Schriften FZ-Jülich, Bd. 29Google Scholar
  25. Leavesley GH, Lichty RW, Troutman BM, Saindon LG (1983) Precipitation Runoff Modelling System: User’s manual, Water Resources Investigations 83–4238, USGS, Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  26. Pahl-Wostl C (2002) Towards sustainability in the water sector — The importance of human actors and processes of social learning. Aquat Sci 64:394–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. PCGIAP, Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asiaþe Pacific (1998) Aspatial data infrastructure for the Asian and Pacific region. PCGIAP Publication, No 1, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  28. Pykh YA, Kennedy ET, Grant WE An overview of systems analysis methods in delineating environmental quality indices. Ecol Modell 130(1–3):25–38Google Scholar
  29. Querner EP (2002) Analysis of basin response resulting from climate change and mitigation measures. In: Van Lanen HAJ, Demuth S (eds) Regional hydrology: bridging the gap between research and practice. IAHS Publication no. 274:77–84Google Scholar
  30. Schmullius C, Flügel W-A, Frotscher K, Hochschild V, Müschen B (2000) The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) and Applications in Europe, Africa and Siberia, PFG, Jg 5, H 5:361–366Google Scholar
  31. Schultink G (2000) Critical environmental indicators: performance indices and assessment models for sustainable rural development planning. Ecol Modell 130(1–3):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Staudenrausch H, Flügel W-A (2001) Development of an integrated water resources management system in southern african catchments. Phys Chem Earth (B) 26(7–8):561–564Google Scholar
  33. Stolz R, Mauser W (1996) A fuzzy approach for improving land cover classifications by integrating remote sensing and GIS data. In: Parlow E (eds) Progress in environmental remote sensing research and applications, Rotterdam, pp 33–43Google Scholar
  34. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology — the effect of pattern on process. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UNRCC-AP (1997) Resolutions of the 14th United Nations regional cartographic conference for Asia and the Pacific, 3–4 February, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  36. UNRCC-Americas (2001) In: Proceedings of the United Nations regional cartographic conference for Americas, January, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Worsley JC, Drake D (2002) Practical PostgreSQL, O’Reilly and AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  38. Young PC, Romanowicz RJ (2004) PUB and data-based mechanistic modelling: the importance of parsimonious continuous-time models. In: Proceedings of iEMSs — Complexity and Integrated Resources Management, Osnabrück, 14–17. Juni 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geoinformatics, Hydrology and Modeling (DGHM)Friedrich-Schiller University (FSU-Jena)JenaGermany

Personalised recommendations