Analysing Stakeholder Driven Scenarios with a Transboundary Water Planning Tool for IWRM in the Jordan River Basin

  • Christopher Bonzi
  • Janina Onigkeit
  • Holger Hoff
  • Brian Joyce
  • Katja Tielbörger


Although IWRM has become the mainstream concept for water management, its implementation in transboundary, politically tense settings, such as the Jordan River basin, is still limited. In this study we present the application of a transboundary spatially explicit water resources simulation and planning tool in support of decision making in this contentious setting. We integrated socio-economic scenarios and water management strategies resulting from a stakeholder process, thereby including socio-economic uncertainty, using the WEAP modelling software. Tool development was supported by an active transboundary dialogue between scientists and stakeholders. The tool was used to identify water scarcity effects and spatial-temporal response patterns under four regional scenarios up to the year 2050. These scenarios suggested that the positive effects of large scale water management options such as sea water desalination and the increased use of treated wastewater can be strongly limited by insufficient water transport infrastructure and/or a lack of cooperation. Respective responses to water scarcity should be pursued with the same intensity as currently the implementation of large scale supply-side options.


IWRM WEAP Water resource planning Scenario analysis Jordan River basin 



The study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Science and Education (BMBF) within the GLOWA Jordan River Project. Our gratitude also goes to our colleagues from all GLOWA Jordan River sub-projects for their contributions.


  1. Abu Sadah M (2009) Application of WEAP-MODFLOW in the Western Aquifer Basin, Palestine. In: Paper presented at the First Arab WEAP conference, Damascus, Syria, 25–27 May 2009Google Scholar
  2. Al-Omari A, Al-Quraan S, Al-Salihi A, Abdulla F (2009) A water management support system for Amman Zarqa Basin in Jordan. Water Resour Manage 23(15):3165–3189. doi: 10.1007/s11269-009-9428-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcamo J (2008) The SAS approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios. In: Alcamo J (ed) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Developments in integrated environmental assessment, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 123–150. doi: 10.1016/S1574-101X(08)00406-7
  4. Alfarra A, Kamp-Benedict E, Hötzl H, Sader N, Sonneveld B (2012) Modeling water supply and demand for effective water management allocation in the Jordan Valley. J Agric Sci Appl 1(1):1–7. doi: 10.14511/jasa.2227.6475
  5. Biswas AK (2004) Integrated water resources management: a reassessment—a water forum contribution. Water Int 29(2):248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biswas AK (2008) Integrated water resources management: is it working? Int J Water Resour D 24(1):5–22. doi: 10.1080/07900620701871718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonzi C, Hoff H, Stork J, Subah A, Wolf L, Tielbörger K (2010) WEAP for IWRM in the Jordan River region; bridging between scientific complexity and application. In: Integrated water resources management, Karlsruhe, 24–25 Nov 2010, pp 397–403Google Scholar
  8. Brooks D, Trottier J (2010) A modern agreement to share water between Israelis and Palestinians. The Friends of the Earth (FoEME) Proposal. FOEME. Amman, Jordan.
  9. Comair G, McKinney D, Maidment D, Espinoza G, Sangiredy H, Fayad A, Salas F (2014) Hydrology of the Jordan River basin: a GIS-based system to better guide water resources management and decision making. Water Resour Manage 28(4):933–946. doi: 10.1007/s11269-014-0525-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EXACT (ed) (1998) Overview of middle east water resources: water resources of Palestinian, Jordanian and Isrealie interest. Executive Action Team MEDBPE.
  11. Hoff H, Bonzi C, Joyce B, Tielboerger K (2011) A water resources planning tool for the Jordan River basin. Water 3(3):718–736. doi: 10.3390/w3030718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Isendahl N, Dewulf A, Brugnach M, François G, Möllenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C (2009) Assessing framing of uncertainties in water management practice. Water Resour Manage 23(15):3191–3205. doi: 10.1007/s11269-009-9429-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Israel-Jordan (1994) Treaty of peace between the state of Israel the Hasemite Kingdom of Jordan; Water related matters. ANNEX II, 1a/1b, AllocationGoogle Scholar
  14. Jayyousi AF, Almasri MN (2010) The use of water allocation models in managing trans-boundary water resources: a case from Palestine. In: Paper presented at the international conference “transboundary aquifers: challenges and new directions”(ISARM 2010), Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonch-Clausen T, Fugl J (2001) Firming up the conceptual basis of integrated water resources management. Int J Water Resour D 17(4):501–510. doi: 10.1080/07900620120094055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manage 21(1):49–62. doi: 10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Randall D, Cleland L, Kuehne C, Link G, Sheer D (1997) Water supply planning simulation model using mixed-integer linear programming “engine”. J Water Resour Plann Manage 123(2):116–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Samuels R, Rimmer A, Hartmann A, Krichak S, Alpert P (2010) Climate change impacts on Jordan River flow: downscaling application from a regional climate model. J Hydrometeorol 11(4):860–879. doi: 10.1175/2010JHM1177.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Koch J, Kolking C, Lapola DM, Schungel J, Priess JA (2011) An integrated approach to modelling land-use change on continental and global scales. Environ Model Softw 26(8):1041–1051. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. SEI (ongoing) Webpage: the water evaluation and planning system (WEAP). Stockholm Environmental Institute.
  21. Sigel K, Klauer B, Pahl-Wostl C (2010) Conceptualising uncertainty in environmental decision-making: the example of the EU water framework directive. Ecol Econ 69(3):502–510. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sivan I, Salingar Y, Rimmer A (2007) A WEAP model for the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret) Basin—water resources and consumers by sub-basins. Water Eng 53:50–58Google Scholar
  23. Törnros T, Menzel L (2013) Characterizing droughts under current and future climates in the Jordan River region. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Dis. doi: 10.5194/hessd-10-5875-2013 Google Scholar
  24. United Nations DoEaSA, Population Division (2013) World population prospects: the 2012 revision, key findings and advance tables. Working Paper ESA/P/WP.227Google Scholar
  25. Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey D, Huber-Lee A (2005) WEAP21—a demand-, priority-, and preference-driven water planning model Part 1: Model characteristics. Water Int 30(4):487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zagona EA, Fulp TJ, Shane R, Magee T, Goranflo HM (2001) Riverware. A generalized tool for complex reservoir systems modeling. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(4):913–929. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb05522.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Bonzi
    • 1
  • Janina Onigkeit
    • 2
  • Holger Hoff
    • 3
    • 4
  • Brian Joyce
    • 5
  • Katja Tielbörger
    • 1
  1. 1.Tübingen UniversityTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of KasselKasselGermany
  3. 3.Stockholm Environment InstituteStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  5. 5.Stockholm Environment InstituteSomervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations